Satisha @ Sathya vs State By Lingadhalli Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1851 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Satisha @ Sathya vs State By Lingadhalli Police on 26 February, 2026

                          -1-
                                    CRL.A No.122 of 2014


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
    DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                        BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.122 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

SATISHA @ SATHYA
S/O SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, COLLIE,
R/O HOSAGANGUR VILLAGE,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. VIGNANANDHA C., ADV.)

AND:

STATE BY LINGADHALLI POLICE,
LINGADHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
                                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
SENTENCE DATED 16.12.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST.
AND S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.60/2010 - CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417,376
AND 306 OF IPC AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   12.12.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                              -2-
                                         CRL.A No.122 of 2014




                      CAV JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by

the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in

Sessions Case No. 16/2010 dated 16.12.2013.

2. The parties herein are referred to as per their

rank they had before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that,

the Circle Inspector of Police, Tarikere Circle,

Chikkamagaluru District laid a charge sheet against the

accused for the offence under Sections 376, 417 and 306

IPC.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused

is known to the family of deceased Kum. Kavitha. She fell

in love with the accused Sathisha, and he promised to

marry her. In that pretext, he used to have sexual

intercourse with the victim frequently, as a result, she

became pregnant and requested the accused to marry her,

but accused refused to marry her. On frustration, the

victim, being 17 years old girl lit fire herself by pouring

Kerosene committed suicide and thereby accused

committed the offences punishable under Sections 376,

417 and 306 of IPC.

5. After filing the charge sheet, the case was

registered in CC No.461/2010. Thereafter case was

committed to the court of Sessions which was registered in

SC No.60/2010. The accused was released on bail on

28.06.2010. Charges were framed against the accused for

the alleged offences. Same was read over and explained

to the accused. Having understood the same, accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, twelve

witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW12. 27 documents

were marked as Exhibit P1 to PW27. Four material objects

were marked as MO1 to 4. On closure of prosecution side

evidence, Statement of the accused under Section 313 of

Cr.PC was recorded. Accused has denied the evidence of

prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead

any defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, trial

Court has convicted the accused for the offence was

punishable under Section 417, 376 and 306 IPC and

passed a sentence for a period of 7 years for the

commission of offence under Section 376 IPC with fine of

Rs.5,000/-. Accused is sentenced to undergo SI for a

period of 4 years for the offence under Section 306 IPC

and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The accused is also

sentenced to undergo for a period of three months for the

offence under Section 479 IPC. Being aggrieved by this

Judgment of Conviction and Order on Sentence, the

appellant has preferred this appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that judgment of conviction and sentence for all

the offences in virtually based on no evidence and is not in

accordance with law. The attempt to commit suicide was

on 25.01.2010 at 09.30 a.m. Injured was taken first

Tharikere Govt. Hospital, then shifted to Mc-Gann

Hospital, Shivamogga. None of the witnesses have

immediately reported the matter to the police.

Prosecution fails to produce any medical records from the

hospital to show as to what was the history given at the

time of admission of the injured to the hospital. Witnesses

to whom the injured is said to have made allegations

against the appellant, have not informed the police

immediately. Only after the miscarriage of the fetus, on

31.01.2010, statement of the deceased has been alleged

to have taken as per Exhibit P13 on 31.01.2010. On that

basis, case has been registered. This delay is not even

tried to explained by the prosecution. There was no

certificate by the Doctor-PW12 in whose presence Exhibit

P13 is allegedly recorded to say that the deceased was in

a fit to condition to give any statement when Exhibit P3

was recorded. This goes very much against the case of

the prosecution. Dying declaration was therefore very

suspicious and could not have been relied upon to convict

the accused. The evidence of PWs1 to 6 to the complicity

of the accused is too general, hearsay and untrustworthy

as there are no direct witnesses to any fact. Their

evidence is just conjunctures. The learned trial judge has

wholly erred in accepting their evidence. Further it is

submitted that the DNA report-Exhibit P22 clearly shows

that appellant was not the biological father of the fetus of

the deceased and this goes to the root of the matter, i.e.

the appellant and deceased were loving each other; that

appellant used to have sexual intercourse with her and

that he later refused to marry her. Hence, the deceased

tried to commit suicide which was awaited by the

appellant.

9. The learned judge has actually ignored the facts

which led to the impugned judgment of conviction and has

resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. The evidence

about the appellant and deceased loving each other and

appellant having sexual intercourse with her frequently is

very bald and the learned Trial Judge has totally erred in

not appreciating this fact. The investigation is defective as

the reasons for delay in submitting FIR, alleged intimacy

of the deceased and appellant, leading to their having

sexual relationship are not investigated properly, there is

no proper evidence to constitute the alleged commission of

offences. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the

appeal.

10. The learned High Court Government Pleader,

Sri. B. Lakshman would submit that the trial court has

properly appreciated the evidence and record in its proper

perspective and there are no grounds to interfere with the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

11. Having heard the arguments on both sides and

perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following

points would arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in

convicting the accused for the commission of

offence under Sections 376, 417 and 306 IPC?

2. What order?

Regarding Point No.1:

12. I have examined the materials placed before

this court.

13. The genesis of the case arose out of the

complaint/dying declaration given by the deceased as per

Exhibit P13. which reads as under:

" ಾನು ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಾಸದ ಾಸ ಾ ರು ೇ ೆ. ನಮ ತಂ ೆ ಾ ಯವ !ೆ ಒಟು$ 4 ಜನ ಮಕ ಳ( ಮೂರು *ೆಣು, ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು. ಾನು ಎರಡ ೇ ಮಗಳ(. ನನ/ ಅಕ 1!ೆ ಅರ23ೆ4ೆ 5ವಕು6ಾ7 ರವ4ೊಂ8!ೆ ಈ!ೆ9 ಸು6ಾರು ಎರಡು ವಷ;ಗಳ <ಂ ೆ ಮದು ೆ 6ಾ=3ೊ>$ ಾ?4ೆ. ಾನು *ೋದ ವಷ; ಅಂದ4ೆ 2009 ೇ @ಾ ನ ಎA. ಎA. ಎB.2 ಪ ೕDೆ

ಬ4ೆ8ದು? ಗFತ ಪGH3ೆ IೇB ಆದ? ಂದ ಈಗ ಪKನಃ ಪ ೕDೆ ಕ>$ರು ೇ ೆ. ಈ!ೆ9 ಸು6ಾರು ಎಂಟು Gಂಗಳ <ಂ81ಂದ ನಮ ಊ4ಾದ *ೊಸಗಂ!ಾರು ಾ2 ಸುಬHಮಣN ರವರ ಮಗ ಸGೕO ರವ4ೊಂ8!ೆ PHೕGಸುGದು? ಅವನು ಸಹ ನನ/ನು/ PHೕGಸುGದ?. <ೕಗೂರು ಾಗ ನನ!ೆ ಸGೕಶನು ಮದು ೆ 6ಾ=3ೊಳ(SವK ಾ ನಂT2 ಆ!ಾ!ೆ9 ಸಂUೋಗ 6ಾಡುGದ?. ಾನು ಸಹ ಮದು ೆVಾಗುವK ಾ *ೇWದ? ೆಂದು ನಂT ಅವನು *ೇWದಂ ೆ 3ೇಳ(G ೆ?. ಕ ೆದ ವಷ; 2009 ೇ @ಾ ನ @ೆXೆ$ಂಬ7 Gಂಗಳ 3ೊ ೆಯ ಾರದ ನಮ!ೆ ಮುYಾ$ ದು? ನಂತರದ ನನ!ೆ ಮುYಾ$ ರ ಲ. *ೊYೆ$ಯೂ ಸಹ ಸZಲ[ ದಪ[ ಾಗು ಾ ಬಂ8ತು. ಈ!ೆ9 18 8ನಗಳ <ಂ ೆ ಾನು ಮ ೆಯ ಾ?ಗ ನನ/ ಾ ಲ\] ರವರು ನನ/ *ೊYೆ$ ೋ= 1ೕನು ಈಗ ಮೂರು ಾಲು GಂಗWಂದ 1ೕರು *ಾ3ೊಂ=ಲ *ೊYೆ$ ^ೇ4ೆ ದಪ[ ಾಗುG ೆ ಏ3ೆ? ಎಂದು 3ೇWದರು. ಾನು ಅವ !ೆ ಏನು ಉತರ 3ೊಡ ೆ ಸುಮ ಾ ೆ.

ನಂತರ       ನನಗೂ       ಸಹ    ಅನು6ಾನ         ಬರ ೊಡ   ನನ/      *ೊYೆ$
ದಪ[ ಾಗುGದ? ಂದ *ಾಗೂ           ಾಂG 6ಾಡುವಂ ೆ ಆಗುGದ? ಂದ           ಾನು
ಗa;F Vಾ ರು ೆ ೆಂದು GWದು3ೊಂbೆನು ಈ              cಾರವನು/    ಾನು ನನ/
ತಂ ೆ,     ಾ     ಯವರ ಬWVಾಗ         ಸGೕO ನ ಬWVಾಗ           ಈ    cಾರ

*ೇWರ ಲ. ಆದರೂ ಮನಸುd ಾಳ ೆ ಸGೕಶನ ಬW ಾನು *ೋ ನನ/ನು/ ಆದಷು$ ^ೇಗ ಮದು ೆ 6ಾ=3ೋ ಎಂದು 3ೇWದ?3ೆ ಅವನು ಮದು ೆVಾಗಲು ನನ/ನು/ 14ಾಕ 2ದನು ಇದ ಂದ ನನ!ೆ ಮನ2d!ೆ ತುಂ^ಾ ^ೇಸರ ಾಗುGದು? 8 ಾಂಕ 25.01.2010ರಂದು ^ೆಳ!ೆ9 ಸು6ಾರು 9:30 ಗಂYೆಯ ನಮ ತಂ ೆ, ತಂ , ತಮ *ೊರ!ೆ *ೋ ಾಗ ಾನು ಾ XಾತH ೊ ೆಯಲು *ೋ ಾಗ ಮ ೆಯ >$ದ? 2ೕ ಎfೆ, 3ಾNg ೆ!ೆದು3ೊಂಡು ೖ ೕiೆ 2ೕ ಎfೆ, ಸು ದು3ೊಂಡು ^ೆಂj ಹkl3ೊಂbೆನು. ಇದ ಂದ ನನ/ ತiೆ ಕೂದಲು ಎರಡು ಕಣು, *ಾಗೂ ಅದರ ಸುತ ನ Uಾಗ ಮತು ಎರಡು 3ಾಲುಗಳ Xಾದಗಳನು/ *ೊರತು ಪ=2 ಉWದ ಶ ೕರದ ಎiಾ UಾಗವK ಸುಟು$ !ಾಯ ಾ ರುತ ೆ. ಾನು ^ೆಂj ಉ ಾಳiಾರ ೆ ಕೂ 3ೊಂbಾಗ ನನ/ ಾ ಓ= ಬಂದು ೖ !ೆ 1ೕರು *ಾj 3ೆ=2ದರು ಅವರು ಸಹ ಕೂ!ಾಡುGದ? ಂದ ಪಕ ದ ಮ ೆ ಅಣ,ಪ[, 6ಾವ ಮ*ೇಶ, kಕ ಮ ಮಂಜು ಾ *ಾಗೂ ಊ ನ ಜನರು ಬಂದರು. ನನ!ೆ ಾ ದ? ^ೆಂj ನಂ82 ತ ೕ3ೆ4ೆ ಆಸ[ ೆH!ೆ @ೇ 2ದು? ಅ ಂದ 5ವnಗ9 ಗg ಆಸ[ ೆH!ೆ

kj ೆd!ೆ @ೇ 2ರು ಾ4ೆ ಾನು kj ೆd ಪbೆಯುGರು ಾಗ 8 ಾಂಕ 30 1 2010 ರಂದು ಸಂoೆ 5:30 ಗಂYೆ ಸಮಯದ ಾನು ಧ 2ದ? ಗಭ;ವ *ೊರ *ೋ ರು ೆ ಆಗ ೈದNರು ನಮ ತಂ ೆ ಾ ಯವ !ೆ cಾರ GW2ದು? ನಮ ತಂ ೆ ಾ ಯವ !ೆ ಾನು ೕ ನ ವಗ; ಅಂದ4ೆ ನಮ ಊ ನ ಸG @ ಸGೕO ಈತ ೊಂ8!ೆ PHೕG 6ಾಡುGದು? ಆ ಸಂದಭ;ದ ನನ!ೆ ಮದು ೆ 6ಾ=3ೊಳ(SವK ಾ ನಂT2 ಸಂUೋಗ 6ಾಡುGದ? ೆಂದು *ಾಗೂ ನr ಬsರಲೂ ೈ<ಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇರುವ cಾರ GW2 ಈಗ ನನ!ೆ ಮದು ೆVಾಗಲು 14ಾಕ ಸುGದ? ೆಂದು GW2 ೆ. ಈ cಾರದ tೕ 2!ೆ ದೂರು 3ೊಡ^ೇ3ೆಂಬುದು ನನ!ೆ GW8ರ ಲ, ನನ/ ತಂ ೆ ಾ ಯವ4ೆಗೂ ಸಹ ದೂರು 3ೊಡಲು Gಳ(ವW3ೆ ಇರುವK8ಲ. ಈ 8ನ ಂಗದಹWS t ೕಸರು ಗg ಆಸ[ ೆH!ೆ ಬಂ ಾಗ *ೇW3ೆ 1ೕ=ರು ೇ ೆ ನನ/ನು/ ನಂT2 ಸಂUೋಗ 6ಾ=ದ ಸGೕಶನ ೕiೆ ಸೂಕ 3ಾನೂನು ಕHಮ 3ೈ!ೊಳSಲು 3ೋರು ೇ ೆ."

14. Though the alleged incident took place on

25.01.2010, no complaint is filed against the accused till

31.01.2010. Only on 31.01.2010, police officer has

recorded the statement of the victim in the presence of

Medical Officers-PW9 and PW12. The Investigating Officer

has not collected the case sheet maintained by the

concerned Hospital. PW2-Chandarappa has not whispered

anything as to the history of admission of this victim on

25.01.2010.

- 10 -