Police Can't Ignore Accused's Conduct Prima Facie Disclosing Attempt To Rape While Probing Another Offence: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police investigating one offence cannot turn a blind eye to evidence prima facie disclosing another serious offence, while directing the Crime Investigation Department (CID) to conduct a fresh probe into an attempt to rape case of a woman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277]

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the writ petition filed by the victim, censured the Thirumalashettahalli police for confining the crime merely to an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder), completely overlooking the 'graphic narration' of attempted sexual assault in the victim's statement.

“…It is startling, if not shocking, that the investigating agency confined the crime merely to an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Equally disquieting is the fact that the jurisdictional Court, oblivious to the tenor and substance of the victim's statement, proceeded to frame charge only for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC…. A statement which, on its plain reading, prima facie discloses ingredients of an attempt to commit rape appears to have escaped the attention of both the investigating agency and the Court below….Such an omission, at least prima facie, strikes at the very root of a fair and comprehensive investigation…”, the court observed in the order.

“…The investigation, prima facie, appears to have perceived the stab wounds but overlooked the conduct that preceded those wounds. It noticed the injuries upon the body, but failed to examine whether those very injuries were inflicted in the course of an attempt to commit a far graver offence. Such an investigation cannot be described as either comprehensive or complete…”, the court reasoned further.

Underscoring the right to a fair investigation, the High Court has also directed the CID to conduct a fresh probe into the brutal assault and attempt to rape case.

To recap, in 2022, a young woman working as an Account Manager at a Bengaluru company, reportedly attended an office party with her colleague who is the accused man. Both resided in the same apartment complex.

After the party concluded past midnight, the accused offered to drop the victim home. The complainant alleges that the accused took a detour instead of dropping her home, to an isolated area. When the complainant resisted the sexual advances made by her colleague, he allegedly stabbed and bit the complainant multiple times.

This was reportedly followed by an attempt to forcibly spread her legs in order to subject her to sexual intercourse under the fear of loss of life.

The victim, as per her petition, escaped from the clutches of the accused and reached a hospital where she was in the ICU for over 6 days. In that time span, her statement was recorded in Kannada though she wasn't well versed with the same.

The Court placed significant reliance on the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which portrayed the night of alleged assault:

“…When I resisted he became aggressive and removed a knife... He dragged my hairs and pulled my face on his private part. I was so crying and begging him to leave me, but he said if I have sex with him he would leave me. I said no, he started biting me everywhere on my back and on my face. He was trying to take off his pant... He was sitting on my back and rubbing with his private part. He tried to put his hand inside my short wearing. I kept telling him to leave me but he went on saying that either I had to have sex with him or he would kill me….”, the statement reads.

The High Court expressed shock as to how the aforesaid attempt to rape was not considered by the police during the probe n light of such allegations.

“…She is said to have been mercilessly assaulted and repeatedly stabbed on her legs. Every act attributed to the accused, viewed either in isolation or cumulatively, unmistakably points towards an endeavour to ravish the petitioner. The allegations do not merely portray an assault; they prima facie depict an attempt to commit rape, interrupted not by any voluntary desistance on the part of the accused but by the relentless resistance offered by the victim herself….”, the court said.

The court took note of the petitioner's version that the clothes and shoes of the accused disappeared the very next day of offence; a yellow plastic cover used to conceal the knife was not sent to FSL either.

Despite visible blood stains on the car windows, no blood swabs were collected from the vehicle's interior, the petitioner had added. Surprisingly, The Ola cab driver who transported the victim to the hospital was not made a witness as per the victim

Moreover, the CCTV footage and GPS location data were not collected, the court pointed out another omission highlighted by the victim.

“…A criminal investigation is expected to unearth every available piece of evidence, particularly where the allegations concern offences of such grave nature. An investigation that leaves behind obvious and potentially incriminating material without examination can scarcely inspire confidence….”, the court said further.

The Court also emphasised the legal distinction between 'preparation' and 'attempt' to commit rape, citing several Supreme Court judgments such as Chaitu Lal v. State of Uttarakhand (2019).

“...The principle emerging from the said judgment is clear as daylight. The law does not insist upon completion of the offence before it can condemn the conduct. The law condemns the determined journey towards the offence as much as the completed destination itself…”, the court added further.

Applying the principles laid down by the apex court, the single judge bench noted further:

“…The petitioner narrates that the accused repeatedly demanded sexual intercourse; forcibly touched her body; attempted to remove her clothes; dragged her towards himself; pressed her face against his private parts; repeatedly declared that he would either have sexual intercourse with her or kill her... Such allegations if accepted at their face value-as they necessarily must be at this stage-are not mere indicators of preparation. They unmistakably depict a sustained and determined attempt to subject the victim to sexual intercourse against her will…”, the court added citing how it would unmistakably constitute 'attempt to rape'.

Citing Anant Thakur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra (2023), the Court observed that, mere filing of the charge-sheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation or reinvestigation if the circumstances warrant it.

“…The allegations do not merely portray an assault; they prima facie depict an attempt to commit rape, interrupted not by any voluntary desistance on the part of the accused but by the relentless resistance offered by the victim herself…”, the court opined.

Hence, the single judge bench passed a direction that the case must be entrusted to CID within 15 days. Upon transfer, CID is to submit their report within 3 months. The court has also put a stay on criminal trial [post the stage of framing of charges] until the CID submits fresh report in the matter.

“…The omissions noticed are neither trivial nor technical. They strike at the very substratum of the prosecution. To permit the trial to proceed on the foundation of an investigation which, prima facie, appears to have overlooked material facets of the occurrence would be to allow justice to travel on an incomplete record. Such a course cannot receive the imprimatur of a Constitutional Court….”, the court held in the order.

Case Title: X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru

Case No: Writ Petition No. 22291/2025 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277

Click Here To Read/Download Order