Karnataka High Court
Satyappa S/O. Dundappa Jeragal vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100150 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SATYAPPA,
S/O DUNDAPPA JERAGAL,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O EARLIER PETITIONER
R/A SIDDAPUR, NOW R/AT HIPPARAGI,
TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD
REP POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
RURAL P.S., JAMKHANDI - 580007
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
Digitally signed by 401 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERUSE THE
GEETHAKUMARI SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED
PARLATTAYA S BY THE I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT TO SIT
Location: High AT JAMKHANDI IN CRL.A NO.5034/2022 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED
Court of Karnataka 21.06.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
JAMKHANDI IN C.C. NO. 661/2017 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 448, 354, 354-A1(I) OF IPC BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.04.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
FROM BANGALORE BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
Challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 01.02.2023 passed by I Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkot (sitting at Jamkhandi) in Crl.A.no.5034/2022
and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.06.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Jamkhandi in C.C.no.661/2017, this revision petition is filed by
sole accused (petitioner).
2. Sri SS Patil, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted prosecution case was based on complaint dated
02.03.2017 filed by Smt.Sujatha (complainant) stating that she
married to Shivputra and was residing along with his parents at
Siddapura. And as her cattle shed was beside petitioner's house
and to reach it, she had to pass in front of petitioner's house.
And whenever she passed, petitioner would smile and make
gestures. On 02.03.2017, when she was going to cattle shed,
petitioner came behind her, caught her arm and while praising
her beauty, touched her body, even against her opposition
stating that she was like daughter to him. That somehow she
escaped and ran home. At 1:00 p.m., she called and informed
her husband about incident. He came home with his uncle who
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
took her to police station and filed complaint. Same was
registered as Crime no.26/2017 by Jamkhandi Rural Police
Station for offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and
354 A (1) (i) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short).
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on
07.04.2017. On receipt of summons, petitioner appeared,
denied charges and chose to be tried in which prosecution
examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1
to Ex.P12. Thereafter, petitioner was apprised of incriminating
material against him. He denied it as false. Same was recorded
as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC. Petitioner did not
lead rebuttal evidence.
4. On consideration, trial Court passed impugned
judgment convicting petitioner for offences punishable under
Sections 448, 354 and 354 A (1) (i) of IPC and sentencing him
to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence
under Section 448 of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for
one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 354
of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half
year for offence under Section 354 A (1) (i) of IPC and in
default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple
imprisonment for further period of 90 days. Aggrieved
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
petitioner filed Crl.A.no.5034/2022. But same was dismissed on
01.02.2023, leading to this revision.
5. It was submitted both Courts failed to appreciate
that material on record was insufficient to sustain conviction. At
outset, deposition of PW-1 - complainant contradictory. It was
submitted, in her further statement recorded on 03.03.2017
under Section 161 of Cr.PC, she added allegation about
petitioner pulling her saree at time of incident, but admitted
during cross-examination that she was wearing nighty. It was
submitted, prosecution relied on 7 witnesses amongst whom
PW.3 - only independent witness was her father-in-law and
hence interested witness. It was further submitted, prosecution
also failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that cattle
shed was near petitioner's house and there was no other way
for complainant to reach it.
6. In Ex.P1 - complaint filed on 02.03.2017,
complainant stated immediately after incident she called and
informed her husband. But, in her statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 23.03.2017, she contradicted herself
by stating that immediately after incident she came home and
informed her father-in-law. It was further submitted, while
complainant in her statement recorded under Section 161 of
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
Cr.P.C., she stated about accused pulling her saree, but in her
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated
that petitioner came from behind, hugged her and touched her
body.
7. It was further submitted, in light of dispute about
pathway between petitioner and her father-in-law, filing of
complaint accompanied only by her father-in-law would give
rise to doubt that it was at instance of her father-in-law. It was
further submitted, even PW.2 cited as witness to mahazar -
Ex.P3, was also her relative and as such, interested witness.
Therefore, his testimony was unreliable. Though, husband of
complainant was cited as CW.4, but was not examined and no
explanation was offered. Thus, material available was
insufficient to establish prosecution case beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, impugned judgment and order passed by both
Courts called for interference.
8. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP
appearing for respondent - State opposed petition. At outset, it
was submitted revision petition was against concurrent findings
with no scope for interference. It was submitted, both Courts
had after appreciation of material on record had convicted
petitioner. It was submitted, complaint was filed stating
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
petitioner had caught hold of complainant praised her beauty
and touched her body thereby implicating petitioner for offence
punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 354A (1) (i) of IPC.
During trial, prosecution had placed sufficient material to
establish same. Offence being committed against a woman,
would justify petitioner's conviction and sentence. Therefore,
there was no scope for interference.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment/order and record.
10. From above, only point that would arise for
consideration is :
"Whether impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by Trial/Appellate
Courts suffer from perversity and call for
interference?
11. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 (1) of Cr.P.C. by accused, who was convicted
for offences under Sections 448, 354 and 354 A (1) (i) of IPC.
12. Offence under Section 448 of IPC is house-trespass,
key ingredients for which are (a) criminal trespass (b) into
building or place of custody. Likewise, for offence under Section
354 of IPC namely assault or use of criminal force against
woman with intent to outrage her modesty, key ingredients
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
required to establish offence would be (a) assault or use of
criminal force on any woman (b) with intention to outrage her
modesty. Offence under Section 354 A (1) (i) of IPC is sexual
harassment with key ingredients being (a) man committing
physical contact or advances and (b) same involving
unwelcome explicit sexual overtures.
13. As noted above, prosecution case is based on Ex.P1
- complaint. There is no contention urged about absence of any
of above key ingredients for constituting above offences.
Grounds urged are about same failing to establish beyond
reasonable doubt offences alleged.
14. During trial, witnesses examined by prosecution are
complainant as PW.1, mahazar witness of Ex.P3 as PW.2,
complainant's father-in-law as PW.3, medical officer as PW.4,
complainant's uncle as PW.5, investigation officer as PW.6 and
police constable who apprehended petitioner as PW.7.
15. Admittedly, there are no independent ocular
witnesses. In examination-in-chief, complainant (PW.1)
deposed in terms of her complaint. In cross-examination, she
feigns ignorance to suggestions made about dispute between
petitioner and her father-in-law about pathway. To a
suggestion that complainant's cattle-shed was not situated in
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
front of petitioner's house, she states, it requires her to pass in
front of his house. She also stated that at time of incident, she
was wearing nighty and not saree, contradicting her further
statement where she stated about wearing saree. Further, in
complaint, she did not state or mention about her dress. She
only stated petitioner came in front of her, held her arm,
hugged her and touched her body. In further statement she
improvises by claiming there was omission to disclose
petitioner pulling her saree in complaint. But, in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of CrPC on 23.03.2017, she only
stated, petitioner came from behind, hugged her tightly.
However in her deposition, she does not state whether
petitioner pulled her saree or night suit. In cross-examination,
she claimed to be wearing night suit.
16. Further, she deposed that CW.2 and CW.3 (PW.2)
were her relatives. But, in cross-examination, PW.2 denied
several suggestions about being related to complainant. In
absence of explanation about such inconsistency, his deposition
would be suspect as being that of an interested witness. Even
PW.3 is father-in-law of complainant. Though, he supported
prosecution case, in cross-examination, there is elicitation
about existence of dispute about access road to agricultural
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
lands between petitioner and PW.3. Above admission would
cast depositions of PWs.2 and 3 unreliable.
17. Deposition of PW.4 would not be of much
consequence as offence did not involve any injuries. Likewise,
deposition of PW.5 that he wrote complaint as per instructions
of complainant would be of little or no consequence insofar as
petitioner when contents of Ex.P1 are not alleged to be without
instructions of complainant.
18. PW.6 is Investigating Officer ('IO'), deposed about
receipt of complaint, its registration, conduct of investigation
and filing of charge sheet. In cross-examination, it is elicited
that he did not obtain any records from panchayat about
surroundings of spot of incident. Suggestion that he registered
complaint and filed charge sheet at instance of complainant
ignoring enmity between complainant and accused, is denied.
PW.7 is Police Constable who apprehended petitioner and took
him to IO. His deposition about same would not be relevant for
appreciation of petitioner's contentions.
19. Trial Court based its order of conviction on
deposition of complainant as PW.1, wherein there were no
elicitations and suggestions made were denied. It observed
suggestions of boundaries of spot panchanama amounted to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
admission about validity of contents of panchanama. It also
held PW.3 had withstood cross-examination, despite admission
about dispute between himself and accused about approach
road to his land. It observed PW.4 deposed about issuing Ex.P8
- wound certificate on finding that there was no external
injuries. Insofar as PW.5 - scribe of complaint also it observed
merely on ground that he was relative would not affect his
deposition. It held admissions elicited during cross-examination
of PW.6 - IO about failure to collect information about number
of cattle in cattle-shed would not damage prosecution case.
20. Trial Court observed evidence led by prosecution
established commission of offences by accused, as he failed to
prove defence put-forth about existence of dispute with regard
to pathway. It also observed even if complainant were wearing
night suit instead of saree, ingredients of offences under
Sections 354 and 354 A (1) (i) of IPC would be fulfilled and
attributed inconsistencies to frailty of human memory.
21. In appeal, appellate Court concurred with reasoning
of trial Court. It observes mere existence of dispute with regard
to pathway would not lead complainant to go to extent of filing
false complaint and that except said aspect there was no
circumstance to infer false implication of accused.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
22. From above, there is concurrent observations about
inconsistencies/contradiction in deposition of PW.1. There is
also concurrence about existence of dispute regarding pathway.
While trial Court chose to attribute inconsistencies to frailty of
human memory, appellate Court held them to be non-material.
23. Admittedly, there are no independent eye-witnesses
to incident. Conviction by trial Court is almost entirely depend
hinges on deposition of complainant. Even if father-in-law of
complainant were circumstantial witness, since complainant
stated she first informed her father-in-law immediately after
incident, there is apparent contradiction in Ex.P1, where she
stated that immediately after incident she informed her
husband. Thereafter, in her statement under Section 164 of
CrPC, she retracts and stated immediately after incident, she
informed her father-in-law. As rightly submitted, there is
glaring contradiction about manner of occurrence of incident
especially whether petitioner came from behind or from front,
whether complainant was wearing saree or night suit at time of
incident and whether petitioner pulled saree/night suit or
otherwise. In light of above, one of reasons assigned by trial
Court for conviction, that even if petitioner were to have pulled
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822
CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023
at her night suit, ingredients offence would be established,
would be unsustainable.
24. Interestingly, in her deposition complainant omits
stating whether petitioner pulled at her saree or night suit and
holding her arm. Above omission and contradiction in present
case would be material as virtually order of conviction pivots on
them. Apart from above, petitioner laid sufficient basis for
entertaining doubt about complainant's version by eliciting
admission about existence of dispute about pathway.
25. In view of above circumstances, it cannot be held
that prosecution has established commission of offences by
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Since both Courts have
ignored material contradiction and omission, relied on
unacceptable material as evidence for recording conviction,
impugned judgments and order of conviction by both Courts
would suffer from perversity, justifying interference in revision.
26. Point for consideration is answered in affirmative.
Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2023 passed by I Addl. District
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6822 CRL.RP No. 100150 of 2023 and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (sitting at Jamkhandi) in Crl.A.no.5034/2022 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Jamkhandi in C.C.no.661/2017 is set-aside.
iii. Petitioner is acquitted of all charges. iv. Bail bonds and sureties executed if any stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD