Karnataka High Court
Jayasheela C vs State By Psi on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 392 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
JAYASHEELA C S/O CHANDRAN,
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/O. SANJAY COLONY, NEW TOWN,
BHDRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY PSI
NEW TOWN POLICE STATION
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
by RENUKA
Location: THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.07.2014 AND
OF 17.07.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
KARNATAKA JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.513/2009, CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI BY
ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 IN CRL.A.NO.116/2014 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 19.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
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
on sentence dated 16.07.2014 in C.C.No.513/2009 on the
file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi and its
confirmation judgment and order dated 29.01.2016 in
Crl.A.No.116/2014 on the file of the Court of the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at
Bhadravathi, has filed this revision petition seeking to set
aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts
below, wherein the petitioner / accused was convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.
2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be
considered henceforth for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.09.2008 at
about 4.30 p.m., at Gandhi Park, New Town, Bhadravathi,
the petitioner is stated to have outraged the modesty of
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
the victim who is aged about 11 years. It is further stated
that the petitioner used to do pick up and drop the victim
to a school along with other students on every day.
4. On 17.09.2008, when the victim had been to School
along with others and the petitioner went to the school
and he called all the inmates of the said auto. After
having boarded them, he started proceeding to drop them
to their respective houses. In the meantime, the
petitioner stated to have taken all the children along with
the victim to the Gandhi Park and asked them to play in
the park for a while. When the children were playing in
the said park, the petitioner made the victim to sit with
him and started kissing her and also got removed her
underwear and pinched her private part. Thereafter, he
had threatened her that she should not disclose the said
fact to her parents.
5. Even though the victim narrated the incident to her
mother and her mother, in the meantime, informed her
father, both of them did not bother much and not lodged
any complaint in that regard. However, the victim had
developed some pain in her private part and she got
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
fever. The parents of the victim taken her to the hospital
for treatment. In the said hospital, she narrated the
incident to the Doctor. The Doctor after recording the
statement of the victim, she informed the jurisdictional
police. The jurisdictional police have registered a case.
After conducting investigation, submitted the charge
sheet.
6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 11
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked 9
documents as Exs.P1 to P9 and 5 material objects have
been marked as M.O.1 to 5. On the other hand, the
defense has got marked MLR as Ex.D1. The Trial Court
after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, recorded the conviction and sentenced the
accused to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period
of 6 months with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to payment
of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 6 months. Being aggrieved by the same,
the accused approached the Appellate Court against the
said judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
Hence, this Revision Petition.
7. Heard Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent.
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the complaint came to be registered
against the petitioner due to enmity. Though the victim
stated in her evidence that she has sustained injuries on
her private part, Ex.P.9-wound certificate did not disclose
the same. Moreover, there is a delay in lodging the
complaint. Such delay should have been considered as
fatal to the case of the prosecution.
9. It is further submitted that as per the statement of the
victim, though she had disclosed the fact to her parents,
they did not lodge the complaint. However, they were
waiting to lodge such complaint when the victim went for
treatment at the Kiran Nursing Home, Bhadravathi. None
of the children have spoken about the incident as a
eyewitness, however, other two children have supported
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
the case of the prosecution as hearsay witnesses.
Therefore, the credibility should not have been given to
their evidence.
10. It is further submitted that the author of the medical
Doctor has not been examined to substantiate the fact.
In spite of several lacunae in the evidence both oral and
documentary on record, the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court committed error in recording the conviction.
Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. As such, he
prays to allow the petition.
11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent vehemently justified the concurrent
findings of the Courts below and submitted that, the
evidence of victim is consistent and she has narrated the
incident before the Doctor. The Doctor after recording the
said statement, reported to the jurisdictional police.
Therefore, a complaint came to be registered and FIR has
been lodged against the petitioner. Such being the fact,
disbelieving the evidence of all the witnesses cannot be
permitted in the Revisional jurisdiction.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
12. It is further submitted that this Court can interfere in the
findings of the Courts below by exercising the Revisional
jurisdiction only when it appears that there are some
errors committed by the Court not only in appreciating
the evidence but also applying the correct law on the said
case. In the present case, since both the victim and the
report of the Doctor are consistent about the act of the
petitioner and the said act of the petitioner would
constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section
354 of IPC, therefore, interference with findings of the
Courts below may not be proper. Therefore, the petition
has to be rejected. Making such submission, the learned
HCGP for the respondent prays to dismiss the petition.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below
in recording the conviction, the evidence of P.W.1 would
indicate that she was studying in 4th standard at SAV
school at Bhadravathi. She used to travel in an auto of
the petitioner on everyday. Usually, she was leaving her
house at 10.00 am and used to return her home around
4.30 p.m.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
14. She further deposes that C.Ws. 4 to 7 were also used to
accompany her in the said auto on every day. According
to her, she had been subjected to outrage her modesty at
the Gandhi Park situated at Bhadravathi by the petitioner.
15. Even though she has been subjected to the cross
examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit her
evidence. Her evidence has been corroborated by Ex.P9,
which is wound certificate issued by the Doctor who
treated the victim. It is needless to say that the author
of the said document has not been examined, as the said
Doctor died before recording her evidence.
16. The inmates of the said auto, namely, PWs.4 and 5 have
also supported the case of the prosecution. However,
they are only hearsay witnesses. Their evidence has to
be believed to the extent that after the incident, the
victim was not going to School and the victim had
developed ill-health.
17. On conjoint reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, it
can be inferred that the findings of the Courts below in
recording the conviction are proper and justifiable.
Interference with the said findings, in my considered
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:12630
CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016
view, is not proper. Therefore, I declined to interfere
with the said findings.
18. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
JS
