MANJULA vs DEVARAJU

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018







IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2047 OF 2018


BETWEEN:

1. MANJULA
D/O KEMPAIAIH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT SIDDANAHATTI VILLAGE
DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI
DODDAGORANAGHATTA POST
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
PIN CODE-572215.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHA T.T., ADVOCATE
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.08.2026,
SRI. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH,
[APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE])

AND:

1. DEVARAJU
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O SIDDANAHATTI VILLAGE
DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI





Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
PIN CODE-572215.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DANDINASHIVARA POLICE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
PIN CODE-572221.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 03.10.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.10010/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, TIPTUR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 417, 376 AND 506 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

This matter is listed for final hearing today and this Court
heard the matter on the previous date of hearing in part,
directed to keep PW.1 and accused-respondent No.1 to be
present before the Court on the next date of hearing. Now, the
respondent No.1-accused is present before the Court.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018



2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused -
respondent No.1 placed on record the copy of the order passed
by the trial Court granting maintenance in favour of the victim
as well as daughter of the victim in Crl.Misc.No.30/2019,
wherein, the trial Court granted maintenance amount
Rs.2,000/- to each of them. In reply, learned amicus curiae
appearing for the de facto complainant would submit that even
that maintenance amount is also not paid.
3. The order passed by trial Court is taken on record in
granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each in Crl.Misc.
No.30/2019.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that:
a) The accused-respondent No.1 is the resident of
Siddanahatti Village, Dandinashivara Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk.
By making the prosecutrix to believe that he will marry her,
had sexual intercourse with her at the house and continued to
have physical relationship with her. That lastly till July 2012, he
had forcible sexual intercourse with her and had threatened to
take away her life if she discloses the same to anyone. Due to

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


which, prosecutrix became pregnant of 3 months. Based on the
complaint, police have registered the case for offences
punishable under Sections 417, 376 and 506 of IPC. The police
having registered the case investigated in the matter and filed
the charge sheet. The accused was subjected to the trial
before the trial Court. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
b) The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined
PWs.1 to 13 and got marked the documents as per Exs. P1 to
P14. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence
and he was subjected to Section 313 Statement. The trial Court
having considered the material on record, they extracted the
provisions of Section 375 and fails to extract Section 417 of IPC
and also taken note of Section 90- consent known to be given
under fear or misconception . Having assessed the evidence
available on record taken note of the receipt of complaint by
PW.11 and registered the FIR and handed over the further
investigation to PW.12, who sent the prosecutrix for medical
examination to ascertain the fact that whether rape was
committed on her. PW.8 is the doctor who on examination of
the prosecutrix has given the report as per Ex.P11. The doctor

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


has given the opinion that prosecutrix was pregnant of 3
months. The PW.12 for further investigation, conducted the
spot mahazar at Ex.P2, in the presence of PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 is
none other than the uncle of PW.1 and PW.3 is a neighbour.
The PW.12 Investigating Officer along with PWs.11 and 10
traced the accused and subjected him for potency test and
there obtained the report at Ex.P6 from PW.6 that he is capable
to do the sexual act. The PW.12 also collected the katha extract
of Ex.P3 from Panchayat Secretary-PW.4 and Ex.P4-sketch
from PW.5- Assistant Engineer. But trial court having
considered the evidence that PW.1 has stated that accused had
subjected her to sexual act and she has admitted that since
from school days they were in love and they have developed a
physical relationship with consent. The Trial Court also taken
note of the same and earlier also case was registered and the
allegation that accused made an attempt to outrage her
modesty and the same was ended in acquittal.
c) It is also an admission that in year 2011-12, they
worked under one Sham and resided in this garden and also
taken note of lodging of the complaint and respondent No.1-

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


accused used to visit her once in a week and they have
continued their physical relationship. It is also the evidence of
PW.1 that she used to reside alone in the hut and her parents
are residing away from her and once in a week she used to
meet her parents. She used to cook food for herself and she
was not going for any job. The trial Court also taken note of
that she has admitted that they lived at the garden of Shyam
and since three and half years they were residing at the garden
of some other person. Having taken note of this admission and
also considering the material i.e., the document of House
Extract as per Ex.P3 which is spoken by PW.4 and also PW.5
who is the Assistant Engineer who prepared the sketch and
considering the material on record comes to the conclusion that
it was a case of consent and she was in deep love with the
accused-respondent No.1.
d) The trial Court took note of that both of them were
having physical relationship and as a result, she became
pregnant. The doctor who examined as PW.8, deposed that
there was no marks of forceful sex found on the body of PW.1
and hence, comes to the conclusion that Investigating Officer

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


has subjected the accused for potency test and report was
obtained in terms of Ex.P6. Thereafter, blood samples of
accused-respondent No.1, PW1 and the child were drawn for a
DNA test and DNA report-Ex.P12 was also obtained. According
to Public Prosecutor, accused-respondent has not cross-
examined PW.7 and that there were no suggestions against
the contents in Exs. P6 and P12. Hence accused has admitted
that he is the father of the child.
e) The trial court inspite of discussing the same in detail
about the evidence available on record, comes to the
conclusion that the victim has not denied the love affair and
also considering that there was no forcible sex or intercourse,
comes to the conclusion that the said sexual intercourse
against the will of the prosecutirix, or that her consent was
obtained by misconception of fact. The trial court comes to the
conclusion that there is no forcible commission of rape or threat
to life of prosecutrix. The trial judge failed to consider the
ingredients of the very offence under Section 478, there is no
discussion at all. Except discussing the ingredients of Section
375, fails to consider the contents of the document of complaint

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


Ex.P1. Having perused the Ex.P1, it is very clear that both of
them fell in love and accused-respondent No.1 promised the
prosecutrix that he would marry her and he is not going to
marry anyone else. It is also specifically stated that repeatedly
he was making phone call that he is going to marry her and he
will not leave her and he is going to give a life to her, in that
guise, he was visiting her and also he pressurized her to
withdraw the case which was given earlier and she insisted first
to marry her and then only she is going to withdraw the
complaint. But, when she withdrew the complaint, he went to
Bangalore. It is specifically stated that forcibly he had sexual
intercourse with her and thereafter he was visiting her and
believing his words, she gave the consent in view of the
promise made to her. In view of his promise, she did not inform
the same to her family members and also his frequent visit.
When bodily changes appeared, she went and examined herself
and came to know that she was a pregnant of three and half
months and immediately informed to accused-respondent No.1.
Then he instructed her to abort the same, but she did not agree
for the abortion. But he promised that he is going to come to

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


Court on 09.11.2012 as date is fixed and she believed his
promise and that on 09.11.2012, he came to village, But he
refused to marry her. Thereafter, he caused the life threat that
if she discloses the same, he is going to take away the life.
When he tried to create fear in her mind, she screamed at the
spot and by leaving her, accused ran away from the spot. Then
she informed the same to her family members and gave the
complaint stating that promising to marry her, accused
subjected her for sexual act and also caused the life threat.
Hence, based on her complaint, the case was registered.
5. The very contention of the learned amicus curiae as
well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the State that the Trial Court committed an error in
acquitting the accused without considering the material
available on record.
6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
accused/respondent in his arguments would vehemently
contend that Trial Court has passed an order considering the
material available on record and rightly comes to the conclusion
that it was a consensual sex and ingredients of offence under

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


Section 376 of IPC not attracts and so also Section 417 of IPC.
Hence, it do not require any interference.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel for the respondents, the point
that would arise for the consideration of this appeal are:
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
acquitting the accused and the same amounts to
perversity which leads to miscarriage of justice
and whether it requires interference of this Court
converting the judgment of acquittal into
conviction?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material available
on record, it discloses that the very contents of the complaint
are not discussed by the Trial Court and so also the evidence of
PW1-victim in a proper perspective. No doubt, PW1 says that
both of them were going to school together and they fell in love
and cccused used to visit her house whenever her father was
not in the house and there was a galata to that effect and

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


earlier also given the police complaint in this regard. It is also
specifically deposed that accused was making phone call
repeatedly promising her that he is going to marry her only and
not anybody else. The same is found in the evidence of PW1 in
paragraph 2. The evidence of PW1 is very clear that when she
became pregnant, informed the same to the accused over the
phone and he insisted her to terminate the pregnancy and
when she refused for the same, he caused the life threat. It is
also admitted that earlier she gave the complaint against him
and the said case is pending.
9. In the cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited about
the earlier complaint. It is also elicited that she has studied
upto SSLC but not completed. Accused also promised her that
he is going to marry her. At that time, she was aged about 19
years. At the time of giving evidence, she was aged about 21
years and the child was aged about 3 years. It is elicited that
before filing the complaint on 21.04.2012, both of them had
sexual intercourse. At that time, she was not pregnant. It is
also admitted that when complaint was given earlier, she has
stated that both of them are loving each other from last 2

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


years. When suggestion was made to the witness, she deposed
that on the first day, accused kissed her and also promised that
he is going to marry her. The said answer is elicited from the
mouth of PW1 by making suggestion by the defence itself. It is
elicited from the mouth of PW1 that when first time complaint
was given, accused continued to have the sexual intercourse
because even subsequent to the lodging of the complaint also
he promised to marry her and insisted her to withdraw the
earlier case. But PW1 informed him that after marriage only,
she will withdraw the complaint. But accused did not agree to
marry her.
10. Having taken note of the material available on
record, it discloses that the Trial Court proceeded with an
erroneous approach only considering the admissions of PW1
with regard to that both of them have affair and had sexual
intercourse. But nothing is discussed with regard to the promise
made by accused that he will marry her. On the guise of
promise of marriage, accused forced the victim for sexual
intercourse and on the misconception of the fact by promising,
subjected her for sexual act.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


11. The Trial Court also fails to take note of the DNA
report which is available before the Court which is marked as
Ex.P12. The Ex.P12 is very clear that this accused is the
biological father of the child since the conclusion of DNA is very
clear that DNA profile of female baby Jayalaxmi sample blood
sent in Item No.3 is consistent with having come from the
offsprings of Devaraja and Manjula is matching with the DNA
profile of the sample blood sent in Item Nos.1 and 2
respectively. Based on this DNA profile, it is very clear that the
accused is the biological father and Manjula is the biological
mother of the female baby.
12. It is unfortunate to say that Trial Court fails to
consider the evidence of PW1 with regard to the promise of
marriage and subjecting her for sexual act by the accused.
Both of them are having an affair cannot be a ground to acquit
the accused. No doubt, there is no cross-examination of PW7 in
respect of DNA test and DNA report and the same was brought
to the notice of the Trial Court and the same is discussed by
the Trial Court in paragraph 42 of the judgment. But comes to
the conclusion that accused has admitted that he is the father

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


of the child. Though such finding is given by the Trial Court that
accused is the biological father of the child, no reasoning is
given with regard to the promise to marry her and subjecting
her for sexual act. As a result of the same, victim gave birth to
a female child and nothing is discussed in the judgment by the
Trial Court.
13. Having perused these materials, it discloses that it
is nothing but a perversity in the finding of Trial Court and the
Trial Court fails to consider the ingredients of the offences
invoked against the accused i.e., Sections 417 as well as 376 of
IPC. Though there was no any injury as per the medical report,
it is very clear that with the promise of marriage, accused
subjected the victim for sexual act. Hence, the Court cannot
expect any injuries on the private part of the victim when
accused had promised to marry her and obtained the consent
by making that promise and subjected her for sexual act. The
continuation of sexual intercourse by both of them with the
promise of marriage, cannot be a consensual sex. The Trial
Court fails to take note of contents of Ex.P1 and the evidence of
PW1 before the Court which corroborates with each other.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


Hence, the Trial Court fails to discuss the contents of Ex.P1 as
well as the evidence of PW1 when the same is in corollary to
the contents of Ex.P1 and nothing is discussed and proceeded
in an erroneous approach in coming to the conclusion that it
was a consensual sex which has resulted in giving a birth to a
child.
14. No doubt, the Trial Court while passing the
judgment relied upon the principles laid down in the judgment
of Apex Court reported in 2003 (7) KCCR 1297 in paragraph
37. But not discussed the very scope of Section 417 of IPC and
ingredients of both the offences under Section 417 as well as
376 of IPC and erroneously proceeded to acquit the accused
even though in paragraph 42, Trial Court held that accused is
the biological father and DNA test is also proved against the
accused. Thus, Trial Court committed an error in not
considering the evidence of PW1; Ex.P1 as well as Ex.P6 and
Ex.P12 which all goes against the accused.
15. The Trial Court also fails to take note of the very
averments made in the complaint wherein specifically stated
that when victim had requested the accused to marry her, he

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


insisted her to terminate the pregnancy and also specific
allegation is made in the complaint that when she insisted to
marry, accused made an attempt with the dupatta to take away
her life causing life threat to her. The very ingredients of
Section 506 of IPC are found in the document of Ex.P1-
complaint as well in the evidence of PW1. But nothing is
discussed in the judgment by the Trial Court in respect of
offence under Section 506 of IPC. The witnesses in the
evidence categorically deposed that victim has believed the
promise of the accused that he will marry her and but not
expected that accused will cheat her. In the complaint also it is
specifically mentioned that accused caused the life threat and
the same is not discussed by the Trial Court while considering
the offences which were invoked against the accused. In the
cross-examination of PW1, nothing is elicited with regard to
causing of life threat to PW1 and only concentrated that it is a
consensual sex. When PW1 was subjected to cross-
examination, only a suggestion was made that accused has not
put any life threat and the said suggestion was denied by the
PW1 and the same is also not discussed by the Trial Court while

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


considering the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 of
IPC.
16. Even in respect of the ingredients of Section 417
are concerned, there is no any effective cross-examination.
Thus, the Trial Court failed to consider the materials available
on record in a proper perspective and the same is nothing but a
perversity in appreciation of both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record which has led to miscarriage of
justice in acquitting the accused for all the offences. Hence, the
judgment of the Trial Court is very cryptic and not discussed
the evidence available on record. Even the evidence of the IOs
who have been examined before the Court i.e., PW8, PW9,
PW10 and PW11 was also not touched upon by the Trial Court
and not discussed anything in detail including the evidence of
doctor who has been examined as PW7 except in 3 lines
observation is in paragraph 42 of the judgment of the Trial
Court. Hence, the Trial Court fails to take note of all these
materials available on record which has resulted in miscarriage
of justice. Hence, it is a fit case to reverse the finding of the
Trial Court in view of the principles laid down in the judgment

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


reported (2024) 3 SCC 544 in a case of MALLAPPA AND
OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA and in the case of P.
YUVAPRAKASH vs STATE rep. by Inspector of Police dated
18.07.2023 wherein the Apex Court held that if the cogent
evidence is not properly appreciated and if any miscarriage of
justice in view of non-appreciation, then the Appellate Court
can reverse the order of acquittal into a conviction. Having
considered all these materials available on record, this Court
finds that it is a fit case to convert the judgment of acquittal
into conviction. Hence, we answer the above point as
affirmative.
17. When the Trial Court acquitted the accused, even
failed to apply its judicious mind since there is a material before
the Court i.e., DNA report at Ex.P12 which clearly shows that
the accused is the biological father of the victim’s daughter.
Even though, Trial Court fails to invoke the provisions of
Section 357A of Cr.P.C. as well as the scheme which is
formulated to give protection to such people and evolve and
direct the District Legal Service Authority to compensate the
victim. The Trial Court even fails to exercise the powers of

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


granting of compensation or referring the matter to the DLSA
to pay the compensation. It is unfortunate that the Trial Court
failed to invoke such provision when the victim is before the
Court and in view of the act of the accused, she became
pregnant and gave birth to a child who was aged about 3 years
as on the date of giving the evidence. Thus, Trial Court fails to
apply its judicious mind and proceeded in a capricious manner
without looking into the material available on record and
passed the order of acquittal. Hence, it is a fit case to invoke
the provisions of Section 357A of Cr.P.C. and direct the DLSA to
pay the compensation to the victim.
18. This Court has also taken note of the fact that as on
the date of filing of the complaint, the victim was aged about
19 years. It has also emerged during the course of her
evidence and also complaint that even prior to subjecting her
for sexual act, she was a minor. The specific evidence of the
victim is that both of them were studying together in the same
school and promise was made when she was minor and taking
the advantage, later, subjected her for sexual act.

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


19. The accused is also having a property and capacity
to pay the fine. The conduct of the accused is that he did not
marry, inspite of there was a promise and subjected her for
sexual act. As a result, the victim gave birth to a girl child.
Even at the time of giving evidence, the girl child was also aged
about 3 years and DNA also confirms that this accused is the
biological father. Hence, the court while imposing the sentence
also to take note of the said fact into consideration. As a result
of the act of the accused, he had spoiled the life of the victim
and also no respect to the society in respect of the child born to
this petitioner. The same has to be taken note of while
imposing the sentence and ordering for compensation in favour
of girl child by name Jayalakshmi.
20. It is unfortunate that the counsel appearing for the
appellant also brought to notice of this Court proceedings
initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against this accused in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30/2019, the Trial Court vide order
dated 25.07.2026 allowed the petition directing to pay an
amount of Rs.2,000/- to both the victim as well as the child.

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


The counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even
the said amount was also not paid.
21. The counsel appearing for the respondent also not
disputes the said fact. This Court has to take note of said fact
into consideration while imposing the sentence as well as the
compensation and appropriate sentence has to be imposed
against the petitioner.
Point No.2:
22. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed.

(ii) Impugned judgment of acquittal is set aside.

(iii) Accused is convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 417, 376 and 506 of IPC.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE

BSV/SN

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


HEARING ON SENTENCE
1. The amendment is made to Section 376 of Cr.P.C.
in 2018, substituting the punishment shall not be less than
10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and
also shall be liable to fine.
2. This incident has taken place in 2012 i.e., prior to
the amendment, wherein the punishment shall not be less
than 7 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life
and shall also be liable to fine. This Court is also conscious
about the said amendment. So also, recently the Apex Court
held that before passing the sentence, accused must be
heard. But when the Court imposes the sentence as per the
statute in keeping the penal provision and also the sentence,
and the same can be considered.
3. However, this Court considered the matter on
27.08.2026 and counsel appearing for the respondent took
time to make submission and abruptly today, makes the
submission that the respondent would make the payment to
the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, instead of taking

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


the conviction and sentence. This Court has taken note of
the capacity of the accused to make payment, who is not
ready to undergo the sentence. The same is also kept in
mind while imposing the sentence by this Court.
4. As a result of the act of the respondent/accused,
both the victim and child born to this petitioner is under
lurch and taken the advantage of helpless lady, who belongs
to a downtrodden community and helplessness of the victim
girl who is aged about 18 years at the time of incident and
while lodging the complaint, she was pregnant. Even this
court also when he was secured before the court, advised
him to marry the victim, but he refused to marry her and still
the accused is not married. All these factors were also taken
note of while imposing the sentence after hearing the
accused.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
(i) The accused is sentenced for an offence
punishable under Section 417 for a period of 1 year with fine

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo further punishment for a period of 3 months.
(ii) The accused is sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 376 of
IPC and also pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in case of
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further sentence
for a period of 2 years.
(iii) The accused is also sentenced for an offence
punishable under Section 506 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of pay of fine, he shall undergo
default sentence for a period of 6 months. The sentence shall
concurrently.
(iv) The accused is directed to be taken to the
custody and send him to Central Prison at Bangalore by
issuing a conviction warrant to undergo the sentence.
(v) On depositing of fine amount of Rs.7,00,000/- by
the accused, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be kept in FD

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


in the name of the child-Jayalakshmi till the age of majority.
PW1 is not permitted to withdraw that amount till the
attainment of the majority. The remaining amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be released in favour of the
PW1-victim for livelihood as well as to meet the educational
expenses of the daughter Kum.Jayalakshmi.
(vi) The District Legal Services Authority is directed to
pay the compensation amount. Even trial Court while
acquitting the accused has not directed to pay the
compensation. In the case of acquittal also, the victim is
entitled for compensation since the victim has supported the
case before the trial court, but the Trial Court has not
exercised the same while acquitting the accused. Hence,
District Legal Service Authority is directed to pay maximum
compensation keeping in view the pathetic condition of
victim as well as the child from the corpus of DLSA and the
same has to be done within a period of 4 months from today.

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59117-DB
CRL.A No. 2047 of 2018


CNR: KAHC010513652018


(vii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment to the DLSA of the Tumkur District, forthwith to
enable the DLSA to take decision in this regard.
(viii) The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this
Judgment to the accused/respondent.
(ix) The Registry is also directed to pay the fee of
Rs.10,000/- to the Amicus Curiae, forthwith who rendered
his services in this matter.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE


BSV/SN