Karnataka High Court
Raja S/O Rangadasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARMA TAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-IES THE 24TH DAY 01+' AUGUST. 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHALI NA G;4sAJ.s ii " 3"
Criminal Appeal No. ~1s8Ao2%"
Between
1 Raja S / O Rangadasappa
Aged About 37 Years, E' u ' . .--
R/O.Meson,Qua_rters Of.Tiles 'F_,acto:y",«
R/ O. Turnkur, Native Of Sl'1i€l'.ti}{v.'6I'C,
C.N.Halli Talukfir _ I = = .,
-- I Appellant
[By Sri: DinesE1.._K1;:mar K Rao ;..A'dVo.cate )
And:
1 Thel'St=ate of1.Karnataka .
'By. New E5§tension__Po1ice,
Tumkur'._ " 4' "
... Respondent
Satish ii; Giiji HCGP }
T _ "owl is filed U/8.374(2) Cr.P.C by the advocate
" ._for:_ the .appellant against the Judgment dated 18.4.2005 in
S,C.No._19-9/A03 on the file of the S.J, Turnkur, - convicting
the ap_pei.a"nt/accused for the offence P/U/8.376(2) [F] and
Sec.:?s06;_ Of {PC and further sentencing him to undergo RI
.. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-- for
Vanaoffence P/U/S. 376[2}[F} IPC and 1.1) of payment of fine,
he-shall undergo imprisonment for another period of one
'year. and further sentenced to undergo R1 for a period of six
' = ..--months for an offence P/U/S. 506 IPC. both the offences
shall run concurrently.
M
g.
This Crl.A. coming on for Hearing this day, the Court
delivered the Following:
JUDGMENT:
The appellant herein who was the accused in Sessions Case No. 199/2003 on the file of the learnted' Sessions Judge, Tumkur [hereinafter referred: tofas l'Ti~lila3l' Court" for short), has challengedilrlile' '7 conviction and sentence dated said case convicting him for offences. under 3'76 {2)(f) and 506 of I.P.C., therebyilpsentencing lhirnito undergo RI for a period of to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-- of 'iinprisonment for a further of to undergo R1 for six months for er section 506 IPC.
_ 2. the argufnents of Sri. Dinesh Kurnar, learned for the"app'ellant--accused and Sn'. Satish R. Giiji, [Court Government Pleader for respondent- Eltate. the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and also the entire material found "ll" original records obtained from the Trial Court.
3. Stated in brief, the case of the prosecution as alleged in EXP} complaint filed by PW1, victim girl, namely, (......(""""I---
PW} Kumaré Surna aged about 10 years cl/o PWS 3 and 4 respectively, Smt. Jayalakshrni and Sri. Shivaliumar, residing at Upparahalli in Tumkur town is as under' ~ (21) {-bl Complainant has been residing it at the said address. On 7L~2..3..o.2oo3isst§.sb5ut;.9.teoo it a.m., the complainant wasgrcasding sitting Zosutside her house. At that_4_time',* mother".
Jayalakshmi was 'prepa1'ing ufood. housed PW2 Ravi is/o SAperu'Vor._ 'materna}...Aau.nt of the complainant. his ;siste.r".C"W4- Bagya were also in the house. _ L" V i h l h At. tiIr_1e,€ (husband of
- s_ister=of complainant's father) came to the __ hou:;g)..v_tal.ked_lltothe complainants mother. While returnir;gsfro*:n"'tl're complainants house. the said xP..aja talked to... the complainant and asked her to acclomparayhim, saying that he would take her to jher grand-- mother's house and she could also 'l'_.to her friends. Believing his words the ' *V--V'cor.r1plainant accompanied him; ,, {oi} The accused, instead of taking her to the house of her grand mother, took her towards Sapthagiri Talkies. When the complainant asked him as to why he was taking her towards the said Talkies, he told her that some of his friends were there and ¢------(¢*""-'\--° he would talk to them and then take her to her Then he tool: the complainant to an old vacant residential"«ho~use. grand~mother's house.
When he took her there, she beca_rr'1'e"'frig.h'te:ied and cried. But the accused forciljly velosled 'her' mouth and said that 'is. 'were Vsilentlheu ' j it would get her chocolate, andr1:>-iscuits o'ther:W.isi2ier1ie would kill her if she «cries. Sinee: a'£;cused'g threatened her. sheahept quiet.._V Then the langag' removed her underganneants'andV .:é1I::so jtookudclit his pant, felled her to the ground and forcible sexual in?'tere:o.urse:3-.orip her "inserting his private part into Corisequently, she sustained _ .severe._ pain, -- also severe bleeding from her 'private' A..jpart._f"'~After completion of his forcible L"-sexualintercourse on her. the accused threatened her sayingpzhat if she discloses the said incident to anyone, he would kill her. He further told her that id she were not to disclose, he would give her i * money.
Thereafter. the complainant returned to her house running and informed her mother about the said incident. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital and admitted in the hospital as inpatient. While she was in the hospital, police came there and recorded her complaint statement as per EX.P1. '____f'\.---e--=~\,..»-=~
4. On appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 13, the documents at Exs.P1 to 12, the Trial Court, by its impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, convicted the accused--appe11ant for the said offence'sg:"'and sentenced him to under go imprisonment and1t"o 4' aforesaid. The defence of the accused 'one.-VI/ofddthetotaluY. denial. Therefore, he has not chosen to get daily Witnesses examined nor as he chosen to produce any_docum'ents'.
5. Of the 13 u7i_tI1esses_.,e§§a1nined forthe prosecution, PW1 is the victim giri;*flP--W2._ } saw the accused taking the girland be.for'e-ifitholnfflfiedvgirf iinfonned about the Said respectively, mother and father7of*the' and 6 are the Doctors who examinedéddthev girl'- and also the accused; PW7 is the ASI who recorded the complaint statement of PW1 complainant and 'V'registered'uthiehucase against the accused and PW10 is the who has given the Ex.P11,the date of birth Certificate in respect of age of the girl.
6. PW5 Dr. Dwarakanath, the Honorary Medical vdgofficer at District Hospital, Tumkur, has stated in his evidence that on 12.10.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., he JR -5- examined PW} Kumari Suma who was admitted in the said hospital with a history of rape committed on her on the same day by one Raja. He has further deposed that on his clinical examination of the said girl under general Anaesth.esi:a..Ahe found that there was second degree perenn:ial.:Agteari vaginal laceration at right latera1..Wail,4extending; to vault and there Was bleedingthVat:lhe"' tlfie said laceration and repaireLi._tii.e pelvic flour a«nd;~.s1ie was ' treated as inpatient in the sai.dflh.ospital i"rorr:.i_12,flO.2003 to 18.10.2003. He has entire case sheet, consisting of totally six"sheets;' .i1'1_respectv"of the admission of the said antiithetreattnentgiven to her as inpatient in the said hiospital; A:_ijp'H:le"~1t1:as.f'urther deposed that the girl was aged _abo1it" 3'.ears"vas«"on the said date and the injuries on V' _ tiieliperineiim whichhe noticed on the person of the said girl "wasa.p'cssi1:5ie, if a person of the age of the accused in this rape on that girl and that on his clinical examination, he found that the said girl was raped on that A if _c:1.%iy;.
'7. PW6 Dr. Shivaram, the Senior Specialist District Hospital, Tumkur, has stated in his evidence that on (...,__«{''-''''''''*'\.'-w 12.10.2003 at about 1.15 p.m.. the girl was produced before him by her parents with a history of rape on her and then he secured PW5 Dr. Dwarakanath, Gynecologist and reqiiested him to examine the said girl. He has further that he issued EXP4, certificate to that effect. 4_ deposed that after he admitted..the._'saidH hospital. he sent intimation to the per Ex.P5 and thereafter, the police-..came"there aiidhreceorded the it complaint statement of the girl: ".H€.._haS.f1;117t.hCI:_é1tatCd that according to him, the pwas aged -9_ years.
8. PWIO smt. Meera iBai"M'..,.._ifich;§:¥ge' Headmistress of Govezvhnmentwfivigherl P:rimary_Sehool at Tumkur, has stated in her etfidence tnatfjvofii'3:.l"1»:2.~2o03 the police of Thilak Park v.a.pproac'hed her and requested her to issue theadate of birthvveerttificate in respect of PW} complainant, 'V'Si_i1'na"'and'Vt'therefore, she issued the Ex.Pl1 date of birth Certificate;'lbVased on the records maintained in the said school"; She has further deposed that as per the records "id .ma'intained in the said school and as mentioned in Ex.P11 Vbieertificate, the date of birth of PW} Suma was 1.7.1993. (--....».x/"'-"----=~
9. Though PWS 5, 6 and 10 are cross» examined on behalf of accused at length, nothing is brought on record to disbeiieve their above evidence. Therefore, the TI'i€IJ___Court has rightly believed the evidence of these urit1iesvs_"esg:"'and rightly recorded its finding that the PW1 ' about 10 years as on the date of the said that ' . forcible sexual intercourse was committed' on 12.10.2003 at about 10.00"a,,:m.V_ as aiiegedg ii1_Ath_;e«~._goInp1airrtit Ex.P1.
10. PW1 stated in her evidence in clear terms that on 'the'sa1'.d' date "time, while she was sitting reading outsideher house, the accused came to the house; met herVn;ot11er._yvho' was preparing food in the house .whi1e"'going.haxyaydhe took her with him saying that he g 'h'ei-'to the house of her grandmother. She S udeposed that after she accompanied the accused, Shetookdheriiztowards Sapthagiri Talkies and then to an old Vacant':.house. She has further deposed that when she asked it , as to why he took her to the said place, he said that he was to pay some money to Mason and therefore, he took her there. She has further deposed that after the accused took ¢~ -9- her into the said house, he removed her clothes, he removed his clothes also, laid her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse despite her resistance and, when she cried, he threatened her sa3n'rig~,t_'hat.,Ahe would murder her. She has further depose§i;----that;.v:atf time, he forcibly inserted his private' partmiritofv r e, part and thereby committed forc;:ib1e'_'_'seXual_ i'nterco:u;g.éi1.iQn her and consequently, she" sustained severe. pa_irr..anid also' bleeding from her private par_tslland'Vwhi1elI1e_vvasvvigoing away from the said place, hellpthreatened--Vjheri that if she were to disclose the said inciderit.loefo're'=her.rnother or anyone else, police inthat event, he would kill her.
She has further" that, after the accused left the place, she" _retur--'ned her house and informed the said iiicident to herflmother [PW3 Smt. Jayalakshmi], her cousin S Ravi'fVag:id_:.,thereafter, she was taken to the Government lit{ospita1l'a}_."3Fumkur and got her admitted there. She has furtZt:er':.deposed that the Medical Officer of the said hospital .,tel'e«phohed to the police and, in response thereto, the police came there and recorded her complaint statement as per EXP} as narrated by her and after the complaint was c_________,{"1..-»-\,,...,, written, its contents were read--over and explained to her. She has further deposed that she showed the _4poIic»e~..the scene of offence which was situate in an oid.«§(acant'=h0§use, behind Sapthagiri Talkies and the panchanama Ex.P2 in respect of the her signature on it. A it t t 1 it u l
11. The above evidencedéllat ivficonsistent with the allegations' it PW13 ASI Doddarachappag has "hi.§~.',:',_'exridence that on 12.10.2003 received written intimation. V. tOfficer of Government PW1 complainant was admitted!' inlthei Immediateiy thereafter, he rushed to 'fl1€V3_VvSE1.i,C.§; hossbital and recorded her statement as ;lEx;-P1 and obtained her signature on it as per Ex.P1(a} _ an.d'th'en.; registered crime against accused on the basis of saidgcomplaint for the said offences and issued FIR ' accordingly.
I 12. PW 2 Ravi, the cousin of prosecutrix has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, white he was in the house of the complainant at about 9.30 a.m., he saw the (¥__'f"~=--\_.»\ accused taking the prosecutrix Surna with him and he also saw the prosecutrix returning home by about 10.15 or 10.20 a.rn., crying. He has also deposed that she told him that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by ¢---"""""' behind-«fie Sapthagiri Talkies.
13. PWS 3 and 4 respectively,-Smt.'_'davaiai~:s1*irni. andu' Sri. Shivanna @ Shivakurnar, the consistently stated in theirf._eVidenee that on day of' incident, at about 10.00 am, had gone along with the accused from othaeiir uresiidetiice returned to the house and 1nfof.'.'1ed,m= ci¢ra11.,.fthe "hf forcible sexual intercoursfe' her bfvflaccused. They have further deposedthat the'§:1'rl,fbtook«.ti1em to the scene of offence that was situatedV_:Vin_a--nfold" vacant house in the Nilagiri grove behind-3,Sapthagiri'"'Talkies in Turnkur Town and thereafter, iadmitted in the Government Hospital, Tumkur. the above evidence of PW1 prosecutrix, PWs 3 an_d"[.4 her parents, PW2 Ravi her cousin, clearly .establishes that it was this accused, who subjected her to fforcible sexual intercourse on the said date, time and place. c____"_'/"M"-z,--~» -12-
15. Further Ex.P11, the date of birth certificate issued by PW 10, I"-Ieadmistress and her evidence which has remained totally unchallenged clearly establishes that, as on the date of the incident, the girl was aged less' years. Besides this, the oral evidence of that of PW9 Investigating Officer ciearly the' scene of offence was situated inVan:_A_old vacant resi_dential house situated in the Nilgirigrove behind '*ij'alkie's 0' in Turnkur City and the saidp_I..0'vdrewup.the_Ex,li52 scene of offence panchanama the..::of. _PW8 Jayaram as panch. Ex.P3',-- the VCaS€__ is.heet".v"pertaining to the treat:d1entl'f'g»i'ven 71¢ prosecutrix in District Hospital, Tumkur, for the' inJiut=ies~«.sustained by her as a result of forcible se;§;'ual int'erconr'se on her on the said date and time, ' V' __ ciearly-eestablishesthat, as a result of sexual assault on her, "she a.su«staine_d'*severe injuries on her private parts and she treatedas inpatient from the date of incident i.e. from 12.103003 to 18.10.2003 as deposed by PW5, Dr. A " .I§iv'arakanath.
16. From my above discussion, it is quite clear that the prosecution has proved the above case against the r~f"'"'-"""-
appellantwaccused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under section 376 (mm and 506 of iPC. Therefore, E do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction. As to the sentence imposed' onthe accused, the learned counsel appearing for'?.__him,suhmits "
that in View of the fact that the has_:4ton"support f family consisting of his wife and minor.chi1dren,..Vfthenn sentence of imprisonment years' imposede" on the accused for the said effence,ha_rsh and..therefore, the same deserves to be against"'this. learned High Court Government contends that the Trial Court, after" faet and also other submissions made on behalf nof,jaecu.sfe'd. and also following the judgments of the Sup1~e_me..C2ourtfr.eported in 11.12 2004 Kamataka A1'-a§37;,._---{ista,;e offitmjab Vs. Ramdev Singh and (2000) 4 V Journal page 3673 (Birendra Sah Vs. 'State fiihar) has rightly imposed the said sentence and as such, it does not call for interference in this appeal. The . acc'1_«1sed- appeliant has not made out any adequate and special reasons for reducing the sentence of imprisonment from ten years to any lesser period and imprisonment for
-.......pt'(m'~'"'°"
l V' . tsn..*{' ten years is minimum sentence to be imposed on a person who commits an offence under section 376 [2}[fl of IPC. It is pertinent to note that the punishment for this offen_pCe_p»l*may also be imprisonment for life also. Therefore_,_$iHdo any special and adequate reasons to reduce"therse'ntence_ Of". imprisonment from the minimunipof period' .._ _ _ ._ .
17'. For the reasons appeal is dismissed as being' Thel impugned
judgment and order '»*sen'tence passed by the Trial Cc;'urEj::jp.iagairéstHtiie llappelianbaccused is hereby coniiirned ir1-toto.
\ IUDGE