Karnataka High Court
Sri Suresh vs State By on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
CRL.A No. 422 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2013 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SURESH
S/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O NO. 12, AKKIYAPPA GARDEN
8TH CROSS, II MAIN
YESHWANTHAPURA
BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. GOVINDARAJU.,ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P. NEHRU., ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE BY
YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N BANGALORE.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:15.03.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-XVI,
BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.921/12 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417 AND 376
OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
CRL.A No. 422 of 2013
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-XVI, Bangalore City in SC No. 921/2021 dated 15.03.2013.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is that Sub-Inspector of Police, Yeshwanthapura submitted the charge sheet of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 20.02.2012 the accused by making CW1 -Ranjitha believe that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her and later refused to marry her and thereby he has cheated her and committed the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. That on 20.02.2012 the accused took CW1- Ranjitha to his house -3- NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR situated at No.12, Akkiyappa Garden, 8th Cross, 2nd Main, Mohankumar Nagar, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore City within the jurisdiction of Yeshwanthpura Police Station on the pretext that he would show his house, committed rape on her and thereby has committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The accused was produced before the Committal Court on 13.05.2012. He was remanded to judicial custody. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused, thereafter he was released on bail as per the order of the High Court of Karnataka. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in SC No.921/2012. On hearing the charges framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences, same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10. Seven -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. No material objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC is recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he has stated that VÃvÁ CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉý £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉøÀÄ ºÁQzÁÝgÉ. gÀAfvÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÀÄ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉzÀj¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁr®è. £Á£Éà zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ. DzÀgÉ CªÀgÉ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ.
5. Having heard the arguments on both side the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under section 376 and 417 of IPC and passed the sentence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.
6. Sri. Govindaraj, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is illegal and not sustainable under law. The alleged commission of offence took place on 20.02.2012. The complaint came to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR be filed on 12.05.2012 i.e., after lapse of 3 months. For which neither there was admissible explanation nor doctor's certificate with regard to commission of offence. The evidence of PW1 is not supported with the medical evidence. He also submits that PW1 has colluded with Geetha filed a false complaint against accused only to extract money from him. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and on facts and sought for allowing of the appeal.
7. Sri. B. Lakshman, learned HCGP submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and on facts. That there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of this appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for consideration: -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR "1. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court.
2. What order?"
9. My answer to the above points are as under; Point No.1 in the affirmative.
Point No.2 is as per final order.
10. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The genesis of the case is arise out of the complaint filed by PW1. It is necessary to mention here as to the contents of Ex.P1 which reads as under;
"gÀªÀjUÉ, ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï D¥sï ¥ÉÆð¸ï, AiÀıÀªÀAvÀ¥ÀÄgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
gÀªÀjAzÀ, gÀAfvÁ D/o £ÀlgÁeï 19 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÉÊ¥ï¯ÉÊ£ï ©, PÁæ¸ï, AiÀıÀªÀAvÀ¥ÀÄgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 022.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR «µÀAiÀÄ: ¸ÀÄgÉñï JA§ÄªÀªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÀA©¹ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄðgÀĪÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è PÀ¼ÉzÀ 8 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, £Á£ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ªÉÆúÀ£ïPÀĪÀiÁgï £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñï JA§ÄªÀªÀ£À ¦æÃw ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, DvÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀÝ£ÀÄ, DzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÁ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝ£ÀÄ, »ÃgÀÄgÀĪÁUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.12.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±ï £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¨Á JAzÀÄ ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄ£É vÉÆÃj¹, £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÀqÉ PÉgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄ£É vÉÆÃj¹, £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÀqÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £À£ÀߣÀÄß §®ªÀAvÀªÁV DvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ.
DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ D¼À®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©¹zÁUÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ, ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÁ£ÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É ¤ÃrzÀ£ÀÄ. DzÀgÉ EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀiÁvÁ£Ár¸ÀzÉÃ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £ÀqɸÀzÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
£À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÀA©¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ DvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñï£À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉüÀÄvÉÛãÉ".
11. On the basis of the complaint, Yeshwantpura Police have registered the case in Crime No.247/2012 for the offence under Sections 376 and 417 IPC and submitted the FIR to the Court on the same day at 10.30 p.m. The victim- PW1 has deposed in her evidence that she knows the accused and they were in love with each other for more than one year. She further says that on 20.02.2012 the accused took her with him stating that he would show his house and raped her in his house at about 02.00 p.m. -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR on the same day. Further she has deposed that when she started to cry, the accused represented to her that he would marry her and later the accused refused to marry her. She further says that later when she and CW8-Geetha went to his house and enquired with the accused, the accused represented that they can give a police complaint and he would look after the police complaint.
12. PW.2- Nataraj and PW3- Kanaka the parents of the victim have deposed that the accused were in love with PW1. Accused had represented to them that he would marry PW1. Further, they have deposed that on Shivaratri festival of 2012, the accused took the victim to his house and committed rape on her.
13. PW4 Geetha has deposed in her evidence that PW1 and the accused were in love and accused had represented to her that he would marry her. She further deposed that on Shivaratri festival of 2012 accused took her to his house and committed rape on her. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR
14. PW5- Savitha, who is the neighbour of the accused has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW6- Eswari, the owner of the house of the accused has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Both witnesses have turned hostile. They have categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.PC as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
15. PW7 -Ramya and PW8- Rani who are the sisters of the victim are the hearsay witnesses. They have deposed in their evidence that they know the accused for last one year. They came to know that the accused was in love with victim girl. They have heard that the accused has committed rape of PW1.
16. PW9-Dr.Basappa S. Hugar has deposed in his evidence that on 13.05.2012 between 1.20 p.m. to 01.50 p.m. he has examined the PW1 and also the accused and he has deposed as to issuance of a certificate of Ex.P4 and P5.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR
17. PW10- Sreenivasulu the Investigating Officer has deposed as to the investigation conducted by him. The alleged incident took place on 20.02.2012 at 02.00 p.m. The complaint came to be filed on 12.05.2012. That there is a delay of 82 days in filing the complaint. The complainant has not explained anything as to delay in filing the complaint. Even in the evidence of PW1, she has not deposed anything as to delay in filing the complaint. In the FIR- Ex.P6, in column number 3(c) also the concerned IO who has registered the case has not assigned any reasons for delay in filing the complaint by the complainant/informant. The investigating Officer PW10 has not whispered anything about the abnormal delay of 82 days in filing this complaint. Therefore, non-explanation of abnormal delay of 82 days will create reasonable doubt as to the alleged incident.
18. Additionally, in the complaint at Ex.P1, she has not stated that at the time of committing rape she started to cry. Then the accused represented to her that he would
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR marry her. Though the PW1 has not stated the same in the complaint Ex.P1, for the first time before the Court says that she started to cry when the alleged incident took place. Further, PW1 has admitted in her evidence that she has not informed the alleged incident to their parents and also to her sisters, who are in cordial terms with her. If really the accused has committed the alleged crime, the PW1 being an ordinary prudent lady would have informed to their parents or to her sisters who are in cordial terms with her, but she has not done so. Therefore, the inconsistent evidence of PW1 and delay in filing the complaint will create doubt about the alleged incident said to have been committed by the accused.
19. The case of the prosecution is not supported with the medical evidence. The certificate at Ex.P4 issued by PW.9 would state that the history of medical examination is as per police requisition. The Medical Certificate at Ex.P4 does not reveal that the accused has
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR committed rape has alleged by the prosecution. Even PW9-Basappa S. Hugar has also not whispered anything against the accused. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to non-mentioning of the accused in the medical report at Ex.P4. From careful scrutiny of the entire evidence placed on record, it appears that the sole interested testimony of PW1 is not trustworthy. Her evidence is inconsistent to the medical evidence and also the admission made by her in her evidence. Though there is no cogent, corroborative, consistent, clinching, trustworthy evidence, the trial Court has convicted the accused without proper appreciation of evidence on record. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in affirmative.
20. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44896 CRL.A No. 422 of 2013 HC-KAR i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC- XVI, Bangalore City in SC No. 921/2021 dated 15.03.2013 is set aside.
iii. Accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.
iv. The fine amount if any deposited by the accused shall be returned to him in accordance with law. v. Send the copy of this order along the TCR to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30