1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

Sri. Sheshappa Gowda

Aged about 31 years

S/o Kanthappa Gowda

R/at Khandigemane

Perla, Shebaje Village

Belthangady Taluk.

...Appellant

(By Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi - Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka

Rep. by State Public Prosecutor

High Court Building

Bangalore.

...Respondent

(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K – HCGP)

This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.374(2) of

Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the

appellant praying to set aside the judgment and order of

conviction dated 13.04.2011 made in Spl.C.No.4/2008

by the court of II-Addl. Sessions and Special Judge,

Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and acquit appellant.

R

2

This criminal appeal coming on for Dictating

Judgment this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence rendered by the II

Addl.Sessions Judge and Special Judge, D.K. Mangalore

in Spl.Case No.4/2008 dated 13.04.2011 whereby

convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 376 and 328 of IPC, 1860. The accused shall

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years

and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 376 of IPC with default

clause. Further, the accused shall undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 04 years and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

328 of IPC with default clause. But acquitted the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 506

and 420 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3

2. Heard learned counsel Sri Veeranna G.Tigadi

for the appellant and learned HCGP for respondent –

State who are present before the Court physically.

Perused the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.Case

No.4/2008.

3.

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution

that PW.1 who is the victim had filed a complaint

narrating the incident that she was working in the

telephone

booth

belonging

to

one

Jalajabai

of

Arasinamakki in Hathyadka village. The accused used

to visit the telephone booth frequently to make phone

calls. He started liking the complainant and promised to

marry her and complainant believing the promise given

by accused, fell in love with the accused. That on

11.01.2008 the accused asked the victim PW.1 to come

near his house situated at Khandige at around 5.45

p.m. to talk about the registration of the marriage.

4

Believing the version of the accused, PW.1 went to the

residence of the accused at around 5.45 p.m. At that

time the accused was found near his house on the road

side. The accused took the victim near the black stone

quarry located near his house under the guise of

talking. In the said quarry the accused took out a beer

bottle from his bag and forcibly made the victim to drink

the beer and thereafter promised the complainant to

register their marriage on 12.01.2008 at Belthangady.

The accused alleged to have forced the PW.1 to stay in

quarry for whole night and during the night hours the

accused forced PW.1 to have physical contact in terms

of force. But victim refused and asked him to have sex

only after registered marriage. The accused did not heed

to the request of the complainant and forced her and

raped her modesty and had sexual intercourse with her

twice. On the next day morning the accused had asked

PW.1 to go to Dharmasthala and stay in her relative’s

house and further promised her that he will come to

5

Dharmastala

and

take

her

to

Belthangady

for

registration of the marriage. Believing the promise

made by the accused, PW.1 stayed in her relative’s

house

but

the

accused

did

not

turn

up