Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the State’s appeal and declined to interfere with the acquittal of a man facing allegations of sexual assault and cheating on the premise of a false promise of marriage. The prosecution case was that the complainant, who had connected with the accused through a matrimonial website, was allegedly taken to his house during the lockdown and subjected to sexual intercourse over several days. The Bench noted that the complainant’s own statements indicated she was not willing to marry the accused and held that no ground was made out to admit the appeal against the sessions court’s order.

The case arose from allegations made by the complainant against the accused alleging offences under Sections 354, 376, 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the complainant came into contact with the first accused through an online matrimonial platform and remained in communication with him for several months. It was alleged that during the lockdown period, the accused took her to his residence where she was confined for four days and subjected to sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage.

Also Read: Stem Cell Therapy Not Allowed As Routine Treatment For Autism, Permitted Only In Clinical Trials: Supreme Court

Following the alleged incident, a complaint was lodged, leading to registration of a criminal case and investigation by the police. Upon completion of trial, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The State thereafter filed an appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to challenge the acquittal.

The State contended that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the oral and medical evidence, particularly the medical report indicating rupture of the hymen. The accused opposed the appeal, asserting that the trial court had undertaken a detailed appreciation of evidence and that no perversity was shown in the acquittal.

The Division Bench examined the evidence considered by the trial court and noted that the testimony of the complainant was analysed in detail. The Court recorded that “PW1 stated that due to threats posed to her life by accused No.1, she did not disclose the incident to the neighbours”, but the trial court had rejected this explanation after noticing that “in her cross-examination PW1 categorically stated that she was active on social media and made comments thereon”.

The Bench took note of documentary evidence where the complainant had expressed unwillingness to marry the accused and observed that "A perusal of the same reveals that PW1 had requested the police authorities to call accused No.1 and advise him. In Ex.P1 also, PW1 specifically stated that she was not willing to marry accused No.1 as she was not having any confidence in him. The trial Court discussed both the oral and documentary evidence available on record in detail...,"

With respect to medical evidence, the Court recorded that “the Doctor did not notice any injuries on the person of PW1, including her private parts” and that except for a ruptured hymen, no other injuries were found. The Court accepted the trial court’s reasoning that this circumstance alone did not support an allegation of forcible sexual intercourse.

The Bench also considered inconsistencies regarding the place of alleged confinement and noted that “the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 indicated that accused No.1 was residing at Shirke”, which was inconsistent with the version given by the complainant.

On the nature of the relationship, the Court recorded that "The trial Court observed that even if such statement is accepted, it does not disclose forcible sexual intercourse and appears to be consensual. It was also noted that PW1 did not specifically state that she was subjected to forcible rape. Even assuming that there was physical contact, it could only be treated as consensual and not as alleged by the prosecution and even taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191, wherein it has been held that 'consensual involvement in sexual intercourse by victim without there being any misconception created by the accused does not constitute rape." 

The Bench further noted that delay in lodging the complaint adversely affected the credibility of the prosecution case and that “the testimony of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence”.

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Suggests Empowering Civil Courts To Grant Interim Stays On Mutation Orders In Title, Possession Disputes To Avoid Parallel Proceedings

The Division Bench recorded that "Having considered all the materials available on record, and in particular the statement of PW1 that she was not willing to marry accused No.1, and taking note of all these factors, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed".

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant (State): Sri Vijayakumar Majage, State Public Prosecutor-II

For the Respondents: Sri Shaikh Saoud, Advocate

Case Title: State by Kengeri Police Station v. Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe & Another
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:1281-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2025
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh, Justice Venkatesh Naik T