Karnataka High Court

Dr. Rajesh S/O Subhash Telang vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514
                                                     CRL.A No. 200036 of 2023


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA


                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200036 OF 2023
                                    (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   DR. RAJESH S/O SUBHAS TELANG,
                   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                   OCC: BAMS (AYU) DOCTOR,
                   R/O. BEHIND DEGREE COLLEGE,
                   HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330.

                                                                   ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR           1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH          BY HUMNABAD POLICE STATION-585330,
COURT OF                (REPT BY ASPP, H.C. KAR. KLB-585 103).
KARNATAKA
                   2.   VICTIM D/O. SHRIKANT CHAWAN,
                        R/O. BEHIND DEGREE COLLEGE,
                        HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 353.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP, FOR R1;
                    SRI SUDHEER KULKARNI, ADVOCATE, FOR R2)
                               -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514
                                         CRL.A No. 200036 of 2023


HC-KAR




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
OF CONVICTION DT: 28-11-2022 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DT:29-11-2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 376(3) AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 5(j), 6
AND 8 OF POCSO ACT, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, SITTING AT BASAVAKALAYAN, IN
SPL.CASE NO.5007/2021.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G. UMA)

The appellant being the accused in Spl.Case

No.5007/2024 on the file of the learned II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at

Basavakalyan, is impugning the judgment of conviction

dated 28.11.2022 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2022

convicting him for the offences punishable under Section

376(3) and 506 of India Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and

Sections 4, 5(j), 6 and 8 of Protection of children from

Sexual Offences Act, [for short 'POCSO Act'], sentencing

him as under:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

"1. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20-years and shall pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakhs only) for the offence punishable under section 376(3) of IPC., in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2-year.

2. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC., in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 5 months.

3. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7-years and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakhs only) for the offence punishable under section 4 of Pocso Act, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1-year.

4. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10-years and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakhs only) for the offence punishable under section 5(j) of Pocso Act in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1-year.

5. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10-years and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakhs only) for the offence punishable under section 6 of Pocso Act in

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for

2 years.

6. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10-years and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 8 of POCSO Act in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 5 months.

All the sentences shall run concurrently."

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, PW1

being the mother of the victim girl, lodged the first

information as per Ex.P1 with Humnabad Police Station,

against the accused, alleging commission of the offences

as aforesaid. The investigation was undertaken. The

Police after apprehending the accused, recorded the

statements of the victim and other witnesses and final

report came to be filed against the accused.

3. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the

offence and registered Spl.C.No.5007/2021. Accused

appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for

the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

The prosecution in order to prove its contention, examined

PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to P42 and identified

M.O.1 to 5. Accused denied all the incriminating materials

available on record, examined himself as DW1 and got

marked Exs.D1 to D9 in support of his defence. The Trial

Court after taking in to consideration all these materials on

record held that, the prosecution is successful in proving

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the

aforesaid offences and accordingly, passed the impugned

judgment of conviction and order to sentence. Being

aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and

Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent No.1-State, Sri.Sudheer

Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Perused the materials on record, including the Trial Court

records.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by

learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise

for my consideration is:

"Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative',

for the following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the

victim along with her family was residing in the ground

floor of the building, while the accused along with his

family was residing in the first floor. On 27.11.2020 at

10.00 a.m., when the victim girl was in the balcony of the

accused, he induced her of giving dresses, took her inside

his bedroom and committed rape. Later, she was

criminally intimidated not to disclose this fact to anybody

else. The victim was aged 16 years and was a minor.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

Therefore, it is alleged that the accused committed the

offence punishable under Section 376(3) and 506 of IPC

and under Sections 4, 5(j), 6 and 8 of POCSO Act.

7. In order to prove its contention, prosecution

examined PW1-the mother of the victim girl, who lodged

the first information as per Ex.P1. Even though this

witness supported the case of the prosecution in her

examination-in-chief, during cross-examination, she has

given go-by to her contention and stated that the accused

has not committed any offence. However, she stated

during cross-examination by the learned prosecutor that,

she had compromised the matter with the accused.

8. PWs.2 and 3 are the mahazar witnesses,

wherein, the clothes and other articles were seized. PW4

is the victim herself. She has not supported the case of

the prosecution. During cross-examination by the learned

Prosecutor, she denied all the suggestions. She denied

that the accused has committed any offence as alleged.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

PW5 is the father, PWs.6 and 9 are the Uncles, PW7 is the

Aunt and PW10 is the brother of the victim. PW8 is the

hearsay witness. None of these witnesses have supported

the case of the prosecution.

9. It is the contention of the prosecution that,

even though the incident had occurred on 27.11.2020 at

10.00 a.m., the victim informed this fact to her mother

only on 24.01.2021. Thereafter, PW1 lodged the first

information as per Ex.P1 on 26.01.2021. The victim was

subjected to medical examination on 27.01.2021. Ex.P38

is the Medical Report issued by the Medical Officer,

General Hospital, Humnabad, regarding examination of the

victim girl. It suggests that, as per the ultrasound of the

abdomen pertaining to the victim, she was 9 weeks and 6

days pregnant. As per the Report of the Dentist, the

victim was aged between 15 to 17 years. Hymen was

torn. Semen was not detected in clothes. There were no

injuries either on the private parts or any part of the body.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

Foreign pubic hair was not found. Blood stains were also

not found on any articles.

10. As per P.F.10/2021 dated 27.01.2021, article

Nos.1 to 8 mentioned therein were collected from the

victim at the time of her examination. Article Nos.9 to 20

were collected from the accused in the Government

Hospital, Humnabad, after his apprehension. Article

Nos.21 to 23 were seized at the instance of the accused.

Article Nos.24 and 25 were seized as the same were

produced by the victim girl. Article Nos.26 and 27 are

samples collected by the Medical Officer in the presence of

the learned Sessions Judge from the victim girl. Article

Nos.28 and 29 were collected from the accused on

06.02.2021 by the Medical Officer in the presence of

learned Sessions Judge. Article Nos. 30 and 31 were

collected by the Medical Officer at BRIMS, Bidar after

medical termination of pregnancy of the victim girl on

07.02.2021.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

11. Ex.P41 is the DNA test report issued by the

Senior Scientific Officer, DNA Section, State Forensic

Science, Bengaluru. Six items mentioned in the report

were subjected to examination. The result of the

examination discloses that, the amplicons in item No.6

i.e., the plastic container said to contain product of

conception collected from the victim by the Medical Officer

was not sufficient for DNA profiling. DNA profiling result of

the victim and the accused as shown in item Nos.1, 3 and

5 were not taken up for examination. Since, in the result

of examination, it is stated that the amplicons in item No.6

was not sufficient for DNA profiling. The final opinion about

the DNA profiling is not given by the Scientific Officer.

12. From the facts of the case, except the victim,

there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. PW.1-the

mother has lodged the first information on the basis of the

information provided to her by the victim. Victim has not

supported the case of the prosecution. The medical

examination of the victim was held on 27.01.2021 i.e.,

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

after registration of the FIR. It was about two months after

the date of the incident which is said to have occurred on

27.11.2020. Even though as per Ex.P38, the victim was

pregnant, the gestational period of the fetus was 9 weeks

and 6 days, that will take us back to the first week of

December 2020. However, as per the case made out by

the prosecution, the incident had occurred on 27.11.2020.

Interestingly, neither the Medical Officer nor the Scientific

Officer, who issued the test report of DNA profiling by

examined before the Trial Court. All those relevant

documents are marked through the Investigating Officer

and nobody has spoken about the same.

13. From these materials on record, it is to be

concluded that, there are no legal evidences to connect

the accused to the offence in question and to hold that the

prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt. Only on the ground

that, PW.1 has supported the case of the prosecution in

her chief-examination and later turned hostile and

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

admitted that she has compromised the matter with the

accused cannot be the basis to convict the accused. Under

such circumstances, the accused is entitled for the benefit

of doubt and he needs to be acquitted.

14. I have gone through the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

The Trial Court proceeded to observe in the judgment that,

the examination of blood sample of the victim girl as per

DNA test report, paternity of the child was matched with

the blood sample of the accused. This observation made

by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and without

any basis. I do not find any such opinion given in any of

the documents, much less in Exs.P40 and 41 referred to

by the Trial Court. Therefore, it is to be concluded that the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentenced

passed by the Trial Court is illegal, perverse and it is

against the materials that are placed before it. Under such

circumstances, the same is liable to be set aside.

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

15. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The Judgment of conviction dated

28.11.2022 and order of Sentence dated

29.11.2022 passed in Spl.C.No.5007/2021,

on the file of learned II Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at

Basavakalyan, is hereby set aside.

Consequently, the appellant/accused is

acquitted for the offence punishable under

Sections 376(3) and 506 of IPC and under

Sections 4, 5(j), 6 and 8 of POCSO Act.

(iii) Bail bond of the appellant/accused and that

of his sureties shall stand cancelled.

(iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the

appellant/accused is ordered to be refunded

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5514

HC-KAR

to him, on due identification, after appeal