Bengaluru, Dec 11, 2025 — The Karnataka High Court has received a criminal appeal filed by two young women challenging the acquittal of Lingayat seer Shivamurthy Muruga Sharan in a high-profile sexual assault case. The appeal, submitted on Wednesday through their lawyer D C Srinivas, contends that the Sessions Court’s decision clearing the seer of all charges represents a serious miscarriage of justice. The petition, which is now awaiting its first hearing, names both the State prosecution representing Chitradurga Rural Police Station and the acquitted seer along with his associates — Murugarajendra Brihanmata, S Rashmi, and A J Paramashivaiah — as respondents.

According to the petitioners, the Sessions Court’s ruling failed to give due weight to the evidence presented during the trial and overlooked mandatory legal requirements under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012, which provides a specialized framework for the investigation and adjudication of crimes involving sexual abuse of minors. Lawyer D C Srinivas, speaking to the press, asserted that the presiding judge had disregarded both the legal framework established by the POCSO Act and relevant judicial precedents laid down by the Supreme Court for handling cases of sexual offenses against children. He emphasized that such disregard undermines the very purpose of the legislation, which is designed to protect vulnerable minors from exploitation and abuse, and ensure that justice is delivered in a sensitive and effective manner.

The appeal specifically highlights the acquittal of the seer under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 376 for rape, Section 323 for causing hurt, Section 504 for intentional insult, and Section 506 for criminal intimidation. In addition, the petition challenges the ruling under POCSO Act Sections 5, 6, and 17, which cover sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and punishment for sexual offenses against children, respectively. The petitioners argue that the Sessions Court’s decision is deeply flawed because it dismissed crucial evidence, including medical reports and statements contained in the official charge sheet. According to Srinivas, the ruling failed to examine this evidence with the rigor required in such serious cases and instead favored the accused on vague and legally unsubstantiated grounds.

The appeal further argues that the Sessions Court’s verdict lacked adequate legal reasoning and did not properly engage with the prosecution’s case. It contends that the court ignored key aspects of the evidence, including forensic reports, witness testimonies, and procedural compliance during the investigation. The petitioners emphasize that the decision reflects an undue bias in favor of the accused and fails to provide justice to the minors who had courageously come forward to report the alleged abuse. According to the appeal, the Sessions Court’s ruling not only undermines the victims’ rights but also sends a dangerous message regarding the enforcement of laws designed to protect children from sexual exploitation.

One of the central points of the appeal is that the court failed in its statutory duty under the POCSO Act to ensure a child-sensitive trial. The petitioners argue that the judge did not give adequate weight to the testimonies of the victims, many of whom were minors at the time of the alleged incidents. The appeal notes that POCSO mandates strict adherence to procedures intended to minimize trauma to child victims and to evaluate their statements in the context of their age, maturity, and vulnerability. According to the petition, the Sessions Court’s failure to follow these principles amounts to a serious procedural lapse and raises questions about the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

The appeal also highlights that the Sessions Court neglected to consider prior judicial guidance on the evaluation of evidence in POCSO cases. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that minor inconsistencies in the statements of child victims should not automatically result in acquittal, given the trauma, fear, and social pressures that may influence their testimony. The petitioners argue that by ignoring such guidance, the Sessions Court has undermined the protective intent of the law and allowed the accused to evade accountability despite substantial evidence supporting the allegations.

In addition to challenging the dismissal of evidence, the petition asserts that the ruling overlooked key forensic findings and failed to consider corroborative documentation that could have supported the victims’ claims. It argues that the Sessions Court did not adequately weigh the medical reports, psychological assessments, or other forms of evidence that are essential in establishing the veracity of sexual assault claims. The petitioners contend that the failure to properly examine these materials resulted in an incomplete and distorted assessment of the case, ultimately contributing to the acquittal of the seer.

The appeal further underscores the broader implications of the verdict. By acquitting an individual accused of serious sexual offenses against minors, the Sessions Court decision, according to the petition, undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system and in the effectiveness of laws designed to protect children. The petitioners stress that such rulings risk discouraging other victims from coming forward, fearing that their complaints may be dismissed or ignored. They argue that a reversal of the acquittal is necessary not only for justice in this specific case but also to uphold the integrity of the POCSO Act and ensure that similar cases are adjudicated with the seriousness and rigor they deserve.

If the Karnataka High Court admits the appeal, it will undertake a comprehensive re-examination of the evidence, including witness accounts, forensic reports, and procedural steps followed during the investigation and trial. This may involve a retrial or the reversal of the acquittal, depending on the court’s findings. The petitioners argue that the High Court’s intervention is essential to ensure that justice is served and that the minors who were allegedly subjected to abuse receive the protection and redress that the law guarantees.

Lawyer Srinivas emphasized that the appeal is not merely about seeking punitive action against the accused but is fundamentally about reinforcing the principles of child protection and the enforcement of the POCSO Act. He stated that the appeal represents an effort to hold the justice system accountable for failing to deliver justice in cases involving minors and to reaffirm the legal standards required in adjudicating such sensitive matters.

This development has drawn widespread attention due to the prominence of the accused, a religious leader, and the serious nature of the allegations. The case has also sparked public debate on the effectiveness of POCSO provisions and the broader challenges faced by the criminal justice system in handling sexual offenses against minors. Legal experts note that the High Court’s decision on whether to admit the appeal could have significant implications for the interpretation of child protection laws and the manner in which sexual assault cases involving minors are prosecuted and adjudicated in Karnataka and across India.

The petition, therefore, represents a critical step in ensuring accountability and reinforcing the protective intent of the POCSO Act. It seeks to correct what the petitioners describe as a grave miscarriage of justice and to ensure that the victims’ voices are heard and their rights upheld. By challenging the acquittal, the two young women are asserting their right to a fair and thorough judicial review of the evidence and are demanding that the legal system provide the remedies and protections envisaged under the law for minors subjected to sexual offenses.

As the case moves forward, all eyes will be on the Karnataka High Court to determine whether the appeal will be admitted and whether the acquittal of Shivamurthy Muruga Sharan will be re-examined. The outcome of this appeal will not only affect the parties involved but will also serve as an important precedent for future cases under the POCSO Act, potentially shaping the way courts approach the adjudication of sexual offenses against minors and reinforcing the importance of upholding the rights and dignity of victims in such sensitive matters.