Karnataka High Court refuses to quash criminal case against assistant professor on allegation of sexually assaulting eight girls during his daughter’s birthday party  

The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a 44-year-old assistant professor of a premier research institute in the city on the allegation of sexually assaulting eight minor girls at the birthday party of his nine-year-old daughter in 2018.

The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a 44-year-old assistant professor of a premier research institute in the city on the allegation of sexually assaulting eight minor girls at the birthday party of his nine-year-old daughter in 2018.

The petitioner-accused had questioned the proceedings before the trial, citing violation of procedure, particularly the manner in which the magistrate had recorded the statement of victim girls under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

It was argued that Section 25 of the CrPC mandates that recording of statement by the magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC should be as spoken by the child, but the statements of the victim children, recorded by the magistrate, were verbatim the same.

However, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said that “the manner of recording of evidence by the learned magistrate would not take away the rigour of the allegation of every child.”

On contention that the magistrate had not audio-video recorded the statements of the victim children, the court said that though recording through electronic mode is desirable, omission of it cannot derail the proceedings at this stage as the petitioner-accused can raise this question during the trial.

It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner-accused had touched the children inappropriately during the birthday party on the pretext of playing some game by switching off the lights. The victim children had complained about the incident to their parents, who later lodged the complaint with the police after arguing with the petitioner-accused.

However, the petitioner-accused had denied the allegation and claimed that some children preferred to play the “dark room game” and he had to enter the room as one child had poked the eye of another. The petitioner-accused also claimed that the complainant, who led the other parents, had some axe to grind with him and hence the complaint was registered only to harass him.