Karnataka High Court
Mr Ajay Poojary vs The State Through The on 26 August, 2011
perisd of seven {?} years aad he shall be liable to pay a fine fgx Rs.2,GGGf- far tha effamcés punishabla under Sectian 37$ cf IEC§ ~ This Cri.A. aaming an far fiinai Hearing} fi§i$ day, the Csart deiivarefi the foiiowing 'w '" 4 JESGMERT The agpeliant has challenqeawfiiaafionvi¢£§¢n"éndW sentence for tha charge uader Sefiti¢nz376 :?C,;'Qfi;§"
txial new by the Addl. '..§iia$sia1;:.=3__ '3;,:ai;gé";,V"V"'mi"fi{., Mangalmre.
2. ?he facts relevafit Ed: t§éf§fiz§ose Qf thia ap§eal are as ufiégrq standar& i#* an: gauéatiafiél ifistitutian at V&mada§adévu,--§rig%::¢ 6iw@n%hs sf the acmglaintx Te bring hQusaE5§§'%::iéléS; fihe had gens ta gracery iféhgp . *agdV , wfiiie" ---------- ~"zefiurningf She saw the égfieliafififigfifiaséfig whe insistefi her ta aficemgany fiig . .V am&'fix§§ga& §e££V fhereafterf by gutting haad am hex gaming he ifiék he; is nearby hiélsak §:&&w §&$§it§ ._ fig: "*:asistan¢@, fig cammittefi. f§r$:bEe egxgal ifiiércéfizgg. ?k@r$a§t$r, the gzégefiutrix suffered »§&in' ix fififimfifih. fiiiaz samaaima, tha ' 5*: V"
35,/:fl"'£K"* ' ;,)e§£§"x?2§%§3§€?% %§<\§§?€§$£%@ :f§n_th&1§r§$eQutri%L"-fifiey ---- saifi that thay aw flat knmw vtha'pzb$ecfifi%i$, Sa, the era: evidenae is Eafiking Ea faxl $§ vfi§$ faxsibie sexuai intargfiarge by *:he ._"a§§§;;§§§ fin ifié §:¢$ecatrix is camcarnafi, V" _§:ima:§ai fig tfig §§eMfiniv&zgity $%ii§§% &$fi fig has Q 5 A presecutxix anfi gave his Qpinian that the gregnancy Gf the grogecutrix wag 5% manths' §.W.2mBrh Ramash, whe examinaé the amcused opiaeé ahat H§he appeilant/aacuseéb has the ability to hav§. §§§a§; interaourse. ?.W.8~§rK Vikram hag vex§fi§§i»£§§VA pregnancy af the prasecutrix, §;K_1§ $% £§§ §éi§¢fix wha carried tha firat infcrméfiigg:~§&§Q%tlfli§fi*t§é Magistrata. ?.w.§wPrakash'§a§ a§aw§ the égefigh sf scane mf offense as per Ex.?5, %J S. The zeiavani"%fii&én¢§fiié %hat 0f P,W:11w Qrasaacutrix, her_ fatfi E _$vér§$t ?%%%bJ andg mother Christina §1§§§y? ¥ %fie§¢ g §itfiaé$as have mat sugpartad ah; c%%§ %§.%%% %iGSe§u£i$n anfi have been treatafi $§é£%ié@_w :§.%h% cr%§$w&xaminatiQnf fienial having béafi= fiafi§ ma§5fi§V £he campiaint regarding farcible_saxfia1 in§ax¢cfi§se by th& a§§&iiantfaaauseé %£é.pé5§@n wfie was gesysngihla $9: the pregaamcy af E5; ?§& §za3e§§ti@n fiag Qxaminaé E fiwlfiw )2 ) 2' § 1/ tha appevsifiant had fcrcibla sexuai intercoursa with the prcasacutrix and this fatt has bean den3;e§~ by ?.E~3.l2~pra@se::::utrf1x, In the rep0rf:m~Ex.?lé,. marzticzz af tha deliaveary sf the chiltir H prosecutrix an 13 .. 11 . 2669' But ,.: is nafi '"3V{2'f1r3§§:;*1._ a-_:~;'v.V ta the pmrscm, who gave the mr, Vinod regarding deliveL€:__}?"~.Vpf At'-hga .c;:ii'.»§,§.»:~;;§ 'f:5w§g.. the prczssserzzstrix, on the said $ate__.__ ". _ Sm when the £.3rOSé'C%,.°;€4~r3;;;?§'fV":-,V'§§}'J;é"V.'§.'§#,%"<E?§If.l?t';S and ethear witnesses does '-n ::»t cf the §rc>sem1tion, accxealsting the date of birt§;még§$o§$@r%fi;é$fl?%£wan& the fact that the 37.z*;c:Ti£éer::VtiTA 6 _' 1;%enths grior ta tzha complaint!"_'e..*:£a3.£¢z:3,%t.;éA;i: "fi§é factzzm sf pregnarzay 6 manths Avpzciar ";3;v2;e."::*;<:3:z..:::.§}.a3*.z°1't, and held that the:
:_':'§'r'cs;$eaft:1t:'x;;1;2: was a§é'd'"}§"a$s than 16 years aa 9:: the d§a11"*_;?a" _ ..4i;'£3T;c i"§ent, Sc}; tile dficument Ex,?ll is , 2mt z;:<j;'s:.'z}i'c;':f%;V:°%.§s§;ve yraaf {sf date sf bzlrtifi af the V,.,_V_§:Qsec*:§:'tréx:_,. ?§:m:g2*: the matariai yiaceé an reazmfi. agpraxzimata age sf 'aha §z°a$ec;u%:.ri;; ahéufi 5%: %;E2.% Z;"§§.§'£'afi€". tima; tha material 52,3 fi§§§££ic:Qnt ta ¢$§§irm tfia éate fif birtfi ag 3i§.§§.E§§3° fézazaby, & 3:%a£§§'1fi%3% §®u§::z~é: amiggg $3 M A KW, e. X! ta whether tha prosecutrix hafl a¢mplete& lé yaars of age. when she daas net suppart the case sf *tha prosecution so alsa ha: parents, rat&e;M ifi is difficult is say beyané reasamabie daubt §Ea&»§§ i§ u the appe1lamtfaccu$ed, who had"«§ox@ibié éé2§ai; intercaurse with th@ prasecutrixi' §§ The learned counséififgr fihg a§§§§i§§b flag piaced relianca an the decisg§fi Q£x§h§ fii§h Qgurt sf Qujarathg reparted in 2§§9A£:2g§ $; %888 {Premjibhai Eachubhai Khasiya Vs. Stéfig §f$§fi§g£§§h£& another}; wherein the 3i§fi:§égxgAEa§% £§fi% §é§$ideration the §r0visiQn§ ¢£_$é%§%§gs'$ fin§fi4S §§ the Evidence Act, in the c§¥%é#€w§ffi@$é--§N%wre%%%£ submitted anfi held ahat thé u'§oéifi§%éV "fi§§§fit aan fie sf graat significance fihéra théré is suppcrtimg evifience and f§§weve: $§¢hure§art"uénnoE ha accepted in i$mlatiGn :;§ ; §$_3ele fiififlé $5 avidenaa té xeeazé canviatian .v im ia§é«c§s§{ 3u$e fiaz as ENE re§Qrt sabmittaé by §}$'1?¥§§g ?§@a§ is cagcerneé, axcépa the evififince
- §fjth&A§§¢£@z, thaza :3 $6 $§§§%ftifi§ éviéafice, Thfi 4* ?:§é§é$g$iX fififi Ear yarants havfi iurmefi figgtiia tfi '%§§""fa$t$fi af ffircifiie sexgal intagcaarsa §@tw@%m éfié gréaaamtxix amd §%% a§§a:Ean%§a$Qg$&&, in th& :4.
fa?
5.: