Dismissed¶63

Swajith Gowda v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2025CRL.RP/235/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC 2025:KHC:15193 | Karnataka High Court (J.M. Khazi J.), decided 09.04.2025 | CRL.RP No.235 of 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) | Discharge refused - attempt to rape: charge under S.376 r/w S.511 IPC sustainable where prosecutrix resisted; prosecutrix's statement prima facie sufficient at charge stage despite no medical evidence or eyewitnesses; revision under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. dismissed and trial Court's rejection of S.227 Cr.P.C. discharge application in S.C.No.488/2023 confirmed.

What did the court decide?

It is not the prosecution case that the accused committed sexual assault; rather, he persistently attempted to rape the prosecutrix, which is why the charge is under Section 376 r/w Section 511 I.P.C. ¶60

Swajith Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to discharge, the charge-sheet allegations being contended not to attract the provisions of Section 376 I.P.C. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

¶60

Ratio / Principle

At the charge stage, the statement of the sole prosecutrix is prima facie sufficient to frame charge against the accused.

¶60

Key takeaways

Given the nature of the allegations and the circumstances in which the incident occurred, no witness other than the prosecutrix could be expected.ratio¶60
There are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the trial Court's rejection of the discharge application; the revision petition fails.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No.235/2025) under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C. by the accused against order dated 07.10.2024 in S.C.No.488/2023 (LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru) dismissing his discharge application under S.227 Cr.P.C.; charges: S.354, S.376 r/w S.511 IPC arising out of FIR Cr.No.3/2023 of Sanjay Nagar P.S. Allegations: accused, posing as Managing Director of Raj Builders Private Limited, collected the prosecutrix from Yeshwanthpur Railway Station, lodged her in a purported company guest house, and under the pretext of explaining company rules attempted sexual intercourse against her consent; she resisted and escaped, after which he lured her with money and higher salary and threatened her. HELD: (i) it is not the prosecution case that rape was completed; the accused made a persistent attempt to rape, justifying charge under S.376 r/w S.511 IPC; (ii) at the charge-framing stage the sole prosecutrix's statement is prima facie sufficient, and given the nature and setting of the incident no other witness could be expected, so absence of medical evidence/eyewitnesses does not entitle the accused to discharge. Revision dismissed; impugned order confirmed; Registry directed to send copy to the trial Court.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 235 OF 2025

¶7

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SWAJITH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/O S.M.ASHOK, R/AT NO. 78, 17^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.WAHEEDA.M.M, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2024 IN S.C.NO.488/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶20

JUDGE, BENGALURU, REGISTERED BY THE SANJAY NAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354, 376 AND 511 OF IPC AND TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C, is by the accused challenging the impugned order by which the trial Court dismissed the application filed by him under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

¶26

On 10.01.2023, a complaint came to be filed by the prosecutrix alleging that she is resident of Chattisgarh. Through Linked she was offered a job in Raj Builder India Private Limited. She was suppose to report on 10.01.2023. After traveling 28 hours, she reached Yeshwanthpur

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶29

Railway Station on 09.01.2023 at 7.30 p.m. She was informed by the Kashish of HR of the company that she would be picked up by a driver of the company. However, accused claiming to be the Managing Director came to receive her in his black Jaguar car. On the way, he explained the rules and regulations and informed her that except the company employees no one is allowed in the guest house. She was also not allowed to bring her sisters and relatives.

¶30

3.1 At 8.30 p.m, they reached the guest house situated at Sanjayanagar. Accused directed her to freshen up and he would take her to dinner and left the guest house for one hour. After 20 minutes, someone rang the bell and introduced himself as the owner of the said house. Complainant showed him her Aadhar card. In the meanwhile, Himanshi, a friend of complainant who is studying in Ramaiah Law College came to meet her. When she informed accused over phone that her friend has come to meet her, he objected. She convinced accused that as

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶33

she is feeling uncomfortable, he should allow her friend to join dinner. However, accused insisted them to having dinner outside the company and took parcel and dropped Himanshi.

¶34

3.2 Complainant and accused went back to the guest house at 12.00 a.m. Accused insisted that he would come inside the guest house under the pretext of explaining the rules and regulations of company and allow him to have dinner inside the guest house. When complainant went inside the room to get attested copies of her marks sheet, accused pounced on her from behind. He held her waist and hugged tightly, forcibly pushed her on the bed and smooched her repeatedly. He started pressing her breast and other private part forcefully and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. Complainant was completely shocked and stunned while accused repeatedly kissed her with open jacket and shirt. He kissed on her neck and attempted to remove her clothes.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶36

3.3 Somehow, she gathered strength and kicked him on his private part and escaped outside the house. She went to the next door neighbour and sat in front of the said house. Accused came running after her and warned that if she does not cooperate, she should go back in the next train. When he left, complainant ran into the guest house and locked the main door from inside. She called her brother Sarthak and another friend by name Dheeraj Mishra and requested them to come to the guest house. Later complainant and Dheeraj Mishra met the landlord Sri.Keshav at 3.00 a.m. Keshav told her that accused informed him that complainant is his wife. Accused kept on calling her over phone and repeatedly requested her to meet again. He offered money and hike in salary. Even now he is giving threat to her. Complainant had to walk all the way to the police station with Dheeraj Mishra to file the complaint.

¶37

Based on the complaint, the concerned police

¶38

have registered the case in Cr.No.3/2023 and after

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶40

detailed investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C.

¶41

Initially accused was in judicial custody and

¶42

later secured bail.

¶43

On committal to the Court of Sessions, accused filed application seeking discharge, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order.

¶44

Accused has challenged the same contending that the allegations made in the charge sheet does not attract the provisions of Section 376 I.P.C. Prima facie it is a case of honey trap. The charge sheet does not indicate the presence of complainant at the spot on the date of alleged offence. No evidence is collected to show that petitioner traveled from Chattisgarh to Bengaluru. No CCTV footages are collected. The allegations made are highly improbable. There is delay in filing the complaint. While granting bail, this Court has observed that offence

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶47

under Section 376 is not made out. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Accused is hailing from a highly respectable family. To make unlawful gain, a false complaint is filed to harass, humiliate and extract money and hence, the petition.

¶48

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that there is no medical evidence to prove the allegations of rape attracting Section 376 I.P.C and atleast accused is entitled for discharge for Section 376 I.P.C.

¶49

On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State submitted that complainant was offered the position of Office Assistant by the accused claiming to be the Managing Director of Raj Builders Private Limited. He went to pick her up from the railway station and made her to stay in a house projecting it as a guest house of the company. Under the guise of explaining the rules and regulations of the company, he attempted to commit rape on her, which she evaded successfully.

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶51

9.1 After the incident when complainant ran out of the guest house, he followed her and insisted her to come back. When she did not agree, he left the place, but called repeatedly offering higher pay package, etc. When she did not agree, he also gave threat to her. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. The allegations against the accused are that he attempted to rape the prosecutrix, but was not successful. There is prima facie material to proceed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376 r/w Section 511 I.P.C. Therefore, rightly the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the accused for discharge and pray to reject the present petition also.

¶52

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶53

From the material placed in the charge sheet, including the complaint averments, it is evident that accused claiming to be the Managing Director of Raj Builders Private Limited offered a job to the complainant in his company. When she reached Yeshwanthpur railway

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶56

station, though she was told that driver of the company would pick her up, accused himself went to the railway station in his Jaguar car and brought her to a house claiming to be a guest house of the company. He prevented her from taking her relatives to the guest house and also got rid of her friend who happened to visit her.

¶57

11.1 Under the guise of explaining the rules and regulations, he entered the guest house and attempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix. The details forthcoming from the complaint averments clearly indicate that despite his several attempts to have sexual intercourse with her against her consent, she successfully prevented him and ran out of the guest house. Even after she left the guest house and sitting outside a negihbouring house, he tried to bring her back luring with higher salary and when it did not work, also gave threat to her. Even after the incident, he made repeated calls to prevent her from taking any action.

¶58

10 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:15193 CRL.RP No. 235 of 2025

¶60

11.2 It is not the case of the prosecution that accused succeeded in committing sexual assault on the prosecutrix, but he made persistent attempt to rape her. Therefore, charge is made against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w Section 511 I.P.C. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the circumstances in which the incident took place, it cannot be expected that except the prosecutrix there would any other witness. At this stage, the statement of the prosecutrix is prima facie sufficient to frame charge against the accused. Taking into consideration the entire material placed in the charge sheet, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the accused for

¶61

discharge. This Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63