Karnataka High Court
Gajanan Parashuram Tarale vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100097 OF 2016 (C)
BETWEEN:
GAJANAN PARASHURAM TARALE,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: NAVI GALLI, AMBEWADIM,
BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH KAKATI POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed
...RESPONDENT
by
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH (BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP)
Date: 2024.02.17
12:22:00 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM VIII
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, PERTAINING TO
S.C. NO.187/2014 AND TO PASS A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT ON 10-03-
2016 BY VIII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN
S.C. NO.187/2014 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.376,
506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The appellant in this appeal questioned the legality and validity of the judgment passed in SC No.187/2014 dated 10.03.2016 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, wherein the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused/ appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and also directed the accused/ appellant to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the victim as compensation. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case as alleged in the complaint that:-
Accused No.2 in this case (acquitted by the trial Court) is the husband of victim in this case i.e., PW.1.
Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the victim. This appellant/accused No.1 is the brother of the accused No.2 and brother in law of the victim-PW.1. The marriage of the victim was solemnized with the accused No.2 on 27.04.2009, ever since then, the PW.1 was residing in the matrimonial home along with accused Nos.2 and 3. After some time from the date of marriage, the accused Nos.2 and 3 were abusing the PW.1, asking her to do more house hold and agricultural work. Thereby they were harassing her.
3. Subsequently, in the month of December-2010, the appellant/accused No.2 i.e., the brother of PW.1 returned from gulf country and used to reside along with PW.1, accused Nos.2 and 3 in the matrimonial home of PW.1. It is further stated in the complaint that on -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 14.05.2011 at about 4:00 pm when PW.1 was alone in her bedroom, appellant entered her bedroom and forcibly committed sexual coitus on her and threatened her with dire consequences not to reveal the same to anybody. Thereafter, the accused committed sexual coitus on her repeatedly from the month of June to October-2011. And, in the month of October-2011 she revealed the same to her husband i.e., accused No.1. However, he persuaded her not to reveal the same to anybody to uphold the reputation of the family. Further, he sent her to her parental house for a period of 10 days. However, she did not revealed the act of accused No.2 to her parents and returned to her matrimonial home.
4. Posteriorly, in the year 2011, the appellant committed sexual coitus on four occasions in her bedroom and foisted life threat to her not to reveal the same. However, on 13.05.2013, the appellant got married one Madhuri and later on 14.11.2014 when his wife went her parental house, the appellant committed sexual coitus with -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 PW.1 on 15.01.2014 in her bedroom. However, she did not reveal the same to anybody.
5. Things stood thus, her husband has taken her to the Advocate's Office at Belagavi on the pretext of obtaining Gas-Cylinder and he obtained her signatures. During that time, the Advocate called her father and informed him that her husband-accused No.2 intending to file divorce case against her. Hence, she lodged the complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3 as per Ex.P.1 before PW.7- the then PSI of Kakati Police Station. The said complaint has been registered under Crime No.98/2014 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 376 and 109 of Indian Penal Code as per Ex.P.17.
6. Subsequently, PW.8-the CPI of Belagavi Rural Circle, conducted the investigation by sending the victim to the Hospital for examination, so also, arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter, drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.10 and also drawn the mahazar -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 under Ex.P.7 and seized MO.1 to 9 and also drawn Ex.P.8- mahazar, wherein MO.10 to 13 were seized. Later, he produced the victim before the Magistrate-PW.9 and her statement was recorded by PW.9 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and after recording the statement of all the witnesses, he laid the chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 498- A, 506, 504, 376 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code before the committal Court.
7. Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the aforementioned the offences and read over the same to them, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
8. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution in total has examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to 10, so also got marked 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to 20 and got identified 13 material objections as MO.1 to 13. After completion of -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of material witness to the accused, however the accused have denied the same. The accused neither chose to examine any witness on their behalf, nor got marked any documents.
9. Post trial, the learned Sessions Judge after assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 376, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, however convicted the accused No.1-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated supra. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The legality and correctness of the said judgment is challenged under this appeal.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016
10. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. A.M.Gundawade for the appellant, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/ State.
11. The learned counsel for appellant would vehemently contend that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused/ appellant based on surmise and conjecture. On perusal of the evidence of the prosecutrix-PW.1, being major and the wife of accused No.2, concocted a false story against the accused to take a revenge in connection with the matrimonial dispute arose between PW.1 and her husband-accused No.2 and his family members including the appellant who is none other than the brother of accused No.2. According to the learned counsel, there is an in ordinate delay of three years in lodging the complaint by PW.1. Though, the alleged incident was initially committed on 14.05.2011, whereas the complaint was lodged on 01.04.2014. Further, on perusal of the contents of the complaint lodged by PW.1, -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 the same depicts that the alleged sexual coitus committed by the appellant on her, repeatedly on several occasions in the matrimonial house, in spite of that, she did not whispered anything about the same either to her husband or to her parents for a period of almost three years i.e., three months prior to the lodging of complaint. In such circumstances, the contents of Ex.P.1-Complaint and the contents of Ex.P.1 the prosecutrix seems to be not trust worthy and credence cannot be attached to the same. The learned counsel also contends that on perusal of the evidence of PW.1-victim and her father-PW.3, there are material contradictions, the manner in which the alleged incident narrated by them. It is deposed by PW.1 that for about three years the appellant repeatedly committed sexual coitus in her bedroom even after his marriage with one Madhuri. The non-presence of PW.3-her father-in-law in the house at the time of sexual coitus committed by the accused was not deposed by PW.1 in her evidence. In such circumstances, inference can be drawn, PW.3 was very much present in the matrimonial home of PW.1 during the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 course of commission of offence. Even otherwise, she failed to inform the same to her father, though she went to her parental house and stayed there for a period of 10 days. In such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 is un- trust worthy and the same cannot be relied for convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions is erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
12. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader by supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the learned Session Judge has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offences after meticulously examining the evidence of prosecutrix- PW.1 and her 164 statement recorded as per Ex.P.4 by PW.9-the Magistrate. Hence, there is no reason to discard the evidence of prosecutrix. He would further contended
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 that the delay in lodging the complaint due to the threat foisted by him to her not to reveal the same to anybody. Hence, the delay in lodging is not fatal to the prosecution case. Accordingly, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity or illegality ?
2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code ?
14. This Court being the appellate Court on re- appreciation of the evidence placed by the prosecution before the trial Court, I find:-
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 PW.1-victim deposed in her evidence that the accused being her brother-in-law, committed sexual coitus on her on 14.05.2011 for the first time, when she was alone in her bedroom and threatened her with dire consequences not to reveal the same to anybody.
Thereafter, he committed such act repeatedly till 2014.
However, she informed the same to her husband-accused No.2 on 15.01.2014 but, he requested her not to reveal the same to anybody to uphold the reputation of the family and sent her to the parental house. Thereafter, she stayed in her parental house for a period of 10 days and subsequently, joined her matrimonial home. However, in the month of March-2014, her husband-accused No.2 took her to Belagavi on the pretext of obtaining Gas-Cylinder.
But, there met an Advocate and obtained her signature and the said Advocate called her father and informed that her husband making preparation to file divorce petition.
Hence, she lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 PW.2-Hanumantha Shankara Balegundri is a witness for Ex.P.7-seizure of MO.1 to 9 and also Ex.P.9 wherein MO.10 to 13 were seized. He is also a witness for Ex.P.8- spot mahazar.
PW.3-Ganapati Gundu Revanacha is the father of PW.1 who is an hear-say witness, according to him, his daughter-PW.1 informed him about the harassment meted out by accused Nos.1 to 3 to PW.1 in the matrimonial home, so also, the sexual coitus committed by the accused No.1 on her. He also deposed about the lodging of Ex.P.1- Complaint.
PW.4-Balu Ganapati Mashekar is a circumstantial witness deposed about the strained relationship between PW.1 and accused Nos.1 to 3 in the matrimonial home.
Further, he also deposed that he came to know trough PW.1 about the sexual coitus committed by the accused on her.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 PW.5-Laxman Balappa Balegundri is a circumstantial witness deposed about the strained relationship of PW.1 and accused Nos.1 to 3 in the matrimonial home.
PW.6-Diwansab Husainabba Mulla is the then Police Constable, carried the FIR from the Police Station to the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 01.04.2014.
PW.7-Altafhussain Moinuddin Mulla is then PSI, received the complaint from PW.1 as per Ex.P.1 and registered FIR in Crime No.98/2014 against the accused as per Ex.P.17.
PW.8-Siddappa Ramappa R.D., is the then Circle Inspector of Police, investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the case.
PW.9-A.S.Shashikala is the then JMFC, Belagavi, recorded the statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C as per Ex.P.4.
PW.10-Sunita M. Astekar is an Advocate, translated the statement of PW.1 recorded under Section 164 of
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 Cr.P.C from Marathi language to Kannada language before the learned JMFC.
15. On cursory glance of the above evidence placed by the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the PW.1-victim and her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate-PW.9 as per Ex.P.4. On careful perusal of the complaint lodged by PW.1 as per Ex.P.1, her statement at Ex.P4 and her evidence before the trial Court; she stated that the accused committed sexual coitus on her for the first time on 14.05.2011 in her matrimonial home. Subsequently, he repeated the said act continuously for a period of three years. However, she has not whispered the same to anyone including her husband-accused No.2, her mother- in-law-accused No.3 and her father-PW.3 for a period of three years. According to her, the accused got married on 13.05.2013 and post marriage of the accused committed sexual coitus on her on 15.01.2014. However, she did not
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 inform the same to the wife of the accused. According to her, she informed the same to her husband-accused No.2 on 15.01.2014, but he requested her not to reveal the same to anybody. Interestingly, PW.1 deposed that, during the year-2012, she went to her parental house and stayed there for a period of 10 days. But, she did not inform the act of accused to her parents. Additionally, the complaint was lodged by her on 01.04.2014, when her husband-accused No.2, tried to obtain her signature on divorce papers in the Advocate Office. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, her evidence in respect of the manner in which the accused committed the alleged sexual assault in her matrimonial home and non-disclosure of the same by her to anybody, including her husband for a period of three years, creates a doubt in the mind of this Court. Nevertheless, the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint more specifically, above three years, also raises a doubt as to the forcible sexual coitus committed by the accused as alleged by her. Though, the PW.1, gave a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 Magistrate as per Ex.P.4, that in itself is not sufficient to award conviction to the accused on believing it as a gospel truth.
16. Admittedly, there existed a matrimonial dispute between the accused Nos.2 and 3 and PW.1. This complaint has been lodged even against accused Nos.2 and 3 for the mental and physical harassment allegedly meted out by them. However, the accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted for those charges in the impugned judgment. The same has attained finality since the State has not challenged the same. It is brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellant that, subsequently after the conviction order passed against this appellant, the PW.1 approached the Family Court Belagavi for grant of divorce in MC No.199/2016 against accused No.2-her husband and divorce was also granted by relying on the impugned judgment challenged herein. In such circumstances, he submit that, in order to get a decree of divorce from accused No.2, PW.1-victim filed a false complaint, by making false allegations against the accused
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 Nos.2 and 3, including this appellant. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, so also, PW.3-father of the PW.1, the defence of the accused, in my opinion, seems to be probable one. In order to arrive at this conclusion, I rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raisandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT Delhi reported in AIR 2012 SCC 3157 wherein, the top Court in paragraph No.22 has held as under -
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
17. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court also in the case of Dilip and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 452, held that the prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made the bases of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility and corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. At paragraph Nos.12 and 14 of the said judgment held as under:
"12. The law is well settled that the prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made the basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. In State of H.P. v.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 Gian Chand on a review of decisions of this Court, it was held that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc., if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. This Court relied upon the following statement of law from State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh² SCC (para 21):
"If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations...."
14. The age of the prosecutrix was around 16 years, maybe a little more. The fact remains that she was not just a child who would have surrendered herself to a forced sexual assault without offering any resistance whatsoever. Without going into testing the truthfulness of the explanation offered by the
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 prosecutrix that because of being overawed by the two accused persons, she was not able to resist, the fact remains that the "probabilities factor" operates against the prosecutrix. The gang rape is alleged to have been committed at about 2 p.m., in her own house, situated in a populated village by the side of the main road where people were moving on account of Holi festival. The prosecutrix did raise a hue and cry to the extent she could and yet none was attracted to the place of the incident. The prosecutrix is said to have sustained injuries, also bleeded from her private parts staining her body as also the clothes which she was wearing. This part of the story, is not only not corroborated by the medical evidence, is rather belied thereby. The presence of bloodstains is not confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory or by the doctors who examined the prosecutrix. Her own maternal aunt to whom the story of sexual assault has been narrated by the prosecutrix gives a version which does not tally with the version of the prosecutrix as given in the court. The learned counsel for the State relied on Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 which provides that in a trial on a charge under Section 376(2)(g) IPC on the prosecutrix stating that she was not a consenting party, the court shall presume absence of consent of the woman alleged to have been raped. Suffice it to observe that we should not be misunderstood as recording a finding that the prosecutrix was a willing party to the sexual intercourse by the accused persons. The Court is finding it difficult to accept the truthfulness of the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 version of the prosecutrix that any sexual assault as alleged was committed on her in view of the fact that her narration of the incident becomes basically infirm on account of being contradicted by the statement of her own aunt and medical evidence and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The defence has given suggestion in cross- examination for false implication of the accused persons which, however, have not gone beyond being suggestions merely. It is not necessary for us to dwell upon further to find out the probability of truth contained in the suggestions because we are not satisfied generally of the correctness of the story as told by the prosecutrix. We find it difficult to hold the prosecutrix in the case as one on whose testimony an implicit reliance can be placed."
18. Additionally, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Dinesh Jaisval Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 3 SCC 232 held that in order to place reliance on the testimony of the victim girl to award conviction to the accused, the same shall corroborate with the evidence of the doctor who examined the victim. In the case on hand, the Doctor has not all been examined and such, there exists absolutely no corroborations to the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 evidence of PW.1 and her depositions also do not inspire the case of the prosecution.
19. Admittedly, the complaint was registered on 01.04.2014 alleging an incident that was initially committed on 14.05.2011 i.e, after a unreasoned delay of more than 3 years, which in my opinion without proper justification, would take away the case of the prosecution and on the other hand, would inspire the mind of this Court as to the defense of the accused put forth in this case. This court in order to buttress this observation would rely upon the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 763 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 5 has held as under-
"5. The present case wholly depends upon the testimony of the prosecutrix. The incident in the present case took place seven months prior to the date of lodging the complaint as a realisation dawned upon her that she has been subjected to rape by the appellant-accused. No complaint or grievance was made either to the police or the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 parents prior thereto. The explanation for delay in lodging the FIR is that the appellant-accused promised her to marry therefore the FIR was not filed. In cases where the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is available, it is very dangerous to convict the accused, specially when the prosecutrix could venture to wait for seven months for filing the FIR for rape. This leaves the accused totally defenceless. Had the prosecutrix lodged the complaint soon after the incident, there would have been some supporting evidence like the medical report or any other injury on the body of the prosecutrix so as to show the sign of rape. If the prosecutrix has willingly submitted herself to sexual intercourse and waited for seven months for filing the FIR it will be very hazardous to convict on such sole oral testimony. Moreover, no DNA test was conducted to find out whether the child was born out of the said incident of rape and that the appellant-accused was responsible for the said child. In the face of lack of any other evidence, it is unsafe to convict the accused. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court in convicting the appellant-accused under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained. Consequently, we set aside the judgment and order of the trial court as also of the High Court and quash the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused under Section 376 IPC.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151 CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016 The accused may be released forthwith from custody if not required in any other case."
20. In view of the above findings, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge calls for an interference and accordingly, I answer the above raised point in the affirmative and negative respectively and proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed in SC
No.187/2014 dated 10.03.2016 by
the VIII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
iii. The accused is acquitted for the
offence punishable under Sections
376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
iv. The bail bond executed by the
accused stands cancelled.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3151
CRL.A No. 100097 of 2016
v. The fine amount, if any, paid by the
accused shall be refunded to him on
proper identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5