- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8670 CRL.RP No. 100139 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100139 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, LOKAPUR POLICE STATION, MUDHOL, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) AND: SUNIL S/O. BASAVARAJ KAMBLE, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R O. CHOUDAPUR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, PINCODE-587313. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANAND ASHTEKAR AND SRI. SHEKHARGOUDA NAGANURI, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI IN S.C.NO.63/2019 DATED 30.10.2019 AND ACCUSED/RESPONDENT PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354(A), 354(D), 506, 504, 447, 354, 376 OF I.P.C., AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO PROCEED WITH CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8670 CRL.RP No. 100139 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) This revision petition is filed by the State against the order dated 30.10.2019, passed on the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. in S.C. No. 63/2019 by the accused. 2. The case against the accused arises from a complaint registered for offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506, 504, 447, and 354 of the IPC. The accused was subsequently arrested. Thereafter, a requisition was filed seeking to include an offence under Section 376 of the IPC; however, the requisition was rejected on the ground that it was not supported by relevant documents. The allegations against the accused are that on 28.05.2018, at approximately 9:00 p.m., when the complainant had gone to attend nature’s call, the accused misbehaved with her by offering to sleep with her. Further, it is alleged that four days later, while the complainant was washing vessels in front of her house, the accused forcibly dragged her into the bedroom of his house and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. It is also alleged that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8670 CRL.RP No. 100139 of 2020 accused had forcibly committed intercourse with the complainant on two occasions approximately one month prior to the alleged incident dated 27.05.2018. 3. The accused filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record and the veracity of the complaint, held that the alleged incidents appeared doubtful and that the statements of the complainant did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. Consequently, the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused was discharged of the alleged offences. 4. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State, submits that the order of discharge was premature. The complaint satisfies all the ingredients of the alleged offences, which pertain to offences committed against a woman. The delay in reporting the incident ought not to have any bearing on the continuation of the trial. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that, having regard to the nature of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8670 CRL.RP No. 100139 of 2020 the offences, the trial Court ought to have proceeded with the trial. 5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 6. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner/State and perused the records with his assistance. 7. The complaint is dated 28.05.2018. According to the contents of the complaint, about a month prior to the said date, the accused allegedly misbehaved with the complainant at around 9:00 p.m. by pulling her hand and making an indecent proposal to sleep with him. It is further alleged that, on a subsequent occasion, while the complainant had gone to attend to nature’s call in the field at about 9:00 p.m., the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. Four days thereafter, while the complainant was washing vessels in front of her house, the accused allegedly dragged her into the bedroom of his house and again committed forcible sexual intercourse. It is also stated that, prior to the alleged incident - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8670 CRL.RP No. 100139 of 2020 dated 27.05.2018, the accused had forcibly had sexual intercourse with the complainant on two earlier occasions, approximately one month prior. 8. The trial Court examined the documents on record in the context of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and further considered whether the allegations in the complaint satisfied the ingredients of the offences alleged. Upon such examination, the trial Court assigned multiple reasons for discharging the accused. 8.1 Firstly, the Court held that the recitals in the complaint cast doubt on the alleged acts of the accused. It was observed that the houses of the accused and the complainant are situated within the same village, and if the accused had indeed committed the acts as alleged, there was nothing that prevented the complainant from raising an alarm, which she admittedly did not do. 8.2 Secondly, the Court noted that if the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse on two occasions prior to 27.05.2018, and if such acts were truly against the will or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8670 CRL.RP No. 100139 of 2020 consent of the complainant, she, being a person of mature understanding, could have reported the matter either to her family members or to the police. The trial Court observed that the conduct of the complainant appeared unnatural and inconsistent with the ordinary course of human behaviour. 8.3 Thirdly, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 376 of the IPC; however, the requisite supporting evidence has not been produced. 8.4 Fourthly, the contents of the complaint and the other materials on record are, on their face, insufficient to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. 9. The trial Court, upon perusal of the recitals in the complaint as well as the material on record, held that the accused is liable to be discharged of the offences alleged. 10. On perusal of the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and the material on record, including the grounds urged by the State, no error or infirmity is found in the order passed by the Sessions Court. The petitioner/State has not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8670 CRL.RP No. 100139 of 2020 demonstrated any substantial ground warranting interference with the impugned order. 11. The petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11