Victim’s Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Has No Substantive Value Without Court Testimony: Karnataka High Court Affirms Acquittal in POCSO Case

In the Absence of Victim’s Support and Medical Corroboration, No Conviction Can Be Sustained — High Court of Karnataka upholding the acquittal of the accused in a POCSO case. The bench comprising Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum and Justice G. Basavaraja ruled that the victim’s testimony during the trial did not support the prosecution and her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC, being only corroborative, had no substantive evidentiary value. The Court stressed that without substantive evidence, including medical corroboration, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

 The mother of the minor victim, Smt. Rajavva, filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, dated 20.06.2022, in Special Case No.41/2020. The accused was charged under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped the minor girl, kept her confined for four days, and committed penetrative sexual assault.

 However, during the trial, the victim, examined as PW1, completely turned hostile and denied the occurrence of any such incident.

The High Court meticulously analyzed the record and held:  

• “It is a well-settled principle of law that a statement recorded under Section 164(5) of CrPC does not have substantive evidentiary value. Such a statement is merely an improvement upon a statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC by the Investigating Officer and can only be used for the purposes of contradiction or corroboration during cross-examination.”

The Court further observed that:  

• “Since the victim herself did not support the prosecution case, no reliance can be placed solely on the previous statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.”  

The Court also noted that even the parents of the victim (PW2 and PW12) failed to provide any concrete evidence regarding the alleged incident.

The Court further pointed out that the medical evidence (Exhibit P24 and the testimony of PW10, Dr. Neeta Beelagi) categorically ruled out any signs of recent sexual assault. The medical expert deposed:

 “There were no medical indications of recent sexual activity or forceful penetration.”

Quoting Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Bench reiterated:

 “In case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence. Secondly, the accused having secured acquittal, the presumption is further reinforced.”

The Court held that unless the trial court’s view is perverse, improbable, or contrary to settled legal principles, an appellate court should not interfere. Here, the trial court’s reasoning was found legally sound and based on the available evidence.

In dismissing the appeal, the Karnataka High Court observed:

 “We do not find any error or legal infirmity in the judgment of acquittal. The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was confirmed.

Date of Decision: 27^th March 2025