Sexual Assault On Minor By Married Man Is Unpardonable, Society Must Be More Vigilant Towards Those From Weaker Sections: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that the act of sexual assault on a minor girl by a married man is unpardonable and has to be viewed strictly, not only in order to restore the confidence in the minds of children and women, but also to send a strong signal to society at large.It held, “It is noticed here that, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is so susceptible to...
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that the act of sexual assault on a minor girl by a married man is unpardonable and has to be viewed strictly, not only in order to restore the confidence in the minds of children and women, but also to send a strong signal to society at large.
It held, “It is noticed here that, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is so susceptible to persons like appellant, for the purpose of exploitation. Hence, it is high time to send a strong signal to the society at large to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections of the society.”
Justice S Rachaiah observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by accused Chandrappa seeking bail in a case registered against him under 201, 323, 363, 366, 376, 506 OF IPC and Section 16, 6 of POCSO ACT, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) ACT.
As per the complaint filed by the mother of the victim on 27.07.2022, at about 09.00 a.m., she instructed her daughter to take a bath and go to school. However, as the victim was not found anywhere in the said house, even after a lapse of several hours, she started searching here and there; however, she could not find the victim anywhere in and around the village. Subsequently, she filed a complaint.
During the investigation of the missing complaint, the police traced the victim and recorded her statement. As per her statement, the appellant herein, being a known person to the victim, took her forcibly in his vehicle when she was going near the drainage in the village, took her into the mango grove and committed sexual assault on her. Thereafter, he took her to Venkateshwara Dhaba and left her in the said dhaba for work.
After one week again, he went there and had sexual intercourse with her and received money from accused No.2 as an advance for having supplied her for manual work. The victim somehow managed to take a mobile phone from one of the customers and called her cousin and narrated the incident. Immediately, the cousin went to the dhaba and rescued her with the help of the police.
The appellant argued that he is innocent of the alleged offences and he has not committed any offences, as alleged in the charge sheet. The victim has narrated different versions at different places, and that cannot be considered at this stage.
Further, there is a history that she had eloped prior to this incident from her house and worked in different places. Such being the fact, making allegations against the appellant that he had sexually assaulted her and forced her to do work in the said dhaba as a maid is unnatural.
The prosecution opposed the plea, submitting that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and she was forced to work in the dhaba as a maid knowing that she was a minor. In addition to that, the appellant had committed sexual assault on the girl. The same has been narrated in the charge sheet. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant bail.
The complainant also argued that the appellant, being a married man, aged about 37 years, committed sexual assault on a minor girl and made her work as a labourer in the dhaba on receiving the amount from accused No.2, who was running the dhaba. As he has committed a heinous offence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail.
The bench noted that the appellant, being a married man, aged about 37 years, induced the minor girl and took her into the mango grove, committed sexual assault and thereafter, he took her to Venkateswara Dhaba and forced her to work as a labourer in the said dhaba, which is unpardonable. Moreover, he has received an amount from accused No.2 for having supplied her as a labourer to the said dhaba.
Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.
Appearance: Advocate Nanjunda Gowda M.R for Appellant.
HCGP Waheeda M.M for R1.
Advocate Siddharth P. Desai for R2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Case Title: Chandrappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2025