Karnataka High Court
Mevindi Veeresha Alias Eranna A Alur vs State By Harihar Town Police Station on 19 January, 2026
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1359 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MEVINDI VEERESHA ALIAS
ERANNA A ALUR,
S/O ANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEAS,
R/AT NEAR NAGAPPA TEMPLE,
MEUNDI VILLAGE - 582 113,
TALUK MUNDARGI,
DISTRICT GADAG.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V 1 . STATE BY HARIHAR
Location: High TOWN POLICE STATION,
Court of REPRESENTED BY STATE
Karnataka
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SMT. GEETHA A HIREMATH,
W/O ASHOKA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT J C BADAVANE,
4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
HARIHARA, HOUSE NO.59,
3469, MUNDARAGI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
BELLADA ONI,
NEAR POST OFFICE,
TALUK MUNDARAGI,
DISTRICT GADAG - 582 118.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 (PH);
NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 05/09/2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I, DAVANAGERE
IN THE SPL. CASE NO. 714/2023 ON THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. B)
ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. IN SPL. CASE NO.714/2023 BEFORE
THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I,
DAVANAGERE.
THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
Challenging order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Additional
District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, Davanagere, in
Spl.C.no.714/2023, rejecting application for discharge, this
revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Basavaraj R., learned counsel for petitioner
(accused no.2 and referred to as 'petitioner') submitted, case
of prosecution was based on a complaint dated 11.08.2023
filed by respondent no.2 ('complainant') stating that one
Vasudev Hiremath (accused no.1 and 'VH', for short) sexually
assaulted her minor daughter on 13.06.2020, 20.06.2022 etc.
and again on 11.08.2023 after kidnapping her from Harihar
KSRTC Bus Stand in his Scorpio Car with petitioner
accompanying him. Complaint was registered as Crime
no.146/2023 by Harihara City Police on 11.08.2023 for offences
punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2) (N) and 506 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short) read with Sections 4 and 6
of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
('POCSO', for short).
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. It was submitted, without proper investigation,
charge-sheet was filed on 03.10.2023, wherein offences alleged
against petitioner were under Sections 363, 506 and 114 of IPC
read with Section 17 of POCSO. It was submitted, in complaint
only overt-act against petitioner was about driving Scorpio Car
when VH kidnapped victim on 11.08.2023. It was submitted,
prosecution case was riddled with material contradictions.
Besides, there was unexplained delay of 3½ years in filing
complaint, which was fatal. In addition, victim's sister had filed
separate complaint before Gangavati Police Station on
14.01.2024 on similar allegation of sexual assault committed
on 01.10.2021 in Car, wherein petitioner was named as
occupant. Likewise, another complaint was filed by complainant
before Mundargi Police Station on 03.01.2023 alleging that she
was threatened. It was submitted, filing of complaints at three
different Police Stations at three different places after three
years was only to harass petitioner by false implication.
4. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Mohd. Ali v. State of U.P., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 272,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
had held, when victim had informed her mother about incident
and complaint was filed belatedly, conviction could not sustain.
5. It was submitted, after marriage of victim fixed with
VH there was straining of relationship between their families,
leading to filing of false complaint and petitioner being
victimised. It was submitted, in complaint, complainant stated
that on 13.06.2020, victim disclosed about VH taking her to
Gadag, committing rape on her in lodge before dropping her
home. Thus complainant had knowledge of incident of
13.06.2020 on same day. She however stated that in year
2021, without disclosing reason when victim consumed sleeping
tablets in her grandmother's house, VH along with family
members forcibly fixed marriage of VH with victim and alleged
that thereafter until 20.06.2022, VH indulged in forcible sexual
intercourse with victim repeatedly under threat of life. It was
claimed that they later sold their house and shifted to Harihar,
where incident of 11.08.2023 occurred. This would reveal that
complaint filed on 11.08.2023 was more than three years three
months later. Complaint also disclosed, straining of relationship
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
between family of victim and VH not only due to financial
transactions with VH, but also forced marriage alliance.
6. It was submitted, in her statement recorded under
Section 161 of CrPC on 13.08.2023, complainant stated that VH
took victim in his Car to Gadag for admission to college. And
few days later victim consumed sleeping pills without disclosing
reason. It was claimed, only after enquiry on finding her dull,
victim revealed about incident of rape on 13.06.2020, VH
claiming to have recorded same and threatening her against
disclosure. Complainant further stated that on realizing same,
VH came with his family members and forcibly performed
engagement ceremony with victim. Thereafter, VH, his parents
and brother threatened to kill victim if she did not sleep with
VH whenever he wanted and on said threat VH had forcible
sexual intercourse with victim, 15 to 20 times. It was
submitted, said statements would if not contradict earlier
assertions would show marked improvisation against main
accused - VH, but against petitioner, no overt-acts alleged.
7. Further, in her statement recorded under Section
164 of CrPC, even victim merely stated that on 13.06.2020, VH
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
stating that he would get her admission in college at Gadag
with help of his friend took her to a lodge in Gadag and while
waiting for arrival of his friend gave her juice after drinking
which she fell unconscious. And after she woke up, he raped
her and recorded same on his mobile phone and threatening to
release video on social media if she revealed it to anyone. She
stated even parents, brother and sister of VH threatened to kill
her if she did not sleep with VH whenever he wanted and on
said threat, he raped her 15 to 20 times and also made videos
of same. She added that VH and his family members forced her
to do their household chores and caused pain by pressing her
neck, which were improvements.
8. It was submitted, insofar as alleged incident of
11.08.2023, in complaint, complainant stated that VH came
with petitioner in Scorpio Car and near Keerti Hotel, KSRTC Bus
Stand, Harihar and VH kidnapped victim with intention to have
forcible sexual intercourse. But, in her statement recorded on
13.08.2023, she made no reference to petitioner. Likewise, in
statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC on 11.08.2023,
victim alleged that she was threatened by VH near Keerti Hotel
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
to come into Car and when on outskirts of town, asked
petitioner who was driving Car to get down and thereafter, VH
assaulted her sexually. On her protest, VH called petitioner
back and asked him to drive Car to Davangere, but after taking
her to SS Hospital, Davangere, to visit someone, she was
dropped at Harihar Bus stand. In her statement recorded under
Section 164 of CrPC, she stated that VH along with his friend
came near Keerti Hotel, Harihar, in Scorpio Car and forcibly
took victim in it outside town and sexually assaulted her and
when she protested against intention of VH to take to lodge in
Davangere, VH and petitioner took to SS Hospital, Davangere,
brought back and pushed out of Car near Harihar Bus Stand,
after pressing her neck and telling her that she would be taken
for marriage.
9. It was submitted, entire prosecution case depended
on these allegations which were mainly against VH and his
family members, with only overt-act against petitioner driving
Scorpio Car. It was submitted, allegation of petitioner assisting
VH and later joining him in threatening victim were clear
improvements, without corroborating material. Therefore, there
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
was not even any prima-facie material against petitioner and
therefore, there would be no need to subject petitioner to trial.
Hence, petitioner filed application for discharge under Section
227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC', for short) on
09.08.2024. It was submitted, at time of framing charges as
well as on filing of application for discharge, duty was cast on
trial Judge, to sift entire prosecution material, whether it
discloses prima-facie case against petitioner. It was submitted,
material would indicate abject failure. Even while considering
application for discharge, similar duty was cast on trial Court,
but, it dismissed application without consideration. Hence,
prayed for allowing revision petition.
10. On other hand, Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent no.1 - State opposed
petition. It was submitted, there were clear averments against
petitioner that he was driving Scorpio Car and supported VH in
commission of offences. Though, petitioner was asked to get
down after victim entered Car, it was also mentioned that VH
had called petitioner back and that petitioner had driven Car to
SS Hospital and back to Harihar Bus Stand.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
11. It was submitted, in her statement recorded under
Section 164 of CrPC, victim stated that VH came near Keerthi
Hotel in Scorpio Car driven by petitioner, forcibly took victim to
outskirts of town where he assaulted her sexually. Same would
justified charges under Sections 363, 506 and 114 of IPC and
Section 17 of POCSO against petitioner. It was submitted,
presence of petitioner as abettor would attract same
punishment as main accused in view of Section 17 read with
Section 21 of POCSO.
12. It was submitted, since in her statement before
police victim had stated that she informed complainant about
incident of 13.06.2020, only on 14.07.2023, delay in filing
complaint was less than 30 days and explained as due to threat
by VH. It was submitted, while passing impugned order, trial
Court had appreciated above facts and on finding prima-facie
material against petitioner, rightly rejected application. On said
grounds, sought rejection of petition.
13. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order
and material available.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
14. This revision petition is by petitioner (accused
no.2) challenging order rejecting his application for discharge.
Before examining merits of contentions, it would be appropriate
to refer to important precedents on consideration of application
for discharge as well as scope for interference with said order.
15. In CBI v. Aryan Singh reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 379 also it is held:
"10. ... ... ... .....
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising
the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court
has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to
consider "whether any sufficient material is
available to proceed further against the
accused for which the accused is required to
be tried or not".
(Emphasis supplied)
16. And in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh
Rao, reported in (2023) 17 SCC 688, it held:
"7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind
being necessary to determine whether a case has
been made out by the prosecution for proceeding
with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell
into the pros and cons of the matter by examining
the defence of the accused when an application for
discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial Judge has
to merely examine the evidence placed by the
prosecution in order to determine whether or not
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the
accused on basis of charge-sheet material. The
nature of the evidence recorded or collected by
the investigating agency or the documents
produced in which prima facie it reveals that there
are suspicious circumstances against the accused,
so as to frame a charge would suffice and such
material would be taken into account for the
purposes of framing the charge. If there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused necessarily, the accused would be
discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after
such consideration of the material there are
grounds for presuming that the accused has
committed the offence which is triable, then
necessarily charge has to be framed.
8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking
cognizance the accused has no right to produce
any material and call upon the court to examine
the same. No provision in the Code grants any
right to the accused to file any material or
document at the stage of framing of charge. The
trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the
facts of the case as may be necessary to
determine whether a case has been made out by
the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-
sheet material only.
9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the
charge-sheet material at the stage of framing the
charge which might drastically affect the very
sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest
that such material should not be considered or
ignored by the court at that stage. The main
intention of granting a chance to the accused of
making submissions as envisaged under Section
227 CrPC is to assist the court to determine
whether it is required to proceed to conduct the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such
hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only
and therefore, the trial court can consider the
material produced by the accused before the IO.
10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court
must proceed on an assumption that the material
which has been brought on record by the
prosecution is true and evaluate said material in
order to determine whether the facts emerging
from the material taken on its face value, disclose
the existence of the ingredients necessary of the
offence alleged.
11. This Court in State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan
[State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC
709] adverting to the earlier propositions of law
laid down on this subject has held: (SCC pp. 721-
22, para 29)
"29. We have bestowed our consideration
to the rival submissions and the
submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar
commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for
discharge, the court cannot act as a
mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a
post office and may sift evidence in order
to find out whether or not the allegations
made are groundless so as to pass an
order of discharge. It is trite that at the
stage of consideration of an application for
discharge, the court has to proceed with
an assumption that the materials brought
on record by the prosecution are true and
evaluate the said materials and documents
with a view to find out whether the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At this stage, probative value of
the materials has to be gone into and the
court is not expected to go deep into the
matter and hold that the materials would
not warrant a conviction. In our opinion,
what needs to be considered is whether
there is a ground for presuming that the
offence has been committed and not
whether a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. To put it
differently, if the court thinks that the
accused might have committed the offence
on the basis of the materials on record on
its probative value, it can frame the
charge; though for conviction, the court
has to come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence. The
law does not permit a mini trial at this
stage."
12. The defence of the accused is not to be
looked into at the stage when the accused
seeks to be discharged. The expression "the
record of the case" used in Section 227 CrPC is to
be understood as the documents and articles, if
any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does
not give any right to the accused to produce any
document at the stage of framing of the charge.
The submission of the accused is to be confined to
the material produced by the investigating agency.
13. The primary consideration at the stage of framing
of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie
case, and at this stage, the probative value of
materials on record need not be gone into. This
Court by referring to its earlier decisions in State
of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [State of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC
659: 1996 SCC (Cri) 820] and State of
M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [State of M.P. v. Mohanlal
Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110]
has held the nature of evaluation to be made by
the court at the stage of framing of the charge is
to test the existence of prima facie case. It is also
held at the stage of framing of charge, the court
has to form a presumptive opinion to the
existence of factual ingredients constituting the
offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep
into probative value of the material on record and
to check whether the material on record would
certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of
trial.
14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court
under Section 397 CrPC which vests the court with
the power to call for and examine records of an
inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself
as to the legality and regularities of any
proceeding or order made in a case. The object of
this provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which
has crept in such proceedings.
15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of
this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
[Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC
460], where scope of Section 397 has been
considered and succinctly explained as under:
(SCC p. 475, paras 12-13)
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the
court with the power to call for and
examine the records of an inferior court for
the purposes of satisfying itself as to the
legality and regularity of any proceedings
or order made in a case. The object of this
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
provision is to set right a patent defect or
an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to
be a well-founded error and it may not be
appropriate for the court to scrutinise the
orders, which upon the face of it bears a
token of careful consideration and appear
to be in accordance with law. If one looks
into the various judgments of this Court, it
emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can
be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is
no compliance with the provisions of law,
the finding recorded is based on no
evidence, material evidence is ignored or
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely. These are not exhaustive
classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its
own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the
revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is
a very limited one and cannot be exercised
in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt
restrictions is that it should not be against
an interim or interlocutory order. The
Court has to keep in mind that the exercise
of revisional jurisdiction itself should not
lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court
is dealing with the question as to whether
the charge has been framed properly and
in accordance with law in a given case, it
may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction unless the case
substantially falls within the categories
aforestated. Even framing of charge is a
much advanced stage in the proceedings
under CrPC."
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
16. This Court in the aforesaid judgment in Amit
Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,
(2012) 9 SCC 460] has also laid down principles to
be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 particularly in the context of prayer
for quashing of charge framed under Section 228
CrPC is sought for as under:
"27. Having discussed the scope of
jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e.
Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code
and the fine line of jurisdictional
distinction, now it will be appropriate for us
to enlist the principles with reference to
which the courts should exercise such
jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult
but is inherently impossible to state with
precision such principles. At best and upon
objective analysis of various judgments of
this Court, we are able to cull out some of
the principles to be considered for proper
exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with
regard to quashing of charge either in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
or Section 482 of the Code or together, as
the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the
powers of the Court under Section 482 of
the Code but the more the power, the
more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The
power of quashing criminal proceedings,
particularly, the charge framed in terms of
Section 228 of the Code should be
exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to
whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made from the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith prima
facie establish the offence or not. If the
allegations are so patently absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent
person can ever reach such a conclusion
and where the basic ingredients of a
criminal offence are not satisfied then the
Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly
interfere. No meticulous examination of
the evidence is needed for considering
whether the case would end in conviction
or not at the stage of framing of charge or
quashing of charge.
***
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
*** 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024
HC-KAR
inclined to permit continuation of
prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie."
17. Wherefore, at time of consideration of application for discharge, Court would require to proceed on premise that material brought on record by prosecution is true and thereafter evaluate same to determine, whether facts emerging from it taken on face value, disclose existence of all ingredients of offences alleged. As noted above, offences alleged against present petitioner are under Sections 363, 506 and 114 of IPC read with Section 17 of POCSO i.e., kidnapping, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace and abetment.
18. Insofar as petitioner, charge-sheet refers to his role insofar as incidents of 13.06.2020 and 11.08.2023, that on 1.06.2020, VH took victim to petitioner's house at 12:15 p.m., prior to taking her to lodge, where he assaulted her sexually, and on 11.08.2023, temporary injunction alleges, on petitioner's instigation, VH kidnapped victim in Scorpio Car with intention to have forcible sexual intercourse with her.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 HC-KAR
19. Said allegations appear based on assertions in complaint, wherein complainant stated that VH came with petitioner in Scorpio Car near Keerti Hotel, kidnapped victim with intention to have forcibly sexual intercourse. Absence of reference to petitioner in her statement recorded two days later cannot be considered at this stage, as that would be a matter for trial.
20. Apart from above, in her statement recorded during investigation, victim stated that on 11.08.2023, VH along with petitioner came near Keerti Hotel, VH threatened her into entering Car and after driving to outskirts of town, VH asked petitioner to get down and thereafter sexually assaulted her in Car. And, when she protested against taking her to Lodge at Davangere, he called petitioner back and asked him to drive Car to Davangere, but after visiting SS Hospital, Davangere, she was pushed out of Car near Harihar Bus Stand.
21. In statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, victim stated that VH and petitioner came near Keerti Hotel, Harihar, forced her into Scorpio Car, took her to outskirts of
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 HC-KAR town, when VH asked petitioner who was driving Car, to get down, whereafter, VH assaulted her sexually. And when she protested against being taken to Lodge at Davangere, VH called petitioner back, who drove vehicle to SS Hospital, Davangere and back to Harihar Bus Stand, when before pushing her out of vehicle, her neck was pressed. On careful reading, reference in said statement indicates allegations not being in singular to implicate only VH, but in plural, prima-facie implicating petitioner (as well as no other person is stated to be present).
22. Though, at this stage, allegations appear to be self- serving, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajoo and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2012) 8 SCC 553, held, ordinarily evidence of prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness. In R. Shaji v. State of Kerala reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266, it is held, evidence given in a Court under oath has great sanctity, though, can be used only for contradiction or corroboration, same would be material in support of prosecution case, until conclusion of trial. Thus, there appears prima facie case against petitioner and nothing more requires
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 HC-KAR to be considered. As in Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao's case (supra) it is held, there cannot be mini trial at stage of consideration of application for discharge. Neither defence of accused nor including appreciation of inconsistencies in prosecution material can be considered. Therefore, contention about prosecution case, being riddled with inconsistencies would require rejection.
23. Insofar as contention about complaint being belated, entitling petitioner for discharge is noted, only to be rejected. As noted above, allegations about role of petitioner as abettor prima facie appears insofar as incident that occurred on 11.08.2023, about which victim is stated to have informed complainant after being dropped back at Harihar Bus Stand and complaint is filed on 03.10.2023 with explanation about complainant/family members of victim being under threat from VH. In fact, suspicion would arise, whether contentions urged by petitioner are as surrogate for accused no.1 and to clear pathway for VH seeking discharge.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2684 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2024 HC-KAR
24. In any case, in view of above conclusions, impugned order rejecting petitioner's application for discharge would be in accordance with law and not call for interference.
Consequently, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65