Karnataka HC Acquits Man Of Rape Over Alleged Forced Sex With 25-Year-Old, Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Offence

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and the complainant, PW3, had known each other for several years and were in a relationship.

It alleged that on 19 October 2011 the appellant had sexual intercourse with her without consent, after promising to marry her, and later refused to marry her.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 376 and 420 IPC and imposed sentences, although the charge had been altered to retain only the charge under Section 376 IPC.

The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC.

The High Court considered the complainant’s evidence, the evidence of her parents, and the medical evidence, which recorded no external injuries or signs of recent intercourse.

The Court considered Sections 90 and 375 IPC in assessing whether the prosecution had established non-consensual intercourse and the ingredients of rape.

It also addressed the Section 420 IPC conviction in light of the trial court’s altered charge, which had deleted that offence.

The Court referred to Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191, as authorities relied on by the appellant; the judgment does not separately set out the propositions drawn from those decisions.

The Court considered the complainant’s age, education, employment, and evidence of a relationship with the appellant, alongside the evidence of her parents.

It also relied on the medical examination, which found no external injuries or signs of recent intercourse, and concluded that the prosecution had not established the essential ingredients of rape.

Separately, it held that the Section 420 IPC conviction was unsustainable because the trial court had deleted that charge but nevertheless convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence.

It directed that any fine deposited by the appellant be refunded.