Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Raghuram S/O Jayaramaiah on 3 February, 2014
Author: K. Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
Crl.A. No.88/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K N KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.88/2010
BETWEEN
State of Karnataka,
By Inspector of Police/SHO,
Vidhyaranyapura Police Station,
Bangalore. Appellant
By Sri B T Venkatesh, SPP-II, for appellant)
AND
1. Raghuram,
S/o Jayaramaiah,
Age: 33 years,
R/o Raghuram Farm,
Singapur Village,
Bangalore-560 097.
2. Jayaramaiah,
S/o late Veerappa,
Age: 64 years,
R/o Raghuram Farm,
Singapur Village,
Bangalore-560 097. Respondents
(By Sri J T Gireesha, Adv. for Sri S Shankarappa Associates)
Crl.A. No.88/2010
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) & (3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to grant leave to file
an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
26.6.2009 passed in SC No.587/2006 on the file of P.O., FTC-II,
Bangalore, acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of IPC.
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, Dr.
Bhakthavatsala, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal filed by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal dated 26.6.2009 made in SC No.587/2006 on the file of Fast Track Court-II, at Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may be stated as under:
Respondent No.1 is son of respondent No.2. They are Crl.A. No.88/2010 3 accused Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court. It is the case of prosecution that two years prior to 17.6.2005, P.W-1-Rekha, who was aged below 16 years, resident of Singapur village, Bangalore-97, came into contact with accused No.1 and they became friends. Accused No.1 developed fascination towards P.W-4 and he promised her to marry though she had no such intention. It is alleged that accused No.4 persuaded P.W-4 through his friend-Srinivasmurthy to accept accused No.1's proposal to marry P.W-4 and in turn Srinivasmurthy convinced P.W-4 stating that accused No.1 is a good man. Thereafter, that accused No.1 and P.W-4 started loving each other and accused No.1 agreed to marry her. The fact was not revealed to the mother of P.W-4. It is stated that one a half year prior to 17.6.2005 when P.W-4's mother (P.W-6/Smt. Geetha) was admitted to Hospital, P.W-4 was alone in the house and the accused taking advantage of the same, entered the house quietly and committed rape on her against her will on a false promise of marriage. It is stated that P.W-4 became pregnant.
P.W-4 disclosed the same to her mother. Thereafter, victim's mother-P.W-6 (Geetha) consulted with her relatives-P.Ws.5 to 7 Crl.A. No.88/2010 4 and through them she secured accused No.1 to her house and at that time accused No.1 told that he was ready and willing to marry P.W-4, but his parents would not consent for marriage of a pregnant girl and asked them to terminate the pregnancy. P.W-6/mother and P.W-4/victim believing the words of accused No.1, got terminated the pregnancy of P.W-4 by taking help of a quack. But, the accused No.1 was postponing the marriage. But, his (accused No.1) marriage was settled with another girl and marriage invitation cards were distributed. After P.W-6 came to know about the same, she along with C.Ws.5 to 7 approached accused No.2, who is father of accused No.1, and requested to perform marriage of accused No.1 with P.W-4. It is alleged that accused No.2 demanded dowry of `5,00,000/- and when P.W-6/Geetha expressed her inability to pay, he threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, P.W-4 lodged a complaint with Vidyaranyapura Police Station against the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the accused No.1 was arrested and subjected to medical examination. P.W-4/the victim was also subjected to medical Crl.A. No.88/2010 5 examination. After the investigation was over, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences mentioned above. They faced trial before the Court of Session. In support of the case of prosecution, it has got examined as many as 11 witnesses and got marked 12 documents. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The defence of accused No.1 is that the mother of the accused viz., P.W-6/Geetha was carrying on chit business and thus accused No.1 had come in contact with her and visiting her house and P.W-6 tried to induce accused No.1 to invest in business of bricks with her brother and when accused No.1 refused for such proposal, she proposed her daughter to marry and he rejected the proposal also as he came to know that P.W- 6 is a lady of loose character and even the chastity of the victim girl was doubtful. It is stated that P.W-6 started blackmailing accused No.1 by threatening to file a false complaint of rape against him. It is also stated that so as to safeguard himself, approached Police on 17.6.2005 and filed an application in Crl.A. No.88/2010 6 Family Counselling Centre attached to the Office of the Commissioner of Police and as a counterblast on the same day, P.W-4 lodged a false complaint. The defence of accused No.2 is that C.W-2(P.W-6)/Geetha had never approached him and he never threatened her, but he has been falsely implicated in the case. The accused have examined one K R Gowrishankar as D.W-1 and J. Raghu as D.W-2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D10. The trial Court, after hearing arguments, perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against them and therefore recorded an order of acquittal. This is impugned in this Appeal.
3. Learned SPP-II submits that the evidence of P.W-4/the victim corroborated by her mother-P.W-6 is sufficient to base conviction for charges levelled against the accused, but the trial Court erred in rejecting their evidence and acquitting the accused.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Crl.A. No.88/2010 7 submits that the impugned judgment does not call for interference.
5. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:
• Whether the impugned judgment calls
for our interference ?
6. Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
On the basis of appreciation of evidence placed on record, learned trial Judge has reached the conclusion that as on 1.3.2005, P.W-4/victim girl was 16 years. The trial Court has observed that the prosecution has not proved the following:
(i) that the accused committed rape on
P.W-4;
(ii) that as a result of alleged rape by
Crl.A. No.88/2010
8
accused No.1 with P.W-4, she has become
pregnant;
(iii) that accused No.1 was having sexual
intercourse with P.W-4 as and when P.W-6
was away from the house;
(iv) that P.W-4 again became pregnant on
account of sexual intercourse with accused No.1; and
(v) that accused No.1 ever promised P.W-4 that he would marry her, etc. D.W-1/Gowrishankar, who was examined by the accused, has deposed that he loved P.W-4 and taken photographs with her as per Ex.D1. Admittedly, the prosecution failed to prove that when exactly accused No.1 committed offence of rape and age of the victim. According to the charge sheet, the offence took place 1 ½ years prior to 17.6.2005. P.W-4 also has not deposed as to the date of alleged rape. As per the FIR, the alleged offence was committed during night hours. But, according to further statement of P.W-4, the offence took place Crl.A. No.88/2010 9 in the afternoon. The trial Court has observed that as per Ex.D1, according to P.W-4, accused No.1 had entered the house in the afternoon and when she tried to raise hue and cry, accused No.1 closed her mouth and committed rape. P.W-4 has deposed that she has not made further statement before the Investigating Officer. The trial Court has observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged rape was committed in the afternoon or during night hours. One Srinivasamurthy, who alleged to have certified the character of accused No.1 and told P.W-4 that accused No.1 was a good man, has not been examined to corroborate the case of prosecution. The trial Court has observed that the alleged promise of accused No.1 to marry P.W-4 was made after the accused committed rape on her and hence not to reveal the incident to anybody. The trial Court has noticed that there was no resistance by the victim when accused No.1 attempted to rape her and she informed the alleged incident to her mother three months after the incident. The prosecution failed to prove that P.W-4 was pregnant and that it was terminated. On proper appreciation of evidence placed on record, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. We see Crl.A. No.88/2010 10 no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.
7. In the result, Appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
Judge Sd/-
Judge Bjs