Allowed¶67

Rajesh @ Rajesh Rai, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2025CRL.A/2148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023 (NC: 2025:KHC:37577); rape; Section 376(2)(1) IPC; Section 448 IPC house-trespass; Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act; hostile witness; prosecutrix turned hostile in cross-examination; piece-meal appreciation of evidence; evidence to be read as a whole; re-appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal; acquittal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.; Dakshina Kannada; Mangaluru; endosulfan victim; bail bond cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2023 and order on sentence dated 07.09.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.1/2016 set aside; appellant/accused acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376(2)(1) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act; bail bond executed, if any, stands cancelled. ¶67

Rajesh @ Rajesh Rai, Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, resting on its appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the victim P.W.7 (who turned hostile in cross-examination), was sustainable on re-appreciation of the evidence as a whole.

¶48

Court's answer

On careful reading of the three material witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7), the Trial Court committed error in appreciating the evidence.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

While considering the evidence of witnesses, the Court must read the evidence as a whole and not in a piece-meal manner; it cannot dissect the evidence of witnesses and select only what is required for recording conviction.

¶57

Key takeaways

Though the victim turned hostile, merely because she supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief, that by itself is not sufficient to record a conviction; therefore the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Rachaiah, J.) allowed Criminal Appeal No. 2148 of 2023, filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by Rajesh @ Rajesh Rai, sole accused in Crime No.198/2015, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2023 and order of sentence dated 07.09.2023 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in Spl.C.No.1/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(1) and 448 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, arising from an incident of 01.10.2015 in which the 19-year-old daughter of the complainant, stated to be an endosulfan victim, was allegedly sexually assaulted on a promise of marriage. The Trial Court had relied on P.W.1 (father), P.W.2 (mother) and P.W.7 (the victim), the last of whom supported the prosecution in examination-in-chief but turned hostile in cross-examination. Holding that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence piece-meal instead of reading it as a whole, and that a hostile victim's support in examination-in-chief alone is not sufficient to record a conviction, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant of all charged offences, and cancelled his bail bond, if any.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:37577 CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2148 OF 2023 (C)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAJESH @ RAJESH RAI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE KUTTI SHETTY @ GOPALAKRISHNA RAI R/A KADEMBILA HOUSE PERUVAI VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-5754260

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANTWAL SUB DIVISION BANTWAL DK REPRESENTED BY STATE

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37577 CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M. M. HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 05.09.2023 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 07.09.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (SPECIAL) JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.1/2016, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(1), 448 OF IPC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,

¶22

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:37577 CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The appellant who is sole accused in Crime No.198/2015 of the respondent – Police, is before this Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376(2)(1) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2023 and order on sentence dated 07.09.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.1/2016 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K., Mangaluru.

¶29

Factual matrix of the case:

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that on 01.10.2015 at about 2.45 P.M., the daughter of the complainant who is aged about 19 years was alone in her house. The appellant is stated to have trespassed into the house and promised her that he would marry her and committed sexual assault on her and thereafter, he threatened her by stating that he would kill her if she discloses the matter to anybody. The victim is a endosulfan victim. Based on the said information an F.I.R came to be

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37577 CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

registered against the appellant. After conducting the investigation the respondent-Police submitted the

¶34

charge-sheet.

¶35

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked 24 documents as Ex-P.1 to P.24(a) and also identified and marked 05 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5(b).

¶36

Heard Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for

¶37

the appellant and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

¶38

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and illegal. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶39

It is further submitted that there are several material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution. Though, P.W.1 – the father of the victim, stated that he received a message from P.W.3 that the accused had entered inside his house, P.W.3 did not support the case of the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37577 CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

prosecution. Therefore, the averments of the complaint that he has received the message from P.W.3 would not be sustainable. However, the Trial Court acted on the evidence of P.W.1 which is erroneous.

¶43

It is further submitted that P.W.7 – victim in her cross-examination admitted that the appellant had not troubled her and she deposed as per the say of the Police before the Court. In fact, she was clearly, tutored by the Police and acted upon their instructions. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

¶44

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State, vehemently, justified the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and she further stated that P.W.1 being a father of the victim had lodged a complaint immediately after the incident. The victim had supported the case in her examination-in-chief, however, she has not supported the case in the cross-examination. That itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of prosecutrix along with medical evidence was to be considered

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37577 CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

by the Trial Court, accordingly it was considered and recorded the conviction which is proper and appropriate. Therefore, there is no error committed by the Trial Court to interfere with the said findings. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial court in recording the conviction, it appears from the findings that the Trial Court appreciated the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 7.

¶49

P.W.1 stated to have seen the appellant/accused when he was going hurriedly from his house and also noticed that his daughter was in a nude position. His daughter had informed him that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse on her on promising her that he would marry her. Thereafter, he lodges a complaint before the respondent – Police.

¶50

Similarly, P.W.2 being the mother of the victim had heard that the prosecutrix had severe pain on her private part, she had been subjected to medical examination. The Doctor

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:37577 CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

who conducted the medical examination opined that the victim had been subjected to sexual assault.

¶55

P.W.7 being a victim though supported the case of the prosecution, later, she had gone go-by to her evidence. However, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly.

¶56

Under such circumstances, it is relevant to refer the evidence of all the witnesses in detail for the purpose of re-appreciation.

¶57

On careful reading of all these three witnesses who are treated as material witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court committed error in appreciating the evidence. In fact, at the time of considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Court must read the evidence as a whole not in a peace-meal manner. In other words, the Court cannot dissect the evidence of the witnesses and select which is required for the recording the conviction.

¶58

In the present case, though, the victim has turned hostile, merely, because she supported the case of

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:37577 CRL.A No. 2148 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

examination-in-chief that itself is not sufficient to record the conviction. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside.

¶63

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed .

¶66

ii) The judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2023 and order on sentence dated 07.09.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.1/2016 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, is hereby, set aside.

¶67

iii) The appellant/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376(2)(1) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

¶68

iv) Bail bond executed if any, stands cancelled.

¶69

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶70

NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

Rajesh @ Rajesh Rai, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh @ Rajesh Rai, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aadu @ Aadi @ Infant Adarsha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Prem Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri More Agro Fertilizers Vs the State of Karnataka

Asif Hussain @ Jabi @ Jabeer @ Jabi Tiger @ Mohammed Asif Vs State of Karnataka by

Shameer Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasegowda Vs the Special Court Acquisition Officer