- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: SRI ARUN KUMAR K S, S/O. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, FINAL YEAR DIPLOMA STUDENT, KANAKENAHALLI, SASALU HOBLI, TUMKGR TALUK, TUMKUR. PRESENTLY HOUSED AT TUMKUR PRISON TUMKURU-572 101. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA P. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RURAL POLICE STATION, TUMKUR, REP.BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R., HCGP) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 15.4.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.265/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 AND 506 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant has preferred the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15th April 2014, passed in SC No.265 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions, Judge, Tumkur (for short "the trial Court"). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to appeal are that the Circle Inspector of Police, Tumkur Rural Circle, Tumkur, laid charge- sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13th June 2012 at about 2:30 pm, prosecutrix PW3/CW1 appeared before PW9/CW12 A.V. Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police of the complainant Police Station and lodged a written complaint as per Exhibit P3. The summary of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 the complaint was that the prosecutrix after completing her Diploma Course in HMS College at Tumkur, was now and then visiting the college. At that time, she was introduced to accused the appellant-Arun Kumar through Sri Hanumantaraju, who was a student in the very same college. The said Arun Kumar was visiting the college to meet Hanumantaraju now and then. On 27th May, 2012, after completing examination at 5 o'clock, prosecutrix came to the Civil Bus Stand. The accused-Arun Kumar also followed her to Bus stand and talked to her. Stating that he has some known persons in her village and that he is also going to her village, he boarded the same bus in which she was travelling and got down along with her in the stop near her village. Both of them are going towards to her village by walk, and it was 6.00 pm by then. On the way, when they were passing a dilapidated, Eshwara Temple, the accused held her hands and also closed her mouth with his hand and dragged her to bush near the stream, made her to fall on the ground, inserted the veil into her mouth and removed her churidar lied on her and committed sexual intercourse with her. Though she resisted, she could not succeed in preventing him. After subjecting her to rape, he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 threatened her of taking her life in case she discloses the incident to her parents or anybody. Leaving her there, he left the place. After recovering by herself, she went to her house. Though her mother asked her as to why she was dull, she did not reveal the truth keeping the reputation of the family in mind, but stated that examination was bit difficult. She was dull and was not taking food properly for 10 to 15 days. Observing this, her parents insisted her to reveal the reason then she revealed the incident. The parents advised her to lodge police complaint. Accordingly, she lodge the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in crime No. 199 of 2012 against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, investigating officer submitted sheet for the aforesaid offences. 4. Thereafter, case was registered in CC No.3521 of 2011 and after commital to the Court of Sessions, case was registered in SC No.265 of 2012 against the accused. Accused was released on bail. After hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges for the commission of aforestated offences. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 The same was over read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case of prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 10, eight documents were more as Exhibits P1 to P8. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he has submitted written statement under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. But he has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under section 506 of Indian Penal Code and in default, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused/ appellant has preferred this Appeal. 5. Smt. Rakshitha P Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S Balakrishnan Counsel for the appellant, would submit that the judgment of conviction is perverse illegal and opposed to principles of law. It is submitted that according to the case of prosecution, the incident took place on 27th May 2012 at about 6:30 pm, but the complaint was filed on 13th June 2012 at 2:32 pm. The inordinate delay of 17 days to set the law into motion is not explained. In Exhibit P3-Complaint, the date of complaint was mentioned as 12th June, 2012, but later on it was altered as 13th June, 2012. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the above referred events and has erroneously convicted the appellant. She would further submit that it is the case of the prosecution that on 27th May 2012 the victim attended the examination and while returning to her village, the alleged incident took place, but in the cross- examination she has admitted that the said date would fall on Sunday and the circumstances would indicate cloud of suspicion in the theory of alleged incident. It is also the case of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 prosecution that the accused held her hand, covered her mouth, preventing her from screaming and dragged her to nearby bush besides stream and committed rape on her for about 5 to 10 minutes on account of which she was bleeding in her vagina. PW6-Doctor who examined the victim has spoken that no injuries found on the person of prosecutrix, and there are no signs of rape. The ocular testimony of the prosecutrix and version of the doctor are inconsistent to each other, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the same and had convicted the applicant. There are inconsistent statement regarding the venue of occurrence of incident. In the complaint at Exhibit P3, the place of incident was in front of Eshwara Temple, but in the examination-in-chief, the victim has stated that the incident took place behind Eshwara Temple and the trial Court has failed to appreciate regarding the change of venue of occurrence. PW7-Hanumantaraju, admitted in the cross-examination that both the victim and accused developed love and victim was forcing the accused to marry her. The said circumstance indicates that both of them were in love prior to the incident. Viewed from any angle, the version of Prosecutrix is not corroborating either by medical evidence or by chemical - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 analysis or ocular testimony of any witnesses. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence on record, it cannot be presumed that the victim was subjected to rape. The trial Court has convicted the accused which is not sustainable under love. Apart from this, the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant-Arun Kumar and the victim- Indira had filed joint affidavit stating that they married on Sunday the 08th December, 2013, at Shri Mahalakshmi Amma Sannidhi, Dogganahalli, Koratagere Taluk in the presence and blessings of elders, relatives and well-wishers and the same was a registered on 09th December 2013 under the Hindu marriage Act as per marriage No.IMK-HM4182013-14, CD No.TMKM12. The marriage certificate and Form No.1 is also produced. It is submitted that the appellant-accused and victim are happily living together and out of their wedlock, they have begotten a boy baby on 25th July 2019 and the place of birth is Raghavendra Peoples Tree Hospital, BBMP, Bengaluru which is registered as No.803162/B/B2019/091981. The birth certificate is also produced. On all these grounds it is sought to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 614. 6. On the hand, Sri Rangaswamy R, learned High Court Government Pleader, would support the impugned order and the submits that the same would not call for interference. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the appellant has made out of ground to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court? 2. What order? 8. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: in the affirmative Point No.2: as per final order Regarding Point No.1: 9. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is a case of the prosecution that on 27th May, 2012 at 6:30 am, in a dilapidated Eshwara Temple within the limits of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 Rural Police Station, Tumkur, the appellant committed rape on CW1 by threatening and thereby committed offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PWs1 to 10 and marked eight documents as Exhibits P1 to P8. PW3 is the victim. She has deposed as to the incident as alleged in the complaint Exhibit P3. PW1-Mahalakshmi and PW2-Rudramurthy are the medical officers who examined this victim. PW4-Kantharaju, father of victim and PW5, Vijayalakshmi, are the parents of the victim. PW6- Chikkaveeraiah has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the police as per Exhibit P4. PW7-Hanumantaraju is the hearsay witness. PW8 Umesh K.J. is the PWD Engineer who has prepared the spot-sketch as per Exhibit P6. PW9-A.V. Kumar and PW10-V. Mariyappa, are the investigating officers who speak about their investigation. 10. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is necessary to mention here as to the statement of the accused under section 313 of CRPC, which reads as under: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 ".ಆ... ೆ 313 ರ ಆೋ ಾದ ಾನು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂೆ ತನ ತ ೇ ೆಯನು ಸ ಸುೆ#ೕೆ. ¸Áé«Ä, ¦gÁå¢ ಇಂ%ಾ ನನನು &ಾಢ(ಾ) *ೕ+ಸು+#ದು, ನನನು ಮದು(ೆಾಗ/ೇೆಂದು ಇಷ1ಪಟು1 ಹಲ(ಾರು /ಾ6 ಈ 7ಷಯವನು ನನ ಮುಂ9ೆ ಆೆಯ ಅಕ; ಜಯಮ=ಳ ಮುಂ9ೆ ಆೆಯ ತಂ9ೆ ಾ> ಮುಂ9ೆ ಮತು# ಅ.ಾ.7 ಹನುಮಂತಾಜು ಮುಂ9ೆ ಹಲ(ಾರು /ಾ6 ೇ ರುಾ#?ೆ. ಾನು ಆೆ&ೆ ಎಷು1 ಬು%, ೇ ದರೂ ೇಳB+#ರ ಲ. ಾನು 79ಾCDಾCಸ Eಾಡು+#9ೆ,ೕೆ *ೕ+ Fೆ*ೕಮ ಮದು(ೆ 7ಷಯ ಇಬG6ಗೂ ಒ?ೆIಯದಲ. ಈ 6ೕ+ Jೕನು ನನನು ೕKಸ/ಾರದು 79ಾCDಾCಸೆ; ೊಂದೆಾಗುತ#9ೆ Jೕನು ನನನು EಾತಾKಸಲು ಬರ/ಾರದು ಎಂದು ೇ ದರೂ ೇಳB+#ರ ಲ. ಹಲ(ಾರು /ಾ6 ನನ ಾLೇMನ ಹ+#ರ ಬಂದು ಈ 7ಷಯವನು ಪ*ಾ#ಪ Eಾಡು+#ದ,ಳB, Jೕನು ನನನು ಮದು(ೆಾಗ%ದ,ೆ J9ೆ, Eಾೆ* ನುಂ) ಆತ= ಹೆC EಾKೊಳBIವN9ಾ) ೇಳB+#ದ,ಳB ಆತ=ಹೆCಗೂ ಪ*ಯ+ಸು+#ದ,ಳB ಮತು# ಹಲ(ಾರು /ಾ6 Oೕ ಮೂಲಕ ೇಳB+#ದ,ಳB ಸಂ9ೇಶಗಳನು ಕಳBQಸು+#ದ,ಳB. ಒಂದು /ಾ6 %ಾಂಕ :06.05.2012 ರಂದು ಾನು ಮದು(ೆ ಆಗುವN%ಲ(ೆಂದು ೇ ದ,ೆ; ಅ.ಾ.7 ಹನುಮಂತಾಜು ಮತು# ನನ ಮುಂ9ೆ Fೇಪ ಕಟು1 Eಾಡುವ Rಾಕು7Jಂದ ತನ ಎಡ ೈಯನ ಕುಯು,ೊಂಡು ಸತು# ೋಗುೆ#ೕೆಂದು Tೕ6ದಳB. ಆಗ ಾನು ಹನುಮಂತಾಜು ಮತು# ಮಧು ಎನುವ ನನ ೇQತ, ತುಮಕೂರು 7ಜಾ ಆಸVೆ*&ೆ ೇ6 TWೆX ೊK9ೆನು ಆಸVೆ*&ೆ ೋದ ತಣ, ಆೆಯ ಅಕ; ಜಯಮ=J&ೆ Oೕ EಾK ತಣ ಆೆಯ ತಂ9ೆಯನೂ ಕೆದುೊಂಡು ಬJ ಈ 6ೕ+ ೆಟ1 ಹಠ Eಾಡುಾ#?ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ 9ೆ ಆೆಯ ಅಕ; ಜಯಮ= &ೆ ಾನು ಎLಾ 7ಷದ(ಾ) ೇ ಬು%, ೇಳBವಂೆ ಈ 6ೕ+ಯ *ೕ+ Fೆ*ೕಮ ಒ?ೆIಯದಲ ಾ7ನೂ 79ಾCDಾCಸ Eಾಡು+#9ೆ,ೕ(ೆ ಬು%,ೇ ಎಂದು ೇ ೊಂ[ೆ. ಅದನ ೇ ೊಂಡ ಇಂ%ಾ ತನ ೈ&ೆ ಾWದ, K*\ ೆಟ1ನ ]1Jಂದ Wತು# ^ಾWದಳB, ಜಯಮ= ಬು%, ೇ ದರೂ ೇಳ _ಲ. ನಂತರ ಆೆಯ ತಂ9ೆ ತಮ= ರ`ೕಶ ಆೆಯ Tಕ;ಪV ಾಗಾಜುರವರೂ ಕೂಡ ಆಸVೆ*&ೆ ಬಂದು ೋK ೊಂಡು ೋ)ರುಾ#ೆ. ಅವೆಲ ಬು%, ೇ ದರೂ ಆೆ ೇಳB+#ರ ಲ, 3 %ನಗಳ ಾಲ ಆಸVೆ*ಯ TWೆX ಪ[ೆದುೊಂKರುಾ#?ೆ. ನಂತರವa ಕೂಡ ಇ9ೇ 6ೕ+ ನನನು ಮದು(ೆಾಗ/ೇೆಂದು ೕKಸು+#ದ,ಳB ಾನು ಇಲ(ೆಂದೆ ನನ `ೕLೆ ಹುRಾbಪcೆ1 cಾ1ಗು+#ದ,ಳB, %ಾಂಕ 11.06.2012 ರಂದು ಸಂdೆ ನನ&ೆ - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 Oೕ EಾK JEಾ&ೆ ೋ&ೋಣ(ೆಂದು ಕೆದಳB ಆಗ ನನ&ೆ ಆಗುವN%ಲ ನನ Eಾವ ಮಂಜುಾಥರವರ ೈfಗಳ ಹ+#ರ ಾೋ /ೌಂಡ6 ಕಲು W+#ಾW;9ಾ,ೆಂದು ನನ&ೆ ೋKೊಂಡು ಬರಲು ೇ ದ,ರು ಅದರಂೆ ಾನು ೋಗ/ೇಕು ಎಂದು ೇ 9ೆ ಅದೆ; ಾನು ಬರುೆ#ೕೆ ಅಂತ ೇ ದಳB ಾನದೆ; /ೇಡ(ೆಂ9ೆ. ಸಂdೆ ಸುEಾರು 5-30 ಗಂcೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ೈf ೋKೊಂಡು ಯLಾಪNರದ ಹ+#ರ ಬರು+#ರ/ೇಾದೆ ಾೊಬGೇ ಬರುವNದನು ಕಂಡು ಆೆ ಬಂದು ಾೋ ನನನು ಅ(ಾCh Eಾಡು+#%,ೕಾ ಅಂತ ನನ ೊರಳB ಪ]1 QKದು ನನ `ೕLೆ ಹLೆ EಾK ನನ ಕು+#&ೆ ಹ+#ರ ಎ9ೆಯ ಹ+#ರ ಪರTದಳB ಶಟುi Wಾ#ಗ ೊರಳ ಪ]1ಯ ಹ+#ರ ಹ6>ತು. ನಂತರ ಾನು ^Kೊಂಡು ನನ ತಂ9ೆ ಮತು# ನನ EಾವJ&ೆ Oೕ EಾK ನ[ೆದ 7ಷಯ + 9ೆ. ನನ 79ಾCDಾCಸೆ; ಅKj Eಾಡು+#9ಾ,?ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ 9ೆ. Eಾರೇ %ನ ಬರುವN9ಾ) ಅವರು ೇ ಅದರಂೆ 12ೇ ಾ6ೕಖು ಅಂದೆ 12.06.2012 ರ 10-30 ಗಂcೆ ಸಮಯದ O ೕl mಾnೆ&ೆ ೋ) ಆೆಯ 7ರುದ, ದೂರು JೕK9ೆವN. O ೕl ರವರು ಆೆಯನ ಕೆ ಬು%,(ಾದ ೇಳBವN9ಾ) ಮೆ# Jನ ತಂcೆ&ೆ ಬರದಂೆ ೇಳBೆ#ೕ(ೆ ಇನೂ 79ಾCoiಗಳB ೇಸು /ೇಡ ಎಂದು ಬು%, ೇ ದರು, ಮೆ# ನಮ&ೆ 5-00 ಗಂcೆ&ೆ mಾnೆ&ೆ ಬರಲು + ದ,ರು ಅದರಂೆ ಾನು ಮೆ# mಾnೆ&ೆ ೋ9ಾಗ ನನ)ಂತ ಮುಂRೆ ಇಂ%ಾ, ಆೆಯ ತಂ9ೆ ಾಂತಾಜು ಾ> 7ಜಯಲpಮ= ಆೆಯ ಸಂಬಂq LೋೇಶrರಪV Lಾಯ ಇದ,ರು. O ೕl ನವರು ನನನು mಾnೆಯ ಕೂ6ೊಂKರಲು ಇಂ%ಾ %ಾಂಕ : 12.06.2012 ರಂದು ಸಂdೆ ಸುಳBI ಾi% JೕKರುವ 7ಷಯ + >ತು %ಾಂಕ: 13.06.2012 ರಂದು ಆೆ ಾವN9ೇ ದೂರು JೕKರುವN%ಲ ಾiದನು %ಾಂಕ : 13.06.2012 ರಂದು ಸೃt1 EಾಡLಾ)9ೆ. ಆೆ ನನನು ಮದು(ೆಾಗ/ೇೆಂದು ಮತು# ಾನು ೊಟ1ದೂ6Jಂದ ತVೊಳI/ೇೆಂದು ನನ 7ರುದu ಸುಳBI ಾiq JೕK ನನ 7ರುದ, ಸುಳBI ಾv ೇ ರುಾ#?ೆ. ಾನು ಾವ ತಪNV Eಾಡದ Jರಪಾq. %ಾಂಕ 23.10.2012 ರಂದು ಾq ಇಂ%ಾ ಆೆಯ w/ೈ_ Jಂದ ಅಂದೆ ನಂ.9901436064( ಏೆcೆ_ ೕy) ನನ w/ೈ_&ೆ ಅಂದೆ ನಂ.7760626484 “/ಾೋ ಎ ಾದರೂ ದೂರೋ) ಮದು(ೆ ಆ&ೋಣ ಎಲ ಸ6 ೋಗುೆ#ೕ” “ನಂ&ೆ ೋfi ಇಂದ ೋದು* ಕೂಡ ನನ Jನ ಾ6ಂ9ಾನು ದೂರ Eಾಡೆ ಆಗಲ ಕnೋ ೕl ನಂ&ೆ JೕೊಬGೇ ಕnೋ ೊೆತನಕ ಇರು” "ಾನು ಕೆ9ಾ&ೆಲ ಬರ/ೇಕು ಮುದು, Eಾಡ/ೇಕು” "ಎ &ೆ ಕ6+ ಬರ/ೇಕು ಮುz - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 ಾಡೇಕು ಎ ಾ ಾಡೇಕು ಕಾ" ಮುಂಾದ ಸಂೇಶಗಳನು ಕಳರುಾೆ. ಈ ಸಂೇಶಗಳನ ಂ! ೆ"ೆದು ಅವ%ಗಳ * &ಾ'ಯನು )ಾಜರು ಪ,ರುೇ-ೆ. ನನ ಾವ ಮಂಜು-ಾ.ರವರ ಾ/ 0 ೕಮ1 ರುದ ಮ2 ತುಮಕೂರು ಯ ಾಪ%ರದ ಹ1ರ )ೊಂ6ರುವ 7ೈ9ನ ಬ"ೆ; ಕ ಯಪತ ದ <ೆ=ಾ>? ಪ 1ಯನು )ಾಜರು ಪ,ರುೇ-ೆ. 6-ಾಂಕ :27.05.2013 ರಂದು ಇಂ6=ಾ"ೆ ಪAೕBೆ ಇ6Cಲ ಆ6ನ FಾನುGಾರHರುತೆ. -ಾನು ಆ6ನ ಆ&ೆಯ <ೊೆ ಅವರ ಊA"ೆ )ೋJಲ ಅವರ ಊAನ ಹ1ರ ಆ&ೆಯು )ೇKರುವಂೆ ಆ6ನ Lಾವ ಘಟ-ೆಯೂ ನನ ಆ&ೆಯ ಮOೆP ನQೆ6ಲ ಎ ಾ ಸೃST ಾ, )ೇKಾCೆ. ನನ HರುದC )ೇKರುವ ಅUVೕಜ-ೆಯ 7ಾWಗಳ ೆXೕಷ6ಂದ ಸುಳZ )ೇKರುಾ=ೆ. ಆ&ೆ ಘಟ-ೆ ನQೆ/ೇಂದು )ೇKರುವ <ಾಗ ೆK"ೆ;/ಂದ =ಾ1 8-00 ಗಂ[ೆಯವ=ೆ"ೆ ಜನರು ಓQಾಡುವ <ಾಗ ]ಜ^ನ ಪ ೇಶವಲ. ನನನು ]ರಪ=ಾ_`ಂದು ಪAಗa bಡುಗQೆ ಾಡೇ&ೆಂದು "ೌರGಾ]Xತ -ಾPLಾಲಯದd eಾ f^ಸುೇ-ೆ." 11. PW7-Hanumantaraju, who is the common friend of both the victim and the accused, in his cross-examination has deposed that both the accused and the victim developed love and the victim has been forcing the accused to marry her. This witness of PW7 clearly reveals that PW3 victim has suppressed the fact and lodged complaint after lapse of 17 days from the date of alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to explain the delay of 17 days in filing the complaint. The - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 evidence of the victim has also not been corroborated with medical evidence. 12. PW6-Chikkaveeraiah, has deposited that no injury is found on the person of prosecutrix. There are no signs of a rape. There are no consistent evidence regarding the venue of occurrence of incident. In Exhibit P3-comlplaint, the place of occurrence is shown as in front of Eshwara Temple, but in the examination-in-chief, the victim has stated that the incident occurred behind Eshwara Temple. On careful examination of evidence of victim and the contents of complaint and the medical evidence, I do not find any cogent, consistent, corroborative or trustworthy evidence in the prosecution witnesses. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused for offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, which is not sustainable under law. 13. In addition to this, both the victim and accused present before the Court today and filed their joint affidavit stating that they got married on 08th December, 2013, and the same is also registered on 09th December 2013. They also begotten a boy baby which is now aged six years. The - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 marriage certificate of the accused and the victim and the birth certificate of the child, are also produced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL (supra) has observed that "Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children." Since this Court has already held that the prosecution has filed to prove the guilt of the accused before all reasonable doubt, there is no need to give any finding on the Joint Affidavit filed by the victim and accused. Hence, I answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 14. For the reasons and discussions aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15th April 2014, passed in SC No.265 of - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43110 CRL.A No. 314 of 2014 2012 by the Principal Sessions, Judge, Tumkur, is set aside; iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code; iv) Fine amount if any deposited, be refunded to the appellant/accused upon due identification as per relevant Rules. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88