Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Kariyappa @ Thammaiah on 24 July, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA;
DATED THIS THE 24a{h JULY, 7
THE HONBLE MR. JEISTICE R.Ao
THE HON"BLE mg; 12.3. NAB;
or &
State 61" ' » _
By V:.V_Sub~I11s';;ect<.~§ 'of_Falicc,
Raja;'gopalaI1aga raP9Iiaac;-~statio11,
Bangalryrez, 7 = V : Appellant
43,, Sri. G." Singh, S.P.P.,)
my', 'I ,
3/F>§' Mafigowda. 40 years,
Near. Community Hall,
" V. ' Bgsappanakattc,
k --. R.-ajagopalanagar,
Bangalore. : Respondent
(By Sri. T. Seshafii Rao, Advocate) 2»2mu,L---
This Criminal Appeal is filed U/S 37a(1)%&%{3j% Q;';P.C by the State Public Promcutor for the to gant lave to file an appeal 'i;i3.ef}11(i{z;tn;e111_:' order of acquittal dated Xfl Additional City Sessions J'31dge,.. Bmgalam .A SC.No.289/ 1999 acquitfing I"€:$p0n&'&:nt$-acc11.'§ed._Vfor the offences Punishablc U/-s_V376 V ' A A _ This Appeal for tifais day, R3. mm .1, dc1tvcredVth;;:
The of acquittal dated ..fl1e xu Addit1ona1' % City ' Vcity in s.c. No.239/1999 hemin for ml ofiexwe pg'11is11ai$£e.V¥,J_'/'S. 3?6"1Pc. is the cm of the prosecution that on 'i9'.05'..i"'9§§$Vat about 12.30 p.111, when 1=>.w.12 Kum:
the prosecutrix had been to the house of , to see his son who was injured; that the wife of the accused Smt. Rukminiyamma a:>w.1) had gone took her son to the hospital, the accused who was alone '31 the house too}: Parvathamma (prosecutrix) in his house, /q.QxJw~Lx,L¥'---.»_« threatened her with a lmife and had with her and thereby committed 3:1"
U/S. 375190.
3. The case V 'has examined ?.w.: tej%..W. 1 to 13.1 1 and M03 1 to apmt frm exafllfi 3". :3, another Witness has been got marked portion of statement-5;: e x.
_4. 3. 2 have been mined by the ' teweéubstanflate that the prosecutrix had that the accused had forcible intercourse %;w,ritt1.__' A But both these witnesses have not supported .. ,t__.he of the prosecution and they have been treated "hestile. PW.3 is the Head Constable who took tlm prosecutrix to the hospital for medical examination and thereafter submitted his report as at Ex.P.3. PW.4 H. Q .@l.,k/\LL;J'{---"' Venkatesh is the PSI., who received (victim) as at Ex.P.4, registered' a'_: . "ed 1 13/ 1998, forwarded F.I.R. as thereafter handed overV>i'u.::::1:'t,her iixvesfigefiezd file Inspector. is of PW. 12 (Victim girl). He that accused was the date of incident when he ' daughter (Parsrathamma) enquiry, she revealed that intercourse with her threatening hezf thereafter he took her daughter to a Station and lodged complaint. PW .6 V is the mother of the prosecutrix. She in d' has deposed that on the date of incidazt she to Rajagopalanagar to send her mother, at that " . her daughter (PW. 12) and her husband (1>w.5; were in the house; when she returned to the house at 5.00 p.m, on enquiry, her daughter informed her that the accused had forcible intercourse with her. This witness Wm has been treated mrtzially hostile, as size she does not know as to V' PWs.7 who is a peach e_m " '---evcai; :._ J m.P.5' has been the ease of the 9} who are the neighbors of the examined to establish the fa_ct had infmmed them about hostile, as the prosecution. PW. 10 is :"§rI.:o teok the prosecutnx' to the hespitetfer PW. 1 1 is the Medical ed the accused and submitted ms t He opined that there were no signs of * intercourse on the accused.
5. PW.i2 is the victim girl. $118 in her evidence has deposed that on the date of incident, she had been to the house of the accused to emit) as to what had happmxed to the son of the accuser}, she saw that the son fl(€.\.A/\C,L\UL......_.
of the accused was being taken to the hospital, es he was assaulted by the accused; then thereafier, was coming back to her house, the her. took her inside the house and with her. Afier the "
informed her father ebcut theneaiter, they went t and lodged complaint. PW. $3' ti:-.e';' oficer. PW. 14 Dr. Kasyep He in his evidence deposee {en 1993: he examm ed the victim on examination, he found that there of recent sexual intercourse and "'he..issued certificate as at Ex.P. 1 1. PW. 15 is V sritcess for scene of occurrence. He has been as he ms not supported the case of the prefiuticn.
6. It is just and necessary to note that though the prosecutrix claims that there was foreibte intmcouz-se by the accused, the medical evidence belies the vexsicn cs' the 9 Qxmuim vict1m' girl (PW. 12). me doctor (PW. % her has stated that there sexual intercourse on PW.1:2.5 the J prosecutrix that on the Act aeeueed and his wife to lodge complaint against hold articies tom the houseei': she has foisted a false In support of said ooeaene§g;g% pws. 1 & 2, the wife Added to this, there is a delay complaint, which has not been by the invwmazing agezwy. The ' :v'ie:::<:i:.1.ent has oecurned at 12.30 13.111. but the lodged at 3.55 p.m. in the xfight. As the vexejixlefttleplesecutrixhasnotbeensupponedlzgrflle evidence, it appears that a false ca& has been embmidered to falsely implicate me accused in the present case. The trial court, an appreciation of the oral and documentmy evidence on record in proper /Q..£x)v-.u).:LL.
perspective, arrived at a ooxmusion flue; failed to establish the of having committed the oa°ex:e:¢s%%puT A Jni shame % beyond reasonable doubfifind bi' levelled against the mam on record, we has fafied to establish mg beyond reasonainle doubt. court is justified in f}:>f't'£*.e}cl1at'ge kzvellcd against him. : yomm to intezrfcre with the court below and consequenfly, to be dismism.
% I H the criminal appeal is .
Sd/~ Iudqe Sd/1:
Judge VR/--