The Karnataka High Court has recently set aside the criminal charges against a homestay owner in Coorg, who was accused of not reporting the rape of an American tourist staying at his property. The case, titled Palecanda Ponappa v The State of Karnataka, was decided by Justice M Nagaprasanna. The court scrutinized the charges filed under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and found them untenable.
Foreigners Act Charges Invalidated
Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the charges under the Foreigners Act, 1946, were invalid as the law had been repealed more than seven months before the incident occurred on April 12, 2026. The court emphasized that criminal liability cannot be based on laws that are no longer in effect, stating, “Criminality cannot be conjured out of a statutory provision which had ceased to exist when the alleged act occurred.”
Examination of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Charges
The court also evaluated the applicability of Section 239 of the BNS, which addresses the failure to report certain crimes. However, Justice Nagaprasanna clarified that this section does not criminalize silence unless it pertains to information one is legally obliged to disclose. Moreover, Section 33 of the BNS does not include sexual offences as crimes that require mandatory reporting.
The judge highlighted that while the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) mandates the reporting of child sexual abuse, no such duty exists for other sexual offences under current legislation. “The Court cannot transplant that duty into a statutory field where Parliament has consciously not placed it,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked.
A Moral Expectation vs. Legal Obligation
The court further noted that while there might be a moral expectation for the homestay owner to report the crime, such expectations cannot form the basis for legal prosecution. “Morality may expect a citizen to speak; criminal law can punish his silence only when the statute commands him to speak,” the judgment stated.
More Read
In addition, the homestay owner was not present at the property during the incident and was not informed about the alleged crime by the victim. Consequently, the court ruled that he could not be held liable under Section 239 of the BNS.
Quashing of Chargesheet
The High Court quashed the chargesheet against the homestay owner, emphasizing that “a criminal trial cannot be permitted to become the punishment where the law does not disclose the crime.” The court termed the continuation of proceedings as an “abuse of the process of law” and a source of “manifest and patent injustice.”
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from allegations made by an American tourist who claimed she was drugged and raped by an employee at the Coorg homestay on April 12. The owner, along with a taxi driver, was implicated in the criminal case following the tourist’s complaint.
More Read
Initially charged under Section 239 of the BNS and the Foreigners Act, the homestay owner was arrested on April 19 but later released on bail. He challenged his arrest’s legality before the High Court, which in July found the arrest illegal and ordered the State to compensate him with ₹5 lakh for the violation of his fundamental rights. The recent ruling further quashed the chargesheet against him.
Advocate Angad Kamath represented the homestay owner, while State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha appeared for the State. The complainant was represented by Advocate Joseph Anthony.
