The conviction under IPC sections was overturned due to insufficient evidence and a hostile witness; mere presumptions do not justify criminal conviction.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction dated 22^nd February 2013 and Order on sentence dated 23^rd February 2013 passed in SC No.85 of 2010 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short "the trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chitradurga Rural Circle, filed a charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(F), 506, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on 23^rd February 2010, at about 6:30 pm, the victim was on her way to a shop to purchase groceries. When she was passing by the house of one Shivanna, the accused, who is Shivanna’s son, called her. As the victim approached the house, the accused suddenly pulled her inside, pushed her to the ground, and committed rape. Thereafter, the accused threatened the victim, stating that her life would be in danger if she revealed the incident to anyone. He then locked her inside the house and left the premises. When the victim screamed for help, PW3-Prakashappa and CW3-Rudrappa, residents of Bheemasamudra, came to the spot, unbolted the door, and released her. After being released, the victim went straight home without disclosing the incident to PW3 or CW3. That night, she experienced severe pain, and on the following morning, i.e., 24^th February 2010, she informed her mother (PW2) about the incident and later lodged a complaint. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet for offences punishable under , 506, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested, produced before the Magistrate, and subsequently released on bail. Upon filing of the charge sheet, the case was registered as CC No.1503 of 2010. The case was later committed to the Sessions Court and registered as SC No. 85 of 2010. After hearing arguments on the charges, the Trial Court framed charges for the alleged offences, which were read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked eleven documents as Exhibits P1 to P11 and also marked three material objects as MOs1 to 3. On closure of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the prosecution evidence presented against him. However, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

5. After the full-fledged trial, having heard both the sides, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and further sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and all substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellant has preferred the presen