K. P. THIMMAPPA GOWDA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 04-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 200 
K. P. THIMMAPPA GOWDA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2004} 
APRIL 04, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s. 376 - Sexual intercourse with a girl of about 18 years 
of age on the false promise to marry her - Prosecutrix giving 
birth to a child after few days of the FIR - Acquittal by trial 
court - Conviction by High Court - Held : In criminal cases 
the rule is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt - If 
D the court is of opinion that on the evidence adduced two views 
are possible, benefit of doubt goes to accused - In the instant 
matter, prosecution has not been able to prove its case 
beyond reasonable doubt - Accused deserves benefit of 
doubt - Judgment of High Court set aside - Criminal Law -
Benefit of doubt. 
E 
The appellant was prosecuted on the basis of an FIR 
dated 4.1.1996 for committing an offence punishable u/ 
s. 376 IPC. The prosecution case was that the appellant 
had sex with the prosecutrlx several times on the false 
F promise to marry her. The prosecutrlx gave birth to a 
child on 25.1.1996. The trlal court acquitted the accused, 
but the High Court convicted him u/s. 376 IPC and 
sentenced him to imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a 
fine of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the 
G appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, . the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In criminal cases, the rule is that the 
accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt If the court Is 
H 
200 
K. P. THIMMAPPA GOWDA v. STATE OF 
201 
. · KARNATAKA 
of the opinion that on the evidence two views are A 
reasonably possible, one that t"e appellant is guilty, and 
the other that he is innocent, then the benefit of doubt 
goes in favour of the accused. In the instant case, the 
appellant deserves the benefit of doubt because on 
. careful consideration of the evidence on record, it cannot B 
be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its 
case beyond reasonable doubt. [para 11.-12] [204-H; 205-
A; 204-G] 
1.2. The facts are that the prosecutrix herself stated 
in her evidence that she had sex with the appellant on 
C 
several occasions. It is also an admitted fact that the FIR 
against the appellant was lodged just a few days before 
the birth of the child of the prosecutrix, which means 
there is delay of over 8 months in lodging the FIR. The · 
finding of the trial court, which has not been disturbed D 
by the High Court, is that the prosecutrix was about 18 
years of age at the relevant time. On these facts a view is 
reasonably possible that the prosecutrix had sex with the 
appellant with her consent and hence there was no 
offence punishable u/s. 376 IPC because sex with a E 
woman above 16 years of age with her consent is not 
rape. Impugned judgment and order of High Court is set 
aside. [para 13•14] [204-B-D] 
1.3. Besides, the appellant has stated in an affidavit 
filed in this Court that he has agreed to transfer two acres 
F 
of land due to breach of promise to marry th~ prosecutrlx 
and she has given her consent to accept the same. The 
appellant is directed to give/transfer the said land to the 
prosecutrix. [para 15-16) [204-E-F] 
G 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1499 of 2004. 
From the Judgment Order dated 17.9.2004 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 149 
of 1999. 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Shanth Kr. V. Mahale, H?rish S.R. and Rajesh Mahale for 
the Appellant. 
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondent. 
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed 
B against the impugned judgment dated 17.9.2004 passed by the 
High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1999. 
2. The facts of the case have been stated in the impugned 
judgment of the High Court and the trial court and we are not 
c repeating the same except where necessary. 
3. The trial court had acquitted the appellant in the criminal 
case, but the High Court reversed the judgment and convicted 
the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to 
imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and also 
D sentenced him to imprisonment of 1 year under Section 417 
IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, both sentences to run 
concurrently. 
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.1.1996 the 
E appellant raped one Rathnamma aged 18 years, but he 
assured her that he would marry her and asked her to keep 
quiet. It is alleged that subsequently also the appellant had s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.