Sexual Assault on Minor by Married Man Is Unpardonable: Karnataka HC Urges Vigilance for Weaker Sections
- Lawttorney.ai
- Sep 22
- 3 min read
Case Title: Chandrappa vs State of Karnataka & Anr.
Context:
A minor girl disappeared one morning from a village in Karnataka; her mother filed a missing person complaint. This incident occurred in July 2022. The missing girl was asked to take a bath and get herself ready for school, but after a few hours, the girl was found nowhere. Her mother approached the police after searching the village.
At the time of investigation, the police recorded the girl’s statement after she was traced. Her statement was emotionally intense and disturbing. She stated that a man, whom she knew, Chandrappa, 37 years old and married, forcefully took her on his vehicle while she was walking near a drainage area. He then sexually assaulted her in the mango groves.
Forced Labour and Further Abuse:
After assaulting her, Chandrappa took her to a roadside hotel namely Venkateshwara Dhaba, and left her there to work as a labor. After a week, he came, had sexual intercourse with her again and seemingly took money from the another accused (the dhaba owner) for supplying her as a laborer.
The girl somehow managed to borrow a mobile phone from a customer and called her cousin, narrating the entire incident. Her cousin, along with the police, saved her from the dhaba.
Charges Filed Against the Accused:
Depending on the victim’s statement and the investigation, Chandrappa was charged:
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) (now Section 229 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt),
Section 363 (kidnapping) (now Section 172 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
Section 366 (abduction) (now Section 87 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
Section 376 (rape) (now Section 64 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
Section 506 (criminal intimidation) (now Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
POCSO Act: Sections 16 and 6 (sexual assault on a child)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w), and 3(2)(va)
The case was presented before the Karnataka High Court, where Chandrappa sought bail.
What the Accused Argued
The accused stated that he was innocent, and he did not commit any of the offences which were enlisted in the charge-sheet. He pointed out that the victim had given different versions of the incident at different times, which, according to him, made her story unreliable.
He also contended that the girl had previously run away from home and worked in various places, claiming that the allegations against him were not natural and possibly false.
Prosecution’s Stand: No Bail for Heinous Acts:
The bail plea was strongly opposed by the prosecution. They explained that:
The victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and was a minor.
She was forced to work as a maid and was sexually assaulted.
The accused had received money for exploiting her.
The complainant also highlighted that Chandrappa, being a married man, had committed a grave offence by assaulting a minor and using her for labor. They argued that bail should not be granted, considering the seriousness of the crime.
Karnataka High Court Observations on Sexual Assault of Minor and Weaker Sections
The bail plea was dismissed by Justice S Rachaiah of the Karnataka High court. The court observed:
The accused took advantage of a vulnerable minor girl in spite of being married.
The victim was more susceptible to exploitation and belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
The act of sexual assault and forced labor was “unpardonable.”
Such crimes shall be dealt with strictly, not just to deliver justice to the victim, but also to give a strong message to society. This was stressed by the court in this ruling. It also emphasized to protect children and women, especially those from the weaker sections.
A Message to Society
It was made clear by the High Court that such crimes cannot be taken lightly. It held that:
“It is high time to send a strong signal to society at large to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections.”
The court denied the bail and reaffirmed the importance of ensuring that justice is not delayed or diluted and protecting vulnerable individuals.
Way forward: Bail Denied, Justice Upheld
The bail plea of Chandrappa was rejected by the Karnataka High Court who reflected a rigid pose against crimes which involve excluded communities and minors. The legal system must act with urgency and sensitivity while dealing with such cases, served as a reminder via this judgement.
This ruling not only upholds the rights of the victim but also reinforces public trust in the judiciary’s role in protecting society’s most vulnerable.
Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!
Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.
👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now
Comments