THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SUDEEP @ MANAMOHANA

(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1, SRI. CHANDAN K.H., ADV. FOR R2.) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24456-DB CRL.A No. 210 of 2021 HC-KAR THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.08.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.97/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (SPL) JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1) (xii) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) State has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 20th August 2019 passed in Special Case No.97 of 2015 by the II Additional District & Sessions (Special) Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").

#2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Sub-division, Bunder, Mangalore, has filed charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "SC/ST (PoA) Act"), based on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24456-DB CRL.A No. 210 of 2021 HC-KAR the complaint filed by the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that she belongs to schedule caste, and has studied up to Tenth Standard, but discontinued her studies and was working as a home-nurse in the house of one Lakshmi Gokale of Kudroli. It is stated that she used to go to her home once a month to see her mother. That, one year prior to lodging the complaint, she was travelling from Mangaluru to Vitla in a bus. The accused, who was the conductor of the bus, had written his phone number on the backside of the ticket issued to the complainant and began getting familiar with the complainant. The complainant and the accused thereafter nurtured their friendship. Later in the month of September 2013, accused made the complainant to believe that he is going to marry her and on that pretext took her to Hotel Darbar at Mangaluru and had physical relationship with her in the room of the said Hotel. Even in the month of January 2014, he had promised that he would marry her and again took her to same Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her. As a result of the physical relationship with accused, the complainant had conceived. When the fact of conception was revealed to the accused, he refused to marry her as she was belonging to a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24456-DB CRL.A No. 210 of 2021 HC-KAR lower caste. On these allegations, charge sheet is filed for the aforesaid offences and case came to be registered in Special Case No.97 of 2015 came to be registered. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution had adduced evidence of seventeen witnesses as PWs1 to 17 and produced 33 documents as Exhibits P1 to P33. After framing of charges, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Having heard on both sides, trial Court acquitted the accused for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4.00 lakh, in default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court has also directed depositing of fine amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs in the name of child born to PW1, in any national Bank of the choice of PW1, till the child attains majority. Further, the trial court also requested the District Legal Services Authority, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, to award compensation under Section 357A of Code of Criminal - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24456-DB CRL.A No. 210 of 2021 HC-KAR Procedure, to award suitable compensation to the child born to the victim. The State is in appeal before this court challenging the acquittal and also seeking enhancement of punishment for the offence punishable under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code.

#3. Sri Rajat Subramanyam, learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that the trial court ought to have imposed maximum punishment to the accused for the offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code. He would submit that the complainant, who is from rural area and belongs to schedule caste, has been duly exploited by the accused, and on the assurance of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her, and when she became pregnant, only on the ground that she belonged to schedule caste community, had refused to marry her. In spite of overwhelming evidence in this regard, the trial court has not considered the same and held that the intimate act between the accused and PW1 is a consensual one, which is highly illegal. He would further submit that the accused is the father of the child born to PW1 which has been proved by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24456-DB CRL.A No. 210 of 2021 HC-KAR prosecution through DNA test. Further, he would submit that the trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused of offence punishable under sections 376 of IPC and 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, he sought for convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act by modifying the sentence.

#4. Before examining the material placed before us, it is necessary to mention here as to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JOTHIRAGAWAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER rendered in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6821 of 2024 Decided on 24th March

#2025. In the said decision, it is observed as under: "7. We have gone through the First Information Statement made by the complainant and the statement given before the Police which would form the basis of the trial. Unless the ingredients of an offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. comes forth from these documents; which read together reveal identical statements, there cannot be any continuation of the prosecution. In this context, we also have to notice Prithivirajan from which paragraph 7 is extracted hereunder: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24456-DB CRL.A No. 210 of 2021 HC-KAR between “7. The relationship instant case is one of consensual appellant and prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not appear from the record that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by the appellant was false to begin with. Perusal of FIR itself suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due to intervening circumstances. Consequently, because of which the present FIR came to be registered. Under circumstances, letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted.” relationship

#5. In the case in hand, it is evident that, at initial stage itself, accused had not made promise to marry PW1. The cross-examination would reflect that the accused had never promised PW1 to marry her and on such promise he had obtained the consent or had persuaded PW1 to have sexual intercourse with him. The trial court has observed that the sexual intercourse between the accused and PW1 is a consensual one. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had obtained a force consent from PW1 by giving a false promise to marry her. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredient to attract the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has also not placed any cogent or convincing - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24456-DB CRL.A No. 210 of 2021 HC-KAR evidence to convict the accused under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The trial Court has properly appreciated evidence on record in law and facts and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Even on examination of the entire evidence on record, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the impugned Judgment of acquittal pertaining to offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

#6. As regards submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader for enhancement of punishment for the offence punishable under Section 417 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court has sentenced that the accused shall pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/- for the offence under said section and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the accused has already served the sentence imposed by the trial court. On careful examination of entire material on record, we do not find any ground to enhance the punishment under Section 417 of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24456-DB CRL.A No. 210 of 2021 HC-KAR Indian Penal Code as the trial court has considered all the mitigating circumstances and imposed payment of fine of Rs.4.00 lakhs on the accused, which is just and proper.

#7. In the light of the discussions made above, we find no merit in the appeal, and accordingly dismiss at the stage of admission. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2