IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 817 OF 2013 (C)

BETWEEN:

DEVARAJU S/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O DARASAGUPPE VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 401 NOW R/AT 1^ST CROSS CHIKKEGOWDANADODDI MANDYA CITY-571 401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KUMARASWAMY B.N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA EAST POLICE STATION Digitally signed MANDYA-571 401 by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of …RESPONDENT Karnataka (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:19.6.13 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J., MANDYA IN S.C.NO.128/11 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354 OF IPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2013 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Sessions Case No.128/2011, wherein the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, whereas convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. As the accused was in judicial custody from 17.02.2011 to 14.10.2011, the same was ordered to be set off as required under Section 428 of IPC. Now the appellant – accused is before this Court challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence stated supra.

The facts stating upto this appeal are as under: 2. That the accused was charge sheeted by the Mandya East Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC on the ground that, on 15.02.2011 at about 6.30 p.m, behind the house of one B.N.Kempalingaiah, situated at Chikkegowdanadoddi, when the complainant had gone to attend her natures call, at the time, accused followed her, hugged her and thereafter lifted her saree and gagged her mouth as well as caught hold of her hands and committed rape on her. When she bombarded for assistance, the people started coming there and accused ran away from the said place. Thereafter, on the same day itself, she went to the police station at 10 p.m and lodged a complaint. On completion of the investigation, police have filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

3. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12, with respective signatures and also got marked MO Nos.1 to 13 and closed prosecution evidence.

4. On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf.

5. The learned Trial Court, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found that the accused had not committed offence under Section 376 of IPC, but, he had committed the offence under Section 354 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

6. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, no appeal is preferred by the State. Thus, the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC has attained finality.

7. Now we are very much concerned with regard to the offence under Section 354 of IPC. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 that, on 15.02.2011, when victim had gone to attend her natures call behind the house of Kempalingaiah in her village, at that time, accused followed her. After 10 to 15 minutes, there was a sound of complainant and she started bombarding. When the victim was attending natures call, the accused caught hold of her from her behind and hugg