State appealed against acquittal of two accused in a rape case alleging deceitful promise of marriage. The High Court found no ground to admit the appeal at admission stage, noting the trial court's detailed appreciation of evidence indicating consensual relations, and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:1281-DB CRL.A No. 812 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.812 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
AND:
Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BALAGANUR VILLAGE SINDAGI TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586 128.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
NC: 2026:KHC:1281-DB CRL.A No. 812 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.12.2023 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.1371 OF 2021 PASSED BY THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354, 420, 376, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND B. SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14-12-2023 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.1371 OF 2021 PASSED BY THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354, 420, 376, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned State Public Prosecutor-II appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on admission.
NC: 2026:KHC:1281-DB CRL.A No. 812 of 2025
HC-KAR
and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and prayed this Court to convict the accused persons and impose the sentence.
HC-KAR
respondent Nos.1 and 2 vehemently contend that the trial Court has discussed the material available on record in detail from paragraph Nos.36 to 53, including Ex.P4, and therefore, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:1281-DB CRL.A No. 812 of 2025
HC-KAR
subsequently turned hostile and stopped responding to her calls and was not traceable.
case and investigated the matter. The trial Court, however, took note of the evidence of PW1 in detail and considered the material on record, particularly in paragraph No.41. PW1 stated that due to threats posed to her life by accused No.1, she did not disclose the incident to the neighbours. However, the trial Court did not accept this explanation, as in her crossexamination PW1 categorically stated that she was active on social media and made comments thereon, and therefore the trial Court held that the alleged threat was not believable.
in paragraph No.42, wherein PW1 categorically stated that she was not willing to marry accused No.1 as she did not have faith in him and the same also creates a doubt in the mind of the Court to believe her version. Further, as discussed in paragraph No.43, another complaint dated 09.06.2020 made before the Deputy Commissioner of Police - South was brought on record, which was forwarded to the Kengeri Police Station
NC: 2026:KHC:1281-DB CRL.A No. 812 of 2025
HC-KAR
for enquiry. A perusal of the same reveals that PW1 had requested the police authorities to call accused No.1 and advise him. In Ex.P1 also, PW1 specifically stated that she was not willing to marry accused No.1 as she was not having any confidence in him. The trial Court discussed both the oral and documentary evidence available on record in detail in paragraph Nos.44 and 45.
HC-KAR
Ramzan, accused No.1 took her to his room situated at Santhe beedhi, Kengeri. However, the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 indicated that accused No.1 was residing at Shirke, which is about three kilometres away from Bazaar Street. If PW3, Salma, who claimed to be the neighbour of accused No.1, were indeed residing near the alleged place of incident, she would have stated so in her evidence, at least in Ex.D3, that accused No.1 had brought the complainant to the house situated near her residence, where the incident allegedly occurred.
NC: 2026:KHC:1281-DB CRL.A No. 812 of 2025
HC-KAR
Maharashtra , reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191 , wherein it has been held that " consensual involvement in sexual intercourse by victim without there being any misconception created by the accused does not constitute rape ". The trial Court further observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anne Nageswara Rao v. Public Prosecutor reported in (1975) 4 SCC 106, held that " the delay in lodging the complaint affected the credibility of the prosecution story ".
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 354, 376, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of MaharashtraReferred
(2019) 18 SCC 191 · Who else cites this
Anne Nageswara Rao v. Public ProsecutorReferred
(1975) 4 SCC 106 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 2 enactments
The State by Kengeri Police Station represented by State Public Prosecutor
Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe
Dastagir Saifan Sab Thambe
H.P.Sandesh
Venkatesh Naik T
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
