Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

Gajanan Parashuram Tarale vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2024

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100097 OF 2016 (C)
BETWEEN:

GAJANAN PARASHURAM TARALE,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: NAVI GALLI, AMBEWADIM,
BELAGAVI.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH KAKATI POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed
…RESPONDENT
by
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH (BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP)
Date: 2024.02.17
12:22:00 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM VIII
ADDL. DIST. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, PERTAINING TO
S.C. NO.187/2014 AND TO PASS A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT ON 10-03-
2016 BY VIII ADDL. DIST. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN
S.C. NO.187/2014 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.376,
506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

JUDGMENT

The appellant in this appeal questioned the legality

and validity of the judgment passed in SC No.187/2014

dated 10.03.2016 by the VIII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Belagavi, wherein the learned Sessions

Judge convicted the accused/ appellant for the offence

punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code and directed the appellant to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 9 years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for

the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal

Code. The appellant also sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the

offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code

and also directed the accused/ appellant to pay

Rs.1,50,000/- to the victim as compensation.
-3-

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case as

alleged in the complaint that:-

Accused No.2 in this case (acquitted by the trial

Court) is the husband of victim in this case i.e., PW.1.

Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the victim. This

appellant/accused No.1 is the brother of the accused No.2

and brother in law of the victim-PW.1. The marriage of the

victim was solemnized with the accused No.2 on

27.04.2009, ever since then, the PW.1 was residing in the

matrimonial home along with accused Nos.2 and 3. After

some time from the date of marriage, the accused Nos.2

and 3 were abusing the PW.1, asking her to do more

house hold and agricultural work. Thereby they were

harassing her.

3. Subsequently, in the month of December-2010,

the appellant/accused No.2 i.e., the brother of PW.1

returned from gulf country and used to reside along with

PW.1, accused Nos.2 and 3 in the matrimonial home of

PW.1. It is further stated in the complaint that on
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

14.05.2011 at about 4:00 pm when PW.1 was alone in her

bedroom, appellant entered her bedroom and forcibly

committed sexual coitus on her and threatened her with

dire consequences not to reveal the same to anybody.

Thereafter, the accused committed sexual coitus on her

repeatedly from the month of June to October-2011. And,

in the month of October-2011 she revealed the same to

her husband i.e., accused No.1. However, he persuaded

her not to reveal the same to anybody to uphold the

reputation of the family. Further, he sent her to her

parental house for a period of 10 days. However, she did

not revealed the act of accused No.2 to her parents and

returned to her matrimonial home.

4. Posteriorly, in the year 2011, the appellant

committed sexual coitus on four occasions in her bedroom

and foisted life threat to her not to reveal the same.

However, on 13.05.2013, the appellant got married one

Madhuri and later on 14.11.2014 when his wife went her

parental house, the appellant committed sexual coitus with
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

PW.1 on 15.01.2014 in her bedroom. However, she did not

reveal the same to anybody.

5. Things stood thus, her husband has taken her

to the Advocate’s Office at Belagavi on the pretext of

obtaining Gas-Cylinder and he obtained her signatures.

During that time, the Advocate called her father and

informed him that her husband-accused No.2 intending to

file divorce case against her. Hence, she lodged the

complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3 as per Ex.P.1

before PW.7- the then PSI of Kakati Police Station. The

said complaint has been registered under Crime

No.98/2014 against the accused for the offence punishable

under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 376 and 109 of Indian

Penal Code as per Ex.P.17.

6. Subsequently, PW.8-the CPI of Belagavi Rural

Circle, conducted the investigation by sending the victim

to the Hospital for examination, so also, arrested the

accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter, drawn the spot

mahazar as per Ex.P.10 and also drawn the mahazar
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

under Ex.P.7 and seized MO.1 to 9 and also drawn Ex.P.8-

mahazar, wherein MO.10 to 13 were seized. Later, he

produced the victim before the Magistrate-PW.9 and her

statement was recorded by PW.9 under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C and after recording the statement of all the

witnesses, he laid the chargesheet against the accused

Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 498-

A, 506, 504, 376 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

before the committal Court.

7. Post committal of the case before the Sessions

Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges

against the accused for the aforementioned the offences

and read over the same to them, for which the accused

pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

8. In order to prove the charges leveled against

the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution in total

has examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to 10, so also got

marked 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to 20 and got identified

13 material objections as MO.1 to 13. After completion of
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge

read over the incriminating evidence of material witness to

the accused, however the accused have denied the same.

The accused neither chose to examine any witness on their

behalf, nor got marked any documents.

9. Post trial, the learned Sessions Judge after

assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed by

the prosecution, acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 376, 504, 506

r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, however convicted

the accused No.1-appellant for the offence punishable

under Sections 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code and

sentenced him as stated supra. However, the learned

Sessions Judge acquitted him for the offence punishable

under Sections 498-A, 504 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code. The legality and correctness of the said judgment is

challenged under this appeal.

-8-

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

10. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.

A.M.Gundawade for the appellant, so also the learned High

Court Government Pleader for the respondent/ State.

11. The learned counsel for appellant would

vehemently contend that the judgment under this appeal

suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions

Judge convicted the accused/ appellant based on surmise

and conjecture. On perusal of the evidence of the

prosecutrix-PW.1, being major and the wife of accused

No.2, concocted a false story against the accused to take a

revenge in connection with the matrimonial dispute arose

between PW.1 and her husband-accused No.2 and his

family members including the appellant who is none other

than the brother of accused No.2. According to the learned

counsel, there is an in ordinate delay of three years in

lodging the complaint by PW.1. Though, the alleged

incident was initially committed on 14.05.2011, whereas

the complaint was lodged on 01.04.2014. Further, on

perusal of the contents of the complaint lodged by PW.1,
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

the same depicts that the alleged sexual coitus committed

by the appellant on her, repeatedly on several occasions in

the matrimonial house, in spite of that, she did not

whispered anything about the same either to her husband

or to her parents for a period of almost three years i.e.,

three months prior to the lodging of complaint. In such

circumstances, the contents of Ex.P.1-Complaint and the

contents of Ex.P.1 the prosecutrix seems to be not trust

worthy and credence cannot be attached to the same. The

learned counsel also contends that on perusal of the

evidence of PW.1-victim and her father-PW.3, there are

material contradictions, the manner in which the alleged

incident narrated by them. It is deposed by PW.1 that for

about three years the appellant repeatedly committed

sexual coitus in her bedroom even after his marriage with

one Madhuri. The non-presence of PW.3-her father-in-law

in the house at the time of sexual coitus committed by the

accused was not deposed by PW.1 in her evidence. In such

circumstances, inference can be drawn, PW.3 was very

much present in the matrimonial home of PW.1 during the

– 10 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

course of commission of offence. Even otherwise, she

failed to inform the same to her father, though she went

to her parental house and stayed there for a period of 10

days. In such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 is un-

trust worthy and the same cannot be relied for convicting

the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections

376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, according to the

learned counsel, the learned Sessions is erred in

convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences.

Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside

the impugned judgment.

12. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader by supporting the impugned judgment would

submit that the learned Session Judge has rightly

convicted the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offences

after meticulously examining the evidence of prosecutrix-

PW.1 and her 164 statement recorded as per Ex.P.4 by

PW.9-the Magistrate. Hence, there is no reason to discard

the evidence of prosecutrix. He would further contended

– 11 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

that the delay in lodging the complaint due to the threat

foisted by him to her not to reveal the same to anybody.

Hence, the delay in lodging is not fatal to the prosecution

case. Accordingly, learned High Court Government Pleader

prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant, so also the learned High Court Government

Pleader. The points that would arise for my consideration

are as under;

1. Whether the judgment under
this appeal suffers from perversity or
illegality ?

2. Whether the learned Sessions
Judge is justified in convicting the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 376
and 506 of Indian Penal Code ?

14. This Court being the appellate Court on re-

appreciation of the evidence placed by the prosecution

before the trial Court, I find:-

– 12 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

PW.1-victim deposed in her evidence that the

accused being her brother-in-law, committed sexual coitus

on her on 14.05.2011 for the first time, when she was

alone in her bedroom and threatened her with dire

consequences not to reveal the same to anybody.

Thereafter, he committed such act repeatedly till 2014.

However, she informed the same to her husband-accused

No.2 on 15.01.2014 but, he requested her not to reveal

the same to anybody to uphold the reputation of the

family and sent her to the parental house. Thereafter, she

stayed in her parental house for a period of 10 days and

subsequently, joined her matrimonial home. However, in

the month of March-2014, her husband-accused No.2 took

her to Belagavi on the pretext of obtaining Gas-Cylinder.

But, there met an Advocate and obtained her signature

and the said Advocate called her father and informed that

her husband making preparation to file divorce petition.

Hence, she lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1.

– 13 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

PW.2-Hanumantha Shankara Balegundri is a witness

for Ex.P.7-seizure of MO.1 to 9 and also Ex.P.9 wherein

MO.10 to 13 were seized. He is also a witness for Ex.P.8-

spot mahazar.

PW.3-Ganapati Gundu Revanacha is the father of

PW.1 who is an hear-say witness, according to him, his

daughter-PW.1 informed him about the harassment meted

out by accused Nos.1 to 3 to PW.1 in the matrimonial

home, so also, the sexual coitus committed by the accused

No.1 on her. He also deposed about the lodging of Ex.P.1-

Complaint.

PW.4-Balu Ganapati Mashekar is a circumstantial

witness deposed about the strained relationship between

PW.1 and accused Nos.1 to 3 in the matrimonial home.

Further, he also deposed that he came to know trough

PW.1 about the sexual coitus committed by the accused on

her.

– 14 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

PW.5-Laxman Balappa Balegundri is a circumstantial

witness deposed about the strained relationship of PW.1

and accused Nos.1 to 3 in the matrimonial home.

PW.6-Diwansab Husainabba Mulla is the then Police

Constable, carried the FIR from the Police Station to the

Jurisdictional Magistrate on 01.04.2014.

PW.7-Altafhussain Moinuddin Mulla is then PSI,

received the complaint from PW.1 as per Ex.P.1 and

registered FIR in Crime No.98/2014 against the accused as

per Ex.P.17.

PW.8-Siddappa Ramappa R.D., is the then Circle

Inspector of Police, investigated the case and laid the

charge sheet against the case.

PW.9-A.S.Shashikala is the then JMFC, Belagavi,

recorded the statement of victim under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C as per Ex.P.4.

PW.10-Sunita M. Astekar is an Advocate, translated

the statement of PW.1 recorded under Section 164 of

– 15 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

Cr.P.C from Marathi language to Kannada language before

the learned JMFC.

15. On cursory glance of the above evidence placed

by the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the

accused, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of

the PW.1-victim and her statement recorded under Section

164 of Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate-PW.9 as per

Ex.P.4. On careful perusal of the complaint lodged by PW.1

as per Ex.P.1, her statement at Ex.P4 and her evidence

before the trial Court; she stated that the accused

committed sexual coitus on her for the first time on

14.05.2011 in her matrimonial home. Subsequently, he

repeated the said act continuously for a period of three

years. However, she has not whispered the same to

anyone including her husband-accused No.2, her mother-

in-law-accused No.3 and her father-PW.3 for a period of

three years. According to her, the accused got married on

13.05.2013 and post marriage of the accused committed

sexual coitus on her on 15.01.2014. However, she did not

– 16 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

inform the same to the wife of the accused. According to

her, she informed the same to her husband-accused No.2

on 15.01.2014, but he requested her not to reveal the

same to anybody. Interestingly, PW.1 deposed that,

during the year-2012, she went to her parental house and

stayed there for a period of 10 days. But, she did not

inform the act of accused to her parents. Additionally, the

complaint was lodged by her on 01.04.2014, when her

husband-accused No.2, tried to obtain her signature on

divorce papers in the Advocate Office. On careful perusal

of the evidence of PW.1, her evidence in respect of the

manner in which the accused committed the alleged

sexual assault in her matrimonial home and non-disclosure

of the same by her to anybody, including her husband for

a period of three years, creates a doubt in the mind of this

Court. Nevertheless, the inordinate delay in lodging the

complaint more specifically, above three years, also raises

a doubt as to the forcible sexual coitus committed by the

accused as alleged by her. Though, the PW.1, gave a

statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before the

– 17 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

Magistrate as per Ex.P.4, that in itself is not sufficient to

award conviction to the accused on believing it as a gospel

truth.

16. Admittedly, there existed a matrimonial dispute

between the accused Nos.2 and 3 and PW.1. This

complaint has been lodged even against accused Nos.2

and 3 for the mental and physical harassment allegedly

meted out by them. However, the accused Nos.2 and 3

were acquitted for those charges in the impugned

judgment. The same has attained finality since the State

has not challenged the same. It is brought to the notice of

this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellant that,

subsequently after the conviction order passed against this

appellant, the PW.1 approached the Family Court Belagavi

for grant of divorce in MC No.199/2016 against accused

No.2-her husband and divorce was also granted by relying

on the impugned judgment challenged herein. In such

circumstances, he submit that, in order to get a decree of

divorce from accused No.2, PW.1-victim filed a false

complaint, by making false allegations against the accused

– 18 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

Nos.2 and 3, including this appellant. On careful perusal of

the evidence of PW.1, so also, PW.3-father of the PW.1,

the defence of the accused, in my opinion, seems to be

probable one. In order to arrive at this conclusion, I rely

on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Raisandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT Delhi reported

in AIR 2012 SCC 3157 wherein, the top Court in

paragraph No.22 has held as under –

“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling
witness” should be of a very high quality and
calibre whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the version of
such witness should be in a position to accept it for
its face value without any hesitation. To test the
quality of such a witness, the status of the witness
would be immaterial and what would be relevant is
the truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would be
the consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely, at the time
when the witness makes the initial statement and
ultimately before the court. It should be natural
and consistent with the case of the prosecution
qua the accused. There should not be any

– 19 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

prevarication in the version of such a witness. The
witness should be in a position to withstand the
cross-examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no circumstance
should give room for any doubt as to the factum of
the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as
the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-
relation with each and every one of other
supporting material such as the recoveries made,
the weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the expert
opinion. The said version should consistently
match with the version of every other witness. It
can even be stated that it should be akin to the
test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence
where there should not be any missing link in the
chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty
of the offence alleged against him. Only if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above test
as well as all other such similar tests to be applied,
can it be held that such a witness can be called as
a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted
by the court without any corroboration and based
on which the guilty can be punished. To be more
precise, the version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact while
all other attendant materials, namely, oral,
documentary and material objects should match

– 20 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

the said version in material particulars in order to
enable the court trying the offence to rely on the
core version to sieve the other supporting
materials for holding the offender guilty of the
charge alleged.”

17. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court also in the case

of Dilip and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

reported in (2001) 9 SCC 452, held that the prosecutrix

in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no

rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and

made the bases of conviction unless corroborated in

material particulars. However, the rule about the

admissibility and corroboration should be present to the

mind of the Judge. At paragraph Nos.12 and 14 of the said

judgment held as under:

“12. The law is well settled that the prosecutrix
in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is
no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted
upon and made the basis of conviction unless
corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule
about the admissibility of corroboration should be
present to the mind of the Judge. In State of H.P. v.

– 21 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

Gian Chand on a review of decisions of this Court, it
was held that conviction for an offence of rape can be
based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix
corroborated by medical evidence and other
circumstances such as the report of chemical
examination etc., if the same is found to be natural,
trustworthy and worth being relied on. This Court
relied upon the following statement of law from State
of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh² SCC (para 21):

“If evidence of the prosecutrix
inspires confidence, it must be relied upon
without seeking corroboration of her
statement in material particulars. If for
some reason the court finds it difficult to
place implicit reliance on her testimony, it
may look for evidence which may lend
assurance to her testimony, short of
corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice. The testimony of the
prosecutrix must be appreciated in the
background of the entire case and the trial
court must be alive to its responsibility
and be sensitive while dealing with cases
involving sexual molestations….”

14. The age of the prosecutrix was around 16 years,
maybe a little more. The fact remains that she was not
just a child who would have surrendered herself to a
forced sexual assault without offering any resistance
whatsoever. Without going into testing the
truthfulness of the explanation offered by the

– 22 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

prosecutrix that because of being overawed by the two
accused persons, she was not able to resist, the fact
remains that the “probabilities factor” operates against
the prosecutrix. The gang rape is alleged to have been
committed at about 2 p.m., in her own house, situated
in a populated village by the side of the main road
where people were moving on account of Holi festival.
The prosecutrix did raise a hue and cry to the extent
she could and yet none was attracted to the place of
the incident. The prosecutrix is said to have sustained
injuries, also bleeded from her private parts staining
her body as also the clothes which she was wearing.
This part of the story, is not only not corroborated by
the medical evidence, is rather belied thereby. The
presence of bloodstains is not confirmed by the
Forensic Science Laboratory or by the doctors who
examined the prosecutrix. Her own maternal aunt to
whom the story of sexual assault has been narrated by
the prosecutrix gives a version which does not tally
with the version of the prosecutrix as given in the
court. The learned counsel for the State relied on
Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 which
provides that in a trial on a charge under Section
376(2)(g) IPC on the prosecutrix stating that she was
not a consenting party, the court shall presume
absence of consent of the woman alleged to have been
raped. Suffice it to observe that we should not be
misunderstood as recording a finding that the
prosecutrix was a willing party to the sexual
intercourse by the accused persons. The Court is
finding it difficult to accept the truthfulness of the

– 23 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

version of the prosecutrix that any sexual assault as
alleged was committed on her in view of the fact that
her narration of the incident becomes basically infirm
on account of being contradicted by the statement of
her own aunt and medical evidence and the report of
the Forensic Science Laboratory. The defence has
given suggestion in cross- examination for false
implication of the accused persons which, however,
have not gone beyond being suggestions merely. It is
not necessary for us to dwell upon further to find out
the probability of truth contained in the suggestions
because we are not satisfied generally of the
correctness of the story as told by the prosecutrix. We
find it difficult to hold the prosecutrix in the case as
one on whose testimony an implicit reliance can be
placed.”

18. Additionally, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the

case of Dinesh Jaisval Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

reported in (2010) 3 SCC 232 held that in order to place

reliance on the testimony of the victim girl to award

conviction to the accused, the same shall corroborate with

the evidence of the doctor who examined the victim. In

the case on hand, the Doctor has not all been examined

and such, there exists absolutely no corroborations to the

– 24 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

evidence of PW.1 and her depositions also do not inspire

the case of the prosecution.

19. Admittedly, the complaint was registered on

01.04.2014 alleging an incident that was initially

committed on 14.05.2011 i.e, after a unreasoned delay of

more than 3 years, which in my opinion without proper

justification, would take away the case of the prosecution

and on the other hand, would inspire the mind of this

Court as to the defense of the accused put forth in this

case. This court in order to buttress this observation would

rely upon the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2008) 14

SCC 763 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph

No. 5 has held as under-

“5. The present case wholly depends upon
the testimony of the prosecutrix. The incident in
the present case took place seven months prior to
the date of lodging the complaint as a realisation
dawned upon her that she has been subjected to
rape by the appellant-accused. No complaint or
grievance was made either to the police or the

– 25 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

parents prior thereto. The explanation for delay in
lodging the FIR is that the appellant-accused
promised her to marry therefore the FIR was not
filed. In cases where the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix is available, it is very dangerous to
convict the accused, specially when the
prosecutrix could venture to wait for seven months
for filing the FIR for rape. This leaves the accused
totally defenceless. Had the prosecutrix lodged the
complaint soon after the incident, there would
have been some supporting evidence like the
medical report or any other injury on the body of
the prosecutrix so as to show the sign of rape. If
the prosecutrix has willingly submitted herself to
sexual intercourse and waited for seven months
for filing the FIR it will be very hazardous to
convict on such sole oral testimony. Moreover, no
DNA test was conducted to find out whether the
child was born out of the said incident of rape and
that the appellant-accused was responsible for the
said child. In the face of lack of any other
evidence, it is unsafe to convict the accused.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view
taken by the trial court and the learned Single
Judge of the High Court in convicting the
appellant-accused under Section 376 IPC cannot
be sustained. Consequently, we set aside the
judgment and order of the trial court as also of the
High Court and quash the conviction and sentence
of the appellant-accused under Section 376 IPC.

– 26 –

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

The accused may be released forthwith from
custody if not required in any other case.”

20. In view of the above findings, I am of the

considered opinion that the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge

calls for an interference and accordingly, I answer the

above raised point in the affirmative and negative

respectively and proceed to pass the following-

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed.

ii. The judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed in SC
No.187/2014 dated 10.03.2016 by
the VIII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

iii. The accused is acquitted for the
offence punishable under Sections
376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

iv. The bail bond executed by the
accused stands cancelled.
– 27 –
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016

v. The fine amount, if any, paid by the
accused shall be refunded to him on
proper identification.

Sd/-
JUDGE

PJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5