- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2020 CRL.A No. 200056 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200056 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A)(2) BETWEEN: KENCHAPPA @ NAGARAJ S/O NAGALINGAPPA CHUKKADI, AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNAKUNTI VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122. AS PER FIR: KENCHAPPA @NAGARAJ S/O AMARAPPA CHUKKUDI, AS PER CHARGE SHEET: KENCHAPPA @ NAGRAJ S/O NAGALINGAPPA CHUKKADI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RATHOD SUBHASCHANDRA DESU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH LINGASUGUR PS, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURGI-585102. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2020 CRL.A No. 200056 of 2025 2. PARVATEMMA@ AMBAMMA W/O KENCHAPPA, AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HIREHESROOR VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A (2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO, KINDLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, SITTING AT SINDHANUR AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF THE CASES UNDER SC/ST ACT IN CRIMINAL MISC NO. 5463/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376, 504, 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SEC 3 (1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AND WHICH IS PENDING ON FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR, SITTING AT SINDHANUR AND SPECIAL JUDGE OF TRAIL OF THE CASES UNDER SC/ST ACT IN SPL CASE NO.5360/2024 AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2020 CRL.A No. 200056 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The appellant is before this Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and seeking to set aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5463/2024 pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur Sitting at Sindhanur and Special Judge for Trial of the cases under SC/ST Act in Special Case No.5360/2024. Factual matrix of the case: 2. A complaint came to be registered by the complainant stating that she belonged to schedule caste. The appellant belonged to category-2A. However, both the complainant and the appellant are residents of the same village. On 16.05.2024, the complainant went to bring - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2020 CRL.A No. 200056 of 2025 firewood to her land. The appellant proceeded on his motorcycle behind her and stated to have asked her the address to go to Rampura. It is further stated that, in the evening, around 4.00 p.m., he again followed her by abusing that she told the wrong address of Rampura and started assaulting and abusing her by naming the caste and also by using filthy language. It is further stated that, he took the complainant by holding her neck and committed rape on her by threatening that he would upload the nude pictures to the media etc. Thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against the appellant for the above said offences. 3. Heard Sri.Rathod Subhaschandra Desu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the allegations made against the appellant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2020 CRL.A No. 200056 of 2025 are baseless and false and there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Merely, because, she stated in her statement that she had been subjected to rape in the land, that itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellant had committed rape on her. In fact, the medical certificate would indicate that there were no signs of physical assault as well as sexual assault committed by the appellant. Such being the fact, the appellant may be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the said appeal by stating that the medical certificate would indicate that there are external injuries present on the body of the complainant. Her statement has to be believed for the reason that she had been subjected to rape by the appellant. There are three eyewitnesses for the last scene theory. All are consistent in their statement that the appellant was following her when she was going to her land. Such being the fact, if the appeal is allowed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2020 CRL.A No. 200056 of 2025 and the appellant is enlarged on bail, there would be a possibility of not only tampering the prosecution witnesses but also there would be threat to the society at large as the material witness belongs to weaker section of the society. Therefore, it is not appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint and also the medical certificate of the victim, the statement of the prosecutrix would indicate that she had been subjected to rape in the land when she was going to her land to bring the fire wood. During the said period, she is stated to have sustained grievous injuries. The said injuries have been corroborated by the wound certificate issued by the Doctor. Therefore, at this juncture, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2020 CRL.A No. 200056 of 2025 7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT:PK