- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8574 CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 828 OF 2017 BETWEEN: ASHRAF S/O KHADAR B AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O MOHAMMAD ISMAIL MANZIL, NEAR MASJID, 2ND BLOCK, SHAMSHIDDIN CIRCLE, KATIPALLA MANGALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 575 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 574 201. (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 & 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.03.2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.5030/2015 AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8574 CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017 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 of sentence dated 09.01.2013 in C.C No.1495/2009 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., and its confirmation judgment and order dated 17.03.2016 in Crl.A No.5030/2015 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, Sitting at Puttur, D.K., wherein the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.01.2009 around 05.00 p.m., the accused took the victim / P.W.2 to the nearby railway bridge situated at Mottethadka, there he tried to outrage her modesty. When she raised alarm, he closed her mouth with his hand and threatened - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8574 CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017 her that he would kill her. By that time, the passer-by had come to that place. On seeing the passer-by, the accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. The jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.31/2009 for the offences stated supra. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, six witnesses namely PWs.1 to 6 and got marked three documents as per Exhibits P1 to P3. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction for the offences stated supra. On appeal being filed, the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 5. Heard Smt. Pooja Kattimani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ravindra B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8574 CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017 passed by the Appellate Court are required to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law. 7. It is further submitted that the prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of P.W.2, however, her evidence is contrary to the evidence of other witnesses. Even though the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are not made out, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court concurrently held that the accused has committed the offences and recorded the conviction which is against to the evidence on record and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to allow the revision petition. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent vehemently justified the concurrent findings and submitted that the findings of the Courts below are appropriate and he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 9. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the documents available on record, it appears that P.W.1 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8574 CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017 being the mother of P.W.2 has stated in her evidence that her daughter was going to school and she used to come back home around 5.30 p.m. On 29.01.2009, in the said evening, it is stated that, when her daughter was coming from school, the accused stated to have abducted her and took her near the railway bridge and tried to outrage her modesty. However, in the meantime, the victim has raised alarm. On hearing the said alarm, P.W.4 had gone there. The accused on seeing P.W.4, ran away from the spot. After the incident, P.W.4 brought the victim to her home. 10. P.W.1 further states that she had received information from her daughter and thereafter, she lodged a complaint. Though she had been cross-examined extensively, she withstood all the questions put to her and she was consistent that her daughter was subjected to outraging of the modesty. 11. Similarly, P.W.2 being the victim, has stated in verbatim as that of P.W.1 in respect of the incident. These witnesses are consistent that the accused left her after seeing P.W.4. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8574 CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017 12. The evidence of P.W.4 assumes greater significance to corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. P.W.4 was working as Attender in the school where P.W.2 was studying. According to him, on 29.01.2009 around 05.00 p.m., when he was going to his garden situated at Mottethadka to irrigate the garden, he heard the screaming voice from the bush nearer to the railway line. Immediately, he rushed to the said place and found that the accused was lying on the victim by closing her mouth with his hand. He further says that the accused ran away from the spot after seeing him. He further stated that he called Shankara Gowda who was there in the nearby place and both of them tried to catch the accused, however, the accused escaped from them. Thereafter, he dropped the said girl to her house. Though he was cross- examined by the counsel for the defence, nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. 13. P.W.5 says in his evidence that after completion of his work, when he was returning home near the railway line, he heard the screaming voice of a girl from the nearby bushes. Immediately, he rushed to the place. Both - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8574 CRL.RP No. 828 of 2017 himself and P.W.4 though tried to catch the accused, the accused had managed to escape from the place. 14. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 are consistent that the accused was trying to outrage the modesty of the girl. On going through the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is clear that, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC gets attracted. The defence has not elicited anything from these witnesses to discredit their evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence in respect of the offence. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner / accused has not made out any grounds to interfere with the said findings of the Courts below. 15. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32