Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
R.Nataraj, J.
Shri. Rahul Sayaji Ghatage - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, R/By State Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100594 of 2022 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
Decided On : 12-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. S.B.Deyannavar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. M.B.Gundawade, Addl. SPP
The prosecution must prove rape beyond reasonable doubt with corroborative evidence; mere testimony is insufficient, especially when the victim's mental capacity is questionable.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 450 and 376(2)(l) - Conviction for rape and trespass - The Trial Court convicted the appellant under IPC sections based on the victim's testimony and circumstantial evidence but overlooked the absence of corroborative medical evidence. (Paras 11, 18)
(B) Rape definition and standards of proof - The court highlighted that the prosecution must prove rape beyond reasonable doubt, and mere testimony is insufficient without supporting evidence, especially where the victim is not mentally sound. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of breaking into a victim's home and committing rape when she was alone. The initial report to the authorities was made by the victim's father after he found the appellant fleeing the scene. Allegations were made regarding inappropriate touching and subsequent intercourse by the accused. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's conviction was based primarily on the victim's statement, but this was challenged due to a lack of medical evidence confirming sexual assault. The judgment failed to consider expert opinions and factual inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. (Paras 11, 18)
Issues: The court addressed whether the prosecution proved the charges of rape and trespass beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the context of the victim’s mental state and the absence of physical evidence. (Paras 16, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to provide corroborative medical evidence or signs of resistance undermined the prosecution's case, and thus, the lower court's decision lacked sufficient support to uphold a conviction. Acquitted the appellant of the charges due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 16, 18)
Result: Appeal allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and initial prosecution details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. testimony and evidence collection from witnesses. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. trial court's finding and conviction rationale. (Para 11) |
| 4. arguments from both defense and prosecution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's analysis and reasoning. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. final judgment and order of acquittal. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
R.Nataraj, J.
The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 04.07.2018 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in S.C. No.164/2016 by which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(2)(l) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC, and ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(l) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution was that P.W.1 being the father of the victim, informed the respondent on 31.12.2015 at 8.15 p.m. that, on 31.12.2015 at about 4.00 p.m., when he returned to his house, he saw the accused running out of his house and on entering the house, he found his daughter naked. He thereafter came out of the house and called for help and along with neighbours, he pursued the accused. P.W.4, who came to the house then, covered the victim and on enquiry with her, she disclosed that when she was alone, the accused came into the house and touched her inappropriately, removed her clothes, pinned her down and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The victim girl disclosed this to her mother also.
3. Based on the information, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.208/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 447 of IPC. The Investigating Officer drew a spot mahazar, recorded statements of the witnesses to the spot mahazar and drew up the mahazar to evidence recovery of M.Os.1 to 5. The clothes worn by the victim were seized. The accused was arrested the next day and the clothes worn by him were seized. The victim was taken for medical examination by P.W.8 on the next day. P.W.8 collected the vaginal smear, the pubic hair of the victim girl. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also recorded the statement of the material witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. An interim report of P.W.8 was procured and the material objects seized were sent for forensic examination. The forensic report disclosed that there were no semen stains on the vaginal swab or on the pubic hair of the victim and on the undergarments worn by the victim and the accused. Based on these, a charge sheet was laid for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(l) and 447 of IPC. Copy of the charge sheet was furnished to the accused. The accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(2)(l) of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined C.W.1 as P.W.1 who supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that the victim was a divorcee. He spoke about the incident as mentioned by him in the complaint at Ex.P.1. He denied that the accused did not have forcible sex with the victim. P.W.2 is the victim who also supported the case of the prosecution.
5. P.W.3 is the Teacher in a school for differently abled children/persons, and he explained the questions put to P.W.2 when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He deposed that except him, the victim girl, the Judge and the Typist, there was no one else in the room.
6. P.W.4 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 who deposed that she went to the house after the alleged incident. She deposed that when she went to the house, the victim was lying naked and that she disclosed that a stranger had come into the house and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. She supported the prosecution case. However, in
