- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100014 OF 2022 (C) BETWEEN: MANJUNATH @ MANJA S/O. NAGYA SIDDI AGE 53 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE R/O. VADDAR MANE, NAGARKHAN TALUKA SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR(U.P). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, YELLAPUR, POLICE STATION-U.K. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374 (2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 19.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE. U.K. KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI, IN S.C.NO.5039/2017 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 376, 504, 506 OF IPC, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.13 15:47:23 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri A.R.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction and sentenced in S.C No. 5039/2017 dated 19.03.2021 passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sirsi, Itinerary at Yellapur, as under is the appellant: “The Accused is sentenced to undergo R.I., for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of 20,000/- for the offence U/Sec.376 of IPC. In default of payment of the fine amount the Accused shall suffer S.I., for a period of two months. Further the Accused is sentenced to undergo S.I., for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/Sec.504 of IPC. Further the Accused is sentenced to undergo S.I., for a period of six months for the offence punishable U/Sec.506 of IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 The Accused is entitled for benefit U/s 428 of Cr.P.C., for the period of his detention under judicial custody in this case.” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by the victim lady (P.W.2) with Yellapura Police Station, Uttara Kannada District, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet, inter alia apprehending the Appellant/accused. 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 23.07.2017, around 04.00 p.m. when the complainant was sitting on the plat form of her house after returning from grazing the cattle of her owner and when her husband was away from the house for purchase of the grocery, at that juncture the appellant/accused came there and told her that she should share the bed with him and he is ready to pay the money for the said act. 5. Complainant said to have refused the offer for which the appellant/accused abused her in filthy language and forcibly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 dragged her onto a lonely place near the hillock and forcefully had sexual intercourse. 6. After the incident, the accused is said to have cautioned the complainant saying that if the incident is revealed to anybody including her husband, he would kill her. 7. However, the complainant intimated the incident to her husband soon after he returned home and then complaint came to be lodged. 8. Charge sheet material discloses that investigation agency has recovered necessary materials including the medical evidence and has sought for action against the accused. 9. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court. 10. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore trial was held. 11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined twelve witnesses as PW-1 to PW-12 and placed on record 25 documentary evidence which were - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.25. Prosecution marked three material objects viz., saree, petticoat and blouse worn by the victim on the day of incident which were exhibited and marked as M.Os.1 to 3. 12. Accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned Session Judge on conclusion of recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 13. Accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances. For question No.17, accused has answered that he has not committed any wrong and when two and half acres of the land which has been illegally encroached by the complainant was questioned, a false case has been foisted against him. 14. In order to substantiate the said defence, he got examined one Prakash Vighneshwar Bhat as D.W.1. 15. On conclusion of recording of the evidence of the parties, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by the impugned judgment, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 16. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds. • “The learned Sessions Judge has not looked in to the medical report. The victim intentionally telling lie. The same is very serious defect in the Judgement is amounts to injustice to the Appellant. • The learned Session Judge has committed serious error in convicting the appellant relying on the evidence of highly interested witnesses Pw-2 Victim. Husband, P.W. 5, and P.W. 6 are the none other than the neighbour. Therefore, the learned session judge without taking care and caution, while appreciating the evidence of highly interested witnesses to ascertain the truth like separating the grain from the chop, the session's court has drawn an adverse inference against the Appellant. • The learned session Judge has committed serious error in convicting the Appellants relaying on the evidence of highly interested witnesses P.W. 2, 5 and 6 but their evidence suffer from full of the material contradictions and omissions which go to the root of the case and falsify the entire case of the prosecution, their evidence is also entire corroborated by any independent witnesses thus their evidence can not be believed as reliable or trustworthy. • It is submitted that, the learned session's judge has committed grave error, the interested witnesses are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 taking undue advantage of the civil dispute, encroachment of land of accused property, Hence it is liable to be set-aside. • It is submitted that, the learned session Judge has committed grave error in not considered P.W. 3, 4 & 7 turned hostile. And they also material contradiction in their evidence. • PW 1 Doctor has examined the accused and gave his opinion that the accused is capable of performing normal sexual intercourse but there is nothing to say anything regarding sexual mark or recover any material evidence, and not connect this case only oral evidence, given by the victim. • That the accused is having civil dispute against victim family hence the victim and her husband are created a false story and filed a false case against this appellant. The trial court drawn an adverse inference against the appellant the trial court holding that appellant has committed an offence believing on the corroborative testimony of the highly interested witnesses. • P.W. 8 Doctor has examined the victim lady and not found any external injury or evidence of forced sexual intercourse on the victim lady as per Ex-P 11. Hence it is liable to set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 • P W 2. Victim lady stated in the evidence accused dragged her into the hill near her house and pushed on the ground and committed rape, this statement shows that definitely she must be suffered injury on body but no injury on her body hence the victim and her husband created a false story and filed a false case against appellant to grab the encroached property hence it liable to set aside. • It is submitted that, the prosecution has failed to prove their case by examining any medical document or independent witnesses other than the husband neighbour of the victim regarding offence. • It is submitted that the learned Session Judge has not properly appreciated the case of the prosecution and arrived at a wrong conclusion with assumption and presumption holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The same is not maintainable under the law. • It is submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the actual incident and came with false and concocted story that the appellant committed the offence. The learned Session Judge without appreciating the case of the prosecution in the light of human probabilities, and perspective manner has accepted the same and came to wrong conclusion holding against Appellant. Even without assigning proper and cogent reasons. Thus, the same has vitiated his findings. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 • It is submitted that, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and satisfactory evidence against the appellant. On the contrary, the learned Session Judge without considering the defence version has passed erroneous ordered by assigning the imaginary, improbable and unjust reason. Therefore, the order of learned Session's Judge is incorrect and improper. • The entire approach of the case by the learned Session Judge is illegal, invalid, erroneous and perverse. Thus, the same has resulted injustice to the appellant. • In view of the above mentioned grounds there are absolutely no cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence to convict the appellant for the alleged offence. The learned Session Judge without considering the serious infirmities and crept in the case of prosecution has arrived a wrong conclusion. This is opposed to the Principle of law. There fore it is liable to be set side.” 17. Sri A.R.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, contended that learned Trial Judge utterly failed to appreciate the material evidence in its proper perspective, giving a clear go by to the contradictions elicited in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 18. He would further emphasize that entire approach towards the case by the learned Session Judge is illegal and invalid besides erroneous and perverse. 19. He also contended that the victim lady has stated that accused has dragged her into a small hillock near her house and pushed on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse. 20. If that is so, there must have been at least abrasions on the body of the victim. But no external injuries are noted during the course of medical examination which falsify the case put forward on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore sought for allowing the appeal. 21. Learned counsel would also argue that prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the crime inasmuch as it is the complainant who had illegally encroached two had a half acres of the land and when the same was questioned by D.W-1, a false case has been foisted against the appellant herein who was working as a coolie under DW-1 and sought for allowing the appeal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 22. Per contra, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader, while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the oral evidence of DW-1 is artificial in nature inasmuch as, no documentary evidence is placed on record to establish that there was an encroachment. 23. It is specifically deposed by DW1 that the accused had illegally encroached upon two and a half acres of land and had grown banana and arecanut trees by his hard work, and that he also used to attend to agricultural operations on his land. 24. DW-1 further deposed that the entire case is false and that, on the day of the incident, the accused had been to Yallapur. Therefore, could not have committed the act complained of. 25. However, this assertion was not proved by the accused by placing any material evidence on record. Therefore, it does not merit acceptance. Accordingly, sought dismissal of the appeal. 26. Learned High Court Government Pleader also brought to the notice of the Court that the accused is in the habit of committing sexual offences against vulnerable women, including - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 children, and that another case has been registered against the present appellant, wherein he was convicted for raping a young girl aged six and a half years. On this ground, it was submitted that no mercy could be shown to the appellant. 27. It was further emphasized that the evidence of DW1 constitutes the plea of alibi, and no material evidence has been placed on record to substantiate this plea. 28. Accordingly, the learned High Court Government Pleader sought for dismissal of the appeal. 29. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether the prosecution has successfully established all ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC? ii. Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity or perversity and calls for interference? iii. Whether the sentence imposed is excessive? iv. What order? - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 30. Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: In the case at hand, PW1 is the doctor who examined the accused and issued potency certificate, which is not in dispute. PW2 is the victim lady, who deposed in line with the complaint averments and specifically stated that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, taking advantage of her being alone at home. 31. PW2 was extensively cross-examined by the defence. The accused questioned the directions in which the victim was allegedly dragged. The victim specifically stated that she was dragged to the eastern side of her house where a small hillock is located, which is in conformity with the spot sketch. 32. She also stated that at that time, there were mud stains on her clothes and small abrasions caused by thorns and sharp- edged stones at the spot. 33. In other words, the cross-examination of PW2, instead of disproving the prosecution case, corroborates the fact that the victim was dragged to the hillock. Except suggesting that the accused did not commit forcible sexual intercourse, no other material evidence was placed on record. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 34. A suggestion was made that, at the instance of DW1, a false complaint was lodged. DW1-Sri Prakash Vighneswar Bhat, was examined by the defence, but his evidence contradicted the stand taken by the accused. 35. PW3 and PW4 were witnesses to the recovery panchnama, and their evidence is corroborative in nature. PW5 is the husband of the victim, who, on returning home, came to know of the incident and accompanied the victim to Yallapur Police Station. PW6 is an acquaintance with the victim and corroborated PW5’s testimony regarding the events following the incident. PW7 was a panch witness to the spot panchnama and his evidence is also corroborative. 36. PW8, the lady medical officer who examined the victim, furnished her opinion in Ex.P11. The contents of Ex.P11 were not seriously challenged in cross-examination. She noted that there was no external injury but opined that penile-vaginal penetration was possible. 37. PW10 is the investigating officer, PW11 is the police constable who carried the FIR, and PW12 is the further - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 investigating officer. Their evidence is purely corroborative in nature. 38. On re-appreciation of the material evidence, it is noted that the victim, aged 45 years, had no previous enmity against the accused and specifically deposed about the incident wherein the accused took advantage of her being alone, dragged her onto a small hillock behind her house, and committed forcible sexual intercourse. There was no delay in lodging the complaint or in conducting the medical examination. 39. The suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated due to the absence of external injuries cannot be countenanced in law. Further, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, claiming that he was falsely implicated because of a land dispute, is not supported by any material evidence. The suggestions made to PW2 and the oral evidence of DW1 are contradictory to each other and do not support the stand taken by the accused. 40. Taking note of these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused has not made out any - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 grounds, let alone sufficient grounds, to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Judge. 41. In matters of this nature, the testimony of the victim assumes greater importance. If the victim’s oral testimony inspires confidence, it alone can form the basis for conviction. Corroboration becomes necessary only when doubt arise regarding the credibility of the testimony or such testimony of victim is shaky. 42. In the present case, there is no reason why the victim would falsely implicate the accused, particularly given the gravity of alleging rape against him. 43. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and Point No.2 in the negative. 44. Regarding Point No. 3: It was contended that the appellant is also convicted in another case and that the sentences in both cases may be ordered to run concurrently. This argument cannot be accepted in law, as the second incident involves a different victim, aged six and a half years, and is entirely distinct from the present case. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1787 CRL.A No. 100014 of 2022 45. The accused was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act in that case (Crl.A. No.100019/2021). Therefore, the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge in the present case does not require interference. As such, invariably, Point No. 3 is answered in the negative. 46. Regarding Point No. 4: In view of the findings on Points Nos.1 to 3, this Court holds that the appeal is without merit. 47. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm paragraphs 1 to 22 AC paragraphs 23 till end. CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 101