IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.495 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

LOHITH S/O K. R. PUPPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O KABBIGERE VILLAGE AMBLE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHIKMAGALUR RURAL POLICE STATION CHIKMAGALUR - 577101.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 26.3.13 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.90/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF IPC AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 26^th March, 2013 and order on sentence dated 27^th March 2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in SC No.90 of

2008.

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

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, 0submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 08^th March, 2008 at 11.00 am, in Kabbigere Village, when PW1-victim girl aged about 18 years was alone in the house, the accused, though being a neighbour, stealthily entered into the house of the victim, when she was attending work in the bathroom, closed the front door, forcibly took the victim to the Hall and committed rape without her consent and against her will and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused and case was registered in CC No.945 of 2008. The accused entered appearance before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the was registered as SC No.90 of 2008. The trial Court, on hearing the charges, framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as PWs1 to PW15 and 20 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P20. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the accused himself examined as DW.1 and another witness as DW.2. Five documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D5.

5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Sri Mohan Bhat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence is highly erroneous and contrary to law. He would submit that learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as the prosecutrix was normal on 14^th March, 2008 itself as per the case sheet produced at Exhibit D2. However, her statement was recorded on 27^th March, 2008. The said inordinate delay was neither explained in the complaint nor before the trial Court. Howev