Karnataka High Court
Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1051 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
RAMESH
S/O ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
BORAIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE,
KORTEGERI TALUK,
TUMKUR DIST.-572 135
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY KORTEGERI POLICE,
KORTEGERI-572 135.
...RESPONDENT
(BY KUM. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2015 PASSED BY THE
IV ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MADHUGIRI IN S.C.NO.56/2011 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 376 AND 411 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 19.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-2-
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07th August, 2015 passed in SC No.56 of 2011 by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madhugiri (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Koratagere Police have submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that CW1 to CW4 are living in Boraiahnahatti, Koratagere Taluk and CW1 being handicapped would stay at home. In the month of May- 2010, when CW2 to CW4 were not at home, the accused came to the home of the complainant and talked freely with CW1 and made her to believe that he would marry her, and against her will, he had sexual intercourse with her and impregnated her and then brought pills for abortion and gave it to her, which is the reason for abortion. In the panchayath conducted in that regard, he refused to marry her as she is handicapped but would pay compensation. Accordingly, the accused has -3- CRL.A No.1051 of 2015 committed the offences punishable under Section 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code.
4. The accused was arrested and produced before the Committal Court and was released on bail by the Principal District & Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.1261 of 2010. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in C.C No.23 of 2011. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the case was registered in SC No.56 of 2011.
5. Upon hearing on charges, trial Court framed the charges for the commission of alleged offences. Same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 10 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 10 and 11 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11. No material objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally -4- CRL.A No.1051 of 2015 denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Four documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D4.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. Further, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The victim has filed a complaint before Tumkur Town Police Station on 05th August, 2010 as per Exhibit D3, wherein she never disclosed that the appellant has committed rape on her. However, on 21st September, 2010 she has brought several false information to implicate the appellant in this case and succeeded by registering a case against the appellant. There are lot of contradictions, omissions and improvements in -5- CRL.A No.1051 of 2015 the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge failed to note the same. The appellant is innocent. He has not committed any offence as alleged against him.
9. He would submit that, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, the trial Court has rightly observed that victim did not depose anything about abortion. There is enmity between the sisters of the appellant and the victim. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the case by taking advantage of physical disability. He also submits that there is an abnormal delay in filing the complaint and same is not explained by the prosecution. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. He would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated Exhibits D1 to D4. Absolutely there are no materials to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 376 of Indian Penal Code.
10. As against this, Kum. Asma Kauser, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. -6- CRL.A No.1051 of 2015
11. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials, the following point would arise for my consideration:
"Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code?"
12. I have carefully examined the materials placed before this Court.
13. It is the case of the prosecution that CWs1 to 4 are living together in Boraiahnahatti, Koratagere Taluk and CW1 being handicapped, stays at home. In May 2010, when CW2 to CW4 were not at home, accused came to the house of the complainant and talked freely with CW1 and made her believe that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse against her will and impregnated her. He then brought pills for abortion and gave it to her, which is the reason for abortion. In the panchayath, the accused refused to marry her as she is handicapped, but would pay her compensation. Thus, the accused has committed alleged offences.
-7-CRL.A No.1051 of 2015
14. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, in all, ten witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 10 and 11 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11. No material objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution.
15. The case arise out of the complaint filed by PW1- victim, as per Exhibit P1-complaint, in which it is stated as under:
"ರವ ೆ,
ೊರಟ ೆ ೆ ೕ ಇ ೆಕ ರವರ ಸ ಾನ ೆ .
ಇ ೇ ೊರಟ ೆ ೆ ಾಲೂಕು !.ಎ . ದುಗ% &ೋಬ( )ೋರಯ+ನ ಹ- ಾ.ಮದ 0ಾ! ಾಡಪ3ನ ಮಗ4ಾದ ಸು5ಾರು 19 ವಷ%ದ ಮಂಜುಳ ಆದ ;ಾನು ಬ ೆ! ೊಟ ದೂರು.
ಏ;ೆಂದ ೆ ನಮ= ಾ.ಮದ ಆಂಧ.ಪ. ೇಶದ ೊಳ@ಮಂಡA ೆ Bೇ ದ ;ೆBೆಹ(@ ೊಲರಹ- ಾ.ಮCಂದ Dಾಗ+ಮ= ಎಂಬುವರನು ನಮ= ಾ.ಮ0ಾದ )ೋರಯ+ನಹ- EವಣG ಎಂ)ಾತ ೆ ಮದು0ೆ 5ಾI ೊಂಡು ಬಂCರು ಾJ ೆ. Dಾಗ+ಮ=ನ ಸ&ೋದರ;ಾದ ರKೕಶ ಎಂ)ಾತನು ಈ ೆM 2 ವಷ%Cಂದ ಅವರ ಅಕ ನ ಮ;ೆಯ 0ಾಸOದುP ೈಂR ೆಲಸ 5ಾI ೊಂಡು ಇದPನು. ಈ ೆM ೆಲವS Tಂಗಳ Uಂ ೆ ನಮ= ತಂ ೆ ಾಡಪ3, ಾVWಾದ Xಕ ಮ=, ಅಣG;ಾದ ! ೆPೕಶ ಮ;ೆಯ ಇಲದ ಸಮಯ ;ೋI ನನ ನು 5ಾತ;ಾIಸುTJದPನು.
ನಂತರ 2010;ೇ ಇ!Y Kೕ Tಂಗಳ ಒಂದು Cನ ಮ;ೆಯ Wಾರು ಇಲದ
ಸಮಯ ;ೋI ೊಂಡು ರKೕಶನು ನನ ಹTJರ ಬಂದು ನ ನು
ಮದು0ೆWಾಗು ೆJೕ;ೆ ಎಂದು &ೇ( ಸಂDೋಗ 5ಾಡಲು ಬಂ ಾಗ ;ಾನು ಇದ ೆ ಒಪ3 ಲ. ಆದರೂ ಆತನು [ಡ ೆ ಬಲವಂತ0ಾ\ ನನ Kೕ]ೆ ಅ ಾ+^ಾರ0ೆಸ\ದ. ಕ.Kೕಣ ಈತನ 5ಾತನು ನಂ[ ಹಲ0ಾರು )ಾ ಸಂDೋಗ 5ಾIರು ಾJ;ೆ. ಸYಲ3 Cವಸ ಕ4ೆದ ನಂತರ ಮು_ಾ ಗ ೆ -8- CRL.A No.1051 of 2015 ಇದುPದ ಂದ ;ಾನು ಗಭ%ವTWಾ\ರುವ O^ಾರ ೊ ಾJ\ ಾಬ ೊಂaೆ. ಈ O^ಾರವನು ರKೕಶ ೆ T(! ಾಗ ಆತನು ಈ O^ಾರ Wಾ ಗೂ &ೇಳ)ೇಡ ನಮ= ಮWಾ% ೆ &ೋಗು ೆJ. ಇದ ೆ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ £ÉÆÃqÉÆÃtªÀAvÉ ಗಭ% ಾತ0ಾಗುವ 5ಾ ೆ.ಗಳನು ತಂದು ೊಟು ನುಂಗಲು &ೇ(ದನು. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಆತನ 5ಾತನು ನಂ[ Wಾ ಗೂ &ೇಳ ೆ 5ಾ ೆ.ಯನು ನುಂ\ದ 5ಾರ;ೇ Cನ &ೊ_ೆ ;ೋವS ಾb! ೊಂIತು. ಆಗ ಾಬ Vಂದ ಈ ಬ ೆM ನaೆದ O^ಾರವ;ೆ ಲ ಮ;ೆಯವ ೆ T(! ೆನು. ಮ;ೆಯ ಗಭ% ಾತ0ಾVತು. ನಮ= ಮ;ೆಯವರು ಾ.ಮಸc ೆ ಈ O^ಾರವನು ಾ.ಮದ ಮುಖಂಡ ಾದ !ದP ಂಗಯ+ s/o ಕು !ದPಯ+, ಸು ೇಶ s/o ೊಡeಯ+, (ಹ C ೆ) !ದPಯ+ ರವ ೆ T(ಸ]ಾ\ ನಮ= ಾ.ಮದ ;ಾ+ಯ ಪಂ^ಾVJ ೆ ರKೕಶನನು Bೇ ! ೊಂಡು ಪಂ^ಾVJ 5ಾಡ]ಾ\ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ Cನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಆ ೆಯನು ಮದು0ೆWಾಗು ೆJೕ;ೆಂದು &ೇ(ದನು. &ೇ(ದ 5ಾರ;ೆ Cನ0ೆ ಆತನು ನಮ ಾ+ ಗೂ T(ಸ ೆ ಊರು [ಟು &ೋ\ದPನು. ಸು5ಾರು Cನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಪSನಃ ನಮ= ಾ.ಮ0ಾದ )ೋರಯ+ನಹ- ಯ ನಮ= ಜ;ಾಂಗದ ಮುಖಂಡ ಾದ J®zÉÆqÀÄè ಕ ಯಣG ಮತುJ ರಂಗಪ3, ಅಡO !ದPಯ+, ಮಂಜಣG ಮತುJ )ೋರಯ+ನಹ- ಾ.ಮದ !ದP ಂಗಯ+ s/o ಕು !ದPಯ+, ಾಳ s/o !ದPಯ+ ರವರ ಸಮhಮ ಪಂ^ಾVJಯನು ರKೕಶನ ಸಮು=ಖದ ;ಾ+ಯ 5ಾಡ]ಾ\ ಆತನು ಪ &ಾರ ೊಡು ೆJೕ;ೆ. Oನಃ ಮದು0ೆWಾಗುವSCಲ ಎಂದು T(!ದನು. ಆದP ಂದ ;ಾವS ಇದ ೆ ಒಪ3 ಲ. ಆದP ಂದ ನನ ತಂ ೆ- ಾV ೆ O^ಾರ T(! ಈ Cನ ತಡ0ಾ\ ಅi% ೕIರು ೆJೕ;ೆ. ;ಾನು ಅಂಗOಕ]ೆWಾ\ದುP ನನ ೆ ಅ ಾ+^ಾರ0ೆಸ\ jೕಸ 5ಾIರುವ ರKೕಶನ Kೕ]ೆ ಾನೂನು ೕT ಕ.ಮ ಜರು\ಸ)ೇ ೆಂತ ೇ( ೊಳk@ ೆJೕ;ೆ. "
16. The victim is examined as PW1. She has deposed in her evidence that she knows the accused. The accused used to come to her village, as the elder sister of accused, Bhagyamma was given in marriage to one Shivanna of her village. Her elder brother was working in a cloth shop in Bengaluru and was friend of the accused. Hence, he used to -9- CRL.A No.1051 of 2015 visit her house. Her parents have three children. Her younger sister's name is Kamala. About three years back, at 02.00 p.m. when she was alone in the house, the accused came and asked for water. She went inside to bring water and the accused followed her. When she asked the accused why he entered the house, he told her that she is physically handicapped and nobody would come forward to marry her. He tried to touch her body and she fell down while trying to escape. The accused forcibly held her hands and committed rape. Then the accused told her that he would marry her. After 2-3 days, accused has again committed sexual assault on the complainant. Further, she has deposed that she became two months pregnant in the month of May-2010. She informed the same to the accused. The accused told her not to disclose the same to others as it is a matter of their dignity and honor. The accused brought tablets and forced her to take it to abort the child. Later, she suffered stomach pain and underwent abortion. She told her parents the about the incident. The panchayath was held in this regard. Accused admitted his guilt and promised to marry her. Siddalingaiah, Siddanna, Manjanna and Kariyappa, the elders of the village convened the panchayath. The accused was absconding. Despite the search for the accused, there was no trace of him for one month, then they lodged a complaint
- 10 -
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015before the police as per Exhibit P1. The accused was traced out. The police have summoned her, she has shown the place of crime to the police and mahazar was conducted as per Exhibit P2. She was taken to the Government Hospital, Tumkur wherein Dr. Rekha has examined her. They have consented for a medical examination and her mother has also signed the Medical Register.
17. CW3-Chikkamma examined as PW2, has deposed in her evidence that, she the mother of CW1. Her father had no male children. Hence, she was residing in her parents' house. Her father's name is Iranna. Her younger sister Doddakka passed away. She has three children by name Tippesha, Manjula and Kamala. Manjula aged about 21 years, is physically challenged. They don't own any land in their village. She is doing coolie work. Since Manjula is physically challenged, she stays in the house. She knows the accused. They are of the same caste, i.e., Golla Community. The elder sister of the accused, Bhagyamma was given in marriage to Shivanna. The distance between her house and Bhagyamma's house is 100 meters. Her son and accused are friends. The accused used to come to their house. Later, her son went to Bangalore. Thereafter, she informed the accused not to come
- 11 -
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015to their house. The accused did not visit the house in their presence.
18. PW4 is the brother of CW1. CW3 is the mother. CW1 is physically handicapped and hence she is stays in the house. The elder sister of the accused-Bhagyamma is residing in their village and their houses are nearby. Accused used to come to his house. Prior to 3 months of filing complaint, her younger sister told that she suffering from stomach ache. The same was informed to him by his mother and then they went to the hospital. Before going to hospital, she had abortion. On enquiry, she revealed the name of Ramesh. CWs5 and 6 called accused for panchayat. Accused confessed and sought time for getting married with CW1. He then left the village, and thereafter, in the presence of CWs8 to 11, accused agreed to pay compensation of ₹50,000/- instead of marrying the complainant.
19. PW5-Siddalingaiah has deposed in his evidence that the accused was playfully conversing with CW1. He advised the Accused not to do so. He has also deposed about CW1 suffering from stomach ache and later came to know about her pregnancy caused by the accused and abortion. Further, stated
- 12 -
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015that the panchayat was held and after that accused was absconding.
20. PW6-Basavaraju has deposed in his evidence as to the Mahazar conducted by the police, as per Exhibit P2.
21. PW7-Dr. Diwakar has deposed in his evidence as to the examination of accused Ramesh produced by PC 827, and issuance of report as per Exhibit P6.
22. PW8-Vasanna T.V. has deposed in his evidence as to issuance of birth certificate of victim as per Exhibit P7, in which the date of birth is shown as 15th March 1991.
23. PW9-T.M. Shivakumar has deposed in his evidence as to the investigation conducted by him.
24. PW10-Suresha has deposed in his evidence that he has seen the accused going to the victim's house frequently. He has also advised the accused not to visit her house. He has also deposed about CW1 suffering from stomach ache and then came to know about abortion. He is also aware of the panchayat conducted in this regard. Accordingly, he has supported the case of the prosecution.
- 13 -
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015
25. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary to cite the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of DR. DHRUVARAM MURALIDHAR SONAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2019)18 SCC 191. In the said judgment, it is held that the doctrinal line that separates rape from consensual intimacy, where two adults of their own volition, engage in consensual sexual relation over a sustained period, the subsequent refusal of the man to marry the woman, howsoever regrettable, does not, ipso facto, transmute such intimacy, into the offence of rape as punishable under Section 376 of the Indian penal code.
26. The principle enunciated in the above case is re- affirmed in SHAMBHU KHARWAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2024)16 SCC 502, where the Court interdicted the criminal process at the threshold holding that the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and accordingly quashed the crime as well as the Charge sheet.
27. In NIAM AHMED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in (2023)15 SCC 385, the Apex court addressed an identical factual complexion, where the complainant had even become pregnant on account of the relationship, and yet held that such
- 14 -
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015circumstance, by itself cannot clothe the relationship with criminality, for pregnancy arising out of consensual intimacy.
28. In SAMADHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2528, the Supreme Court sounded a note of stern caution against the disquieting tendency of coloring failed relationships with hue of heinous crimes. The Apex Court holds that mere breakdown of a relationship between the consenting adults, cannot constitute rape nor can the criminal law be set into motion as a retaliatory instrument, merely because the relationship did not ultimately culminate in marriage.
29. In the case of AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1230, the Apex Court observes that where the complainant is already married, the allegation of physical intimacy induced by promise of marriage stands on infirm grounds, for a promise which is ex-facie unenforceable, cannot in those circumstances, be elevated into a foundation of imputing criminality.
30. In the case of BATLANKI KESHAV (KESAVA) KUMAR ANURAG v. STATE OF TELANGANA reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1258, the Apex Court goes even further, on a perusal of
- 15 -
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015contemporaneous chats, it is found that the complainant had exhibited manipulative and vindictive tendencies and held that man backing out of marriage, even assuming such promise existed, cannot automatically attract the offence of rape. Holding the prosecution to be malicious and fabricated, the Apex Court obliterates the proceedings against the accused.
31. In the light of the overwhelming majority of such decisions, the Apex Court has exercised its Constitutional and inherent jurisdiction to arrest the criminal process, even at the stage of registration of the crime, where the allegation taken to their highest, disclose nothing beyond the consensual relationship subsequently turning sore.
32. In the case on hand, Exhibit P1-complaint reveals that victim is a major. It further reveals that in the month of May 2010, the accused came to her and promised her to marry and had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, many-a- times, the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim-PW1. The victim has also deposed the same in her evidence. PW2- Chikkama, PW4-Siddesh and PW5-Siddalingaiah have also deposed the same in their evidence as cited by PW1. The Trial court has also observed in its judgment that accused had
- 16 -
CRL.A No.1051 of 2015sexual contact with the victim, subsequent to first one, by promising to marry her and later refused to do so.
33. On careful examination of the entire evidence placed before this court, it is crystal clear that the sexual intercourse between the accused and victim is consensual, which does not come under Section 375 IPC. The alleged act does not by itself attract provisions of Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, considering the materials placed before this court and keeping in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court, I do not find any cogent, convincing, clinching, and acceptable legal evidence to convict the accused for the commission of alleged offence under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Hence, the point that arose for consideration is answered in the negative.
34. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed;
(ii) Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 7th August 2015, passed in SC No.56 of 2011 by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, is set aside. Consequently,
- 17 -CRL.A No.1051 of 2015
accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code;
(iii) Fine amount, if any deposited by the appellant, shall be returned to him in accordance with law;
(iv) Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records, to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn