- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 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. 356 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SALEEM PASHA S/O CHAND PASHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 78, 7TH CROSS, S.R.NAGAR, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 29. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARIAPPA N A., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE, BANGALORE, (REPRESENTED BY, LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, …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 OF CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES DATED 02.08.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO. 24663/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE TEH JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONFIRMATION DATED 19.02.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.25135/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH- 58) MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 CAV ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 02.08.2014 in C.C. No.24663/2010 on the file of the XI A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore and its confirmation judgment and order dated 19.02.2016 passed in Crl.A No.25135/2014 on the file of the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (CCH.58), by which both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 354 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks 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 the complainant is the mother-in-law of PW.2. PW.2 had delivered a boy baby about 19 days ago and she was a nursing mother. On 24.02.2010, the said PW.2 had intended to go out for shopping to purchase medicines and other things for the newborn baby. The said PW.2 hired a driver through - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 Easy Drive Services Firm and she went out for shopping with the said driver. After completing her shopping, PW.2 along with the said driver returned to the apartment around 01.15 p.m. to 01.30 p.m. After parking the car in the basement, the accused locked the doors of the car and pounced upon PW.2 and started molesting her and also tried to kiss her. PW.2 being frightened by the sudden act of the driver, got out of the car and screamed for help. The building security and other drivers caught hold the accused and tied him to the pillar of the building. Thereafter, PW.1 lodged a complaint. The respondent police after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5 and material object at MO.1. After appreciating both oral and documentary evidence on record, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner / accused is found guilty of the offences stated supra. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 5. Heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Kariyappa N.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 6. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in convicting the accused are perverse and illegal and therefore, the same are required to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner after returning from the shopping along with PW.2, stated to have been parking the car in the parking area and accidentally searched PW.2. In the meantime, PW.2 raised an alarm stating that she had been subjected to molestation, which is baseless and false. 8. It is further submitted that except the evidence of PW.2, none of the witnesses have supported the case in respect of the alleged molestation and outraging of her modesty. In the absence of the evidence of independent witnesses, rendering the conviction based on the evidence of sole witness appears to be not proper. However, the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 rendered the conviction, which is not proper. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below in convicting the petitioner and he further submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have consistently held that the accused is guilty of the offences stated supra and recorded the conviction. The evidence of PW.2 would goes to show that the accused after stopping the car in the parking area, started outraging the modesty of PW.2, immediately, she got out of the car and raised a hue and cry. The modesty of a woman is nowhere defined under the Act, however, it can be inferred that the modesty means sex of the woman. When he tried to outrage her modesty by squeezing her breasts and kissed her and the said act would certainly indicate that he had intention to outrage her modesty. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 10. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again reiterated that the Court has to see the quality of the evidence, not its quantity. The conviction can be recorded even on the evidence of sole witness, if it is reliable and convincing. PW.2 being an inmate of the said car had experienced the act committed by the accused and immediately, she cried for help and the accused was caught red-handedly by the security guards and other fellow members. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence and there are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the Courts below, hence, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence of all the witnesses to ascertain as to whether any illegality or perversity is noticed in the findings of the Courts below. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 12. The prosecution has examined six witnesses to substantiate the case. PW.1 is the complainant, who is the mother-in-law of PW.2. She was in the house when PW.2 went out of the house to bring medicine and other items to the newborn baby. Around 01.00 to 01.30 p.m., she heard the screaming noise of PW.2 and she went to the parking area from her apartment and she heard that the accused had committed the act of outraging the modesty of PW.2. 13. Similarly, the other witness, namely PW.3, who was working as an Electrician in the apartment where the incident had taken place has also stated that he heard the sound of quarrel in the basement parking area of the apartment and he went there and saw that the accused was tied to the pillar. He is also a hearsay witness. 14. PW.4 was working as a Manager of the said apartment. He stated that he had heard about the incident of quarrel that had taken place in the basement area of the parking in the said apartment and also noticed that the accused was apprehended by the police and also heard about the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 incident. However, he was not an eyewitness to the incident. 15. PW.5 was working as PSI. As on the date of the alleged incident, he stated to have received the information from PW.1 about the incident, after receiving the said complaint from PW.1, he registered a case in Crime No.100/2010 and thereafter, he conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet. 16. PW.6 stated to have been working as Housekeeper at the apartment, as on the date of alleged incident, He stated to have affixed his signature to the mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P2. 17. Now, it is relevant to refer the evidence of PW.2, who is the victim of the case. According to her, as she wanted to go for shopping, she hired the driver through an agency namely Easy Drive Services Firm. After finishing her shopping, she returned to her apartment and the accused was parking the car in the parking area. During the said time, he locked the car and tried to outrage her modesty by squeezing her breasts and kissed her, immediately, she got out of the car and cried for help. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 When she faced the humiliation in the car, immediately, she cried for help and the accused was caught red- handedly by fellow members, who were working in different status in the said apartment. 18. The evidence of PW.2 is reliable and acceptable for the reason that, in spite of a lengthy cross-examination, she withstood the cross-examination and supported the case of the prosecution. The act of the accused would clearly indicate that he had the intention to commit the offence of outraging the modesty of the woman. PW.2 is the best witness to her case. There is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 19. The evidence of PW.2 though it is reliable and acceptable, the other witnesses who were said to be present at the time of the incident, have not supported the case. In such circumstances, the investigating officer should have collected the other evidence, namely, the clothes of PW.2 and should have sent those clothes for FSL to trace the finger prints. In the absence of corroboration, the evidence of PW.2 alone is not sufficient to infer that she had been subjected to outrage her modesty. Therefore, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12838 CRL.RP No. 356 of 2016 the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction appears to be unnatural and erroneous. Hence, the findings of the Courts below are required to be set aside. 20. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 02.08.2014 in C.C.No.24663/2010 on the file of the XI A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore City, and judgment and order dated 19.02.2016 passed in Crl.A No.25135/2014 on the file of the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 342 and 354 of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3