Karnataka High Court
Ashraf vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8574
CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 828 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
ASHRAF
S/O KHADAR B
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/O MOHAMMAD ISMAIL MANZIL,
NEAR MASJID, 2ND BLOCK, SHAMSHIDDIN CIRCLE,
KATIPALLA MANGALORE TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 575 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.
Digitally
signed by
NARAYANA
UMA (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.)
HIGH COURT
OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 & 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.03.2016
PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.5030/2015 AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.02.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8574
CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 09.01.2013 in C.C No.1495/2009 on
the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur,
D.K., and its confirmation judgment and order dated
17.03.2016 in Crl.A No.5030/2015 on the file of the V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru,
Sitting at Puttur, D.K., wherein the Courts below have
concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth
as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.01.2009
around 05.00 p.m., the accused took the victim / P.W.2
to the nearby railway bridge situated at Mottethadka,
there he tried to outrage her modesty. When she raised
alarm, he closed her mouth with his hand and threatened
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8574
CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017
her that he would kill her. By that time, the passer-by
had come to that place. On seeing the passer-by, the
accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, a complaint
came to be registered against the accused. The
jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime
No.31/2009 for the offences stated supra. After
conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined, in all, six witnesses namely PWs.1 to 6 and got
marked three documents as per Exhibits P1 to P3. The
Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record, recorded the conviction for the
offences stated supra. On appeal being filed, the same
was confirmed by the Appellate Court.
5. Heard Smt. Pooja Kattimani, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri Ravindra B. Deshpande, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8574
CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017
passed by the Appellate Court are required to be set aside
as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and
opposed to facts and law.
7. It is further submitted that the prosecution relied mainly
on the evidence of P.W.2, however, her evidence is
contrary to the evidence of other witnesses. Even though
the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are not made out,
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court concurrently held
that the accused has committed the offences and
recorded the conviction which is against to the evidence
on record and therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks to allow the revision petition.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent vehemently justified the concurrent
findings and submitted that the findings of the Courts
below are appropriate and he prays to dismiss the
revision petition.
9. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
documents available on record, it appears that P.W.1
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:8574
CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017
being the mother of P.W.2 has stated in her evidence that
her daughter was going to school and she used to come
back home around 5.30 p.m. On 29.01.2009, in the said
evening, it is stated that, when her daughter was coming
from school, the accused stated to have abducted her and
took her near the railway bridge and tried to outrage her
modesty. However, in the meantime, the victim has
raised alarm. On hearing the said alarm, P.W.4 had gone
there. The accused on seeing P.W.4, ran away from the
spot. After the incident, P.W.4 brought the victim to her
home.
10. P.W.1 further states that she had received information
from her daughter and thereafter, she lodged a
complaint. Though she had been cross-examined
extensively, she withstood all the questions put to her
and she was consistent that her daughter was subjected
to outraging of the modesty.
11. Similarly, P.W.2 being the victim, has stated in verbatim
as that of P.W.1 in respect of the incident. These
witnesses are consistent that the accused left her after
seeing P.W.4.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:8574
CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017
12. The evidence of P.W.4 assumes greater significance to
corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. P.W.4 was
working as Attender in the school where P.W.2 was
studying. According to him, on 29.01.2009 around 05.00
p.m., when he was going to his garden situated at
Mottethadka to irrigate the garden, he heard the
screaming voice from the bush nearer to the railway line.
Immediately, he rushed to the said place and found that
the accused was lying on the victim by closing her mouth
with his hand. He further says that the accused ran away
from the spot after seeing him. He further stated that he
called Shankara Gowda who was there in the nearby
place and both of them tried to catch the accused,
however, the accused escaped from them. Thereafter, he
dropped the said girl to her house. Though he was cross-
examined by the counsel for the defence, nothing has
been elicited to discredit his evidence.
13. P.W.5 says in his evidence that after completion of his
work, when he was returning home near the railway line,
he heard the screaming voice of a girl from the nearby
bushes. Immediately, he rushed to the place. Both
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:8574
CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017
himself and P.W.4 though tried to catch the accused, the
accused had managed to escape from the place.
14. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 are consistent that the
accused was trying to outrage the modesty of the girl.
On going through the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is clear
that, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC gets attracted.
The defence has not elicited anything from these
witnesses to discredit their evidence. Therefore, there is
no reason to disbelieve their evidence in respect of the
offence. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the
petitioner / accused has not made out any grounds to
interfere with the said findings of the Courts below.
15. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BSS
