Karnataka High Court
Chandrasha S/O Hanmanth Pujari vs The State Of Karnataka Through on 13 January, 2016
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200019/2016
Between:
Chandrasha S/o Hanamanth Pujari
Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o village Hinginkal, Tq. Chittapur
District Kalaburagi
...Petitioner
(By Sri Nandkishore Boob, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Through Madbul Police Station
...Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to release the petitioner on bail, in Crime
No.69/2015 of Madabol Police Station (pending on the file of
II-Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi in Special Case
POSCO No.20/2015), in view of the reasons stated above,
which is registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 (2) (N) (D), 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code and for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6
of POCSO Act and Sections 3(1) (III) and 3 (2) (V) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. Perused the case papers.
2. Petitioner is seeking for being enlarged on bail in Special Case (P) No.20/2015 (Crime No.69/2015) on the ground that he has been falsely implicated by the Police for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)(d), 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(III) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Gist of the complaint lodged by elder brother of father of victim girl is that on 09.06.2015 at about 10.30 3 a.m., victim-girl complained of abdominal pain as such, accompanied by her grand mother she was sent to Primary Health Centre and was examined by the doctor at Primary Health Centre and it was found that she was five months pregnant and as such, when enquiry was made, she revealed that about five to six months back when she had gone for coolie work in the lands of Raju Mangalagi, she had been raped by Laxman and Chandrasha i.e., petitioner herein and accused No.1 on account of threat being posed to her, she did not disclose this fact to anybody-else.
4. It is the contention of Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged and has been falsely implicated and even though petitioner is from the same village, for five months complainant had kept quiet and has falsely implicated petitioner by lodging the complaint in question.
4
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would seek for rejection of the petition contending inter alia that petitioner along with accused No.1 had committed rape of victim-girl and she being an young girl aged about 16 years was naturally scared of disclosing the same to anyone and only when she became pregnant and resulted in complications being developed which ultimately resulted in medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) by way of abortion, she had disclosed this fact to her father and as such, complaint came to be lodged belatedly. On these grounds, he seeks for rejection of petition.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the records it would indicate that complaint came to be lodged by elder brother of father of victim girl on 09.06.2015. Statement of victim girl has been recorded by the police at the Hospital on 11.06.2015 and before recording such statement she is said to have gone to Madabool Police Station on 5 10.06.2015 itself at about 7.30 p.m. and on account of her health condition being improper she was referred back to Government Hospital and as such, statement of elder brother of father of victim girl came to be recorded on 10.06.2015 between 8.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. and victim girl had given her statement on 11.06.2015 implicating petitioner and accused No.1. However, records would indicate that when she had been admitted to Hospital on 10.06.2015, doctor who attended her had made enquiries with victim-girl and noted the details furnished by her in the medical records which is to the following effect:
"A female person by name Siddamma D/o Channamallappa, 17 years resident of Inganakal of Chittapur complained of history of alleged sexual assault followed by spontaneous abortion on 10.06.2015 (history of assault about seven months back by two persons, names not known) was examined by him on 10.06.2015 at 8.00 p.m. ........"
7. Thus, above report of the doctor would indicate that in the first instance victim girl had not disclosed the 6 name of accused persons before the doctor who attended on her. In that view of the matter, prosecution will have to prove the complicity of the petitioner and this can be undertaken by the prosecution in the trial. Delay in lodging the complaint as well as at the first instance victim girl not disclosing the name of accused persons are all facts which prima facie entitles the petitioner for being enlarged on bail.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
b) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall not tamper or terrorize prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever;7
ii) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before Madbool Police Station once in a week i.e., on everyday Sunday between 8.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of trial;
iii) Petitioner shall appear before jurisdictional Court on all the dates of hearing without fail unless there are exceptional circumstances;
iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without express permission till the disposal of the case on merits;
v) Prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail in the event of any of the conditions being violated;
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*