High court pulls up Karnataka government, imposes ₹1 lakh fine for 535-day delay in appeal in minor sexual assault case

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has come down heavily on the State government for an inordinate delay of 535 days in filing a criminal appeal against a trial court order that sentenced an accused to only seven years’ imprisonment in a minor sexual assault case.

Terming the delay as irresponsible, the High Court imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on the government. The case relates to a sexual assault on a minor girl studying in Class 9 in Tarikere taluk of Chikkamagaluru district.

The accused, Suresh, a married man with two children, had taken the minor to a lodge and sexually assaulted her. The incident occurred on December 16, 2022. On November 3, 2023, the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTSC-1), Chikkamagaluru, convicted Suresh and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

Contending that the sentence was inadequate, the State government, represented by Lingadahalli police, filed a criminal appeal before the High Court on July 21, 2025, seeking enhancement of punishment. This resulted in a delay of 535 days in approaching the High Court.

The State explained the delay by citing the failure of the public prosecutor to give a timely opinion, delays in obtaining approval from the Home Department, and lack of clearance from the Advocate General’s office. Taking serious note of these lapses, a division bench headed by Justice H.P. Sandesh criticised the government’s conduct and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh for its negligence.

The bench referred to the amendment to Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which came into force on August 16, 2019. Under the amended provision, a person found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor is liable to a minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, which may extend to life imprisonment.

Section 4(2) even provides for imprisonment up to 20 years in certain cases. Since the offence in the present case occurred after the amendment, the trial court’s decision to award only seven years of rigorous imprisonment was prima facie contrary to the statutory mandate.

The High Court observed that the State should have filed an appeal within 60 to 90 days from the date of the trial court’s order. While the accused had promptly challenged the conviction by filing an appeal on December 2, 2023, the State failed to act despite the apparent inadequacy of the sentence.

It was only after the High Court flagged the issue during a hearing on July 2, 2024, that the authorities were stirred into action. While condoning the delay in order to avoid prejudice to the victim and admitting the State’s appeal for hearing, the bench expressed serious concern over the functioning of the prosecution machinery.

It pointed to the lack of adequate support to public prosecutors, delays in appointments, excessive workload on temporary prosecutors, and shortage of clerical staff, describing the condition of the prosecution department as dismal.

The court directed that the ₹1 lakh penalty be recovered from the State government, the concerned public prosecutor, the Principal Secretary of the Home Department and the Advocate General’s office. The amount must be paid within one week, failing which the registry has been instructed to initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with law.

Also Read: Three killed on the spot as car rams into lorry on NH-48