Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishna S/O Jayanna vs State Of Karnataka By Hiriyur Police on 12 March, 2013
1 Crl.A.No.2376/2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2376 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
RAMAKRISHNA
S/O JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOTEL WORK
R/AT ANESIDRI GOLLARHATTY
HIRIYUR TALUK.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI: N SRINIVAS, ADV)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIRIYUR POLICE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: RAJESH RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2005
PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J., FAST TRACK COURT,
CHITRADURGA, IN S.C. NO.35/05 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 376, 366-A OF IPC AND SENTENCING
HIM TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVEN
YEARS AND SHALL PAY FINE OF RS.3000/- IN
DEFAULT, HE SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT
FOR ONE MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 376 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO
2 Crl.A.No.2376/2005
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS AND SHALL PAY
FINE OF RS.3000/- IN DEFAULT, HE SHALL UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MONTH FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 366-A OF IPC.
THE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 366A and 376 IPC on a trial held by Fast Track Court, Chitradurga.
2. The facts in brief relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:
The prosecutrix (PW1) is the daughter of PW3 - Shivalingamma and grand daughter of PW4 - Kariyappa. She was attending the school in a village. The prosecution claims that the appellant was teasing her on the way and she had complained the conduct of appellant to her parents. She was asked to discontinue her education. On 02.08.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. the 3 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 prosecutrix went to answer the nature call outside the house and the appellant who came from hind side gagged her mouth, gave a threat of danger to her life if she shouts and brought her to the road wherein she was taken in a lorry to Sira and in a bus to Bangalore. On the next day, she was taken to the house of one Thippeswamy, on 04.08.2004 she was taken to the house of PW6 - Rafiq and on 05.08.2004 she was taken to a hotel in Bangalore. When she was in a lodge at Bangalore, she claims that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse and brought her back to the village. The matter was taken to elders in the village and the appellant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as fine. The appellant did not agree to pay the said sum, therefore, her parents felt that they would not get justice in the hands of elders and approached the police on 28.09.2004 and submitted her complaint (Ex.P1). 4 Crl.A.No.2376/2005
On registration of the complaint in Cr.No.495/2004, PW12 - Manjunatha Shetty, Police Sub Inspector sent the complaint and FIR to the Magistrate through PW11 - Thimappa. The spot mahazar (Ex.P6) was held. Statement of witnesses were recorded, victim was examined initially by PW2 - Dr.Latha and later by PW17 - Dr.Ramesh Kumar. On the arrest of appellant, he was examined by PW10 - Dr.Gnana Prakash. On collection of relevant documents, chargesheet came to be laid against the appellant for the charge under Sections 366A and 376 IPC.
During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P11 and MO1. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Though the appellant has not led any defence evidence got marked Exs.D1 to D7 - the contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5. The Trial Court heard the counsel for both the parties and on 5 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 appreciation of the material on record held that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age and found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 366A and 376 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed.
3. I have heard Sri.N Srinivas, learned Counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. The point that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to warrant interference in his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 366A and 376 IPC?"
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no definite evidence relating to the age of victim being less than 16 years and as she voluntarily on her own had 6 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 joined the appellant, he would submit that conviction and sentence ordered by the Trial Court is erroneous and illegal. It is also his submission that the appellant has married the victim and that through the wedlock they have two children, hence, he claims that restricting the imprisonment to the custodial period, the appellant be released.
6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the judgment and order of Trial Court submits that the victim was less than 16 years and her consent does not exempt liability under Section 376 IPC or under Section 366A IPC.
7. The scrutiny of material placed on record reveals that PW1 is the victim whereas PWs.3 and 4 are her mother and grand father respectively. Both the mother and grand father state in their evidence that appellant was teasing the victim on the way to the school and 7 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 therefore, they discontinued her education and later they state that the appellant forcibly took the victim to different places by kidnapping her and committed forcible sexual intercourse. Though they are not the witnesses to the incident, they speak about the absence of victim from the date of incident till she was brought back to the village. After the victim was brought back to the village, she was taken to the elders and PW5 - Rangaiah, PW14 -Eranna, PW15 -Ninganna and PW16 - D Pathanna and PW18 - Thimanna are the persons who were the panchayathdars and they state in their evidence that the appellant was asked to pay the sum of Rs.40,000/- for kidnapping the victim from the village. Though PW14 has turned hostile to the prosecution, the remaining witnesses i.e., the elders have supported the version of prosecution and they do say that the appellant was asked to 8 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 pay sum of Rs.40,000/- for kidnapping the victim.
8. Anyhow, evidence of these witnesses has no relevance as it is the defence of appellant that the victim was more than 16 years and on her own volition she accompanied him and that they were in love prior to the incident and she accompanied to different places like Sira and Bangalore. Exs.D1 to D4 are the letters of the victim written to the appellant. Perusal of these letters would reveal that the victim has even called the appellant (accused) as her husband and herself as the wife of the appellant. Even though she discontinued her education, she asked the appellant to pay the sum of Rs.40,000/- as decided by the panchayathdars and to marry her. Though in the cross examination, documents have been marked and though the victim state in her evidence that these documents were obtained forcibly, it is 9 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 relevant to note that in the complaint lodged by victim (PW1), there is no such allegation of force said to have been used in getting these letters from the victim. In these letters she has stated that she loves the appellant a lot and she intends to marry him and according to her he was the only dream boy in her life time. Perusal of the style, subject and the contents therein, the letters clearly indicate that the appellant was her dream boy.
9. That apart, the version of prosecutrix is that on the date of incident at about 8.00 p.m. she went to answer the call of nature outside the house and at that time, the appellant came from her hind side and gagged her mouth and took her to the road and they went in a lorry to Sira and thereon in a bus to Bangalore and she was forced to live with him in the house of PW7 - Thippeswamy, PW6 - Rafiq and in a lodge at Bangalore would clearly indicate 10 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 that the appellant did not exercise any force to compel the victim either to accompany him or to stay with him at different places on different dates. If it was really so, she could have complained to the persons in the lorry and bus and when she was in a lodge at Bangalore she could have complained to many other persons. This conduct of the victim would clearly indicate that either on her own or at the request of appellant, she accompanied the appellant and stayed with him.
10. In this context it is the age of the victim which is relevant and in case if it is held by this Court that she was more than 16 years of age and if she is a consenting party to the sexual intercourse, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the offence under Section 376 IPC. If it is held that she was less than 16 years of age, even her consent for sexual intercourse does not exempt the appellant from 11 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 the liability of Section 376 IPC. Therefore, the assessment of the age of the victim is most essential to consider the proof regarding the commission of act of rape.
11. On this aspect of the matter, a reference is made to Ex.P3 the wound certificate issued by PW2 Dr.Latha. She examined the victim on 28.9.2004 at 7.15 p.m. and at that time she has recorded the age of the appellant as 13 years. There were no external injuries and the perusal of the certificate issued by her does not reveal that she did any test to assess the age of the victim. She examined the victim only to find out as to whether there is any medical evidence for an act of forcible sexual intercourse and ultimately she opined that there is no evidence of recent sexual activity. The other evidence which is made available before the Court is that of PW17 Dr.Ramesh Kumar who on examination of the victim PW1 on 30.9.2004 12 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 assessed her age between 14 to 15 years. The scrutiny of the evidence of PW17 would reveal that he employed ossification test to assess her age. In his evidence he states that the margin of error in respect of the age assessed by him is one year on both the sides. So, having assessed the age of the victim in between 14 to 15 years, then she may be one year less than 14 years to mean 13 years or she may be more than 15 years i.e. 16 years. This evidence of the doctor PW17 is opinion evidence and this itself is insufficient to state and conclude the exact age of the victim to find out as to whether she has completed 16 years or not. On this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision reported in 1996 Crl.L.J.198 in the case of NARENDRASINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, wherein the age of the prosecutrix was assessed in between 14 to 16 years and the marginal 13 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 benefit of two years was considered and it was held that the benefit has to be extended to the accused.
12. When the doctor PW17 himself states in his evidence that the error of margin was one year, this error of margin of one year, if considered accepting the assessment of age at 15 years, the age of victim would be 16 years. Therefore, it is difficult to find out as to whether she has completed 16 years or not as on the date of the incident. The margin of error that has been stated by the doctor is on the basis of the approximate assessment. It is not a definite statement that it can't be more than one year. When in the decision referred to supra the margin of error was taken as two years and the doctor in the present case state it as one year, his version is only an approximate assessment, and unless there is corroborating material in the evidence of the prosecution, it 14 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 cannot be said by stretch of imagination that the victim is less than 16 years of age on the date of the incident. On this aspect of the matter, if the material placed on record is scrutinized, though the victim was attending the school at that time or prior to the incident, the investigating agency has not taken any steps to secure the age certificate from the school authorities. No efforts has been made even to get the birth certificate from the competent authority i.e. either the Village Panchayath or the Tahasildar under the provisions of Karnataka Births and Deaths Act. If those documents were there, it could definitely help the prosecution to assess her age. In the absence of this material, a doubt arises as to whether the victim had completed 16 years of age on the date of the incident. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the age as 13 years on the basis of 15 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 Ex.P3. In such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC, when the sexual intercourse is with the consent and it does not attract an act of rape.
13. So far as the offence under Section 366A IPC is concerned, it is relevant to note that the prosecution has to establish that the minor girl was under the age of 18 years and she was induced to go from any place to do any act with intention that such girl may be seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, then only the provision of Section 366A IPC are attracted.
14. As the appellant did not take the victim or seduced her with an intention to have illicit intercourse with another person, the said provision is not applicable. Therefore, the conviction even for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC is not attracted. 16 Crl.A.No.2376/2005
15. However, the evidence adduced is sufficient to conclude that she was less than 18 years of age as on the date of the incident. The material placed on record would clearly reveal that when she has gone to answer the call of nature, she was taken by the appellant in a lorry to Sira and then to Bangalore. The appellant had not obtained the consent of the guardian before taking the victim to Sira or Bangalore. Therefore, the material placed on record is sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.
16. Anyhow, so far as the sentence is concerned, it is submitted before the Court that the appellant has married the victim and they have two children through the wedlock and they are living happily. At this stage by taking the appellant to custody would not only an injustice to himself, but it is also an injustice to the 17 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 victim and also to the children born through the wedlock. This aspect of the matter will have to be borne in mind while awarding the sentence.
17. Anyhow, as there is sufficient material on record to prove the offence under Section 363 IPC, I think interest of justice will be met incase if the sentence of imprisonment is restricted to the custodial period undergone, in addition to payment of fine.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant for the charge under Sections 376 and 366A IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of these charges. However, he is convicted for the charge under Section 363 IPC. Sentence of imprisonment is confined to the custodial period of approximately four months and eighteen days and he is ordered to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in 18 Crl.A.No.2376/2005 default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/- & *ap/-