Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11520
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SRI. MADHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 80 / 2013
The court ruled that inconsistent evidence and lack of corroboration failed to sustain a conviction for sexual assault based on false promise of marriage.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(12) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 417 - Conviction for false promise of marriage leading to sexual act resulting in pregnancy - Evidence of victim inconsistent and lacking credibility - No corroborative evidence to support charges - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 26, 27)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 112 - DNA test not conducted, reliance solely on prosecutrix’s testimony without corroboration insufficient for conviction. (Paras 8, 26)
Facts of the case:
The accused promised to marry the victim, leading to a sexual relationship resulting in pregnancy; however, he later denied the promise and payment of compensation, which led to the complaint. The trial court convicted him based on circumstantial evidence.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented was inconsistent, with significant contradictions and lack of corroborative testimony, leading to the conclusion that the trial court's conviction was erroneous.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the evidence was not credible and lacked the necessary corroboration to sustain a conviction, particularly in light of the victim's refusal to undergo a DNA test.
Result: The criminal appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence are set aside.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 417 IPC imposing sentence of one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- and also for the offence under Section 3(1)(12) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposing sentence of two years with fine of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused had promised that he would marry the victim and with the said promise subjected her for sexual act, as a result, she became pregnant and gave birth to a child and he did not come forward to marry her and instead caused life threat. A panchayath was held and he had agreed to pay amount of Rs.80,000/- and made payment of Rs.2,500/- and did not comply with the assurance that he had given to pay amount of Rs.80,000/-. Since, the victim also belongs to schedule caste and invoked the offence against the appellant for the offence under Section 417 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) and (12) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . The police have registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet .
4. The accused did not plead guilty and examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted the accused for the above offences and imposed sentence of one year and two years and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- each for both the offences.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in passing the order of conviction and sentence. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that High Court while granting anticipatory bail for the appellant in Crl.P.No.3918/2010 made an observation that at the time of occurrence, the victim was aged about 19 years, apparently she did not have reasons to believe that petitioner would standby his promise. The victim has given birth to a child. The paternity of child should not remain an uncertain fact for all times to come. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo stating that appellant would subject himself to DNA examination if it is required by the Investigating Officer and for the purpose of investigation and also for the purpose of DNA examination shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so. Inspite of the said direction was given, he appeared and gave his blood samples. But, the victim did not come forward to give blood samples and the Trial Court failed to take note of this aspect while appreciating the material on record as well as very conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that author of complaint Ex.P2 is one Ramesh and also in the cross- examination, she categorically admits that she does not know where the complaint was prepared and also she does not know contents of the complaint and she was not in a position to say whether she has put her signature in the complaint and this admission has not been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence. It is contended that only on political rivalry, said Ramesh created the complaint by manipulating the signature of the complainant and filed a false complaint and also there is an admission that complaint was given at the instance of said Ramesh. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that before the Doctor, she gave the name of one Girish, but the accused name is Madhu. The statement was recorded by concerned Nurse on 07.06.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. Subsequently, the complainant seeks progress report from the Doctor, who treated her, in that report, the complainant again states the name of one Girish had fathered the child by giving her false assurance regarding marriage, the said prog
