Lohith S/O K R Puppegowda vs State Of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court

Lohith S/O K R Puppegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2026

                             -1-
                                    CRL.A No.495 of 2013


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.495 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

LOHITH
S/O K. R. PUPPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
R/O KABBIGERE VILLAGE
AMBLE HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHIKMAGALUR RURAL POLICE STATION
CHIKMAGALUR - 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 ORDER DATED: 26.3.13 PASSED
BY THE ADDL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.90/2008 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 376 OF IPC AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   19.12.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                           CRL.A No.495 of 2013




CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                        CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 26th March, 2013 and order on sentence dated 27th March 2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in SC No.90 of 2008.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, 0submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 08th March, 2008 at 11.00 am, in Kabbigere Village, when PW1-victim girl aged about 18 years was alone in the house, the accused, though being a neighbour, stealthily entered into the house of the victim, when she was attending work in the bathroom, closed the front door, forcibly took the victim to the Hall and committed rape without her consent and against her will and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the -3- CRL.A No.495 of 2013 Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused and case was registered in CC No.945 of 2008. The accused entered appearance before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the was registered as SC No.90 of 2008. The trial Court, on hearing the charges, framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as PWs1 to PW15 and 20 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P20. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the accused himself examined as DW.1 and another witness as DW.2. Five documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D5.

5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of -4- CRL.A No.495 of 2013 conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Sri Mohan Bhat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence is highly erroneous and contrary to law. He would submit that learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as the prosecutrix was normal on 14th March, 2008 itself as per the case sheet produced at Exhibit D2. However, her statement was recorded on 27th March, 2008. The said inordinate delay was neither explained in the complaint nor before the trial Court. However, the learned Sessions Judge, without appreciating these material facts, has passed the impugned judgment. Same is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned Sessions Judge also failed to appreciate the fact that the statement of none of the witnesses was recorded by the respondent-Police after the first complaint was lodged by the father of prosecutrix on 10th March, 2008. No statements were recorded for about 18 days though the complaint was to the effect of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix. In the complaint-Exhibit P4, the name of Vedamurthy, who was the -5- CRL.A No.495 of 2013 brother-in-law of the prosecutrix and other villagers whom the said Vedamurthy had known, was brought to the notice of the respondent-Police. But, Statement of any witness was not recorded. This creates doubt regarding the incident of rape itself as the said incident would have been reported to the police on 10th March, 2008. According to the case of the prosecution, PWs6 to 8 apprehended the appellant and made enquiries with the prosecutrix on the date of incident itself, and it was brought to the notice of PW5-father of the prosecutrix. However, statement of any of the witness was not recorded by the respondent till 28th March, 2008, until PW6 gave a statement on 27th March, 2008. This discrepancy is very fatal to the case of the prosecution, as it clearly demonstrates a booby trap against the appellant. However, the learned Sessions Judge, without appreciating these material facts, has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence which is unsustainable.

8. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has relied on the statement of PW.1-prosecutrix, to come to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty. However, there were no antecedents prior to the alleged incident which indicates involvement of the appellant in the alleged crime. The learned -6- CRL.A No.495 of 2013 Sessions Judge relied upon the facts alleged to have been made by the appellant before the panchayat. However, no such facts were brought by the prosecution that there was a panchayat convened on 09th March, 2008. The deposition of the prosecutrix that the mother of the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, is falsified by the complaint-Exhibit P4 by the father of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW5. Thus, there were many contradictions which were brought in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix which were not considered by the learned Sessions Judge.

9. Further, it is submitted that the case of the prosecution was that the appellant was wearing pant and shirt at the time of incident. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix within 2 to 3 seconds. It is unbelievable that appellant can perform sexual intercourse in 2 to 3 seconds twice. That apart, the clothes which the appellant was wearing were not seized by the respondent Police. The Doctor who examined the prosecutrix has opined that vagina of the prosecutrix admits two fingers, which clearly indicate that prosecutrix was prone to sexual intercourse as the penetration -7- CRL.A No.495 of 2013 would not result into the state of the opinion of the experts in the present case.

10. Further, it is submitted that the learned trial Judge has reposed much confidence in the evidence of PW6-Vedamuthy, who is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. The learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that PW6- Vedmurthy was working in the thrashing yard of the appellant who heard the screaming of prosecuritx at around 11.00 am. It is very strange that PW6 and PW7 were returning at 11.00 am after having their breakfast, as they were hired for work in the village where breakfast was offered. Thus, the very presence of Vedamurthy is doubtful, whose statement ought to have been recorded by the respondent Police much earlier to 28th March, 2008, as his name finds place in the first complaint dated 10th March, 2008. Therefore, there is no weight that would have been attached to the evidence of PW5 by the learned Sessions Judge.

11. As far as evidence of PW3 is concerned, he is only a circumstantial witness and therefore, he is a hearsay witness. However, the learned Sessions Judge has taken the evidence of PWs5 and 3 as corroborative to the evidence of PW1. It appears that PW3 has been examined as circumstantial witness -8- CRL.A No.495 of 2013 to explain about convening of panchayat. PW4 was the witness of the Exhibit P3-Mahazar, which was recorded upon the complaint on 10th March, 2008. However, the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon these witnesses to pass the judgment of conviction.

12. It is further submitted that according to the case of the prosecution, Exhibit P3-Mahazar was conducted on 11th March, 2008. PW.5, who was present, has signed the mahazar as a witness. However, on the said date, no statement of the said Vedamurthy was recorded nor the said Vedamurthy disclosed about the commission of rape on the said date. This clearly indicates that a false case has been foisted against the appellant. Subsequently, a complaint was registered for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code against the accused as the father of the prosecuritx and others were mentally harassing the appellant to marry the prosecuritx. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to take into consideration the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW1, though were elaborately brought out during the cross- examination.

CRL.A No.495 of 2013

13. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged incident took place on 08th March, 2008, but complaint filed on 10th March, 2008 and on the basis of that complaint, a criminal case was registered in a Crime No.108/2008 of Chikkamagaluru Rural Police Station for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and submitted FIR to the Court. On 27th March, 2008, after recording the statement of the victim, the case was registered in Crime No. 108(A) of 2008, as per Exhibit P20, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. On the date of incident, the victim has consumed a poison. On 3rd May, 2008, the mother of the accused lodged complaint with the Police against four persons.

14. As per Ex.P4, one Shivakumar-PW.6 had lodged a complaint. On the basis of the said complainant, the police have registered the case in Crime No.108 of 2008 for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and submitted the FIR to the Court. In Ex.P4, there is no allegation as to the commission of rape. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused entered to the house of the victim, caught hold her and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. After lapse of 19 days from the date of incident, police have recorded the

- 10 -

statement of the victim-PW1. On the basis of the said statement, on 27th March, 2008, police have registered the case in Crime No.108(A) of 2008 against the accused for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. After the alleged incident dated 08.03.2008, the accused has consumed poison and he was admitted to the hospital. On 10th March, 2008, the mother of the accused Smt.Sharadamma-PW2, lodged a complaint as per Exhibit D3. On receipt of the said complaint, the case was registered in Crime No.107 of 2008 by the Chikkamagaluru Rural Police against Shivakumara, Vedamurthy, Theerthagowda, Prakash and others, for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 511 of Indian Penal Code.

15. Exhibit-D5, is the requisition letter submitted by the Sub- Inspector of Police to the jurisdictional Magistrate to insert the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code instead of Section 354 Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the victim has consumed poison and lost her conscious and she regained her conscious on 20th March, 2008.

16. Exhibit D2 is the case sheet dated 14th March, 2008 of Aralaguppe Mallegowda District Hospital, reveals that the victim has gained conscious and Medical Officer has noted that and

- 11 -

ordered to shift the victim to the Female Ward. In Exhibit D2 it is stated that case is registered as medico-legal case for consuming of poison. The name of the accused is not shown in Exhibit D2. The history of consuming poison is also not disclosed. However, the complainant-Shivakumara has not disclosed the commission of rape said to have been committed by the accused.

17. In the examination-in-chief of PW1 at paragraph No.9, he has stated that the victim has gained conscious after 2-3 days from the date of alleged incident. The Investigating Officer has not produced the case sheet maintained by the concerned hospital to show the condition of the victim. Except Exhibit P9- Discharge Summary, Investigating Officer has not produced any documents. In the history of rape, the name of the accused is not mentioned. There is no medical evidence to show that there was a sexual intercourse alleged to have been committed by the accused. Doctor's opinion also does not disclose the name of the accused. The trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence and record in proper perspective. Hence he sought for allowing the appeal. On all these grounds the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

- 12 -

18. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the trial court has properly appreciated the material on record in proper perspective and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following point would arise for consideration:

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code?

2. What order?

20. My answer to the above points are:

Point No.1: in the negative; Point No.2: as per final order. Regarding Point No.1:

21. I have carefully examined the materials placed before this Court. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chikkamagaluru Rural Police Station, submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. It is

- 13 -

alleged by the prosecution that on 08th March, 2008 at 11.00 am in Kabbigere village, when the victim who is aged 18 years was attending work in the bathroom, the accused stealthily entered into the house of the victim, locked the door, forcibly took her to the hall and committed rape without her consent and against her will. To substantiate the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses as PWs1 to 15, marked 20 documents as Exhibits P1 to P20.

22. The genesis of the case arise from the filing of complaint- Exhibit P1 by the victim. As per the complaint, the alleged incident took place on 08th March, 2008 at 11.00 am. Accordingly, First Information Report was submitted to the Court on 27th March, 2008 at 12.25 pm as per Exhibit P20. Earlier to the present First Information Report, case was registered against the accused in Crime No.108 of 2008, under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint filed by one Shivakumar-PW5, father of the victim on 10th March, 2008. After delay of eighteen days i.e. on 27th March, 2008, after the accused obtaining anticipatory bail, the second complaint was lodged by the victim alleging the offence under Section 376, which came to be registered in Crime No.108(A) of 2008.

- 14 -

23. The alleged incident took place on 8th March, 2008. Complaint came to be filed on 10th March, 2008. On the basis of the complaint Circle Inspector of rural Police Station Chikkamagaluru, registered a case in crime number 108 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR to the Court on 27th March, 2008. Exhibit P20 is the continuation of Crime No.108 of 2008 and after investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet pertaining to Crime No.108 of 2008 against the accused for commission of offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code.

24. PW1-victim has deposed that on the date of incident, a panchayat was held by the elders of the village. In the Panchayat, the accused has agreed to marry the victim. On the same day at midnight 2 am, the accused has consumed poison. The parents of the victim and other people who were in the house went to the house of the accused. By that time, she was alone in the house. Being alarmed with the same, she consumed insecticide and lost conscious. Her father gave her first aid and when she regained conscious, she was at Government Hospital Chikkamagaluru. Thereafter, Police have enquired her and recorded her statement as per Exhibit P1.

- 15 -

25. DW1-Lohit has deposed that he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. On 8th March, 2008, he has not committed rape on PW1 and he did not enter into the house of PW1. On that day, at 9.00 am scuffle took place between PW6 Vedamurthy, the father-in-law of PW1 and himself. PW6 quarrelled with him and assaulted him. PW6-Vedamurthy, PW5-Shivakumar, Ravi, Thirthagowda, and Prakash came to the House of the accused and compelled him to marry PW1. He did not agree to the proposal. Then they assaulted him. Though he has not committed any offence, he was insulted in the presence of villagers. Hence, on 08th March, 2008 during night, he consumed poison. Then his relatives shifted him to hospital at Chikkamagaluru. His mother Sharadamma has lodged complaint against PW5-Shivakumar, PW6-Vedamurthy, Prakash Ravi, etc. In this regard, a case was registered against them in Crime No.107 of 2008 for offence under section 306, 511 of Indian penal code. Only to take revenge against his mother, false case was registered against him under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. He has obtained anticipatory bail. Upon noticing the same, another complaint was filed intersection 376 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.108(A) of 2008.

- 16 -

26. DW2-Smt. Sharadamma, mother of accused, as stated as to the filing of complaint against the accused Sivakumar, Veda Murthy, Tirthagowda, Prakash and Ravi. Exhibit D3 is the complaint filed by Sharadamma in which it is stated as under:

" ಾನು ೕಲ ಂಡ ಾಸದ ನನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವgÉÆA ೆ ಾಸ ಾ ದು ವ ವ ಾಯ ವೃ !"ಂದ #ೕವನ $ಾ%&ೊಂ%ರು)ೆ!ೕ ೆ. ನನ ೆ 2 ಜನ -ೆಣು/ ಮಕ ಳ2 ಮತು! 2 ಜನ ಗಂಡು ಮಕ ಳ2 ಇದು 2 ಜನ -ೆಣು/ಮಕ ಳ ಲಗ ಾ ರುತ!6ೆ. ಗಂಡು ಮಕ ಳ 8ೈ: 1 ೇ <ೋ=> 2 ೇ ಮ-ೇ? ಆ ದು 2 ಜನ ಜAೕನು &ೆಲಸ $ಾ%&ೊಂ%ರು)ಾ!Bೆ. ನಮC ಮ ೆಯ ಹ !ರದ Eೕ ನಮC ಜ ಾಂಗದವBಾದ Fವಕು$ಾರ ಎಂಬುವವರ ಮ ೆ"ದು ಇವHಗೂ 2 ಜನ -ೆಣು/ ಮಕ ಳ2 ಒಬJ ಮಗ ಇರು)ಾ! ೆ. ಪರಸLರ ಾವMಗಳ2 ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯವರು Oೆ ಾ 6ೆ ವM £À£Àß »jAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ ÉÆûvÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ÉÆûvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 28 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì DVzÀÄÝ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉA¢zÉݪÀÅ ಈ ರು ಾಗ ನನ ಮಗQಗೂ Fವಕು$ಾರ ಮಗಳ2 $ಾ<ಾRಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧ ರುವ ಬ ೆT ಾಂಕ:08.03.2008 YೆR ೆT ಸು$ಾರು 1.30 ಗಂZೆ ಸಮಯದ ೕಥ\, ೇದಮೂ \, ರ , ಪ^&ಾಶ ಮತು! ಇತರರು ÉÆûvÀ ಮದು ೆ $ಾಡYೇ&ೆಂದು ಉ6ೆ ೕಶಪಟುa -ೊbೆದು ಗ<ಾZೆ $ಾ% <ೋ=ತQ ೆ ಮತು! ಮತು! $ಾ<ಾRಗೂ ಮದು ೆ ತcಾH ನbೆdದರು ಇವHಬJರ e^ೕ ಇ6ೆ ಇಲ ೊ !ಲ. ಾಂಕ:08.03.2008 ರಂದು Bಾ ^ ಸು$ಾರು 2 ಗಂZೆ ವBೆಗೂ ಪಂOಾ" $ಾ% ನನ ಮಗQ ೆ =ಂ ೆ &ೊಡು ಾಗ ಾನು ಸುಮC ೆ ಇದು ೋ%ರು)ೆ!ೕ ೆ ನಂತರ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು Bಾ ^ ಸು$ಾರು 2 ಗಂZೆಯ $ಾ ನ ¥sÀಸಲು ಮತು! ಅªÀgÉ ಡ&ೆ Mbೆಯಲು ತಂ ದ :^A ಾಶಕ ಔಷhಯನು ೇವ ೆ $ಾ%6ಾಗ i:)ೆj ೆ iಕ ಮAಗಳkರು ಎಂ.# ಆಸL)ೆ^ ೆ ನಮೂCHನ ¥ÀÆuÉÃð±À ಎಂಬುವರ &ಾHನ ಕBೆದು&ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಆಸL)ೆ^ ೆ ೇHd ೈದ Hಂದ i:)ೆj &ೊ%dದವM, ಬRಕ ೈದ ರ ಸಲ-ೆಯಂ)ೆ <ೋ=ತನನು ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09.03.2008 ಮlಾ ನ -ಾಸನದ ಮಂಗಳ ಆಸL)ೆ^ ೆ ಕBೆದು&ೊಂಡು -ೋ i:)ೆj ೆ ೇHdದು ಈಗ ಒಳBೋ cಾ i:)ೆj ಪbೆಯು !6ಾ ೆ ನನ ಮಗ $ಾತ ಾಡುವ dm ಯ ಇರುವM ಲ $ಾ)ಾಡಲು ಬಂದ ಬRಕ ಸತ ಸnರೂಪವನು Rಯಬಹುದು ನನ ಮಗQ ೆ Fವಕು$ಾರ, ೕಥ\, ೇದ, ರ , ಪ^&ಾಶ ಮತು! ಇತರರು ೇH =ಂ ೆ &ೊoaದ Hಂದ

- 17 -

ಮನ ೊಂದು ಷ ೇವ ೆ $ಾ%ರು)ಾ! ೆ. ಈ ಬ ೆT ೕಲ ಂಡವರ ೕ<ೆ &ಾನೂನು ಕ^ಮ ಜರು ಸYೇ&ಾ &ೇR&ೊಳ2p)ೆ!ೕ ೆ."

27. On the basis of the said complaint, Chikkamagaluru Police have registered case in Crime No.107 of 2008, against one Shivakumar, Tirthagowda, Vedamurthy, Ravi and others for offence under Section 306 and 511 of Indian penal code. Exhibit D5 is the requisition submitted by the Sub-Inspector Chikkamagaluru Rural Police Station to JMFC, Chikkamagaluru to convert the offence from Section 354 of Indian Penal Code to the one under section 376 of IPC. This requisition reveals that the victim had gained conscious on 26th March 2008. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, it is stated that she gained conscious in Government Hospital Chikkamagaluru after 2 to 3 days from the date of incident.

28. Exhibit D2 is the case-sheet maintained by Aralaguppe Mallegowda District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru. This case sheet dated 14th March 2008, reveals that the victim has gained conscious and the medical officer has ordered to shift the victim to the female ward. It further reveals that the case was registered as medico-legal case for consumption of poison. The name of the accused is not shown in Exhibit D2. History of consuming of poison is not disclosed in Exhibit D2.

- 18 -

Complainant-Shivakumar has not disclosed as to the commission of rape said to have been committed by accused. In examination-in-chief of PW1, at paragraph nine, he has stated that victim has gained conscious after 2 to 3 days from the date of the alleged incident. Investigating officer has not produced the case sheet. The Investigating officer has also not explained anything as to non-production of case sheet maintained at the concerned hospital to show the condition of the victim.

29. Except Exhibit P9-Discharge Summary, investigating officer has not produced any document. In the history of a rape, the name of accused is not shown. Fortunately, accused has produced Exhibit D2 the case sheet maintained by Mallegowda District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru, pertaining to the victim. In that, there is no evidence to show that there was sexual intercourse said to have committed by the accused. Exhibit P2-letter addressed by the Medical Officer to the Inspector of Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, also does not reveal to the name of the accused.

- 19 -

30. First, the complaint was filed by KM Shivakumar-PW5. He has not made any allegation against the accused as to the rape said to have been committed by the accused. PW5- Shivakumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that only for the purpose of filing complaint as per the advice of Panchayatdars, he has filed complaint against the accused stating that the accused has committed rape on the victim. PW5 has clearly stated that he is not the eye-witness to the incident and that he has deposed in his evidence that Vedamurthy and Jayashankarappa have informed him as to the alleged rape committed by the accused on PW1.

31. Vedamurthy, who is the brother-in-law of PW5- Shivakumar, is examined as PW6. He has deposed that on the date of incident when he was proceeding in front of the house of Shivakumar he heard a screaming sound. Then he went there and knocked the door of the house of PW5 Shivakumar. By that time, Jaishankarappa, Prakash, Tirthagowda, Ravi and Lalitamma and others came there and after knocking the door, PW1 opened the door. They noticed the hair of PW1 was shabby and cheeks were red and they pacified her. Upon enquiry, she told that the accused has committed rape and he is now sitting in the loft. When they checked the loft, the

- 20 -

accused was sleeping and when the enquired, the accused has confessed as to the rape committed by him and assured to marry the victim. Then they pacified PW1 and locked the house and went away. Further, he has deposed in his evidence as to the Panchayat held by them, and in the Panchayat accused confessed as to the offence committed by him and assured to marry the victim. PW1 has also agreed for marriage. But the mother of accused Smt. Sharadamma Sharma has demanded Rs.3.00 lakhs as dowry; she did not agree for the marriage. Thereafter, they heard shouting near the house of the accused. Then they went there and came to know that accused has consumed poison. Then the accused was shifted to Government Hospital Chikkamagaluru. After they returned, they found that PW1 has also consumed poison and was struggling for life. Then he gave first aid and shifted her to District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru.

32. A careful examination of the entire evidence on record makes it crystal clear that victim that PW1 has suppressed the facts before the police. The investigating officer has also suppressed the material facts and submitted charge-sheet against the accused. Though the victim has gained conscious after two days from the date of alleged incident of consuming

- 21 -

poison, the Investigating Officer has registered the case on the basis of statement of victim after the lapse of about 19 days. Thereafter, he submitted requisition to the learned magistrate to insert offence under Section 376 IPC. There are no witnesses to the alleged incident. Victim is the only the sole witness to the alleged incident. Victim's evidence is not trustworthy for the reason that the contents of Exhibit P20 are not consistent to the contents of first complaint-Exhibit P4. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is also not consistent to each other. The documents placed by the accused, which are not disputed by the other side, reveals that on the date of the alleged incident, the accused has consumed poison and was admitted to the hospital for the reason that the accused, who are the prosecution witnesses in the case, have compelled him to marry PW1. Mother of the complainant has specifically stated in her complaint that the accused Vedamurthy, Tirthagowda, Ravi, Prakash and others have, on 8th March, 2008 morning, compelled her son Lohit to marry the victim girl on the ground that there were in relationship. This evidence clearly disclose that the Investigating Officer has suppressed the material facts and that the prosecution has not placed any cogent, convincing or trustworthy evidence before the court to prove that the accused has committed the alleged rape on the

- 22 -

date of incident. If really, the accused had committed rape on the victim on the alleged date, PW6-Vedamurthy and others who have heard the screaming of the victim and went to the house of Shivakumar, would have filed complaint against the accused for offence and Section 376 IPC. For two days the complainant or other witnesses have not lodged any complaint with the Police. Even though, the Mallegowda District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru has registered the case as medico-legal case, the concerned Police have not registered the case on 8th March 2008.

33. DW2-Sharadamma, mother of the accused lodged complaint with the police against Shivakumar, Tirthagowda, Vedamurthy, Ravi and others, and the police have registered a Case on 10th March 2008 in Crime No.107 of 2008 as per Exhibit D4. PW5-Shivakumar, father of the victim has also lodged complaint with the police on 10th March, 2008 for offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution has not explained anything as to the delay in filing the complaint against the accused. Only after registering the case against the father of the victim and others in Crime No.107 of 2008, PW5-Shivakumar father of the victim has lodged complaint against the accused for the offence under Section

- 23 -

354 IPC. This conduct of the complainant clearly reveals that the prosecution has created a story against the accused and filed false complaint against him for the offence under Sections 354 and 376 IPC.

34. Viewed from any angle, the evidence of victim as well as other witnesses are not trustworthy and believable. When the credibility of the testimony of the victim and other witnesses create doubt about the alleged incident, it is not safe to convict the accused. This court has independently examined all the the materials placed before it. On careful examination of the entire material evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to place, cogent, convincing, corroborative or legally acceptable evidence before the Court. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment of conviction, which is not sustainable under law. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.

Regarding Point no.2:

35. For the reasons aforestated and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

- 24 -

                                            CRL.A No.495 of 2013


                              ORDER

      i)    Appeal is allowed;

ii) Judgment of conviction dated 26th March 2013 and the order on sentence dated 27th March 2013 passed in SC No.90 of 2008, by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru is set aside;

iii) Accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code;

iv) The trial Court is directed to return the fine, if any deposited by the accused/appellant, upon proper identification.

Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with trial Court records to the concerned Court.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn