SATYAPPA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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 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 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge JMFC., Jamkhandi 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