Karnataka High Court
Mr Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2009
-1- x-
IN THE HIGH coma': OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
[)A'1'EI)'I'I~:{iS 'r1~»1£«: 1 we DAY 0;: NOV££MI{3ER. 2009
BI-SPORE: _ T
THE i~ION'{3LI43 MR.JUS'i'ICI'+1 ARA.LE' NAGARAJ f 'f -V
CRIMINAL A_1I>;PL«:A1. 310.732/2007
BETWEEN:
1. M1' Ramesh
S/0 Ramaiah
Agcci 25 years
Ag:-icsul t u risi:
R/0 ManL1ganaha11i Village
IMLD. K016 Taluk __ _ *
Mysore Disi.rict.. V J A , V APPEZLLANT
{By Sri. I S Framed Ch:;md1'a <31 AV ' V
SRE. Pl'E£3r{E-18h M.H.. Acfivs.)
AND
1. Si.a{'.(-3 Oi'Ké1:7.11éi-E;é'1§g1 " b
By SaVrgu1" P'uE]ri:<:_e. '
Mysore Dzisirici' V
'!'hr01.1gi'1 The S'é.«31€+ .1--mbi-3.9 "E71'e'se(?1,1t"0r
fligh Coufl, !311i1di1jg.AA =
Ijssllxgggacax-e. _ R1»:s1>()Nm«:N'1"
_Sr'1 "":\~?:1'_':]"c7.:'_1(jé;'.AI{LE~J'§1&1I' 1$21:=;3":;:;_>,eé, ETTICGP]
=i¢**=i<
'C,1_;'I .A 1P1:/3374(2) C2'.P.C by the Acivocate for Ehe.
vap}3et11a11'1"i zigexiiaéf the 3;11dger11e11t. dt..5.4.200'7 passed by the
'P_I_"T.~Sj., M.y_S}o1'e, in S.C.N0.108/O3 -- C01wic1.1'ng the
Va;§peE'ian1"/acctlsed for the olfence p/L1/8.376 & 506 of EPC. And
S€:1€{--§3i'2Ci1i1.g him to u1T1cie1'g0 7 yealzs R}. 63: 1.0 pay £1113 of
.R«:'~§--'.5.V(}O0/-- I.D.. SI. For 2 1'n0111'h:s. for the? 0fi'er1(;?e p/11/5.376(1)
EPC. FL1rt,he1' s;e1'1t4e11(':ing'.{ him to 2 n1om1'1s $5.}. 1501' £116: of"I'e11(:e
_ 3'3/11/8.506 of IPC. I30t',1'1 the se11{:>1'1(:es 3312.111 run c:<)n(':urre11Uy.
This z.1ppea.1 (t:)1111'1'1g on for final! E'1£-éar1'11g this day. the
c:o1.11'E" (EeI1'vm'(:?d the fn110wi11,<__§:
w»
The a1("c1.tsed in S.C.N(). .108/2005 on the file of the I¢t?>__1_'1'1c%d
E>ri1*1cipa-11 i)ist'.1*ict zmd Scssic)11s Judge. Mysore,
referred to as "Trial Court" for Short) has flied E1116
chaliengirlg the Judgtnant and Order the,'
the ssaid case. c0nv1'(*':i1r1g_; him for i11€ "».')fi'€:::'_.:1'('.A't;.'_.§ Lér1d c.1j Se('tL:"iO_1'1'fs..
fig-
JUDGMENT
376 and 506 of IPC.
2. St1at'.e(:1 in b1'i(--:f the __case ofV_1;l1x§v prc-5ecut'iOn_a.Asgtilleged in Ex.P1 complaint dated 17. Sannamma. the mother 01' PW6 \I'ict.irr1'-girl isirgis"t:fide1';,7._ (3.) PW6 Kurék.Seir1g;'1x:ia1'_1a_' L-Ltged--..2tii0t.1t' 24 years 112218 been the c1atigg}'t_t'.ct" QI' t-.116-..con1pIai11ar1t Smt.Sannarnma. ABQ1E'{,,5V()I' 6 'm(')"1v1_t.E::1T'..~:fl_priot' 110 the Said ('()r1'1;')Iair1t'.. the V"CQr11pIa'I1'12.111t'" v.jé;~'zts sC1':d1'1'1g her dat1ght.c1' ;'S21i1§gEl1'1'11'I'i';1,_E.VC)v her Eands for we-1':.(.:h1'1'1§_g the SE2'-1ndj1'1g ~ E>1'é)'}§~ The giri ttééd to go ':10 the land by 1'1'1<)1*1'ti1'1g and " = .w.';4tss 'i"E'_it1:1AI"1'1'2'I1§5_{ by evertirtg. _}vAb(v).'.I."t'\K7€€k prior to 'éhcs (éomplairtt, the gir} czgiitpletitted of pain in her abdomen. 'FI"1(3r€I'()1'e the A <?0Ii"1p1z11'.nzt11£. took her to at 1'11.1rse at: Malur [PW5 ..Shivallarriz-11:1'1m21.]. The said I"1LI.1'SL". ztfter ex:-ltrtirmtg ':.1'1(: girl told the (:<)1'r1p1ain21n'£ that 'me girl was ('z11"1yi1'3g 5 E70 6 11'1o1'1':.hs pregn'c.111(ty and t.}'1e1'ef()1"e she sE:10t.1I<:i be 'é21k(%1r1 to GO\-'C1'1'1I11fi'}'1'%" 1'Ic)spi'é_2;1l. €?
{C} "3"
/\C(',O1'di'l1§5{t}7. the eoiiiplzlinant. took her d21ught.er to Governiziieiit. H()S}i)it.£.11 at I----1.I').K.0t.e zmci got her examineci for her ].)ai1'1 in her zlbdoiiieri. The doctor at I---I.D.K0t:e, after examining the szetid girl t'l()ld~V'1...'Id'}§3 (3()rI1p1£-iimtirii. that the girl was Carryi1'1g live Irt_61'1t._h:; pregnartcry. Since the girl was u1t111i1arr§i_ed'." COI11j)1£1iI121I'1t asked her as to who was._ii¢_Sp(31"is'ib1e for her 1)1'q;gI1£1nt?y. She toldIthe'ctoiiipl£1;i«:t1_Eti'u._ that' one Rzimesh S/0 RaII12iiiz'111 of'corn1'jiairi:.1.t1t'f';3 (accused) had (tori1rnit'.t;é(i- ..__sexu121-1V_ £17,.t,fi1't?(it1iffS?.V'"\X'HV:§l1 her forcibly near the (._)()1,:V1:Vi'F:V)V:.l'V.'gi:it-1E,.1I_11_-41%.-1€iVi)I'fl-i '1:;}.i:.&' girl toid the (30lTlp1:E1.t.1'1.&1l3t:.A"Wi.hét'E u"";1_i't.e1' 'i'c%'oi11t1r1it'.t,iiig intercourse with her.j.th.e threateneci her that if she were_t:0--,ir1f01:n1 "t,'i2e's3fjid iitcident. to the Lrcinigjiétirifafitt. X;-V(3£:i1C1"wI1tt!:;'dCtf_HhC1' and £1130 the compl;-a"i1iéM1i';»V-The agiijl."{u1"t"11&::r c_1_iseE0sed het"<)re. the (',:01'11p1£*1iIt2:t-i']vi"~..1:hi31 t_»E_1_e'va1_cc--'Li:5ed Ra1i'iesh {med to have Sextiatl' ii1teij(?(,1.j.;rse"Wi"ih"her once in 15 (iziys since the p211=:;.t. few 1'r._i01'1--i. 11$»; "
Aflei' (,'()II:"ii.T1é:{V to .E{.1'1ow of the amid ii1eident' t.1t11'(;J1e1.gh heft dt'at1gI1t'£:19.: hhhhh "C0rr1;)lai.nant br0ug.gl'1t4 the niatter it "Vbev§fdr'e_dt*he'Panehayath. The acrcused flatly denied in h=.,'t1"1e':i§.é1i.d"Péiriehayath that he had ssexttal i1'"ItE?I'COLE1'S€ with' -the said girl SEll'1g'EEkl'1'll1'}E1. T1'1e1'efo'1'e the (it)V11_i3~;t.)1e:iiii2;i1'11 filed her eoiiiplaint E..1g£}il']SI. the z1<1:<éL1sed Vii"--..o1'1 17.10.2004 before the police alleging that the H ('.O1'I1}.)1E"£iI1E.[Ilt e1'1ee1t.ed her (.1a'u;_.;ht'e1' by E1a\~'i:'1g sex1.1a] ir1t.c'?1'C01.1r$e witli her 1'(:'.S1I1ii11g in her jf)I'€g1'1&1I'1('.y.
(.__%__«§'""~=~...»»--.,___,__'_,, "qr
3. On appI'e(tia!:i0ii of U163 oral evideiure of PWs.1 to 12 the ciocuirients at Exs.P1 to P16 and also 21flC'.1' c01'1sideri1i1g I3xs.D1 to D7, the relevzml portions of settlenient of p1"0secL1!,i0n w'il.i1-sgsses 111ai'ked for tile a(.:('.used. the 'l'r1'al Coui'l.. by its Juclgmenli and Order. helci Ihe appellant - amused ;--,fL:i'ili,j,»*_i)i':b'cI:li:
the offiaiices under Sections 376 and 5.06 .r)f' lP.C 'a!l'lC'l'V:,€'_:()lV1Vla/7l'Ci.€C1., him accordingly.
4. I have heard the a1'g:,i1n.§§i'1~.ts 0fV'S;'i' the '' learriecl counsel for the appellam 7--ad§ju-sé'dLAand Sriv.Vija}yakumar Majage, the learned High Coiii ii P€1"LES€d the impugned JLidgnier1'{ia1f_1d O1'dér'vO;l' cl0r:1:'vi_(:i...i{-)1},rind seniiaiice and the t3m"i1'e V;ii£i'l[eI'i2;i:1[['0L1'r;ii i1d'~.i.l'ie o1'igi'iiVal wcords 0bl.ain(-ecl frorn {he 'l'rial Coxtari. ._ 5.43S'ri Ir.S.¥'r1il'z'.¥,1£_V)V(Vi.V'f.}"1Vt:T lt'.E"lI'1'l€Cl Counsel for the appell;1ra'{' - V"'a<7(§ij1&;e<:l"SE1Ejiiglf/"«cgoiilmidezd, that thoxigh l.l'1€1'C is no wliispc-3r in thé" .c'a'inf5laifit: that the vi(:i.im girl informed the 'xrr)i1ip1e1i1*1<"-1111; any-lil"1ii'ig about Ethe accused promising her to marry ' 7.:w.l1li'isj ciblaimiifig "her coriscni: for l"1avii'1g sexual lI]l,€1"C()L1FS€'. with
--..i.f;e .'IT'ri2.1l Co:,.1r1.. has e1*1*oi'1eously I"€(',()I'd&'.d its finding that; Eric "a<:c';,L;._=_§cd promised the vicl.ii'i'1 girl 1.112-11 lie would 111E1I'1'"y her and "-t«E=ierc~:by obtainecl her C()l1S('31"]i. for sexuail ll1[€:'.I'C'.C)L.lI'S(? with her and !".hL.1s (:cm1i11ii,l.<:d the (.>i"l'€1i('.e 1.md€r Se(*i"ion 376 of IPC. He l'L1rll1c1' s11b1'i'1itl'.cd l'.l1a.1t the TI"§E1l €301.31'! 1'5-.3 also 1101' _j1.1s1.iE'iecE in t....,.,__§"'"----~«----"w.,..x' M5- or 8 occasions and herself and the accused together used to have sexual intercourse secretly in 21 ditch. so that none could observe them. She has further stated in her evicl_en_ee_d7that whenever they {the accused and the girl} --i.:.h_e opport.u11ity. the E.1CCLlS€d used to h2weA»VsexLie1i"iiit.e.r'eourseA wi_th= her and they had such intercourse on ltiito 135 o.e,ea.si'o:'n_$ 'aiid nobody Could observe them doitzijgso. This is br;itigyi1t.d_VQn record by the accused himself in the ei"oss?'exb2:1n)ineitionyof PW26.
8. As to the nat.ure"o'l'y<:on_se-nt, in,:isue.h_ 9. case of sexual assault. following the__ decislioritoi' iiQVi1'_blel.Su§a'1'en1e Court. in the case of Udaya' Vs.5ISt;atejyicgf'Kaméitakomlreportued in ILR 2003 KAR ::fhVas:"ob.sen'ed"a'tiflbara No.18 of its judgment in State of "Kat-netfikaid'Jedi*e.j{'.'P§'I'himmappa Gowda reported in 2004(4) KCQR' 2775.y_{I3;13}. as-.___u"1"i :'.te1':
_ LA P.si'a..:v18:.7"'W'hile:Considering the question of allA'Cou--r~ts have reiterated the View that 3. .wo.nia.ii'«is"*said to consent only when she agrees to while in free and constrained A of her physical and moral power to act in. rnanner she wanted. Consent implies the ' Qexelreise of a free and untrammeled right in Forbid it '-- -oi' withhold what is being consented to: it always is a voluntary and Conscious acceptance of what. is proposed to be done by another and concurred in by the former. "
'"""'~w"w -7-
9. Nothing is placed on record by the prosecution to show that the accused obtained consent of the girl eit.her by misrepresenting her as to any tact or by putting her under any threat. 'f°hei'el'ore. following the above observations. i ztn1'1loli'vt'.he considered View that the consent given by victim instant case to the accused was voluntary.
10. Even if it is assumed that the accused» the victim girl that he would rnarryher. ls"t:i_lll'=it cottid not-.:bell}held that the accused committed the olllfence ur1ld*e_rll"Selctio;:n 376 of IPC.
1 1. l*lon'ble Supreme Court at para 21 of its judgment the State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2003 K2&Rl.2512'-EtStt11.Cléi7,§"ll Pa;ra' 2.1: It therefore appears that. the consensus ofjudicial A oplnitiiii istn iax}¢j"i'i'i4"oi-' the View that the consent given by V the [Jvroselcittli"--i.x to sexual intercourse with a person with l" 'iis'lcteeply in love on a promise that he would niarry' on a later date. cannot be said to be given ur1d'er"a misconception of fact. A false promise is not a 2 it tact tvithin the meaning of the Code. We are inclined to with this view. but 'we must add that there is no straitjacket. formula for deter'rnini1'1g whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary. or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. In the ult,imate analysis. the tests laid down by the Courts provide at best guidantte to the jttdicial mind while €_,,~,_~{"""s..»»-"~=-»~'"'"'--'l' W8"
considering a question of consent. but t.he Court must. in each case. consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whether the cons..en-t was voluntary. or was given under a iniSC0I'lC.Cpl.lOi3~~(3l_'l7?¥,C't.f yI"t._ must also weigh the evidence keeping in view1._t.he fact. that.' 0 the burden is on the prosecutions toproveHealchfand Vevery 0' ingredient. of the offence. absence of:..c.oij1se.nt _being'ot1ei...of' them.
12. Further. this Court haSylll"Obser{ied of its"
judgment in the case of,.Honnqyy:1."Vs';*~.._Staté"of Klxrnataka reported in ILR 2000 Kar 323306 Pariah ' not 0 ' 151" 00 sexual intercourse agal.'n_st" her ..f{:'};e:lpvrolselct1trix is above 16 years. This a'ca"se consent is obtained by putting any oerson in whom she is interested of death"or~ot hurt. This is not a case where 0V'"consent'«is"'ol:tained by reason of unsoundness of irttoiéieation or other reasons explained in A Clause the facts proved also do not fall under Clauses 3 and 4 of Section 375 of IPC. Therefore.
' the only question which calls for determiriation is lV"~'.,'.~'Al":1€ll1€1' there was consent. If so. whether the consent was obtained under fear or misconception provided by Section 90 of the [PC. I have already extracted the facts as stated in the evidence of P.W.3 prosecutrix and it is not shown to the satisfaction of the Court. that the consent. was given »%M VIIII1VVV1 years old. but mentally she is estimated to be less than six years old. He has i'urt.her deposed thai t.he normal IQ range of the person is between 90 to 110. but the IQ of victim girl was only
38. He has also deposed in his evidence that the girl Vreqti'irr_ed assistance in all her self" care. day to day activities a'nd«.sh.e_] vie;-.s'~. not able to give the general information such as..dauy;l. _ti-nine' l and money earning etc..
16. On careful reading of 'Lh_e"~eviden~ee o['_ PwlffrlntiiieHviictina r L' girl. it could be seen, that she h3_$__lgiv_e1i_»_gali the_d_etai.l1s of the incident that occurred about _1fi1lorei_"tVhla'n;"iafiafear prior to her evidence in the Court. The.ATrial'Cl0~L.trt has 'tirade a note in the deposition »»(jtlW"[Vl1i.ASA:.'l;£glI'll::i:,}'l€l,l haslhlciearly used words scanning, Gangothri,l'Vi\rei:anand.a'Iiospited,__Athyachara etc. She has stated in her evide1'1ee'----.t_.hat._ on eneday. about a year ago {prior to her 'evivdencelgin Coui*t.}«..._t._hiev accused promised her that he would ra;1'i*::y*.heii_lan'dl"w_hile so promising he committed sexual int:e1'C.O.1§'ii'seloiifheir. She has further deposed that her mother tjook her f_zol"{}e.Vernment Hospital at H.D.Kote and scanning was 'inn said hospital. She has also deposed that a Panehayath was convened on the complaint of her mother and ".d:tir'ing the said Panchayath the accused denied that he was responsible for her pregnancy. She has also deposed that she showed the police the place where the accused used to commit «"'-._,_(Ri'\.r"*'"'"""°'"W..,,,»,_.---
-13- by the learned i3rincipal District. and Sessions Judge. Mysore, is hereby sei. aside. The appellani » £1(.'L'.i.1S€Cl is hereby aequiiied of boih the offences Lmcler Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. If anfJ__f"ine anioum, has been deposited by him in Compliance V.llll:lll"'-Vl'.l"i€ impugned order of sentence. the same shall be 1*ei"iir{cl'eci 'ls1li''1in,.'"F "
Since this accused is in prison, he sliaii be ':sei..._a'r;.yiiyberiyf f@i'i.hwii'.h, if he is not required to dei:aliriedi--in (?O1'i'iTif3C;,l1'(.)I1lwllfli any other case.
A copy of operative parfion :.3i'-.j_u.<_§i'gr;1ei11r shall be sent i'0rihw1'i'.ii to the Trial Couri. :i'0="i:h.le"i.:Si.if3erini:endeni' of District Prison. Mysolreffor i'r._1f.'orIr;a1iloiiaiiel.eginipliaiirte. sd/--
JUDGE