The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistent testimony and an unexplained delay in filing the complaint, resulting in the reversal of the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

G.BASAVARAJA, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-XVI, Bangalore City in SC No. 921/2021 dated 15.03.2013.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is that Sub-Inspector of Police, Yeshwanthapura submitted the charge sheet of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376 , 417 IPC . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 20.02.2012 the accused by making CW1 -Ranjitha believe that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her and later refused to marry her and thereby he has cheated her and committed the offence punishable under Section 417 of . That on 20.02.2012 the accused took CW1- Ranjitha to his house situated at No.12, Akkiyappa Garden, 8^th Cross, 2^nd Main, Mohankumar Nagar, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore City within the jurisdiction of Yeshwanthpura Police Station on the pretext that he would show his house, committed rape on her and thereby has committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of . The accused was produced before the Committal Court on 13.05.2012. He was remanded to judicial custody. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused, thereafter he was released on bail as per the order of the High Court of Karnataka. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in SC No.921/2012. On hearing the charges framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences, same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10. Seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. No material objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC is recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he has

5. Having heard the arguments on both side the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under section 376 and 417 of IPC and passed the sentence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

6. Sri. Govindaraj, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is illegal and not sustainable under law. The alleged commission of offence took place on 20.02.2012. The complaint came to be filed on 12.05.2012 i.e., after lapse of 3 months. For which neither there was admissible explanation nor doctor's certificate with regard to commission of offence. The evidence of PW1 is not supported with the medical evidence. He also submits that PW1 has colluded with Geetha filed a false complaint against accused only to extract money from him. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and on facts and sought for allowing of the appeal.

7. Sri. B. Lakshman, learned HCGP submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and on facts. That there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

8. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for consideration:

"1. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court.

2. W