ANUJ ARYA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2015 (C)

BETWEEN:

1. ANUJ ARYA
S/O SURENDRA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.E-23,
SRI RAMASADANA APARTMENT,
GOKULA POST,
BANGALORE-560054
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
H-110, SECTOR-22
NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH,
PRESENT ADDRESS:
J-92, PIPELANE, PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560014
…APPELLANT











(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SANTHOSH B., ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
JALAHALLI POLICE, BANGALORE-24
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNDE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)

CRL.A. FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDERS

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



OF CONVICTION DATED 14.9.2015 PASSED BY THE LIV ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.472/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 376 AND 420 OF IPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated
14.09.2015 passed in SC No.472 of 2012 by the LIV Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-55) (for short,
the ‘trial Court’).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per status and rank before the trial court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Police
Inspector, Jalahalli Police Station, Bangalore submitted Charge-
sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the
prosecution that the accused and the victim girl are known to
each other since six years. Subsequently, they both fell in
love. On 19.10.2011, the accused invited the victim to his

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



House bearing No.E-23, Sri Ramsadan Apartments, Gokul,
Bangalore for celebration of his birthday. Victim girl had gone
to the house and accused has induced her to have sexual
intercourse by promising that he will marry her. Though the
victim girl has refused to have physical relationship, the
accused not heeding to the words of victim, between 3.30 and
4.00 pm, without the consent of the victim girl and against her
will, had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. On 29.01.2012,
when the victim girl asked the accused to marry her, the
accused has told her that he has done all this only for his
satisfaction and he is not ready to marry her. He further said
that the friendship will be continued as it is. Thus, the accused
has committed the alleged offences.
4. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in CC
No.9409 of 2012 and then it was committed to the court of
Sessions where it was registered as SC No.472 of 2012. The
accused was enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on charges, the
trial Court framed the charges for the offence punishable under
Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. The same were read over and
explained to the accused. Having understood the same,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Thereafter, the trial Court has framed altered Charge on
10.04.2015 only for the offence under Section 376 of Indian
Penal Code.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined 11 witnesses as PWs1 to 11 and marked 18
documents as Exhibits P1 to P18 and one material object as
MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of
the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Written
submissions of the accused also filed. Accused has denied the
evidence of prosecution witnesses and adduced evidence of
DW1 and marked 3 documents as Exhibits D1 to D3. Having
heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has
convicted the accused for offence under Sections 376 and 420
of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay fine of
Rs.
20,000/- for offence under section 376 IPC. The accused is
also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence, accused has preferred this appeal.
6. Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the counsel for the appellant, would submit that
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court is bad and opposed to law, facts and circumstances and
probabilities of the case. There is no evidence to attract the
offence under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. The
evidence of PWs1 to 3 and 8 reveal that the applicant and
victim were close and were moving as friends. Both were in
love with each other and out of this relationship, it is the
version of PW3-Roopakala, that both had sexual relationship
freely without any resistance. The conduct of PW3 in not
informing anyone about their sexual relationship, leave apart
forcible sexual intercourse by the accused on her, suggest that
the real fact was, it is a case of consensual sex.
6.1. The age of the victim was above 25 years. She had
studied MBA and had worked in a reputed Hotel and thereafter,
she joined a Company called Via.Com and was working as a
Revenue Manager. She has full knowledge of the worldly

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



affairs and the consequences of indulging in continuous talk,
chat and meeting each other and thereafter indulging in free
sexual intercourse with the appellant and not informing anyone
and was keeping secret the fact of the sexual intercourse with
the appellant as it is of their personal affair and only when the
appellant's family members did not agree for the marriage of
the appellant with her, she suddenly decided to take revenge
against the appellant by lodging complaint. One of the main
reasons for not getting married was because of the caste
difference and also non-agreeing by the elders of the appellant.
Added to this, PW3-Roopakala imposed several conditions for
marriage, like marriage should be registered, and the appellant
should not go out of Bangalore, he should reside in their house
etc. After full deliberations, since differences between both the
families erupted, the marriage between PW3-Roopakala and the
appellant was not materialised. It was only thereafter, PW3-
Roopakala went to the Police Station to lodge complaint. The
respondent police being fully aware of the facts refused to
receive her complaint. But, ultimately on 01.02.2011, she got
influenced the respondent Police through the Assistant

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



Commissioner of Police and filed a false complaint against the
appellant stating that he had committed forcible sexual
intercourse on her. PW3 was subjected for medical
examination. The Doctor at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital examined
her and issued certificate as per Exhibit P4 stating that, upon
examination, there were no external injuries found on her
person and there were no signs of recent sexual intercourse.
But, she used to act like that as if there was forcible sexual
intercourse. The Doctor has found other features on her body
which suggest that she was in continuous process of sexual
relationship. The chemical analysis report also negative the
presence of any spermatozoa. Therefore, the medical evidence
totally negatived the theory of committing any act of forcible
sexual intercourse on her.
6.2. PW3 being a grown-up woman, aged about 25 years
and well-educated, developed relationship with appellant,
started moving freely, indulged in sexual intercourse and her
conduct of keeping it in secret by not informing anyone or not
lodging any complaint, suggest that she was a consenting
party. This is supported by the evidence of PW2-Father and

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



PW8-Mother of the victim who have deposed that PW3 herself
was loving the appellant very much and she had decided to
marry him. It has also come in her evidence that both were in
close relationship. On several locations, she had gone to drop
the appellant to Airport whenever he was going to his native
place Delhi, and she was also picking him from the Airport
when he returned to Bangalore. Once, he had used her credit
card to buy air ticket. Like that, both were loving and having
close relationship, but due to some differences between the
families, PW3 decided to lodge complaint to the police with
allegation. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the
trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record
in accordance with law and facts. He would submit that, as per
the ingredients of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code, prior to
amendment, when an act of sexual intercourse is committed
with a girl who is above the age of 16 years, is no offence of
rape.
6.3. Further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit
that on 22.11.2012, the trial Court has framed charges for
offence under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



the same was altered on 10.04.2015, by deleting the offence
under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. However, at the time
of judgment, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the
offence both under Section 376 and 420 and passed the
sentence. On a careful examination of the impugned judgment,
it is clear that though the trial Court has deleted the offence
under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code as per the altered
charge on 10.04.2015, but has committed the accused for the
offences under Section 376 and 420 IPC and also passed
sentence for the said offence. It only shows that the trial court
has mechanically passed the judgment of conviction for offence
under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. On all these grounds,
it is sought to allow the appeal. To fortify his submissions, the
learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the following judgments:
1. UDAY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2003)4
SCC 46;
2. DR. DHRUVARAM MURALIDHAR SONAR V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS -
(2019)18 SCC 191.
7. As against this, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, the learned
HCGP would submit that the trial Court has appreciated

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



evidence record on accordance with law and facts and has
convicted the accused and the same does not call for any
interference in this appeal. Accordingly, it is sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following
points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the appellant has made out a ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence?
2. What order?
9. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: in the affirmative;
Point No.2: as per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
10. I have examined the materials placed before the
court. This case arise out of the complaint by the victim, PW3
as per Exhibit P1, in which it is stated as under:

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



"
£Á£ÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀPÀ¯Á, F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ zÀÆgÀ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ C£ÀÄeï DAiÀÄð
J£ÀÄߪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 6 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï ®°vÀ C±ÉÆÃPï£À°è PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. FUÀ ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï wAUÀ½£À°è ¥Éøï§ÄPï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ
¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁzÉêÀÅ. C£ÀÄeï ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAZÉ EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀ¤UÉ jPÉé¸ïÖ PÀ½¹zÉ.
sms, phone, face book, gtalk
EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÉÆßqÀ£É
ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀªÁV £À£ÉÆßqÀ£É ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. EzÁzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ£ÀÄ
£À£Àß ¦æÃw¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAZÉ £Á£ÀÄ
¤gÁPÀj¹zÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ£ÀÄ EzÉà «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄvÉÛà ºÉýzÀPÉÌ, £Á£ÀÄ ¸Àj
D¬ÄvÀÄ CAvÀ M¦àPÉÆAqÉ. EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ §j¸ÁÜzÀ°è ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ .
EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 19/10/2011 gÀAzÀÄ vÀ£Àß §vÀðqÉà EzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨Á JAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀ
pm pm
£Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ 3.30 - 4 ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ EzÀÄ £À£Àß §vÀðqÉà V¥sïÖ
£Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß vÀÄA¨Á ¦æÃw¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ. £Á£ÀÄ
¤gÁPÀj¹zÀÝPÉÌ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¤dªÁV ¦æÃw¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ EzÉ®è ¸ÀªÉÃð¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå.
£Á«§âgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ DzÀgÀÆ CAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ
FvÀ£À£ÀÄß vÀÄA¨Á ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä ©qÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁzÁUÀ¯É®è
CªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß »ÃUÉ PÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. MAzÀÄ ¢£À DvÀ£À ......... vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÁUÀ
gtalk
£À°è ZÁmï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÁAqÉÆêÀiï G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹, zÉÊ»PÀªÁV
¸ÉÃjzÀgÉ K£ÀÄ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ. £Á£ÀÄ DUÀ¯Éà ZÁmï£À°è
¤gÁPÀj¹zÉÝãÉ. EzÀQÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ MAzÀÄ ¢£À CªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÉÆßqÀ£É, §®ªÀAvÀªÁV
zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »PÀªÁV ¥ÀƸÁðV zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ. CAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ CvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ
sms
ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄÆ®PÀ, »ÃUÉÃPÉ ªÀiÁrzÉà JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀg,É CªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ
¤£Àß fêÀ£ÀzÀ°è ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁzÀgÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ
¸ÁzsÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÉêÀ® CªÀ¤UÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, CzÀPÉÌ £À£Àß ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß
£Á£ÀÄ eÉÆÃ¥Á£ÀªÁV PÁ¥ÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ »ÃUÉ ªÀiÁrzÉÃ, EzÀÄ £À£Àß ¦æÃw
AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ £À£ÀßzÁV G½AiÀĨÉÃPÉAzÀÄ »ÃUÉ ªÀiÁrzÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÉÛãÉ, JAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÀ. F ¸ÀA§AzÀ »ÃUÉ d£ÀªÀj 25£ÉÃ
vÁjÃT£ÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £ÀqɬÄvÀÄ. F ªÀÄzsÀå CªÀ£ÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸Àj »ÃUÉ EªÉÆõÀ£À¯ï ¨ÁèPï
ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. 25£Éà d£ÀªÀjAiÉÄAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ. CAzÀÄ

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



CªÀ£ÀÄ »ÃUÉ §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ 26£Éà vÁjÃQ£ÀAzÀÄ CªÀgÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä ºÉýzÉ. CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ.
sms
£ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÉÆßqÀ£É ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹©lÖ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ±À¤ªÁgÀ »ÃUÉ £Á£ÀÄ K£Á¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ
§®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÉýzÁUÀ, £Á£ÀÄ EµÀÄÖ ¢£À, ¤£ÉÆßqÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÉ®è £À£Àß
¸Áån¸ï¥sÁåPÀë£ïUÁV JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÉÆêÀĪÁgÀ ¥Éǰøï
¸ÉÖõÀ£ï£À°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÉÝãÉ. CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀPÀÆÌ M¥ÀàzÀ PÁgÀt
£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ."

11. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined the victim as PW3. She has reiterated the averments
made in the complaint. PW2-father and PW8-mother of the
victim, have clearly deposed that accused used to visit their
house and he had promised that he will marry their daughter.
Thereafter, he refused to marry her.
12. On careful examination of the material witnesses, it
is crystal-clear that PW3 was aged about 25 years and studied
MBA. She was working in the Department of Reservation in a
reputed Hotel Lalit Ashok, and thereafter, she joined the
company Via.Com as Revenue Manager and she has full
knowledge of worldly affairs and consequences of indulging in
talks, chat and moving freely and indulging in sexual
intercourse and not informing anyone and keeping the fact of

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



sexual intercourse, in secret. One of the main reasons for not
getting married was because of the fact that the appellant and
the victim were from different castes and also because non-
consent from the elders of the appellant. The evidence of
medical officer and the contents of Exhibit-P4 reveals that there
is no external injury on the person of the victim and that there
were no signs of recent sexual intercourse. That the victim was
behaving as if there was forcible sexual intercourse. The
Medical evidence has totally negatived the theory of forcible
sexual intercourse upon the victim.
13. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet
against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections
376 and 420 of IPC on 22.11.2022. On 10.04.2015, the trial
Court has altered the charge only for offence under Section 376
of IPC. Though the trial Court has deleted the offence under
Section 420 of IPC, without assigning any reasons, the trial
Court has convicted the accused for offence under Section 420
of IPC and passed the sentence to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, which is
not sustainable under law.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



14. On careful examination of the entire evidence on
record and keeping in mind the provisions of Sections 90 and
375 of Indian Penal Code and also the decisions of the Supreme
Court and of this court relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that
the prosecution has failed to place any essential ingredient to
constitute the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code.
Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
15. For the reasons afore, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 14.09.2015 passed in SC No.472 of 2012
by the LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge at Bangalore (CCH-55), is set aside;
iii) Accused is acquitted of the offences under
Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code;

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59689
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010406492015



iv) The fine amount, if any deposited by the
appellant, be refunded to him.
Registry is directed to send the trial court records along
with a copy of judgment to the concerned court.

Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
























LNN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65