Two girls who were central to the case involving Lingayat seer Shivamurthy Muruga Sharan have asked the Karnataka High Court to overturn the ruling that cleared him of all accusations of sexual assault. Their criminal appeal, filed on Wednesday, argues that the Sessions Court decision represents a serious failure of justice.
The petition, submitted through their lawyer D C Srinivas, names the State prosecution representing the Chitradurga Rural Police Station as well as the acquitted accused Muruga Sharan of Chitradurga Murugarajendra Brihanmata, S Rashmi, and A J Paramashivaiah as respondents. The case is awaiting its first hearing.
Speaking to HT, Srinivas said the Sessions Court order disregarded the evidence placed before it and overlooked mandatory requirements of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act of 2012. He added that the presiding judge “ignored the legal framework and judicial precedents laid down by the Supreme Court in handling POCSO cases.”
According to the appeal, the acquittal under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 323 (causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation) and POCSO Sections 5, 6 and 17 is deeply flawed. The petitioners say the order dismissed crucial evidence including medical reports and statements contained in the charge sheet.
The appeal further claims that the ruling lacked legal reasoning and favored the accused on what they describe as vague grounds. It argues that the Sessions judge did not examine the prosecution’s case with the required rigor, resulting in an unjust outcome.
{{/usCountry}}The appeal further claims that the ruling lacked legal reasoning and favored the accused on what they describe as vague grounds. It argues that the Sessions judge did not examine the prosecution’s case with the required rigor, resulting in an unjust outcome.
{{/usCountry}}The petition also states that the court had a responsibility to uphold justice for the minors who accused the seer of grave abuse, but delivered a verdict that undermined the purpose of the POCSO Act. It contends that the decision does not hold up to legal scrutiny and must be reversed.
If the appeal is admitted, the court will re examine witness accounts, forensic reports and procedural steps to decide whether a retrial or a reversal of the acquittal is needed.