- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 817 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: DEVARAJU S/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O DARASAGUPPE VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 401 NOW R/AT 1ST CROSS CHIKKEGOWDANADODDI MANDYA CITY-571 401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KUMARASWAMY B.N, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA EAST POLICE STATION MANDYA-571 401 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:19.6.13 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J., MANDYA IN S.C.NO.128/11 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354 OF IPC. Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2013 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Sessions Case No.128/2011, wherein the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, whereas convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. As the accused was in judicial custody from 17.02.2011 to 14.10.2011, the same was ordered to be set off as required under Section 428 of IPC. Now the appellant – accused is before this Court challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence stated supra. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 The facts stating upto this appeal are as under: 2. That the accused was charge sheeted by the Mandya East Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC on the ground that, on 15.02.2011 at about 6.30 p.m, behind the house of one B.N.Kempalingaiah, situated at Chikkegowdanadoddi, when the complainant had gone to attend her natures call, at the time, accused followed her, hugged her and thereafter lifted her saree and gagged her mouth as well as caught hold of her hands and committed rape on her. When she bombarded for assistance, the people started coming there and accused ran away from the said place. Thereafter, on the same day itself, she went to the police station at 10 p.m and lodged a complaint. On completion of the investigation, police have filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 3. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 to P12, with respective signatures and also got marked MO Nos.1 to 13 and closed prosecution evidence. 4. On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf. 5. The learned Trial Court, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found that the accused had not committed offence under Section 376 of IPC, but, he had committed the offence under Section 354 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, no appeal is preferred by the State. Thus, the acquittal of the accused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC has attained finality. 7. Now we are very much concerned with regard to the offence under Section 354 of IPC. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 that, on 15.02.2011, when victim had gone to attend her natures call behind the house of Kempalingaiah in her village, at that time, accused followed her. After 10 to 15 minutes, there was a sound of complainant and she started bombarding. When the victim was attending natures call, the accused caught hold of her from her behind and hugged her, so also tried to outrage her modesty. 8. On hearing the bombardment, people started coming over there and he ran away from the said place. The people gathered there were informed that, she had been raped by the accused. But the evidence of PW.1 does reveal that accused committed rape on her and on her bombardment, the accused ran away from the said place. The victim has stated that, at 10 p.m, she went to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 the police station along with her husband and filed a complaint as per Ex.P2. 9. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 that, when she saw PW.2 (the victim) was going towards the house of one Kempaligaiah to attend her natures call. It has come in her evidence that, even the accused also followed her after 10 to 15 minutes. When she heard the crying sound of the victim, they went there and enquired. It was informed to them that, the accused ran away from the said place. When enquired, it was informed that, he had raped the victim. PW.2 is a victim in this case. It is her evidence that, forcibly the accused committed rape on her. When the accused was running away, her husband also came there and she informed the said fact to her husband. Trial Court has come to the conclusion that, there was no rape at all and thereby, by appreciating the evidence placed on record, has acquitted the accused for the said offence. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 10. The learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that, the accused has committed the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman. Section 354 of IPC defines what is outraging the modesty of a woman. The essence of women modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the women is very relevant. But its absence is not always decisive. Modesty is an attribute associated with the female human being, as a class. Its virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The ultimate test for ascertaining whether the modesty of a woman has been outraged, assaulted, or insulted is, that the action of the offender should be such that, it may be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. In this case, it is the evidence of victim that, the accused, when she was attending to her natures call, caught hold of her and hugged her, lifted her saree and tried to outrage her modesty and attempted to commit rape on her. The essential ingredients of Section 354 are that: 1) there was an assault on a woman, 2) that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 accused must have used criminal force on her, and 3) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. 11. The learned Trial Court, keeping in mind the aforesaid ingredients and essentials of Section 354 of IPC, so also relying upon the evidence of all the witnesses, like Doctor, IO and other eyewitnesses and especially that of a victim lady, has come to the conclusion that, the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman is proved in its complete sense. It is the accused who is guilty of committing the said offence. During the course of judgment, the learned Trial Court has considered the evidence of each of the witnesses at length. 12. Sri. Kumaraswamy B.N., learned Amicus Curiae, with all humility and fairness submits that, the accused has already undergone custody period commencing from 17.02.2011 to 14.10.2011 for a period of almost 8 months and if the same is given set off, it would meet the ends of justice, as this case is of the year - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 2011. As the offence under Section 354 of IPC is duly proved in accordance with law by the prosecution and when there is outraging of a woman's modesty, the learned Trial Court is right in passing the impugned judgment of conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 13. The evidence of victim lady herself is sufficient to prove that, there was outraging of her modesty by the accused. Her evidence is not properly contradicted by the defence during the course of cross-examination. In view of all these factual features coupled with the evidence of PW.2- the victim lady, it is duly proved that prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. I do not find any factual or legal error committed by the Trial Court in coming to such conclusion. As stated supra, till date, no appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of the accused for the offence - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 punishable under Section 376 of IPC; thus, it has attained finality. 14. Sofar as sentence is concerned, though the punishment so prescribed for the said offence under Section 354 of IPC is for a term that shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable for fine. 15. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that, before passing of the order of conviction, the accused undergone sentence for a period of almost eight months and after conviction till its suspension on 26.11.2013, he has undergone sentence for a period of two months, that means in all one year, which is a minimum sentence so prescribed for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. The order sheet of this case do reveal that, on 26.11.2013, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order suspending the sentence of the accused having regard to the offences, duration of imprisonment and period of detention undergone by the accused during trial, till the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 pendency of this appeal subject to conditions. The judgment of conviction was passed by the Trial Court on 19.06.2013, on that day; the accused was taken into the custody. Thereafter, the order of sentence was suspended on 26.11.2013. Thus, if the period undergone by the accused during the trial stage, as well as after filing of this appeal, if calculated, it exceeds one year. This case is of the year 2011 and now we are in the year 2025. The accused was aged 39 years at the time of incident and now he must have crossed 53 years. In view of the age of accused as well as the period of sentence already undergone by the accused in custody, if the same is given set off, it would meet the ends of justice. In addition to the same, if he is directed to pay a further fine of Rs.5,000/- to PW.2 – the victim as compensation, it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, there shall be modification of sentence so imposed by the Trial Court. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 16. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in-part. (ii) The order of conviction passed against appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is maintained. (iii) However, there shall be modification of sentence passed against the accused i.e., the period of sentence already undergone by the accused from 17.02.2011 to 14.10.2011 and from 19.06.2013 till suspension of sentence passed by this Court on 26.11.2013 is given set off under Section 428 of IPC. (iv) He is further directed to pay additional fine of Rs.5,000/- to be payable to the victim. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The fine amount shall be deposited in the Trial Court within 15 days from today. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14536 CRL.A No. 817 of 2013 (v) The Professional Fees of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. The High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay the same to the Amicus Curiae forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24