STATE OF KARNATAKA v. MAW) MANOJ @ MOHAMMAD MAHABOOB KHAN

4) r 4 “ai Ban kar learned kctdiitonil q1 Pt lii’ Pioscc’ ‘nil)” t’ tild’ ti c a’ ct ‘‘ Is 110’ tifw ‘r n’i’ti’ $ ICC1 1%si1 Ill t1: Li,zn1’ •“ ilali SI ‘:!cnis t S •c !‘ c’ :1 i’.il’l% ñ_. I L Ut J ;.,: tf I1.’r •r ‘‘iI’l( • % sIP) i:. •.1 that, the mawna n teeord ‘ cark ‘fltdi% rIjt ti ‘si.’tifl cakcn u Huba and Goat ai,a is hit 1i tid bs he. i rn, in the pretext of inarnin her and that the aen isvci It tart (I k taped her tiuñng the period cit 4 nnnfhis. hit appri ;sion “I ci idenc.c in t hi co’ irt l)CiCfl is 0 properi’ 1c ‘nc iflUsIfl tic h is

trial court has °ncr morc ie oht o r in ‘ disc, rc p innes r t e cn idc.. t c 01 the prosn tat s. i On hese jm.n’r. tithe r giot•ncis he n” I’r a1’• tvic Ut’ ippe a! ‘S s I, Maihi’ ‘jun M.asa ‘ Ic aria d i iC’US ( ‘C tip’) Cc m I, I. c’C)l’ r i’e’l ti 1-lubli be!’ 9% . lii t’a. n !‘.‘‘ h. t ,i.’’. T. ‘? .; L’ • ‘“ ‘1 ti . r r a’ I r “ - -6- altt—nlpt is made In. tIn .m’tini .‘ r use I’m tnI n ip.u t in ‘in thu p Lrr p ircnt ttefliptC d to C ornpla r h ph r t r fl’. a it C ‘t li C €tutl ‘wit it S k It) I ri” at LLLII’K,’ 1!’, %h:It s’ I’1 ‘ ifl : • ., ii •scjj ‘ ‘.,. then is ii thing or record t shutm that U’ C •tC’C 1 ed s thrc’cning her at am p’nr t of umt. Ihus. ai. rdinb to hilt i is clear ease of lose affair brtmee’n the t’n and both cit thtm have ulilngly gonc to anou5 places and sta)cd thcre for about 1 months. Ihus. we circling to hun. rhc judgment of the court bcio’ is justified ‘‘ii th1’ facts and cm ‘imsiances nt mb’ .‘

lcarncdAmc is (unac his ik r s fti ui.h tie • rt e iflatti Icti ‘‘ii T’t ‘n ,t jpt Iatnp ilit: rtI •jfl ‘e . ,c ‘1 n1i. a.!. ‘ (‘U i to r .lj( (‘it. ,fl 3Ft 1 t I tic% !_tSiitIe’1 ‘1. 2equrriri’z rl ‘ -i’ •.us—d :u ri-s : is IT

1. Ii I... p.’ C p 3 C r • C € -7- sexual assault is made on her without her consent, such facts are not proved by the prosecution. The charge memo itself reveals that the age of the victim was 17 years. Though the prosecution tried to rely upon the Transfer Certificate issued by the School authorities to contend that the age of the victim was below 16 years as on the date of offence, the evidence of the doctor and the certificate issued by him based on ossification test nullifies the case of the prosecution in that regard. PW-26, the doctor after conducting various tests has concluded that the age of the victim was between 17 to 18 years. His certificate is at Ex.P. 17. There is conflicting material on record relating to the age of the victim. Both the parents are silent the age of the victim. Even the court below while framing the charge has mentioned that the age of the victim was 17 years. Added to it, the victim herself has shown her age as 17 years in the register maintained by Renuka Lodge, Hubli. These facts amply go to show that the victim had crossed 16 years.

The plain reading of the deposition of PW- 16 makes us to believe that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. She is an • It -8- edur ited girl Mt. r nnipktinn t ssi.c. ste was • • iflv :trr ‘k ssc f r _11.:n4 tl’P’!1U $h h .1 . tji’l. ( c’;5cs €iISt) “4it ‘0 5’ tr” lfl’ 1 ‘vobilt’ tmor c She I n tnc , r, c i r icr ‘ r u’us \hni cli 1 iiiothcr as rt.iiiiiin a mess .tt fit ban \ii thv”.i I.—r’s ‘ It .rI. xt cal that :1st Ut Lilta hS aItJt a sllnpk’t.)i. hut bt ing worldl3 kno ledge Numbcz of customers inc ludin snider ts ‘iu rc usiting the Inc ss Full in thc mothc’i of the pzosc c Utr\ there is nothinu on VCL’. ‘rd to show that lilt’ l(’t usc (1 It-id rllrrau.nc.cI tht pi’)ctculrlx or had fuxc.ibi onlineci i’d a’ •ifl licc ill t’irc uuh fnr i pc n xl cii 1 mc i’hs \ “aic b sc.c.n fiorn rht— a.’els’e’r mjtfl .t’yie’l .. Pt ntjc.i Li.dcc c’ f-.x 1 13 tflQ I’ ‘tP 1 .1 pruser’nnx ‘le! se—i’ ins take—1: the r’’ IlL 1’ ‘ar iia;r’— ‘s riSc. icn” c 1 i’nbc i, Fit. c ‘ .er 1 1 llia cli r tii,.t “1’S i ‘‘r ‘t £ A j% ‘ fit. i’Yt 21, ,—, ‘‘ t.%. ‘i ‘*‘(i • ! i.—’ — ‘. • ‘ .1 • ‘ S’ -. . • • I • ‘ — I) — si-ic ‘lid not ar’1 jId n1 jil unhne’ tnt P.r i” iç “ 1’ • F ci 1!