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
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
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
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
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
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
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:
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
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,
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
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 ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
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 ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:44896
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
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
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
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
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
