IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2018 (C)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRASAD B @ KUNHZI S/O BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANDAGOVE VILLAGE, SUNTICOPPA, KODAGU-573 115.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KUSHALNAGAR CIRCLE P.S.-573 201, KODAGU DISTRICT.

Digitally signed by …RESPONDENT SWAPNA V (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

Location:

High Court of Karnataka THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO (A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPL. CASE NO.62 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI; (B) SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 05.04.2018 PASSED IN S. CASE NO.62/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE ALLEGED CHARGE FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 376(2)(j) AND 376(2)(L) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant being the accused in SC No.62/2017 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2018 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(l) of IPC, sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.7,500/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(l) of IPC, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, during July 2016, the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with PW3, who was deaf and dumb and impregnented her. Later, she gave birth to the male child on 18.04.2017 at Madikeri District Hospital. Therefore, it is stated that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(l) of IPC.

3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to 16 in support of its contention. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri B. Lethif, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent/State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court to acquit him for the charges leveled against him?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the prosecution that PW3 is the victim, aged 30 years and she is deaf and dumb. The accused who is the relative of PW1 - the mother of victim, committed forcible sexual assault on PW3 in her house, which resulted in giving birth to the male child on 18.04.2017. The first information came to be filed by the mother of the victim on 06.04.2017 and FIR came to be registered. Investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed.

7. PW1 is the informant, the mother of the victim and paternal aunt of the accused. First information as per Ex.P1 discloses that the victim delivered the male child on 18.04.2017 just 12 days after filing of the complaint - Ex.P1. The contention of the