Lohith S/O K R Puppegowda vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1945 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Lohith S/O K R Puppegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2026

                             -1-
                                    CRL.A No.495 of 2013


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.495 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

LOHITH
S/O K. R. PUPPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
R/O KABBIGERE VILLAGE
AMBLE HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHIKMAGALUR RURAL POLICE STATION
CHIKMAGALUR - 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 ORDER DATED: 26.3.13 PASSED
BY THE ADDL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.90/2008 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 376 OF IPC AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   19.12.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                           CRL.A No.495 of 2013




CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                        CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of conviction dated 26th March, 2013 and order on

sentence dated 27th March 2013 passed by the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in SC No.90 of

2008.

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 this appeal are that, the Circle

Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru,

0submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence

under Section 376 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that

on 08th March, 2008 at 11.00 am, in Kabbigere Village, when

PW1-victim girl aged about 18 years was alone in the house,

the accused, though being a neighbour, stealthily entered into

the house of the victim, when she was attending work in the

bathroom, closed the front door, forcibly took the victim to the

Hall and committed rape without her consent and against her

will and thereby committed the offence punishable under

Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the

Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against

the accused and case was registered in CC No.945 of 2008.

The accused entered appearance before the trial Court and was

enlarged on bail. The case was committed to the Court of

Sessions and the was registered as SC No.90 of 2008. The trial

Court, on hearing the charges, framed charges for the offence

punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, same was

read over and explained to the accused. Having understood

the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

has examined 15 witnesses as PWs1 to PW15 and 20

documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P20. On closure of

prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under

Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused has totally

denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the

accused himself examined as DW.1 and another witness as

DW.2. Five documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D5.

5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial

Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and passed a sentence

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years with

fine of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of

conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred

this appeal.

6. Sri Mohan Bhat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and

sentence is highly erroneous and contrary to law. He would

submit that learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the

delay in lodging the complaint for the offence punishable under

Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as the prosecutrix

was normal on 14th March, 2008 itself as per the case sheet

produced at Exhibit D2. However, her statement was recorded

on 27th March, 2008. The said inordinate delay was neither

explained in the complaint nor before the trial Court. However,

the learned Sessions Judge, without appreciating these material

facts, has passed the impugned judgment. Same is liable to be

set aside.

7. The learned Sessions Judge also failed to appreciate the

fact that the statement of none of the witnesses was recorded

by the respondent-Police after the first complaint was lodged by

the father of prosecutrix on 10th March, 2008. No statements

were recorded for about 18 days though the complaint was to

the effect of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix. In the

complaint-Exhibit P4, the name of Vedamurthy, who was the

brother-in-law of the prosecutrix and other villagers whom the

said Vedamurthy had known, was brought to the notice of the

respondent-Police. But, Statement of any witness was not

recorded. This creates doubt regarding the incident of rape

itself as the said incident would have been reported to the

police on 10th March, 2008. According to the case of the

prosecution, PWs6 to 8 apprehended the appellant and made

enquiries with the prosecutrix on the date of incident itself, and

it was brought to the notice of PW5-father of the prosecutrix.

However, statement of any of the witness was not recorded by

the respondent till 28th March, 2008, until PW6 gave a

statement on 27th March, 2008. This discrepancy is very fatal

to the case of the prosecution, as it clearly demonstrates a

booby trap against the appellant. However, the learned

Sessions Judge, without appreciating these material facts, has

passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

which is unsustainable.

8. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge

has relied on the statement of PW.1-prosecutrix, to come to the

conclusion that the appellant was guilty. However, there were

no antecedents prior to the alleged incident which indicates

involvement of the appellant in the alleged crime. The learned

Sessions Judge relied upon the facts alleged to have been made

by the appellant before the panchayat. However, no such facts

were brought by the prosecution that there was a panchayat

convened on 09th March, 2008. The deposition of the

prosecutrix that the mother of the appellant demanded a sum

of Rs.3,00,000/-, is falsified by the complaint-Exhibit P4 by the

father of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW5. Thus,

there were many contradictions which were brought in the

cross-examination of the prosecutrix which were not considered

by the learned Sessions Judge.

9. Further, it is submitted that the case of the prosecution

was that the appellant was wearing pant and shirt at the time

of incident. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has

stated that appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with the

prosecutrix within 2 to 3 seconds. It is unbelievable that

appellant can perform sexual intercourse in 2 to 3 seconds

twice. That apart, the clothes which the appellant was wearing

were not seized by the respondent Police. The Doctor who

examined the prosecutrix has opined that vagina of the

prosecutrix admits two fingers, which clearly indicate that

prosecutrix was prone to sexual intercourse as the penetration

would not result into the state of the opinion of the experts in

the present case.

10. Further, it is submitted that the learned trial Judge has

reposed much confidence in the evidence of PW6-Vedamuthy,

who is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. The learned

Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that PW6-

Vedmurthy was working in the thrashing yard of the appellant

who heard the screaming of prosecuritx at around 11.00 am. It

is very strange that PW6 and PW7 were returning at 11.00 am

after having their breakfast, as they were hired for work in the

village where breakfast was offered. Thus, the very presence

of Vedamurthy is doubtful, whose statement ought to have

been recorded by the respondent Police much earlier to 28th

March, 2008, as his name finds place in the first complaint

dated 10th March, 2008. Therefore, there is no weight that

would have been attached to the evidence of PW5 by the

learned Sessions Judge.

11. As far as evidence of PW3 is concerned, he is only a

circumstantial witness and therefore, he is a hearsay witness.

However, the learned Sessions Judge has taken the evidence of

PWs5 and 3 as corroborative to the evidence of PW1. It

appears that PW3 has been examined as circumstantial witness

to explain about convening of panchayat. PW4 was the witness

of the Exhibit P3-Mahazar, which was recorded upon the

complaint on 10th March, 2008. However, the learned Sessions

Judge has relied upon these witnesses to pass the judgment of

conviction.

12. It is further submitted that according to the case of the

prosecution, Exhibit P3-Mahazar was conducted on 11th March,

2008. PW.5, who was present, has signed the mahazar as a

witness. However, on the said date, no statement of the said

Vedamurthy was recorded nor the said Vedamurthy disclosed

about the commission of rape on the said date. This clearly

indicates that a false case has been foisted against the

appellant. Subsequently, a complaint was registered for the

offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code against the

accused as the father of the prosecuritx and others were

mentally harassing the appellant to marry the prosecuritx.

Therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the

appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to take into

consideration the omissions and contradictions in the evidence

of PW1, though were elaborately brought out during the cross-

examination.

13. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that

the alleged incident took place on 08th March, 2008, but

complaint filed on 10th March, 2008 and on the basis of that

complaint, a criminal case was registered in a Crime

No.108/2008 of Chikkamagaluru Rural Police Station for the

offence under Section 354 of IPC and submitted FIR to the

Court. On 27th March, 2008, after recording the statement of

the victim, the case was registered in Crime No. 108(A) of

2008, as per Exhibit P20, for the offence punishable under

Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. On the date of incident, the

victim has consumed a poison. On 3rd May, 2008, the mother

of the accused lodged complaint with the Police against four

persons.

14. As per Ex.P4, one Shivakumar-PW.6 had lodged a

complaint. On the basis of the said complainant, the police

have registered the case in Crime No.108 of 2008 for the

offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and submitted the

FIR to the Court. In Ex.P4, there is no allegation as to the

commission of rape. It is alleged in the complaint that the

accused entered to the house of the victim, caught hold her

and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. After lapse of

19 days from the date of incident, police have recorded the

- 10 -

statement of the victim-PW1. On the basis of the said

statement, on 27th March, 2008, police have registered the

case in Crime No.108(A) of 2008 against the accused for the

offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. After the

alleged incident dated 08.03.2008, the accused has consumed

poison and he was admitted to the hospital. On 10th March,

2008, the mother of the accused Smt.Sharadamma-PW2,

lodged a complaint as per Exhibit D3. On receipt of the said

complaint, the case was registered in Crime No.107 of 2008 by

the Chikkamagaluru Rural Police against Shivakumara,

Vedamurthy, Theerthagowda, Prakash and others, for the

offence punishable under Sections 306 and 511 of Indian Penal

Code.

15. Exhibit-D5, is the requisition letter submitted by the Sub-

Inspector of Police to the jurisdictional Magistrate to insert the

offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code instead of Section

354 Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the victim has

consumed poison and lost her conscious and she regained her

conscious on 20th March, 2008.

16. Exhibit D2 is the case sheet dated 14th March, 2008 of

Aralaguppe Mallegowda District Hospital, reveals that the victim

has gained conscious and Medical Officer has noted that and

- 11 -

ordered to shift the victim to the Female Ward. In Exhibit D2 it

is stated that case is registered as medico-legal case for

consuming of poison. The name of the accused is not shown in

Exhibit D2. The history of consuming poison is also not

disclosed. However, the complainant-Shivakumara has not

disclosed the commission of rape said to have been committed

by the accused.

17. In the examination-in-chief of PW1 at paragraph No.9, he

has stated that the victim has gained conscious after 2-3 days

from the date of alleged incident. The Investigating Officer has

not produced the case sheet maintained by the concerned

hospital to show the condition of the victim. Except Exhibit P9-

Discharge Summary, Investigating Officer has not produced

any documents. In the history of rape, the name of the

accused is not mentioned. There is no medical evidence to

show that there was a sexual intercourse alleged to have been

committed by the accused. Doctor's opinion also does not

disclose the name of the accused. The trial court has failed to

appreciate the evidence and record in proper perspective.

Hence he sought for allowing the appeal. On all these grounds

the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

- 12 -

18. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would

submit that the trial court has properly appreciated the material

on record in proper perspective and there are no grounds to

interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, the following point would arise for consideration:

1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting

the accused for the offence under Section 376 of

Indian Penal Code?

2. What order?

20. My answer to the above points are:

Point No.1: in the negative;

Point No.2: as per final order.

Regarding Point No.1:

21. I have carefully examined the materials placed before this

Court. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chikkamagaluru Rural

Police Station, submitted charge sheet against the accused for

the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. It is

- 13 -

alleged by the prosecution that on 08th March, 2008 at 11.00

am in Kabbigere village, when the victim who is aged 18 years

was attending work in the bathroom, the accused stealthily

entered into the house of the victim, locked the door, forcibly

took her to the hall and committed rape without her consent

and against her will. To substantiate the guilt of the accused,

prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses as PWs1 to 15,

marked 20 documents as Exhibits P1 to P20.

22. The genesis of the case arise from the filing of complaint-

Exhibit P1 by the victim. As per the complaint, the alleged

incident took place on 08th March, 2008 at 11.00 am.

Accordingly, First Information Report was submitted to the

Court on 27th March, 2008 at 12.25 pm as per Exhibit P20.

Earlier to the present First Information Report, case was

registered against the accused in Crime No.108 of 2008, under

Section 354 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint

filed by one Shivakumar-PW5, father of the victim on 10th

March, 2008. After delay of eighteen days i.e. on 27th March,

2008, after the accused obtaining anticipatory bail, the second

complaint was lodged by the victim alleging the offence under

Section 376, which came to be registered in Crime No.108(A)

of 2008.

- 14 -

23. The alleged incident took place on 8th March, 2008.

Complaint came to be filed on 10th March, 2008. On the basis

of the complaint Circle Inspector of rural Police Station

Chikkamagaluru, registered a case in crime number 108 of

2008 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian

Penal Code and submitted FIR to the Court on 27th March,

2008. Exhibit P20 is the continuation of Crime No.108 of 2008

and after investigation, the investigating officer submitted

charge-sheet pertaining to Crime No.108 of 2008 against the

accused for commission of offence under section 376 of Indian

Penal Code.

24. PW1-victim has deposed that on the date of incident, a

panchayat was held by the elders of the village. In the

Panchayat, the accused has agreed to marry the victim. On the

same day at midnight 2 am, the accused has consumed poison.

The parents of the victim and other people who were in the

house went to the house of the accused. By that time, she was

alone in the house. Being alarmed with the same, she

consumed insecticide and lost conscious. Her father gave her

first aid and when she regained conscious, she was at

Government Hospital Chikkamagaluru. Thereafter, Police have

enquired her and recorded her statement as per Exhibit P1.

- 15 -

25. DW1-Lohit has deposed that he has not committed any

offence as alleged against him. On 8th March, 2008, he has not

committed rape on PW1 and he did not enter into the house of

PW1. On that day, at 9.00 am scuffle took place between PW6

Vedamurthy, the father-in-law of PW1 and himself. PW6

quarrelled with him and assaulted him. PW6-Vedamurthy,

PW5-Shivakumar, Ravi, Thirthagowda, and Prakash came to

the House of the accused and compelled him to marry PW1. He

did not agree to the proposal. Then they assaulted him. Though

he has not committed any offence, he was insulted in the

presence of villagers. Hence, on 08th March, 2008 during night,

he consumed poison. Then his relatives shifted him to hospital

at Chikkamagaluru. His mother Sharadamma has lodged

complaint against PW5-Shivakumar, PW6-Vedamurthy, Prakash

Ravi, etc. In this regard, a case was registered against them in

Crime No.107 of 2008 for offence under section 306, 511 of

Indian penal code. Only to take revenge against his mother,

false case was registered against him under Section 354 of

Indian Penal Code. He has obtained anticipatory bail. Upon

noticing the same, another complaint was filed intersection 376

of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.108(A) of 2008.

- 16 -

26. DW2-Smt. Sharadamma, mother of accused, as stated

as to the filing of complaint against the accused Sivakumar,

Veda Murthy, Tirthagowda, Prakash and Ravi. Exhibit D3 is

the complaint filed by Sharadamma in which it is stated as

under:

" ಾನು ೕಲ ಂಡ ಾಸದ ನನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವgÉÆA ೆ ಾಸ ಾ ದು ವ ವ ಾಯ ವೃ !"ಂದ #ೕವನ $ಾ%&ೊಂ%ರು)ೆ!ೕ ೆ. ನನ ೆ 2 ಜನ -ೆಣು/ ಮಕ ಳ2 ಮತು! 2 ಜನ ಗಂಡು ಮಕ ಳ2 ಇದು 2 ಜನ -ೆಣು/ಮಕ ಳ ಲಗ ಾ ರುತ!6ೆ. ಗಂಡು ಮಕ ಳ 8ೈ: 1 ೇ <ೋ=> 2 ೇ ಮ-ೇ? ಆ ದು 2 ಜನ ಜAೕನು &ೆಲಸ $ಾ%&ೊಂ%ರು)ಾ!Bೆ. ನಮC ಮ ೆಯ ಹ !ರದ Eೕ ನಮC ಜ ಾಂಗದವBಾದ Fವಕು$ಾರ ಎಂಬುವವರ ಮ ೆ"ದು ಇವHಗೂ 2 ಜನ -ೆಣು/ ಮಕ ಳ2 ಒಬJ ಮಗ ಇರು)ಾ! ೆ. ಪರಸLರ ಾವMಗಳ2 ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯವರು Oೆ ಾ 6ೆ ವM £À£Àß »jAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ ÉÆûvÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ÉÆûvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 28 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì DVzÀÄÝ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉA¢zÉݪÀÅ ಈ ರು ಾಗ ನನ ಮಗQಗೂ Fವಕು$ಾರ ಮಗಳ2 $ಾ<ಾRಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧ ರುವ ಬ ೆT ಾಂಕ:08.03.2008 YೆR ೆT ಸು$ಾರು 1.30 ಗಂZೆ ಸಮಯದ ೕಥ\, ೇದಮೂ \, ರ , ಪ^&ಾಶ ಮತು! ಇತರರು ÉÆûvÀ ಮದು ೆ $ಾಡYೇ&ೆಂದು ಉ6ೆ ೕಶಪಟುa -ೊbೆದು ಗ<ಾZೆ $ಾ% <ೋ=ತQ ೆ ಮತು! ಮತು! $ಾ<ಾRಗೂ ಮದು ೆ ತcಾH ನbೆdದರು ಇವHಬJರ e^ೕ ಇ6ೆ ಇಲ ೊ !ಲ. ಾಂಕ:08.03.2008 ರಂದು Bಾ ^ ಸು$ಾರು 2 ಗಂZೆ ವBೆಗೂ ಪಂOಾ" $ಾ% ನನ ಮಗQ ೆ =ಂ ೆ &ೊಡು ಾಗ ಾನು ಸುಮC ೆ ಇದು ೋ%ರು)ೆ!ೕ ೆ ನಂತರ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು Bಾ ^ ಸು$ಾರು 2 ಗಂZೆಯ $ಾ ನ ¥sÀಸಲು ಮತು! ಅªÀgÉ ಡ&ೆ Mbೆಯಲು ತಂ ದ :^A ಾಶಕ ಔಷhಯನು ೇವ ೆ $ಾ%6ಾಗ i:)ೆj ೆ iಕ ಮAಗಳkರು ಎಂ.# ಆಸL)ೆ^ ೆ ನಮೂCHನ ¥ÀÆuÉÃð±À ಎಂಬುವರ &ಾHನ ಕBೆದು&ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಆಸL)ೆ^ ೆ ೇHd ೈದ Hಂದ i:)ೆj &ೊ%dದವM, ಬRಕ ೈದ ರ ಸಲ-ೆಯಂ)ೆ <ೋ=ತನನು ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09.03.2008 ಮlಾ ನ -ಾಸನದ ಮಂಗಳ ಆಸL)ೆ^ ೆ ಕBೆದು&ೊಂಡು -ೋ i:)ೆj ೆ ೇHdದು ಈಗ ಒಳBೋ cಾ i:)ೆj ಪbೆಯು !6ಾ ೆ ನನ ಮಗ $ಾತ ಾಡುವ dm ಯ ಇರುವM ಲ $ಾ)ಾಡಲು ಬಂದ ಬRಕ ಸತ ಸnರೂಪವನು Rಯಬಹುದು ನನ ಮಗQ ೆ Fವಕು$ಾರ, ೕಥ\, ೇದ, ರ , ಪ^&ಾಶ ಮತು! ಇತರರು ೇH =ಂ ೆ &ೊoaದ Hಂದ

- 17 -

ಮನ ೊಂದು ಷ ೇವ ೆ $ಾ%ರು)ಾ! ೆ. ಈ ಬ ೆT ೕಲ ಂಡವರ ೕ<ೆ &ಾನೂನು ಕ^ಮ ಜರು ಸYೇ&ಾ &ೇR&ೊಳ2p)ೆ!ೕ ೆ."

27. On the basis of the said complaint, Chikkamagaluru Police

have registered case in Crime No.107 of 2008, against one

Shivakumar, Tirthagowda, Vedamurthy, Ravi and others for

offence under Section 306 and 511 of Indian penal code.

Exhibit D5 is the requisition submitted by the Sub-Inspector

Chikkamagaluru Rural Police Station to JMFC, Chikkamagaluru

to convert the offence from Section 354 of Indian Penal Code to

the one under section 376 of IPC. This requisition reveals that

the victim had gained conscious on 26th March 2008. During

the course of cross-examination of PW1, it is stated that she

gained conscious in Government Hospital Chikkamagaluru after

2 to 3 days from the date of incident.

28. Exhibit D2 is the case-sheet maintained by Aralaguppe

Mallegowda District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru. This case sheet

dated 14th March 2008, reveals that the victim has gained

conscious and the medical officer has ordered to shift the victim

to the female ward. It further reveals that the case was

registered as medico-legal case for consumption of poison. The

name of the accused is not shown in Exhibit D2. History of

consuming of poison is not disclosed in Exhibit D2.

- 18 -

Complainant-Shivakumar has not disclosed as to the

commission of rape said to have been committed by accused.

In examination-in-chief of PW1, at paragraph nine, he has

stated that victim has gained conscious after 2 to 3 days from

the date of the alleged incident. Investigating officer has not

produced the case sheet. The Investigating officer has also not

explained anything as to non-production of case sheet

maintained at the concerned hospital to show the condition of

the victim.

29. Except Exhibit P9-Discharge Summary, investigating

officer has not produced any document. In the history of a

rape, the name of accused is not shown. Fortunately, accused

has produced Exhibit D2 the case sheet maintained by

Mallegowda District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru, pertaining to the

victim. In that, there is no evidence to show that there was

sexual intercourse said to have committed by the accused.

Exhibit P2-letter addressed by the Medical Officer to the

Inspector of Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, also does

not reveal to the name of the accused.

- 19 -

30. First, the complaint was filed by KM Shivakumar-PW5.

He has not made any allegation against the accused as to the

rape said to have been committed by the accused. PW5-

Shivakumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that only

for the purpose of filing complaint as per the advice of

Panchayatdars, he has filed complaint against the accused

stating that the accused has committed rape on the victim.

PW5 has clearly stated that he is not the eye-witness to the

incident and that he has deposed in his evidence that

Vedamurthy and Jayashankarappa have informed him as to the

alleged rape committed by the accused on PW1.

31. Vedamurthy, who is the brother-in-law of PW5-

Shivakumar, is examined as PW6. He has deposed that on the

date of incident when he was proceeding in front of the house

of Shivakumar he heard a screaming sound. Then he went

there and knocked the door of the house of PW5 Shivakumar.

By that time, Jaishankarappa, Prakash, Tirthagowda, Ravi and

Lalitamma and others came there and after knocking the door,

PW1 opened the door. They noticed the hair of PW1 was

shabby and cheeks were red and they pacified her. Upon

enquiry, she told that the accused has committed rape and he

is now sitting in the loft. When they checked the loft, the

- 20 -

accused was sleeping and when the enquired, the accused has

confessed as to the rape committed by him and assured to

marry the victim. Then they pacified PW1 and locked the

house and went away. Further, he has deposed in his evidence

as to the Panchayat held by them, and in the Panchayat

accused confessed as to the offence committed by him and

assured to marry the victim. PW1 has also agreed for

marriage. But the mother of accused Smt. Sharadamma

Sharma has demanded Rs.3.00 lakhs as dowry; she did not

agree for the marriage. Thereafter, they heard shouting near

the house of the accused. Then they went there and came to

know that accused has consumed poison. Then the accused

was shifted to Government Hospital Chikkamagaluru. After

they returned, they found that PW1 has also consumed poison

and was struggling for life. Then he gave first aid and shifted

her to District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru.

32. A careful examination of the entire evidence on record

makes it crystal clear that victim that PW1 has suppressed the

facts before the police. The investigating officer has also

suppressed the material facts and submitted charge-sheet

against the accused. Though the victim has gained conscious

after two days from the date of alleged incident of consuming

- 21 -

                              ORDER

      i)    Appeal is allowed;