Karnataka High Court
Satisha @ Sathya vs State By Lingadhalli Police on 26 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.122 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.122 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SATISHA @ SATHYA
S/O SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, COLLIE,
R/O HOSAGANGUR VILLAGE,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIGNANANDHA C., ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY LINGADHALLI POLICE,
LINGADHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
SENTENCE DATED 16.12.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST.
AND S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.60/2010 - CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417,376
AND 306 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 12.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-2-
CRL.A No.122 of 2014
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Sessions Case No. 16/2010 dated 16.12.2013.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their rank they had before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Tarikere Circle, Chikkamagaluru District laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 376, 417 and 306 IPC.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused is known to the family of deceased Kum. Kavitha. She fell in love with the accused Sathisha, and he promised to marry her. In that pretext, he used to have sexual intercourse with the victim frequently, as a result, she became pregnant and requested the accused to marry her, but accused refused to marry her. On frustration, the victim, being 17 years old girl lit fire herself by pouring -3- CRL.A No.122 of 2014 Kerosene committed suicide and thereby accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 306 of IPC.
5. After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in CC No.461/2010. Thereafter case was committed to the court of Sessions which was registered in SC No.60/2010. The accused was released on bail on 28.06.2010. Charges were framed against the accused for the alleged offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, twelve witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW12. 27 documents were marked as Exhibit P1 to PW27. Four material objects were marked as MO1 to 4. On closure of prosecution side evidence, Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Accused has denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence was -4- CRL.A No.122 of 2014 punishable under Section 417, 376 and 306 IPC and passed a sentence for a period of 7 years for the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/-. Accused is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 4 years for the offence under Section 306 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The accused is also sentenced to undergo for a period of three months for the offence under Section 479 IPC. Being aggrieved by this Judgment of Conviction and Order on Sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that judgment of conviction and sentence for all the offences in virtually based on no evidence and is not in accordance with law. The attempt to commit suicide was on 25.01.2010 at 09.30 a.m. Injured was taken first Tharikere Govt. Hospital, then shifted to Mc-Gann Hospital, Shivamogga. None of the witnesses have immediately reported the matter to the police. Prosecution fails to produce any medical records from the hospital to show as to what was the history given at the time of admission of the injured to the hospital. Witnesses -5- CRL.A No.122 of 2014 to whom the injured is said to have made allegations against the appellant, have not informed the police immediately. Only after the miscarriage of the fetus, on 31.01.2010, statement of the deceased has been alleged to have taken as per Exhibit P13 on 31.01.2010. On that basis, case has been registered. This delay is not even tried to explained by the prosecution. There was no certificate by the Doctor-PW12 in whose presence Exhibit P13 is allegedly recorded to say that the deceased was in a fit to condition to give any statement when Exhibit P3 was recorded. This goes very much against the case of the prosecution. Dying declaration was therefore very suspicious and could not have been relied upon to convict the accused. The evidence of PWs1 to 6 to the complicity of the accused is too general, hearsay and untrustworthy as there are no direct witnesses to any fact. Their evidence is just conjunctures. The learned trial judge has wholly erred in accepting their evidence. Further it is submitted that the DNA report-Exhibit P22 clearly shows that appellant was not the biological father of the fetus of the deceased and this goes to the root of the matter, i.e. -6- CRL.A No.122 of 2014 the appellant and deceased were loving each other; that appellant used to have sexual intercourse with her and that he later refused to marry her. Hence, the deceased tried to commit suicide which was awaited by the appellant.
9. The learned judge has actually ignored the facts which led to the impugned judgment of conviction and has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. The evidence about the appellant and deceased loving each other and appellant having sexual intercourse with her frequently is very bald and the learned Trial Judge has totally erred in not appreciating this fact. The investigation is defective as the reasons for delay in submitting FIR, alleged intimacy of the deceased and appellant, leading to their having sexual relationship are not investigated properly, there is no proper evidence to constitute the alleged commission of offences. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
10. The learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri. B. Lakshman would submit that the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and record in its proper -7- CRL.A No.122 of 2014 perspective and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the commission of offence under Sections 376, 417 and 306 IPC?
2. What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
12. I have examined the materials placed before this court.
13. The genesis of the case arose out of the complaint/dying declaration given by the deceased as per Exhibit P13. which reads as under:
" ಾನು ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಾಸದ ಾಸ ಾ ರು ೇ ೆ. ನಮ ತಂ ೆ ಾ ಯವ !ೆ ಒಟು$ 4 ಜನ ಮಕ ಳ( ಮೂರು *ೆಣು, ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು. ಾನು ಎರಡ ೇ ಮಗಳ(. ನನ/ ಅಕ 1!ೆ ಅರ23ೆ4ೆ 5ವಕು6ಾ7 ರವ4ೊಂ8!ೆ ಈ!ೆ9 ಸು6ಾರು ಎರಡು ವಷ;ಗಳ <ಂ ೆ ಮದು ೆ 6ಾ=3ೊ>$ ಾ?4ೆ. ಾನು *ೋದ ವಷ; ಅಂದ4ೆ 2009 ೇ @ಾ ನ ಎA. ಎA. ಎB.2 ಪ ೕDೆ -8- CRL.A No.122 of 2014 ಬ4ೆ8ದು? ಗFತ ಪGH3ೆ IೇB ಆದ? ಂದ ಈಗ ಪKನಃ ಪ ೕDೆ ಕ>$ರು ೇ ೆ. ಈ!ೆ9 ಸು6ಾರು ಎಂಟು Gಂಗಳ <ಂ81ಂದ ನಮ ಊ4ಾದ *ೊಸಗಂ!ಾರು ಾ2 ಸುಬHಮಣN ರವರ ಮಗ ಸGೕO ರವ4ೊಂ8!ೆ PHೕGಸುGದು? ಅವನು ಸಹ ನನ/ನು/ PHೕGಸುGದ?. <ೕಗೂರು ಾಗ ನನ!ೆ ಸGೕಶನು ಮದು ೆ 6ಾ=3ೊಳ(SವK ಾ ನಂT2 ಆ!ಾ!ೆ9 ಸಂUೋಗ 6ಾಡುGದ?. ಾನು ಸಹ ಮದು ೆVಾಗುವK ಾ *ೇWದ? ೆಂದು ನಂT ಅವನು *ೇWದಂ ೆ 3ೇಳ(G ೆ?. ಕ ೆದ ವಷ; 2009 ೇ @ಾ ನ @ೆXೆ$ಂಬ7 Gಂಗಳ 3ೊ ೆಯ ಾರದ ನಮ!ೆ ಮುYಾ$ ದು? ನಂತರದ ನನ!ೆ ಮುYಾ$ ರ ಲ. *ೊYೆ$ಯೂ ಸಹ ಸZಲ[ ದಪ[ ಾಗು ಾ ಬಂ8ತು. ಈ!ೆ9 18 8ನಗಳ <ಂ ೆ ಾನು ಮ ೆಯ ಾ?ಗ ನನ/ ಾ ಲ\] ರವರು ನನ/ *ೊYೆ$ ೋ= 1ೕನು ಈಗ ಮೂರು ಾಲು GಂಗWಂದ 1ೕರು *ಾ3ೊಂ=ಲ *ೊYೆ$ ^ೇ4ೆ ದಪ[ ಾಗುG ೆ ಏ3ೆ? ಎಂದು 3ೇWದರು. ಾನು ಅವ !ೆ ಏನು ಉತರ 3ೊಡ ೆ ಸುಮ ಾ ೆ.
ನಂತರ ನನಗೂ ಸಹ ಅನು6ಾನ ಬರ ೊಡ ನನ/ *ೊYೆ$ ದಪ[ ಾಗುGದ? ಂದ *ಾಗೂ ಾಂG 6ಾಡುವಂ ೆ ಆಗುGದ? ಂದ ಾನು ಗa;F Vಾ ರು ೆ ೆಂದು GWದು3ೊಂbೆನು ಈ cಾರವನು/ ಾನು ನನ/ ತಂ ೆ, ಾ ಯವರ ಬWVಾಗ ಸGೕO ನ ಬWVಾಗ ಈ cಾರ
*ೇWರ ಲ. ಆದರೂ ಮನಸುd ಾಳ ೆ ಸGೕಶನ ಬW ಾನು *ೋ ನನ/ನು/ ಆದಷು$ ^ೇಗ ಮದು ೆ 6ಾ=3ೋ ಎಂದು 3ೇWದ?3ೆ ಅವನು ಮದು ೆVಾಗಲು ನನ/ನು/ 14ಾಕ 2ದನು ಇದ ಂದ ನನ!ೆ ಮನ2d!ೆ ತುಂ^ಾ ^ೇಸರ ಾಗುGದು? 8 ಾಂಕ 25.01.2010ರಂದು ^ೆಳ!ೆ9 ಸು6ಾರು 9:30 ಗಂYೆಯ ನಮ ತಂ ೆ, ತಂ , ತಮ *ೊರ!ೆ *ೋ ಾಗ ಾನು ಾ XಾತH ೊ ೆಯಲು *ೋ ಾಗ ಮ ೆಯ >$ದ? 2ೕ ಎfೆ, 3ಾNg ೆ!ೆದು3ೊಂಡು ೖ ೕiೆ 2ೕ ಎfೆ, ಸು ದು3ೊಂಡು ^ೆಂj ಹkl3ೊಂbೆನು. ಇದ ಂದ ನನ/ ತiೆ ಕೂದಲು ಎರಡು ಕಣು, *ಾಗೂ ಅದರ ಸುತ ನ Uಾಗ ಮತು ಎರಡು 3ಾಲುಗಳ Xಾದಗಳನು/ *ೊರತು ಪ=2 ಉWದ ಶ ೕರದ ಎiಾ UಾಗವK ಸುಟು$ !ಾಯ ಾ ರುತ ೆ. ಾನು ^ೆಂj ಉ ಾಳiಾರ ೆ ಕೂ 3ೊಂbಾಗ ನನ/ ಾ ಓ= ಬಂದು ೖ !ೆ 1ೕರು *ಾj 3ೆ=2ದರು ಅವರು ಸಹ ಕೂ!ಾಡುGದ? ಂದ ಪಕ ದ ಮ ೆ ಅಣ,ಪ[, 6ಾವ ಮ*ೇಶ, kಕ ಮ ಮಂಜು ಾ *ಾಗೂ ಊ ನ ಜನರು ಬಂದರು. ನನ!ೆ ಾ ದ? ^ೆಂj ನಂ82 ತ ೕ3ೆ4ೆ ಆಸ[ ೆH!ೆ @ೇ 2ದು? ಅ ಂದ 5ವnಗ9 ಗg ಆಸ[ ೆH!ೆ -9- CRL.A No.122 of 2014 kj ೆd!ೆ @ೇ 2ರು ಾ4ೆ ಾನು kj ೆd ಪbೆಯುGರು ಾಗ 8 ಾಂಕ 30 1 2010 ರಂದು ಸಂoೆ 5:30 ಗಂYೆ ಸಮಯದ ಾನು ಧ 2ದ? ಗಭ;ವ *ೊರ *ೋ ರು ೆ ಆಗ ೈದNರು ನಮ ತಂ ೆ ಾ ಯವ !ೆ cಾರ GW2ದು? ನಮ ತಂ ೆ ಾ ಯವ !ೆ ಾನು ೕ ನ ವಗ; ಅಂದ4ೆ ನಮ ಊ ನ ಸG @ ಸGೕO ಈತ ೊಂ8!ೆ PHೕG 6ಾಡುGದು? ಆ ಸಂದಭ;ದ ನನ!ೆ ಮದು ೆ 6ಾ=3ೊಳ(SವK ಾ ನಂT2 ಸಂUೋಗ 6ಾಡುGದ? ೆಂದು *ಾಗೂ ನr ಬsರಲೂ ೈ<ಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇರುವ cಾರ GW2 ಈಗ ನನ!ೆ ಮದು ೆVಾಗಲು 14ಾಕ ಸುGದ? ೆಂದು GW2 ೆ. ಈ cಾರದ tೕ 2!ೆ ದೂರು 3ೊಡ^ೇ3ೆಂಬುದು ನನ!ೆ GW8ರ ಲ, ನನ/ ತಂ ೆ ಾ ಯವ4ೆಗೂ ಸಹ ದೂರು 3ೊಡಲು Gಳ(ವW3ೆ ಇರುವK8ಲ. ಈ 8ನ ಂಗದಹWS t ೕಸರು ಗg ಆಸ[ ೆH!ೆ ಬಂ ಾಗ *ೇW3ೆ 1ೕ=ರು ೇ ೆ ನನ/ನು/ ನಂT2 ಸಂUೋಗ 6ಾ=ದ ಸGೕಶನ ೕiೆ ಸೂಕ 3ಾನೂನು ಕHಮ 3ೈ!ೊಳSಲು 3ೋರು ೇ ೆ."
14. Though the alleged incident took place on 25.01.2010, no complaint is filed against the accused till 31.01.2010. Only on 31.01.2010, police officer has recorded the statement of the victim in the presence of Medical Officers-PW9 and PW12. The Investigating Officer has not collected the case sheet maintained by the concerned Hospital. PW2-Chandarappa has not whispered anything as to the history of admission of this victim on 25.01.2010.
- 10 -
CRL.A No.122 of 2014
15. In Exhibit P13, there is no reference of shara by the concerned doctor whether the accused was fit to give statement or not.
16. PW12 has stated that he has informed the police that injured was in a fit condition to give statement.
17. The Head Constable, who was examined as PW8, has recorded the dying declaration and he has deposed that in the presence of Rudramurthy he has recorded the statement as per Exhibit P13.
18. Dr. Chandrappa examined as PW12 has put his signature on Exhibit P13, which is marked as Exhibit P13(d).
19. Dr.Rudramurthy examined as PW10, has deposed regarding the post-mortem conducted by him as per Exhibit P20. He has not put his signature on time of declaration.
20. PW8 has not recorded the statement of the victim in the presence of Dr. Chandrappa. The DNA report Exhibit P22 and 24 reveals that the accused Satisha @ Sathya is not the biological father of the foetus sent in Item No.2. Satisha @ Sathya S/o Subramanya, sample
- 11 -
CRL.A No.122 of 2014blood sent in Item No. 1 is excluded from being the biological father and source of DNA of the foetus sent in Item No. 2. Therefore, the DNA report Exhibits P22 and P24 is inconsistent with the statement of the victim statement of the victim as per Exhibit P13.
21. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused before receiving FSL from Bengaluru. In the charge sheet it is noted that the Investigating Officer has not received FSL report from DNA Center. The Investigating Officer had received this FSL report and DNA report from the concerned, as per Exhibit P22 and P24.
22. The Investigating Officer examined as PW9, has also deposed the same in his evidence. The Investigating has not explained anything in his evidence as to the DNA report-Exhibits P22 and P23 which is against the case of the prosecution. If really the Investigating Officer had received this Exhibits P22 and P24, he would not have filed this charge-sheet against the accused. Even after receiving this DNA report, the Investigating Officer has not taken any steps.
- 12 -
CRL.A No.122 of 2014
23. The delay of 6 days in recording the dying declaration of the complainant and though the non production of the case sheet pertaining to the deceased Kavitha and non-furnishing proper explanation as to the delay in filing the complaint and the non production of the certificate issued by the medical officer as to the condition of the deceased, whether she is fit to give statement or not and DNA report, which is contrary to the contents of dying declaration Exhibit P13, will create reasonable doubt about the alleged incident. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in the mind the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Panneerselvam v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2008)17 SCC Cases 190 and in the case of Phulel Singh v. State of Harayana reported in (2023)10 SCC 268 relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective.
- 13 -
CRL.A No.122 of 2014
24. On a re-appreciation/reconsideration and re- examination of the entire materials on record, I do not find any cogent, convincing, clinching, corroborative, trustworthy evidence to convict the accused for the alleged offences. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative. Regarding Point No.2:
25. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, at Chikmagalur in Sessions Case No.60/2010 dated 16.12.2013, is set aside.
iii) Accused/appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 417, 376 and 306 of Indian Penal Code.
iv) The trial Court is directed to return the fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused.
- 14 -
CRL.A No.122 of 2014Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn/kbm