Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal In Rape Case, Citing Phone Contact, Repeat Visits And Delayed Complaint

In brief

The question

1. Whether the complainant established that the trial court’s acquittal was arbitrary, erroneous or based on an improper appreciation of the evidence.

The court held

The High Court answered the principal issue in the negative, holding that the complainant had not shown that the acquittal was arbitrary, erroneous or unsupported by the evidence.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal dated 27 April 2026 in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2024.

01Facts

The complainant, a married woman with three children, alleged that the accused threatened her daughter’s safety to induce her to speak with him and later raped her at her home on 18 May 2022 and 21 January 2023.

¶ 1–5

She lodged a complaint on 15 February 2023; following investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(d) and 506 of the IPC.

¶ 1–5

The Sessions Court acquitted him, finding the charges unproved.

¶ 1–5

The complainant appealed under Section 413 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 372 of the CrPC.

¶ 1–5

The High Court considered the complainant’s testimony, the evidence of other witnesses and the medical evidence.

¶ 11–15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the complainant established that the trial court’s acquittal was arbitrary, erroneous or based on an improper appreciation of the evidence.

¶ 10(i)

ii.2. Whether the acquittal should be reversed, having regard to the evidence and the appellate standard applicable to an appeal against acquittal.

¶ 18–20

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 413 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 372 of the CrPC.

¶ 1, 5

The Court applied the principle that an appellate court considering an acquittal must assess whether the trial court’s view is a possible one on the evidence; an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and that strengthened presumption should be displaced only through scrutiny on accepted legal parameters.

¶ 18–19

The Court relied on Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 495.

¶ 18–19

The prosecution was required to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 18

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 372 Section 235 Section 164 Section 378

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376 Section 506

04Reasoning

The High Court held that the prosecution case depended substantially on the complainant’s testimony.

¶ 12–15

It noted that the husband and neighbour were hearsay witnesses, the complainant’s sister and the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution, and the medical evidence did not establish intercourse by the accused.

¶ 12–15

The Court also relied on the delay in reporting, the absence of an explanation for that delay, differences between the complainant’s accounts concerning when the alleged threats began, and the circumstances surrounding the accused’s alleged entry into the house at 00:30 hours.

¶ 15–17

It considered the parties’ phone contact and the accused’s visits as supporting the trial court’s view that the prosecution had not proved the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 16–18

Applying the restrained standard for appellate interference with acquittals, it found the trial court’s view to be a possible one.

¶ 18–20

05Holding

The High Court answered the principal issue in the negative, holding that the complainant had not shown that the acquittal was arbitrary, erroneous or unsupported by the evidence.

¶ 20

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal dated 27 April 2026 in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2024.

¶ 21

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF