- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1051 OF 2013 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 887 OF 2013 (C) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2013 (C) IN CRL.A No. 1051/2013 BETWEEN: Y.D. HANUMESH SON OF DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT Y. YARAHALLI VILLAGE KOTTATI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SMT: TEJASWINI V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.08.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DIST., AND S.J., MANDYA IN SPL.C.C.NO.65/2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 376(2)(G) AND 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 MONTH AND PAY A FINE OF RS.500/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 DAYS Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 10 YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5000/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 2 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(G) READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.1000/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; EXCEPT DEFAULT SENTENCES, ALL SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. IN CRL.A NO. 887/2013 BETWEEN: Y.P.NITHIN KUMAR S/O PUTTA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS VAYYARA HALLI VILLAGE KOTTATTI HOBLI MANDYA -571401 (NOW UNDERGOING IMPRISONMENT AT BELGUAM PRISON) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI: M PARTHA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR/ DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE SUB-DIVISION MANDYA ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.08.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DIST., AND S.J., MANDYA IN SPL.C.C.NO.65/2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 376(2)(G) AND 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 MONTH AND PAY A FINE OF RS.500/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 10 YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5000/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 2 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(2)(G) READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.1000/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; EXCEPT DEFAULT SENTENCES, ALL SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. IN CRL.A NO. 986/2013 BETWEEN: SANTOSH S S/O NINGAIAH AGED 21 YEARS R/A Y. YARAHALLI VILLAGE KOTTATTI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI: M PARTHA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MANDYA SUB-DIVISION MANDYA-571401. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.08.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND S.J., MANDYA IN SPL.C.C.NO.65/2012 CONVICTING THE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 376(2)(G) AND 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 MONTH AND PAY A FINE OF RS.500/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 10 YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5000/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 2 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(2)(G) READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.1000/-, INDEFAULT TO PAY FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; EXCEPT DEFAULT SENTENCES, ALL SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.1051, 986 and 887 of 2013 being accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in Spl.CC No.65 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2013, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 376(2)(g) and 506 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC; to undergo - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, with default sentences, while acquitting them for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, on 23.04.2012, when the victim was returning from her job, accused Nos.1 and 2 have taken her to the farm land and committed rape on her against her will, while accused No.3 was guarding the place. After committing rape, all the accused have criminally intimidated the victim, not to reveal this fact to anybody and they have fled from the spot. Later, when her menstrual cycle was missed, victim informed this fact to her grand mother - PW4. The victim and PW4 went to the hospital. On examination, it was found that she was 9 weeks pregnant as per Ex.P13. On the same day i.e., 13.06.2012 the victim girl lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 against accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused were apprehended and the investigation was held. After investigation, the charge - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 sheet came to be filed against them for the offences as stated above. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15, got marked Exs.P1 to 49 in support of its contention. The Medical Manual was got marked as Ex.C1. Accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 376(2)(g) and 506 of IPC and acquitted them for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and sentenced them as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred these appeals. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 4. Heard Smt V Tejaswini, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1051 of 2013, Sri M Partha, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.887 and 986 of 2013 and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit them for the charges leveled against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, PW3 - the victim was subjected to rape by accused Nos.1 and 2 on 23.04.2012 and accused No.3 was guarding the place to prevent other persons from coming to the spot. Ex.P17 is the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 medical examination report maintained by Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences and Teaching Hospital, pertaining to the victim produced by the Investigating Officer, according to which, the victim was examined when she came with history of consumption of unknown tablets on 24.04.2012 at around 9.00 p.m. at her residence. 7. It is pertinent to note that the victim had never disclosed the history of sexual assault committed on her by accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also pertinent to note that as per Ex.P17 the victim was not willing for medical examination. In this background, this Court has to consider the contention taken by the prosecution. 8. PWs.1 and 2 are the formal witnesses being the employer and friend of the victim respectively. PW3 the victim herself has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. She has not even identified any of the accused before the Court. It is pertinent to note that even during chief examination, witness stated that during April, 2012, she was pregnant and one Manu was responsible for the same as they were in love with one another. PW4 is the grand mother and PW5 is the uncle of the victim. Both these witnesses have also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 not supported the case of the prosecution. PW6 speaks about determination of age of the victim girl, according to him, she was aged above 18 years and below 19 years and issued Ex.P9 in that regard. 9. PW7 is the material witness who examined the victim on 13.06.2012 and found that she was 9 weeks pregnant. She issued Ex.P13. Later the fetus was aborted on 14.06.2012 as per Ex.P13. When the victim was pregnant of 9 weeks as on the date of examination on 13.06.2012, it will take us back to first week of April, 2012. During cross examination, this witness specifically admits that the incident might have taken place on 4/5.04.2012. But according to the case made out by the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed rape on the victim on 23.04.2012. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is inordinate delay of about 2 months in filing the first information. The victim is not a child and she is a major. The victim deposed that she was impregnated by one Manu during April 2012 and she has not chosen to depose against any of the accused for the reasons best known to her. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 Even PWs.4 and 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. Ex.P17 is fatal to the case of the prosecution, which is earliest possible medical record pertaining to the victim as it was recorded on 24.04.2012, when it is the contention of the prosecution that the incident had occurred on 23.04.2012. As per the history given by the victim herself, on the very next day of the alleged incident, she has consumed some tablets and developed complications, but she was not willing to any examination by the Medical Officer. Serious doubt arises about the incident as contended by the prosecution. 12. Learned Addl. SPP submits that Ex.P49 is the DNA report issued by PW15, according to which, accused No.1 is the biological father of the fetus and therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that offence committed by accused No.1 is proved. 13. Ex.P49 is only the opinion expressed by an expert. It is advisory in nature. The Court is not bound by the evidence of an expert. No doubt, it is a valuable tool to guide the Court in arriving at a conclusion. At the most, such reports - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 could be best corroborative piece of evidence to buttress the findings of the Court regarding guilt of the accused, but it cannot be a conclusive proof and the sole basis to prove the guilt of the accused for the purpose of convicting him. Considering the age and evidence of PW3, the possibility of having consensual relationship cannot be ruled out. Under such circumstances, it is not safe to base conviction of accused No.1 solely on Ex.P49. Hence, I am of the opinion that the even though serious allegations are made against the accused for having committed the offences, the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the same. Serious doubt arises about the case made out by the prosecution and the evidence deposed by PW3. Under such circumstances, accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt and they are liable to be acquitted. 14. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has proceeded to convict the accused relying only on Ex.P49 and presumed that PWs.3, 4 and 5 might have been influenced by the accused. It is settled proposition of law that suspicious, however, grave it may be, cannot take the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the same. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 15. Before parting with the matter, I have to place on record the able assistance given by the young advocate Smt V Tejaswini, who argued the appeals. 16. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeals are allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2013 passed in Spl.CC No.65 of 2012 on the file of learned on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 376(2)(g) and 506 of IPC. (iv) Bail bond of the accused and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21768 CRL.A No. 1051 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 887 of 2013 CRL.A No. 986 of 2013 Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused Nos.1 to 3 is ordered to be refunded to them after appeal period is over. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2