- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 392 OF 2016 BETWEEN: JAYASHEELA C S/O CHANDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. SANJAY COLONY, NEW TOWN, BHDRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY PSI NEW TOWN POLICE STATION BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.07.2014 AND 17.07.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.513/2009, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI BY ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 IN CRL.A.NO.116/2014 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16.07.2014 in C.C.No.513/2009 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi and its confirmation judgment and order dated 29.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.116/2014 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi, has filed this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.09.2008 at about 4.30 p.m., at Gandhi Park, New Town, Bhadravathi, the petitioner is stated to have outraged the modesty of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 the victim who is aged about 11 years. It is further stated that the petitioner used to do pick up and drop the victim to a school along with other students on every day. 4. On 17.09.2008, when the victim had been to School along with others and the petitioner went to the school and he called all the inmates of the said auto. After having boarded them, he started proceeding to drop them to their respective houses. In the meantime, the petitioner stated to have taken all the children along with the victim to the Gandhi Park and asked them to play in the park for a while. When the children were playing in the said park, the petitioner made the victim to sit with him and started kissing her and also got removed her underwear and pinched her private part. Thereafter, he had threatened her that she should not disclose the said fact to her parents. 5. Even though the victim narrated the incident to her mother and her mother, in the meantime, informed her father, both of them did not bother much and not lodged any complaint in that regard. However, the victim had developed some pain in her private part and she got - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 fever. The parents of the victim taken her to the hospital for treatment. In the said hospital, she narrated the incident to the Doctor. The Doctor after recording the statement of the victim, she informed the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police have registered a case. After conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9 and 5 material objects have been marked as M.O.1 to 5. On the other hand, the defense has got marked MLR as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction and sentenced the accused to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused approached the Appellate Court against the said judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Revision Petition. 7. Heard Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint came to be registered against the petitioner due to enmity. Though the victim stated in her evidence that she has sustained injuries on her private part, Ex.P.9-wound certificate did not disclose the same. Moreover, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Such delay should have been considered as fatal to the case of the prosecution. 9. It is further submitted that as per the statement of the victim, though she had disclosed the fact to her parents, they did not lodge the complaint. However, they were waiting to lodge such complaint when the victim went for treatment at the Kiran Nursing Home, Bhadravathi. None of the children have spoken about the incident as a eyewitness, however, other two children have supported - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 the case of the prosecution as hearsay witnesses. Therefore, the credibility should not have been given to their evidence. 10. It is further submitted that the author of the medical Doctor has not been examined to substantiate the fact. In spite of several lacunae in the evidence both oral and documentary on record, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court committed error in recording the conviction. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. As such, he prays to allow the petition. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and submitted that, the evidence of victim is consistent and she has narrated the incident before the Doctor. The Doctor after recording the said statement, reported to the jurisdictional police. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered and FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. Such being the fact, disbelieving the evidence of all the witnesses cannot be permitted in the Revisional jurisdiction. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 12. It is further submitted that this Court can interfere in the findings of the Courts below by exercising the Revisional jurisdiction only when it appears that there are some errors committed by the Court not only in appreciating the evidence but also applying the correct law on the said case. In the present case, since both the victim and the report of the Doctor are consistent about the act of the petitioner and the said act of the petitioner would constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 of IPC, therefore, interference with findings of the Courts below may not be proper. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submission, the learned HCGP for the respondent prays to dismiss the petition. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, the evidence of P.W.1 would indicate that she was studying in 4th standard at SAV school at Bhadravathi. She used to travel in an auto of the petitioner on everyday. Usually, she was leaving her house at 10.00 am and used to return her home around 4.30 p.m. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 14. She further deposes that C.Ws. 4 to 7 were also used to accompany her in the said auto on every day. According to her, she had been subjected to outrage her modesty at the Gandhi Park situated at Bhadravathi by the petitioner. 15. Even though she has been subjected to the cross examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit her evidence. Her evidence has been corroborated by Ex.P9, which is wound certificate issued by the Doctor who treated the victim. It is needless to say that the author of the said document has not been examined, as the said Doctor died before recording her evidence. 16. The inmates of the said auto, namely, PWs.4 and 5 have also supported the case of the prosecution. However, they are only hearsay witnesses. Their evidence has to be believed to the extent that after the incident, the victim was not going to School and the victim had developed ill-health. 17. On conjoint reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, it can be inferred that the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction are proper and justifiable. Interference with the said findings, in my considered - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12630 CRL.RP No. 392 of 2016 view, is not proper. Therefore, I declined to interfere with the said findings. 18. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4