Murali v. State of Karnataka - Criminal Appeal (Assault Conviction)

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Murali vs State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2026

Crl.A.No.2334 of 2025

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2334 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

MURALI
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT MOTHI NAGAR
IN FRONT OF MALBAR SQUARE
NEAR MARKET
BENGALURU 560 032
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
REP. B Y THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

 THIS CRL.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CRPC (U/S

415(2) OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023)
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 23.08.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.448/2017
WHEREBY THE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 376(1), 450, 323, 506-b OF IPC; AND ETC.
2 Crl.A. No.2334 of 2025

 IN THIS PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD, JUDGMENT

RESER VED ON 06.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

                    CAV JUDGMENT 1.    The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23rd August,

2024 passed in SC No.448 of 2017 by the LIII Additional City

Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").

1. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court.

1. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Police

Inspector, Parappana Agrahara Police Station, submitted the

charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for commission of

offences under Sections 450, 341, 323, 397, 376, 506-B and 176 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant was

residing in Sri. Venkat Naveen Women PG which was being run

by the second accused and situated at 2nd Stage Electronic City,

falling within the jurisdiction of Parappana Agrahara Police

Station. The complainant, who was working in TCS, was residing

in the said PG from 18th August, 2016. On 25th August, 2016 at

2.00 am, the complainant returned to the PG after her work. As

the room-mate of the complainant (CW.2) had gone for work,

the complainant who had head-ache took pain killer and slept

without locking the door of the room. At 2.30 am, when the

complainant was in a drowsy state, the accused No.1 entered

the room. The complainant asked him in Tamil as to who he

was? at that time, accused kept a knife on the throat of the

complainant. When the complainant tried to shout, accused

threatened that he would kill her.

1. Accused asked for money and the complainant told him

that she had only Rs.200/- and that she would give whatever

she had. He asked for more money for which the complainant

informed him in Tamil that she would give her ATM card.

Accused focused torch light near the throat of the

complainant and stuffed bed sheet into the mouth of the

complainant. He then dragged her by her hair and locked the

door. He then took her near the bathroom and switched on the

light. He held the face of the complainant under the light.

Later, he pushed the complainant to the cot and kissed her on

her face. He tried to remove her night pant and asked her to

remove the same. When the complainant refused the same and

tried to escape from the place, accused threatened her with the

knife and removed his elastic track pant. He pushed the

complainant on the bed and fell on her. He squeezed the hands

and body of the complainant and forcefully raped her. He once

again threatened to kill her with the knife, kissed her body and

once again attempted to rape her. Thus, the accused No.1 is

stated to have committed offences punishable under [Sections

450](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1982060/), 341, 323, 397, 376 and 506-B of IPC. The Accused No.2

who is the owner of the PG where the victim was residing, did

not inform the incident to the police or any public servant

despite having information about the same. Thus, the second

accused is stated to have committed offence punishable under Section 176 of IPC.

1. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered in Crime

No.368 of 2016. Thereafter, the case was committed to the

Court of Sessions and was registered as SC No.448 of 2017.

Since the date of arrest, accused No.1 is in custody, accused

No.2 was released on bail. The charges framed against the

accused for the alleged offences and same was read over and

explained to the accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.2, who is the

owner of the PG accommodation, has pleaded guilty for the

charges levelled against him and he was sentenced to pay a fine

of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo

simple imprisonment for 2 days and he has paid the fine

amount. Accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

1. To prove the guilt of the accused in all, thirteen witnesses

were examined as PW1 to 13; 24 documents were marked as

Exhibits P1 to P24 and sixteen material objects were marked as

MO1 to 16.

1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the

accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of

prosecution witnesses, however, he did not choose to lead the

defence evidence on his behalf.

1. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial Court has

convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 376(1), 323, 450 and 506-B of IPC and passed a sentence to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine

of Rs.1,00,000/-. The accused was further sentenced undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and pay fine of

Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under section 450 of the

IPC. The accused No.1 is also convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-. The accused No.1 is also convicted for the offence

under Section 506-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-. Further, the trial court has passed an order that

under Section 428 of Cr.PC the accused No.1 shall be entitled for

a period of set-off in respect of the period spent by him in

judicial custody from 05th September, 2016 till date. Being

aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence,

the appellant had preferred this appeal.

1. Sri Rajath, learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by

the trial Court are against the law, procedure and facts of the

case. The learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the

appellant is guilty of the alleged commission of offences. It is

also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in

believing the uncorroborated version of the prosecution. It is

submitted that the case was registered against one Uday and

that there is two days delay in filing the complaint. The charge

sheet is filed against the accused Murali. Even under [Section

164](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/497457/) of the Cr.PC, the victim has stated the name of the accused

as Uday and DNA report was filed after filing the charge sheet,

after lapse of 10 months. The contents of Exhibit P1 itself is

doubtful and recording of evidence has begun almost after lapse

of over 6 years from the date of filing the final report, which by

itself, has violated the sanctity of trial.

1. PW4-Dr. Sujatha, clearly stated that hymen of the victim

was not intact and there was no history of sexual assault on the

victim. Despite there is delay of two days in lodging the

complaint, it is evident that the alleged assault is said to have

been caused on the face of the evidence of doctor, which goes to

prove the contrary. The collection of blood samples in criminal

cases is valid only if it follows the prescribed legal procedures,

which may include oversight by a magistrate or registered

medical practitioner. In the present case, blood sample which is

imperative to trace and confirm the identity of the appellant

herein, was said to have been taken on 16th November, 2016.

Final report is filed on 22nd November, 2016, which would only

demonstrate that entire procedure of collecting and matching

blood samples was only to implicate the appellant and not to

ascertain the truth. The learned Sessions Judge failed to

appreciate the evidence and materials on record and to note that

the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all

reasonable doubt. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing

this appeal.

1. Alternatively, the learned counsel would submit that, if the

Court comes to the conclusion that the order of conviction passed by

the trial Court is in accordance with law, the sentence passed by the

trial Court may be modified as the trial Court has passed an order to

run the sentence consecutively and further he would submit that

accused is not in a position to pay fine amount as imposed by the

trial Court. In the trial Court, the accused was represented through

Legal Aid Counsel. The present appeal itself is filed after lapse of

more than a year. The accused is in judicial custody for more than 9

years and 5 months. On all these grounds, he sought for

modification of sentence.

1. As against this, the learned High Court Government

Pleader Sri. B Lakshman, would submit that the trial Court has

properly appreciated the materials on record in accordance with

law and facts. Though the name of the accused is different in the

FIR and the charge-sheet, the victim has identified the accused

in the test identification parade. Accordingly, he sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

1. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal

of materials placed before this Court, the following points would

arise for my consideration:

i) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections
450, 323, 376 and 506-B of the IPC?

ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for modification of
sentence?
iii) What order?

Regarding Point No.1:

1. I have carefully examined the materials placed before this

Court. Inspector, Parappana Agrahara Police Station, has laid

charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

under Sections 450, 323, 376, 506-B and 176 of Indian Penal

Code. The trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence

under Sections 450, 323, 376 and 506-B of Indian Penal Code.

1. The Genesis of the case arise from the complaint filed by

P1 victim as per exhibit P1 in which it is stated as under:

"Regarding rape by unknown person in PG

As I was staying in the above-mentioned PG from
18/8/2016 and I was working in TCS as system
administrator my shift timing afternoon 2:30 p.m. to
12:00 a.m. on 25/08/2016 morning I was in severe
headache and slept at 2:00 a.m. after duty time I did not
lock the door my friends shift gets over at 5:00 a.m. and
room cleaning people also come at 7:00 a.m. I informed
about this to my friend and slept at around 2:30 a.m
there was knife on my neck he was not letting me to
shout. At first I thought It was my PG owner. He torched
the light over my neck by snatching for jewels I don't
have he asked for money and I said I have only 200 Rs
and by keeping knife on my neck he locked the door he
was dark at the time. I can push or try to attack him
because he was fatty one. Then he pulled me over
bathroom with bed sheet on my mouth and knife on my
neck and he hold my hand back to see my face by
switching on the light after that he pushed me towards
my bed and raped. If I shout also he tries to stab me and
I talked with him friendly to go that my friend will come
and said him to come tomorrow at 2:00 a.m. so no one
will be there. After half and hour he went from my room
and suddenly I locked door and I informed my friends.
Before I inform my friends I feel I was bleeding lightly
due. to I got wound. I was conscious at the time I can
identify that guy. He said his name is Uday and from near
PG and came by terrace.

Delayed compliant is because I was stressed and I
was finding the help of people who are staying at
Bangalore. So I came to give complaint today. Please
consider it as a confidential. Please take necessary action
against that culprit."
17. The complaint was filed on 27th August, 2016 at 19.30

hours. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in

Crime No.368 of 2016 against accused Uday for commission of

offence punishable under Sections 450, 323, 376, 506-B and 176 of Indian Penal Code and FIR was submitted the court on 27th

August, 2016 at 11.00 pm as per Exhibit P8. After registration

of the case, police have visited the spot and conducted spot

panchanama on 28th August, 2016 as per Exhibit P3 in the

presence of Panchas. Police have also contacted seizure

panchanama as per Exhibit P4. The investigating officer has

obtained medical certificate from the medical officer and

recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted charge-

sheet.

1. To substantiate the case, prosecution has examined victim

as PW1. She has deposed in her evidence as follows:

"I was working as System Administrator in TCS
Company, Bengaluru during 2016. At that time I stayed
in the Venkateshwara Naveen Ladies PG at Eletronic City.
C.W.2 is my roommate at PG. C.W.3 is neighbor in the
PG. C.W.4 is my coileague. In the night of 25th and in the
morning of August 26. 2016 my shift closed at 12 in the
midnight. I came to PG at 12.30 am. My roommate was
not in the room she was on duty and she was supposed
to return to PG at 5 am. I had severe head ache and took
a tablet and slept, at 1 am. At that time I did not closed
the door because C.W.2 was to come to the room and for
her convenience I did not locked. It was usual procedure
we were following. Around 2.30 am I noticed torch light
on my face. I opened my eyes and found somebody
standing near the door holding torch on left hand and
knife with right hand. I asked hiin in Tamil Anna yar".
Accused kept knife on my neck and told me not to shout
and asked money. I told that I had Rs.200/- cash and
ATM and I will give it to him and leave me. That money
was not sufficient for him. So he pulled me to the
bathroom and switched on bathroom light and saw my
face. I also saw his face. I covered my mouth with my
bed sheet on the bed. Then he locked room door. Till that
time he had holding knife on my neck. He pulled me to
the bed and asked me to remove my 3% pant. He told
something in Kannada as remove cloth. Then he forced
me to remove pant and pressed my breast strongly and
raped me. I could not shout since Accused was holding

  knife on my neck. Again he started to kiss me again and
  again but I resisted. I found that, he was drunk at that
  time. Then I started friendly conversation with him due to
  fear and to escape from any harm. I told him that, my
  friend will be coming to room now and to go away and
  come on next day 2 am. I asked by smiling his name and
  he told as Uday. Then he asked my name and I told as
  Ramya. Later he asked me whether he has to come
  tomorrow pakka and pulled my hair and went away.

1. Then I locked the door and tried to call C.W.3
   who was in next room and asked her to lock her room
   door. At 5 am C.W.2 came to my room and I revealed her
   everything. After discussing with my friends I lodged
   complaint at 7 pm on 27.8.2016. I was under fear and
   panic and not knowing the police station and I was new to
   the place. ace. Hence, there was delay in filing
   complaint."

2. The complaint is marked as Exhibit P1. Further, she has

deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per

Exhibits P2 and P3 and also seizure of MOs1 to 6. Further, she

has deposed that she gave her statement under section 164 of

CRPC after fifteen days of filing the complaint. And after one

month after lodging the complaint, police called her to the

Central Jail, Bengaluru. She went there and identified the

accused in test identification parade on the basis of colour,

height, and other physical identity which she remembered.

1. PW2-Soudhamini, has deposed in her evidence as follows:

"I was working as System Administrator in TCS
Company. Bengaluru during 2016. At that time I stayed
in the Venkateshwara Naveen Ladies PG at Eletronic City.
I know P.W.1. she is my roommate in the PG. C.W.3 is
neighbor in the PG. My shift starts from 7 pm and closes
at 5 am in the morning. In our room in the PG we used to
not to close the door in the night because I was to come
to the room at 5 am and for my convenience and also for
cleaning purpose door did not locked. It was usual
procedure we were following. On 26.8.2016 after finishing
my shift duty at 5 am I came to my room and I found
that P.W.1 was standing in the door and crying and
revealed me about the rape committed on her on the
same day at 2.30 am. After discussing with our friends,
PW1 lodged complaint at 7 PM on 27.08.2016. Police has
enquired me about the incidence."
21. PW3-Arjun Unnikrishnan has deposed as to the mahazar

contacted by the police as per Exhibit P3, and also seizure of

blanket MO1.

1. PW1-Dr Sujatha has deposed that on 27th August 2016 at

10:30 pm, CW1 came with the history of sexual assault and has

deposed as to the examination of the victim. She has opined

that there is no recent sexual assault on the body of the victim

and she has deposed as to material objects MO1 to 14.

1. PW5-Sakappa said to be the attester to mahazar Exhibit

P4, has not supported the case of prosecution.

1. PW6-Dr. Pradeep Kumar, has deposed in his evidence as to

the issuance of medical certificate pertaining to the accused.

1. PW7-Dr Chennegondappa Dyamagondappa Kalasagowda,

Chief Medical Officer, has deposed that on 16th November 2016,

he has taken the sample blood of accused No.1 and handed over

the same to the Police.

1. PW8-S.H. Shivakumar, General Manager, KSTDC who was

then Tahsildar, has deposed as to the test identification parade

and issuance of a report as per Exhibit P7.

1. PW-Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police and PW10 Prashant

Babu, Police Inspector have deposed as to their respective

investigation.

1. PW11-Dr. Deepa has deposed in her evidence as to

issuance of Forensic Science Laboratory report as per Exhibit

P23.

1. PW120-L Purushottam, Assistant Director and Technical

Manager, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore has deposed in

his evidence as to the examination of articles 1 to 13 and

issuance of certificate Exhibit P24.

1. PW13-Krishna Kumar B.K., has deposed as to his part of

investigation.

1. On careful examination of material evidence of PWs1 to 4,

Exhibit P23 FSL report, Exhibit P22 DNA report, it is clear that

there is sufficient evidence to constitute the alleged commission

of offence.

1. The name of accused is Murali. At the time of filing FIR,

his name is shown as Uday. Even in the statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procecdure made by the victim

as per Exhibit P21, the victim has stated that the name of the

accused was Murali. When he was asked about his name he said

that his name is Uday. But after arrest of the accused, it is

alleged by the prosecution that the name of the accused is

Murali. The accused Murali has been identified by the victim.

Therefore, mere say of the accused that his name is Uday, at the

time of filing FIR, does not mean that accused Murali has not

committed any offence. PW1 has clearly stated that after

committing rape, the accused was continuously kissing the

victim. Then she started conversation with him. He was

continuously coming to her and rape her again and again. Then

she told him to come next day, stating that door will not be

latched. Then also he was not leaving. Then she asked the

name of the accused. He said his name as Uday. Accused, might

have told his name as Uday in order to avoid his original

identity. But subsequently police have arrested and then the

accused identified by the victim. Therefore, in this regard, the

arguments advanced on behalf of the accused/appellant cannot

be accepted. The trial court has properly appreciated the

materials on record in proper perspective and had come to the

conclusion that accused has committed the alleged offence.

1. On examination and re-appreciation of the entire evidence

on record independently, I do not find any factual or legal error

in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial

court. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

Regarding Point No.2:

1. With regard to modification of sentence is concerned, the

trial Court has passed the sentence against the accused as

under:

"Acting under section 235(2) of CRPC, accused
No.1 is hereby by convicted for the offence punishable
under section 376(1) Of IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigourous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year, which shall run
consecutively.

Accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the fence
punishable under section 450 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay
a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months which shall run
consecutively.

Accused No.1 is hereby convicted for offence
punishable under section 323 of Indian penal code and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for period of one month
which shall run concurrently.

Accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the films,
punishable intersection 506-B of IPC and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months, which
shall run concurrently.

Acting under Section 428 of CRPC, accused No.1
shall be entitled for a period of set off in respect of the
period spent by him in custody from 59 2016 till Date (7
years, 11 months, and 18 days).

Out of the final amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is ordered
to be paid to the victim after the amount is deposited to
the state. Further, the victim, Lady is entitled to
compensation under NALSA's compensation scheme.
Office to send a copy of his judgment to the DLSA for
suggesting appropriate compensation payable to the
victim.

MO5-knife is ordered to be confiscated to the state
after the appeal period. MO1 to M4, M6 to 16 are
considered worthless and ordered to be destroyed after
the appeal period.

Free copy of the judgment shall be supplied to the
accused No.1.

Office to send the conviction warrant to the
superintendent, Central prison, Parappana Agrahara,
Bangalore for enforcement."
35. It is submitted by the learned concert for the appellant

that the accused hails from poor family and even was not in a

position to prefer an appeal. Even after lapse of one year from

the date of judgment, it was only through legal aid council. This

appeal was instituted and the accused is in individual custody for

more than nine years six months. The accused is not in a

position to pay fine amount as imposed by the trial court.

Considering all these litigating circumstances, he sought to pass

a sentence only for a period of 10 years and pass the order to

run the sentence concurrently. Considering the submission of the

internet council for the appellant/accused and also the financial

status of the accused and period of detention already undergone

by the accused, it is just proper to modify the sentence imposed

by the trial court. Accordingly, I answer point number two, partly

in the affirmative.

Regarding Point No.3:

1. For the reasons aforestated and discussions, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed in part;
ii) Judgment of conviction dated 23rd August, 2024

         passed in SC No.448 of 2017 by the LIII

         Additional   City    Civil   &   Sessions   Judge,

         Bengaluru, is confirmed;

  iii)    Sentence dated 23rd August, 2024 passed in

SC No.448 of 2017 by the LIII Additional City

Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is modified

as under:

a. Accused/appellant shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
for the offence under Section 376(1) of
IPC;

b. Accused/appellant shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC;

c. Accused/appellant shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
for the offence under Section 323 of
IPC;

d. Accused/appellant shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for
offence under Section 506-B IPC;

e. All the sentences shall run
concurrently; f. Accused/appellant is entitled for set-off
for the period of detention already
undergone in judicial custody as per Section 428 of Cr.PC;

iv) Registry to send the copy of this judgment along

 with trial Court records to the concerned Court;

v) Registry is directed to send the copy of the

 modified conviction warrant as per modification

 of   sentence    passed        by    this   Court   to     the

 Superintendent,      Central         Prison,   Parappana

 Agrahara, Bengaluru;

vi) Registry is also directed to send copy of this

 judgment free of cost to the Superintendent,

 Central   Prison,    Parappana         Agrahara     with    a

 direction to furnish the same to the accused, as

 accused is in judicial custody;

vii) Victim is entitled for compensation under

 NALSA's Compensation Scheme as ordered by

 the trial Court. Registry to send the copy of this

  judgment to the Member Secretary, District

  Legal Services Authority, Bangalore (Urban)

  District to award suitable compensation to the

  Victim under Victim Compensation Scheme.

Sd/-

(G. BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE

Lnn