IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2334 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

MURALI S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT MOTHI NAGAR IN FRONT OF MALBAR SQUARE NEAR MARKET BENGALURU 560 032 …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA REP. B Y THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CRPC (U/S

415(2) OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 23.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.448/2017 WHEREBY THE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(1), 450, 323, 506-b OF IPC; AND ETC.

IN THIS PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD, JUDGMENT RESER VED ON 06.02.2026, COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

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

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23^rd August, 2024 passed in SC No.448 of 2017 by the LIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the trial Court”).

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

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Police Inspector, Parappana Agrahara Police Station, submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for commission of offences under Sections 450, 341, 323, 397, 376, 506-B and 176 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant was residing in Sri. Venkat Naveen Women PG which was being run by the second accused and situated at 2^nd Stage Electronic City, falling within the jurisdiction of Parappana Agrahara Police Station. The complainant, who was working in TCS, was residing in the said PG from 18^th August, 2016. On 25^th August, 2016 at 2.00 am, the complainant returned to the PG after her work. As the room-mate of the complainant (CW.2) had gone for work, the complainant who had head-ache took pain killer and slept without locking the door of the room. At 2.30 am, when the complainant was in a drowsy state, the accused No.1 entered the room. The complainant asked him in Tamil as to who he was? at that time, accused kept a knife on the throat of the complainant. When the complainant tried to shout, accused threatened that he would kill her.

5. Accused asked for money and the complainant told him that she had only Rs.200/- and that she would give whatever she had. He asked for more money for which the complainant informed him in Tamil that she would give her ATM card. Accused focused torch light near the throat of the complainant and stuffed bed sheet into the mouth of the complainant. He then dragged her by her hair and locked the door. He then took her near the bathroom and switched on the light. He held the face of the complainant under the light. Later, he pushed the complainant to the cot and kissed her on her face. He tried to remove her night pant and asked her to remove the same. When the complainant refused the same and tried to escape from the place, accused threatened her with the knife and removed his elastic track pant. He pushed the complainant on the bed and fell on her. He squeezed the hands and body of the complainant and forcefully raped her. He once again threatened to kill her with the knife, kissed her body and once again attempted to rape her. Thus, the accused No.1 is stated to have committed offences punishable under Sections 450, 341, 323, 397, 376 and 506-B of IPC. The Accused No.2 who is the owner of the PG where the victim was residing, did not inform the incident to the police or any public servant despite having information about the same. Thus, the second accused is stated to have committed offence punishable under Section 176 of IPC.

6. After filing the