- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100052 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI RENUKUMARA SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHITRALLI VILLAGE, SINDHANOOR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584101. …PETITIONER (BY MISS. RANJITA RADDI ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ITS HACHHOLLI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.112/2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI CONFIRMING ORDER DATED 01.10.2013 IN C.C.NO.28/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SIRUGUPPA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 417 R/W 420 OF IPC, IN ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Miss Ranjita Raddi Alagawadi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.10.2013 passed in C.C. No.28/2009 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), as well as the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.112/2013 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court'). 3. The case of the prosecution, in outline, is as hereunder: The complainant and Accused No.1 are stated to be residents of the same village, and their respective agricultural - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 lands are situated adjacent to each other. According to the prosecution, the complainant and Accused No.1 developed a friendship approximately eight months prior to the filing of the complaint, which subsequently evolved into a love affair. It is alleged that the accused, under the pretext and assurance of marrying the complainant, engaged in sexual intercourse with her. The complainant thereafter disclosed the affair to her parents. It is further alleged that when the complainant and her parents approached the accused with a request to solemnize the marriage, the accused postponed the marriage citing the upcoming Assembly elections. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 06.06.2008, when the complainant and her parents were at their residence, Accused No.1, along with the other accused persons, came to their house, abused them in filthy language, and threatened them with dire consequences. The accused is further alleged to have refused to marry the complainant. Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, an FIR was registered, and upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 417, 504, and 506 read with Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exhibits P1 to P11. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504, and 506 read with Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.112/2013. The Appellate Court, upon re- appreciation of the evidence on record, set aside the conviction and sentence in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It also set aside the conviction and sentence of Accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 420 of the IPC. However, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 against Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 420 of the IPC. 6. Miss Ranjita Raddi Alagawadi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the complaint was registered after an inordinate and unexplained delay and, therefore, lacks bona fides. It is further submitted that the evidence on record, at the most, establishes that the complainant and the petitioner were in a physical relationship; however, it is insufficient to prove any promise of marriage so as to attract the charged offences. Learned counsel contends that the evidence on record fails to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It is submitted that both the complainant and the accused, while being in a physical relationship, had no intention of marriage, and it is only when the matter became public that a false complaint was lodged on the basis of an alleged promise of marriage, causing prejudice to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, submits that the evidence of PW1 and other prosecution - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 witnesses, including PW13 – the doctor, establishes that PW1 – the complainant, had sexual intercourse with the petitioner. It is submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings based on the evidence available on record. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence of PW1 – the complainant. According to her testimony, her father owns 2 acres of land adjacent to that of the petitioner. The petitioner initially teased her while she was working on the land and subsequently offered to marry her, on the basis of which she engaged in sexual intercourse with him. It is further stated that, as per the advice of CWs.4 and 5, the petitioner later refused to marry her. During a panchayat held on 06.06.2008, it is alleged that she was abused in filthy language. PW1 has been cross-examined by the defence. Her evidence establishes that she had a physical relationship with the petitioner and became pregnant. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 10. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 – the parents of PW1, also supports the existence of a physical relationship between the complainant and the petitioner. Further, PWs.5 to 8 have also deposed to the same effect. The medical evidence of PW13 – the doctor – corroborates that the complainant had engaged in sexual intercourse. However, the evidence of all these witnesses merely proves the existence of a physical relationship between the complainant and the petitioner. The said evidence is inconclusive as to whether such relationship was founded on a promise of marriage. What emerges from the testimony is that the physical relationship later turned into what is described as a 'love affair.' However, a promise to marry, to constitute an offence, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. On an overall consideration of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner made a promise to marry the complainant and engaged in physical relationship on that pretext. In the absence of proof of such a promise, the question of breach does not arise. The undisputed relationship, having - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 regard to the age of the complainant and the petitioner, can only be construed as consensual. 12. When long-standing consensual relationships, after turning sour, are later alleged to be based on a false promise of marriage, the Court must exercise caution in assessing whether the essential ingredients of the charged offences are satisfied. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the above aspects, have erred in concluding that the petitioner committed offences under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. The findings recorded by both Courts are unsustainable. 13. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.28/2009 dated 01.10.2013 on the file of on the file of the JMFC at Siruguppa and the judgment in Crl.A.No.112/2013 dated 04.03.2020 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Ballari are set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9229 CRL.RP No. 100052 of 2021 (iii) The accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 417 read with 420 of IPC. (iv) The bail bond executed by the accused is cancelled and the surety is discharged. (v) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded. Registry to return the trial Court records. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9