Karnataka High Court
Sri Arun Kumar K S vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
CRL.A No. 314 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2014 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRI ARUN KUMAR K S,
S/O. SIDDALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
FINAL YEAR DIPLOMA STUDENT,
KANAKENAHALLI,
SASALU HOBLI, TUMKGR TALUK,
TUMKUR.
PRESENTLY
HOUSED AT TUMKUR PRISON
TUMKURU-572 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA P. SINGH, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN AND:
N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RURAL POLICE STATION,
TUMKUR,
REP.BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
CRL.A No. 314 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 15.4.2014
PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.265/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 376 AND 506 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred the appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15th April
2014, passed in SC No.265 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions,
Judge, Tumkur (for short "the trial Court").
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 appeal are that the Circle
Inspector of Police, Tumkur Rural Circle, Tumkur, laid charge-
sheet against accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. It is the case of
the prosecution that on 13th June 2012 at about 2:30 pm,
prosecutrix PW3/CW1 appeared before PW9/CW12 A.V. Kumar,
Sub Inspector of Police of the complainant Police Station and
lodged a written complaint as per Exhibit P3. The summary of
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
the complaint was that the prosecutrix after completing her
Diploma Course in HMS College at Tumkur, was now and then
visiting the college. At that time, she was introduced to
accused the appellant-Arun Kumar through Sri Hanumantaraju,
who was a student in the very same college. The said Arun
Kumar was visiting the college to meet Hanumantaraju now
and then. On 27th May, 2012, after completing examination at
5 o'clock, prosecutrix came to the Civil Bus Stand. The
accused-Arun Kumar also followed her to Bus stand and talked
to her. Stating that he has some known persons in her village
and that he is also going to her village, he boarded the same
bus in which she was travelling and got down along with her in
the stop near her village. Both of them are going towards to
her village by walk, and it was 6.00 pm by then. On the way,
when they were passing a dilapidated, Eshwara Temple, the
accused held her hands and also closed her mouth with his
hand and dragged her to bush near the stream, made her to
fall on the ground, inserted the veil into her mouth and
removed her churidar lied on her and committed sexual
intercourse with her. Though she resisted, she could not
succeed in preventing him. After subjecting her to rape, he
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
threatened her of taking her life in case she discloses the
incident to her parents or anybody. Leaving her there, he left
the place. After recovering by herself, she went to her house.
Though her mother asked her as to why she was dull, she did
not reveal the truth keeping the reputation of the family in
mind, but stated that examination was bit difficult. She was
dull and was not taking food properly for 10 to 15 days.
Observing this, her parents insisted her to reveal the reason
then she revealed the incident. The parents advised her to
lodge police complaint. Accordingly, she lodge the complaint.
On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in crime No.
199 of 2012 against the accused for offence punishable under
Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. After
investigation, investigating officer submitted sheet for the
aforesaid offences.
4. Thereafter, case was registered in CC No.3521 of
2011 and after commital to the Court of Sessions, case was
registered in SC No.265 of 2012 against the accused. Accused
was released on bail. After hearing on charges, the trial Court
framed charges for the commission of aforestated offences.
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
The same was over read over and explained to the accused.
Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. To prove the case of prosecution, 10
witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 10, eight documents were
more as Exhibits P1 to P8. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, statement of accused under section 313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied the evidence
of prosecution witnesses and he has submitted written
statement under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
But he has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf.
Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section,
376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced undergo
imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.30,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal
Code. Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under section 506 of
Indian Penal Code and in default, to undergo additional simple
imprisonment for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused/
appellant has preferred this Appeal.
5. Smt. Rakshitha P Singh, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri S Balakrishnan Counsel for the appellant, would
submit that the judgment of conviction is perverse illegal and
opposed to principles of law. It is submitted that according to
the case of prosecution, the incident took place on 27th May
2012 at about 6:30 pm, but the complaint was filed on 13th
June 2012 at 2:32 pm. The inordinate delay of 17 days to set
the law into motion is not explained. In Exhibit P3-Complaint,
the date of complaint was mentioned as 12th June, 2012, but
later on it was altered as 13th June, 2012. The trial Court has
failed to appreciate the above referred events and has
erroneously convicted the appellant. She would further submit
that it is the case of the prosecution that on 27 th May 2012 the
victim attended the examination and while returning to her
village, the alleged incident took place, but in the cross-
examination she has admitted that the said date would fall on
Sunday and the circumstances would indicate cloud of suspicion
in the theory of alleged incident. It is also the case of
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
prosecution that the accused held her hand, covered her
mouth, preventing her from screaming and dragged her to
nearby bush besides stream and committed rape on her for
about 5 to 10 minutes on account of which she was bleeding in
her vagina. PW6-Doctor who examined the victim has spoken
that no injuries found on the person of prosecutrix, and there
are no signs of rape. The ocular testimony of the prosecutrix
and version of the doctor are inconsistent to each other, but
the trial Court failed to appreciate the same and had convicted
the applicant. There are inconsistent statement regarding the
venue of occurrence of incident. In the complaint at Exhibit P3,
the place of incident was in front of Eshwara Temple, but in the
examination-in-chief, the victim has stated that the incident
took place behind Eshwara Temple and the trial Court has failed
to appreciate regarding the change of venue of occurrence.
PW7-Hanumantaraju, admitted in the cross-examination that
both the victim and accused developed love and victim was
forcing the accused to marry her. The said circumstance
indicates that both of them were in love prior to the incident.
Viewed from any angle, the version of Prosecutrix is not
corroborating either by medical evidence or by chemical
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
analysis or ocular testimony of any witnesses. In the absence
of cogent and convincing evidence on record, it cannot be
presumed that the victim was subjected to rape. The trial
Court has convicted the accused which is not sustainable under
love. Apart from this, the learned Counsel for the appellant
would submit that the appellant-Arun Kumar and the victim-
Indira had filed joint affidavit stating that they married on
Sunday the 08th December, 2013, at Shri Mahalakshmi Amma
Sannidhi, Dogganahalli, Koratagere Taluk in the presence and
blessings of elders, relatives and well-wishers and the same
was a registered on 09th December 2013 under the Hindu
marriage Act as per marriage No.IMK-HM4182013-14, CD
No.TMKM12. The marriage certificate and Form No.1 is also
produced. It is submitted that the appellant-accused and
victim are happily living together and out of their wedlock, they
have begotten a boy baby on 25th July 2019 and the place of
birth is Raghavendra Peoples Tree Hospital, BBMP, Bengaluru
which is registered as No.803162/B/B2019/091981. The birth
certificate is also produced. On all these grounds it is sought to
allow the appeal and acquit the appellant. The learned Counsel
for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC
ONLINE SC 614.
6. On the hand, Sri Rangaswamy R, learned High
Court Government Pleader, would support the impugned order
and the submits that the same would not call for interference.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the appellant has made out of ground
to interfere with impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by
the trial Court?
2. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the affirmative
Point No.2: as per final order
Regarding Point No.1:
9. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. It is a case of the prosecution that on 27th May, 2012 at
6:30 am, in a dilapidated Eshwara Temple within the limits of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
Rural Police Station, Tumkur, the appellant committed rape on
CW1 by threatening and thereby committed offence punishable
under sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. To prove the
guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as
PWs1 to 10 and marked eight documents as Exhibits P1 to P8.
PW3 is the victim. She has deposed as to the incident as
alleged in the complaint Exhibit P3. PW1-Mahalakshmi and
PW2-Rudramurthy are the medical officers who examined this
victim. PW4-Kantharaju, father of victim and PW5,
Vijayalakshmi, are the parents of the victim. PW6-
Chikkaveeraiah has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by
the police as per Exhibit P4. PW7-Hanumantaraju is the
hearsay witness. PW8 Umesh K.J. is the PWD Engineer who
has prepared the spot-sketch as per Exhibit P6. PW9-A.V.
Kumar and PW10-V. Mariyappa, are the investigating officers
who speak about their investigation.
10. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is
necessary to mention here as to the statement of the accused
under section 313 of CRPC, which reads as under:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
" .ಆ . . . ೆ 313 ರ ಆ ೋ ಾದ ಾನು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ ೆ
ತನ ತ ೇ ೆಯನು ಸ ಸು ೆ#ೕ ೆ.
¸Áé«Ä,
¦gÁå¢ ಇಂ% ಾ ನನ ನು &ಾಢ(ಾ) *ೕ+ಸು+#ದು, ನನ ನು
ಮದು(ೆ ಾಗ/ೇ ೆಂದು ಇಷ1ಪಟು1 ಹಲ(ಾರು /ಾ6 ಈ 7ಷಯವನು ನನ ಮುಂ9ೆ
ಆ ೆಯ ಅಕ; ಜಯಮ=ಳ ಮುಂ9ೆ ಆ ೆಯ ತಂ9ೆ ಾ> ಮುಂ9ೆ ಮತು# ಅ. ಾ.7
ಹನುಮಂತ ಾಜು ಮುಂ9ೆ ಹಲ(ಾರು /ಾ6 ೇ ರು ಾ#? ೆ. ಾನು ಆ ೆ&ೆ ಎಷು1 ಬು%,
ೇ ದರೂ ೇಳB+#ರ ಲ. ಾನು 79ಾCDಾCಸ Eಾಡು+#9ೆ,ೕ ೆ *ೕ+ Fೆ*ೕಮ ಮದು(ೆ
7ಷಯ ಇಬG6ಗೂ ಒ?ೆIಯದಲ. ಈ 6ೕ+ Jೕನು ನನ ನು ೕKಸ/ಾರದು
79ಾCDಾCಸ ೆ; ೊಂದ ೆ ಾಗುತ#9ೆ Jೕನು ನನ ನು Eಾತ ಾKಸಲು ಬರ/ಾರದು
ಎಂದು ೇ ದರೂ ೇಳB+#ರ ಲ. ಹಲ(ಾರು /ಾ6 ನನ ಾLೇMನ ಹ+#ರ ಬಂದು ಈ
7ಷಯವನು ಪ* ಾ#ಪ Eಾಡು+#ದ,ಳB, Jೕನು ನನ ನು ಮದು(ೆ ಾಗ%ದ, ೆ J9ೆ,
Eಾ ೆ* ನುಂ) ಆತ= ಹ ೆC EಾK ೊಳBIವN9ಾ) ೇಳB+#ದ,ಳB ಆತ=ಹ ೆCಗೂ
ಪ*ಯ+ ಸು+#ದ,ಳB ಮತು# ಹಲ(ಾರು /ಾ6 Oೕ ಮೂಲಕ ೇಳB+#ದ,ಳB
, B. ಒಂದು /ಾ6 % ಾಂಕ :06.05.2012 ರಂದು
ಸಂ9ೇಶಗಳನು ಕಳBQಸು+#ದಳ
ಾನು ಮದು(ೆ ಆಗುವN%ಲ(ೆಂದು ೇ ದ, ೆ; ಅ. ಾ.7 ಹನುಮಂತ ಾಜು ಮತು# ನನ
ಮುಂ9ೆ Fೇಪ ಕಟು1 Eಾಡುವ Rಾಕು7Jಂದ ತನ ಎಡ ೈಯನ ಕುಯು, ೊಂಡು
ಸತು# ೋಗು ೆ#ೕ ೆಂದು Tೕ6ದಳB. ಆಗ ಾನು ಹನುಮಂತ ಾಜು ಮತು# ಮಧು
ಎನು ವ ನನ ೆ ೕQತ, ತುಮಕೂರು 7ಜ ಾ ಆಸV ೆ*&ೆ ೇ6 TW ೆX ೊK 9ೆನು
ಆಸV ೆ*&ೆ ೋದ ತ ಣ, ಆ ೆಯ ಅಕ; ಜಯಮ=J&ೆ Oೕ EಾK ತ ಣ ಆ ೆಯ
ತಂ9ೆಯನೂ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬJ ಈ 6ೕ+ ೆಟ1 ಹಠ Eಾಡು ಾ#? ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ 9ೆ
ಆ ೆಯ ಅಕ; ಜಯಮ= &ೆ ಾನು ಎLಾ 7ಷದ(ಾ) ೇ ಬು%, ೇಳBವಂ ೆ ಈ
6ೕ+ಯ *ೕ+ Fೆ*ೕಮ ಒ?ೆIಯದಲ ಾ7ನೂ 79ಾCDಾCಸ Eಾಡು+#9ೆ,ೕ(ೆ ಬು%, ೇ
ಎಂದು ೇ ೊಂ[ೆ. ಅದನ ೇ ೊಂಡ ಇಂ% ಾ ತನ ೈ&ೆ ಾWದ, K*\ ೆಟ1ನ
]1Jಂದ Wತು# ^ ಾWದಳB, ಜಯಮ= ಬು%, ೇ ದರೂ ೇಳ _ಲ. ನಂತರ ಆ ೆಯ
ತಂ9ೆ ತಮ= ರ`ೕಶ ಆ ೆಯ Tಕ;ಪV ಾಗ ಾಜುರವರೂ ಕೂಡ ಆಸV ೆ*&ೆ ಬಂದು
ೋK ೊಂಡು ೋ)ರು ಾ# ೆ. ಅವ ೆಲ ಬು%, ೇ ದರೂ ಆ ೆ ೇಳB+#ರ ಲ, 3
%ನಗಳ ಾಲ ಆಸV ೆ*ಯ TW ೆX ಪ[ೆದು ೊಂKರು ಾ#? ೆ. ನಂತರವa ಕೂಡ ಇ9ೇ
6ೕ+ ನನ ನು ಮದು(ೆ ಾಗ/ೇ ೆಂದು ೕKಸು+#ದ,ಳB ಾನು ಇಲ(ೆಂದ ೆ ನನ
`ೕLೆ ಹುRಾbಪcೆ1 cಾ1ಗು+#ದ,ಳB, % ಾಂಕ 11.06.2012 ರಂದು ಸಂdೆ ನನ&ೆ
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
Oೕ EಾK JEಾ&ೆ ೋ&ೋಣ(ೆಂದು ಕ ೆದಳB ಆಗ ನನ&ೆ ಆಗುವN%ಲ ನನ
Eಾವ ಮಂಜು ಾಥರವರ ೈfಗಳ ಹ+#ರ ಾ ೋ /ೌಂಡ6 ಕಲು
W+# ಾW;9ಾ, ೆಂದು ನನ&ೆ ೋK ೊಂಡು ಬರಲು ೇ ದ,ರು ಅದರಂ ೆ ಾನು
ೋಗ/ೇಕು ಎಂದು ೇ 9ೆ ಅದ ೆ; ಾನು ಬರು ೆ#ೕ ೆ ಅಂತ ೇ ದಳB ಾನದ ೆ;
/ೇಡ(ೆಂ9ೆ. ಸಂdೆ ಸುEಾರು 5-30 ಗಂcೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ೈf ೋK ೊಂಡು
ಯLಾಪNರದ ಹ+#ರ ಬರು+#ರ/ೇ ಾದ ೆ ಾ ೊಬG ೇ ಬರುವNದನು ಕಂಡು ಆ ೆ
ಬಂದು ಾ ೋ ನನ ನು ಅ(ಾCh Eಾಡು+#%,ೕ ಾ ಅಂತ ನನ ೊರಳB ಪ]1
QKದು ನನ `ೕLೆ ಹLೆ EಾK ನನ ಕು+#&ೆ ಹ+#ರ ಎ9ೆಯ ಹ+#ರ ಪರTದಳB ಶಟುi
W ಾ#ಗ ೊರಳ ಪ]1ಯ ಹ+#ರ ಹ6>ತು. ನಂತರ ಾನು ^K ೊಂಡು ನನ ತಂ9ೆ
ಮತು# ನನ EಾವJ&ೆ Oೕ EಾK ನ[ೆದ 7ಷಯ + 9ೆ. ನನ 79ಾCDಾCಸ ೆ;
ಅKj Eಾಡು+#9ಾ,? ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ 9ೆ. Eಾರ ೇ %ನ ಬರುವN9ಾ) ಅವರು ೇ
ಅದರಂ ೆ 12 ೇ ಾ6ೕಖು ಅಂದ ೆ 12.06.2012 ರ 10-30 ಗಂcೆ
ಸಮಯದ O ೕl mಾnೆ&ೆ ೋ) ಆ ೆಯ 7ರುದ, ದೂರು JೕK9ೆವN. O ೕl
ರವರು ಆ ೆಯನ ಕ ೆ ಬು%,(ಾದ ೇಳBವN9ಾ) ಮ ೆ# Jನ ತಂcೆ&ೆ ಬರದಂ ೆ
ೇಳB ೆ#ೕ(ೆ ಇನೂ 79ಾCoiಗಳB ೇಸು /ೇಡ ಎಂದು ಬು%, ೇ ದರು, ಮ ೆ# ನಮ&ೆ
5-00 ಗಂcೆ&ೆ mಾnೆ&ೆ ಬರಲು + ದ,ರು ಅದರಂ ೆ ಾನು ಮ ೆ# mಾnೆ&ೆ ೋ9ಾಗ
ನನ)ಂತ ಮುಂRೆ ಇಂ% ಾ, ಆ ೆಯ ತಂ9ೆ ಾಂತ ಾಜು ಾ> 7ಜಯಲ pಮ=
ಆ ೆಯ ಸಂಬಂq Lೋ ೇಶrರಪV Lಾಯ ಇದ,ರು. O ೕl ನವರು ನನ ನು
mಾnೆಯ ಕೂ6 ೊಂKರಲು ಇಂ% ಾ % ಾಂಕ : 12.06.2012 ರಂದು ಸಂdೆ
ಸುಳBI ಾi% JೕKರುವ 7ಷಯ + >ತು % ಾಂಕ: 13.06.2012 ರಂದು
ಆೆ ಾವN9ೇ ದೂರು JೕKರುವN%ಲ ಾiದನು % ಾಂಕ : 13.06.2012
ರಂದು ಸೃt1 EಾಡLಾ)9ೆ. ಆ ೆ ನನ ನು ಮದು(ೆ ಾಗ/ೇ ೆಂದು ಮತು# ಾನು
ೊಟ1ದೂ6Jಂದ ತ V ೊಳI/ೇ ೆಂದು ನನ 7ರುದu ಸುಳBI ಾiq JೕK ನನ
7ರುದ, ಸುಳBI ಾv ೇ ರು ಾ#? ೆ. ಾನು ಾವ ತಪNV Eಾಡದ Jರಪ ಾq.
% ಾಂಕ 23.10.2012 ರಂದು ಾq ಇಂ% ಾ ಆ ೆಯ w/ೈ_
Jಂದ ಅಂದ ೆ ನಂ.9901436064( ಏ ೆcೆ_ ೕy) ನನ w/ೈ_&ೆ ಅಂದ ೆ
ನಂ.7760626484 "/ಾ ೋ ಎ ಾದರೂ ದೂರ ೋ) ಮದು(ೆ ಆ&ೋಣ ಎಲ
ಸ6 ೋಗು ೆ#ೕ" "ನಂ&ೆ ೋfi ಇಂದ ೋದು* ಕೂಡ ನನ Jನ ಾ6ಂ9ಾನು
ದೂರ Eಾಡ ೆ ಆಗಲ ಕnೋ ೕl ನಂ&ೆ Jೕ ೊಬG ೇ ಕnೋ ೊ ೆತನಕ ಇರು"
" ಾನು ಕ ೆ9ಾ&ೆಲ ಬರ/ೇಕು ಮುದು, Eಾಡ/ೇಕು" "ಎ &ೆ ಕ6+ ಬರ/ೇಕು ಮುz
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
ಾಡ ೇಕು ಎ ಾ ಾಡ ೇಕು ಕ ಾ" ಮುಂ ಾದ ಸಂ ೇಶಗಳನು ಕಳ ರು ಾ ೆ.
ಈ ಸಂ ೇಶಗಳನ ಂ! ೆ"ೆದು ಅವ%ಗಳ * &ಾ'ಯನು )ಾಜರು ಪ, ರು ೇ-ೆ.
ನನ ಾವ ಮಂಜು-ಾ.ರವರ ಾ/ 0 ೕಮ1 ರುದ ಮ2 ತುಮಕೂರು
ಯ ಾಪ%ರದ ಹ1ರ )ೊಂ6ರುವ 7ೈ9ನ ಬ"ೆ; ಕ ಯಪತ ದ <ೆ=ಾ>? ಪ 1ಯನು
)ಾಜರು ಪ, ರು ೇ-ೆ.
6-ಾಂಕ :27.05.2013 ರಂದು ಇಂ6=ಾ"ೆ ಪAೕBೆ ಇ6Cಲ ಆ6ನ
FಾನುGಾರHರುತ ೆ. -ಾನು ಆ6ನ ಆ&ೆಯ <ೊ ೆ ಅವರ ಊA"ೆ )ೋJಲ ಅವರ
ಊAನ ಹ1ರ ಆ&ೆಯು )ೇKರುವಂ ೆ ಆ6ನ Lಾವ ಘಟ-ೆಯೂ ನನ ಆ&ೆಯ ಮOೆP
ನQೆ6ಲ ಎ ಾ ಸೃST ಾ, )ೇK ಾC ೆ. ನನ HರುದC )ೇKರುವ ಅUVೕಜ-ೆಯ
7ಾWಗಳ ೆXೕಷ6ಂದ ಸುಳ Z )ೇKರು ಾ=ೆ. ಆ&ೆ ಘಟ-ೆ ನQೆ/ ೇಂದು )ೇKರುವ
<ಾಗ ೆK"ೆ;/ಂದ =ಾ1 8-00 ಗಂ[ೆಯವ=ೆ"ೆ ಜನರು ಓQಾಡುವ <ಾಗ ]ಜ^ನ
ಪ ೇಶವಲ.
ನನ ನು ]ರಪ=ಾ_`ಂದು ಪAಗa bಡುಗQೆ ಾಡ ೇ&ೆಂದು
"ೌರGಾ]Xತ -ಾPLಾಲಯದd eಾ f^ಸು ೇ-ೆ."
11. PW7-Hanumantaraju, who is the common friend of
both the victim and the accused, in his cross-examination has
deposed that both the accused and the victim developed love
and the victim has been forcing the accused to marry her.
This witness of PW7 clearly reveals that PW3 victim has
suppressed the fact and lodged complaint after lapse of 17 days
from the date of alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to
explain the delay of 17 days in filing the complaint. The
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
evidence of the victim has also not been corroborated with
medical evidence.
12. PW6-Chikkaveeraiah, has deposited that no injury is
found on the person of prosecutrix. There are no signs of a
rape. There are no consistent evidence regarding the venue of
occurrence of incident. In Exhibit P3-comlplaint, the place of
occurrence is shown as in front of Eshwara Temple, but in the
examination-in-chief, the victim has stated that the incident
occurred behind Eshwara Temple. On careful examination of
evidence of victim and the contents of complaint and the
medical evidence, I do not find any cogent, consistent,
corroborative or trustworthy evidence in the prosecution
witnesses. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused
for offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 of Indian
Penal Code, which is not sustainable under law.
13. In addition to this, both the victim and accused
present before the Court today and filed their joint affidavit
stating that they got married on 08th December, 2013, and the
same is also registered on 09th December 2013. They also
begotten a boy baby which is now aged six years. The
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
marriage certificate of the accused and the victim and the birth
certificate of the child, are also produced. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL (supra)
has observed that "Now that the appellant and third respondent
are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing
the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the
appellant, the third respondent and their children."
Since this Court has already held that the prosecution has filed
to prove the guilt of the accused before all reasonable doubt,
there is no need to give any finding on the Joint Affidavit filed
by the victim and accused. Hence, I answer the Point No.1 in
the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
14. For the reasons and discussions aforestated, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 15th April 2014, passed in SC No.265 of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43110
HC-KAR
2012 by the Principal Sessions, Judge,
Tumkur, is set aside;
iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code;
iv) Fine amount if any deposited, be refunded to
the appellant/accused upon due identification
as per relevant Rules.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
