Karnataka High Court
Amaresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812
CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200117 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
AMARESH
S/O. SOMASEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
OCCUPATION: TATA ACE DRIVER
RESIDENT OF NEER MANVI, MANVI
RAICHUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MANVI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF BUILDINGS
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R KALABURAGI.
TENIHALLI ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI J. SHAHABUDDIN, H.C.G.P.)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 25.2.2020 AND ORDER ON SENTENCE
DATED 26.2.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.11/2017 AND TO
ACQUIT HIM.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812
CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 25-2-2020 and order on sentence dated 26-2-2020 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Sessions Case No.11 of 2017, wherein the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'); to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 323 of the IPC. Further, the trial Court directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- in favour of PW.5-victim under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the accused and the respondent-State is the complainant.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20-7-2016 at 7.30 p.m. on a barren land of one Yankayya Shetty on the side of Manvi - Raichur Road, the accused committed rape on the victim, without her consent. Thereafter, he strangled her neck, stamped her into wet mud after having tied the gunny bag to her head and hit her with the club, with an intention to cause her death and he made criminal intimidation to eliminate her with dire consequences. Hence, she lodged a complaint to the respondent-Police.
4. Based on the complaint, the respondent-Manvi Police registered a case in Crime No.156 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 307 and 506 of the IPC and submitted F.I.R. to the Court. Later, during the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 visited the spot, conducted spot panchanama, recorded the statement of the witnesses and the victim, arrested the accused. The Police, after conclusion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and since the matter was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 307 and 506 of the IPC, read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined in all seventeen witnesses as PW.1 to PW.17, got marked twenty-one documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.21 -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 and got marked seven material objects as per MO.1 to MO.7.
7. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, framed the following points for considerations:
"1. Whether the prosecution prove with beyond reasonable doubt that on 20.7.2016 at 7.30 p.m. on a barren land of Yankayya Shetty situated behind hotel of PW-5 prosecutrix situated adjacent to Manvi - Raichur road, near Auto Nagar at Manvi town, accused committed sexual intercourse on PW-5 prosecutrix without her consent and against her will and thereby committed rape on her punishable U/Sec.376 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further prove with beyond reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, accused strangled front neck of PW-5 prosecutrix and stamped her into wet mud after having tied with gunny bag to her head and hit her with club after having made her naked and committed above sexual act with intent to cause death of PW-5 prosecutrix and thereby accused attempted to -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 commit her murder punishable U/Sec.307 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further prove with beyond reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, accused committed criminal intimidation to the life of PW-5 prosecutrix by threatening her for dire consequences after having torn her cloths and made her to naked and thereby accused committed offence punishable U/Sec.506 of IPC?
4. What order or sentence?"
8. The trial Court, after considering the entire material placed on record, held that the accused has committed the offences alleged and thereby, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 506 of IPC. However, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred this appeal. The state has not prefers any appeal -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 aggrieved by the acquittal order passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is contrary to the facts of the case and the evidence on record; the learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in convicting the accused without properly appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective; the trial Court relying upon the version of the interested witnesses and the victim's evidence, convicted the accused without there being any corroboration by any independent witnesses.
11. The trial Court has not at all considered the evidence of an independent witnesses and the fact that some witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution; the prosecution evidence is full of omissions, -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 contradictions and there is no corroborative evidence in their testimonies; the accused was arrested on 22-7-2016, and till date, he is in judicial custody, i.e. he has completed 7 years and 2 months in judicial custody and hence, he prayed to give the benefit of set off for the period already undergone by him. Thus, he prayed to allow the appeal.
12. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the allegations made by victim-PW.5 against the accused are heinous in nature. The accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim and hence, the trial Court after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, has rightly convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and therefore, no interference calls for in the impugned judgment. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020
13. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also re-evaluating the entire evidence placed by the prosecution, the following points would arise for my consideration:
"1. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts that, on 20-7-2016 at 7.30 p.m., the accused assaulted victim-PW.5, made her naked, voluntarily caused hurt, committed sexual intercourse on her, without her consent and her will and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate her?
2. Whether judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is erroneous and hence, call for interference?
3. What order?"
Point Nos.1 and 2:
Since both points required common discussion, I take these points for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020
14. As per the charges framed by the trial Court, the accused committed rape on the victim against her consent and will, made her naked, assaulted her, caused bodily injuries and threatened her with dire consequence to eliminate her.
15. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined the following witnesses:
a. PW.1 - Sri Bhimanna is a witness to the spot mahazar (Ex.P.1), but he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
b. PW.2 - Sri Hanumant is also a witness to the spot and seizure mahazar (Exs.P1 and P2), but he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. In the cross- examination, PWs.1 and 2 denied the suggestions made by the learned Public Prosecutor.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 c. PW.3 - Smt. Parvathi, cook, working in the hotel of PW.5 - victim. She has deposed that she came to know about the incident through the victim.
d. PW.4 - Sri Veeresh has deposed that on the day of incident at 8.00 p.m., PW.5 - victim came to his house half naked. Hence, his wife gave a saree to her and later, she called her brother to the said place. Except this evidence, he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and in the cross examination done by learned Public Prosecutor, he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
e. PW.5 - victim has deposed that she lost her husband four years ago, she has five children, who are staying at Krishnagiri of Tamil Nadu. On the date of incident, she was residing at Auto Nagar of Manvi Town and running a hotel; on the day of alleged incident in the evening, the accused came to her hotel, caught hold her hand, dragged her to barren land situated behind her hotel and despite her repeated protest, he torn her cloths and
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 made her naked. When she protested, the accused threatened her with dire consequences to eliminate her and when she continued to protest, the accused strangled her neck, squeezed her body and committed forcible rape on her and dragged her for nearly 1 kilometer with naked condition. During this course, she received multiple injuries on her person. Further, the accused poured mud on her eyes, took club and hit on her back, put gunny bag to her head, tied it and pushed her into wet mud and stamped her. She screamed for the help and came naked near the brick factory. At that time, PW.4, who was present in the brick factory, provided cloth to her. In the meanwhile, the accused ran away from the spot. Therefore, PW.4 informed the Police about the incident and called the Ambulance to the spot and took the victim to the Hospital for treatment, where, she lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.7. Thereafter, she was subjected for medical examination and the Police seized her saree, blouse, underwear, gunny bag, small torn pant and sample
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 soil as per MO.1 to MO.6 and conducted seizure panchanama.
f. PW.5 - In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she speaks Telugu and she does not know reading and writing English and she did not study in School. She has identified her signature at Ex.P7(a). She has stated that she has signed her signature as 'Rajashri' in Tamil language. Brick factory is situated close to her hotel. She went near brick factory after 20 minutes from the incident. PW.4 informed her brother through phone, her brother informed the Police and the Police Officer recorded her statement, and she was shifted to the Hospital in the Ambulance and PW.3 accompanied her. Doctors in the Hospital at Raichur examined her on the next day morning at 9.30 a.m., she was unconscious. Her younger brother told the contents of the complaint. She does not remember the duration of time in which the complaint was written. She had given her statement and she was not in a position to put her signature. She was admitted in Raichur Hospital for ten days as an in-patient
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 and the Police took her clothes at Raichur Hospital. She regained conscious at 10 p.m. She has further reiterated that the accused committed rape on her in a barren land situated behind her hotel at a distance of 10 feet and dragged her and caused injuries. Though she screamed, no one came for her rescue. She has no license to run the hotel and she has electricity connection, but meters are disconnected. She has denied the suggestion that she is not running the hotel and the accused did not commit rape on her. She claims that she is aged 56 years and her younger brother used to stay in the hotel along with her in the night and he had gone to his native on that day. Her husband died at Krishnagiri. She has denied the suggestion that the accused covered her head with gunny bag and pushed her into wet mud after tying gunny bag. She has denied that the accused did not pour mud on her eyes. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused did not tear her clothes and did not make her naked and he has not committed rape on her. She admits that she used to purchase onion from the accused. She has denied
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 the suggestion that she was due a sum of Rs.30,000 to the accused towards the loan borrowed by her. She has denied the suggestion that accused did not attempt to kill her. She has denied the suggestion that she laid a false case against the accused as he demanded his loan of Rs.30,000 from her. From the above evidence, it is clear that the oral testimony of the victim remained unshaken.
g. PW.6 - Sri K. Murugeshan is the son-in-law of the victim; he came to know about the incident through the victim. He reiterates the oral testimony of PW.5 and corroborates her testimony.
h. PW.7 - Smt. Sharada, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Inspector, Manvi Police Station, brought the victim to the Government Hospital for medical examination and produced the victim before the Investigating Officer for recording the statement of the victim.
i. PW.8 - Sri Siddesh V.V., Assistant Engineer, GESCOM, has deposed that on 20-7-2016 in between 7.00
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., there was supply of electricity in Auto Nagar area of Manvi Town. Hence, he issued his report as per Ex.P.8.
j. PW.9 - Sri J.K. Sanjivkumar, Assistant Engineer of PWD, who prepared sketch of the scene of offence as per Ex.P.9 on the request of the Investigating Officer.
k. PW.10 - Sri Amaresh, Police Constable, who carried the F.I.R. and the complaint to the jurisdictional Court.
l. PW.11 - Dr. Sunil Kumar, Assistant Professor, Forensic Science Section, R.I.M.S, Raichur, has deposed that on 21-7-2016, the Police brought the victim for medical examination. When he enquired the victim, she told that she was sexually assaulted by the accused. Therefore, he conducted physical examination in the presence of Woman Medical Officer and found the following injuries:
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 "1. Multiple linear abrasions of varying in sizes from 8 X 0.2 cm to 2 X 0.2 cm present at places over left side of face, left ear lobule, over both upper limbs (lower part of arms, forearms and hands), over upper part of front of chest, front of abdomen, over front and back of thighs, legs and are red in colour.
2. Laceration measuring 4 cm X 0.5 cm X Subcutaneous deep present over right cheek (over zygomatic area)
3. Haematoma measuring 8 X 5 cm present over back of right shoulder.
4. Inner side of upper and lower lip shows contusions of varying sizes from 2 X 1 cm to 1 X 1 cm upper lip is swollen.
5. Dried mud stains present at places over legs, back of chest and over scalp hairs."
PW.11 further stated that he also examined the external genitals of the victim and found the following injuries:
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 "1. Inner aspect of labaia minora on left side shows laceration measuring 1 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.3 cm surrounding area shows congestion and edema.
2. Old healed tears present at multiple side of hymen and peripheri of hymen shows congestion and edema.
Vagina shows congestion."
PW.11 further deposed that on 22-7-2016, he examined the accused and found the following injuries on the body of the accused:
"1. Human teeth bite mark present over inner aspect right fore arm in its middle 1/3rd part over an area of 1 X 2.5 cm with clear impression of central incisors, lateral incisors and cornives of both upper and lower jaw and reddish blue in colour.
2. Human nail scratch, abrasion marks measuring from 4 X 1 cm to 2 X 1 cm present over back of neck in an oblique position and are covered with reddish brown scab."
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 Accordingly, he issued his report as per Ex.P.12 and as per the opinion of PW.11 the accused was able to have sex.
m. PW.12 - Dr. K. Narayanarao, Professor, R.I.M.S, Raichur, who examined the blood stained soil and model soil and issued report as per Ex.P.13.
n. PW.13 - Sri Gopal, Police Constable, accompanied the victim on 21-7-2016 to R.I.M.S Hospital and as per Ex.P7, he translated the Tamil statement given by the victim into Kannada.
o. PW.14 - Dr. Sharanappa, Medical Officer, Manvi, examined the accused and issued report as per Exs.P15 and P16.
p. PW.15 - Sri Manjunath, Sub-Inspector of Police, received the complaint from the victim and registered a case in Crime No.156 of 2016, sent the F.I.R. and the complaint to the Court and his higher authorities and
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 handed over further investigation papers to Circle Inspector of Police.
q. PW.16 - Dr. Vijaykumar, Assistant Professor, R.I.M.S, Raichur, examined the victim and opined that she was able to give statement. Accordingly, the Police recorded her statement in his presence.
r. PW.17 - G. Chandrashekhar, Inspector, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the accused.
16. On the basis of the above evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences.
17. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 6, it appears that on 20-7-2016 at 7.30 p.m., the accused forcibly dragged the victim-PW.5 to the barren land, where he committed rape on her against her consent and will, made her naked and voluntarily caused hurt. While committing rape on PW.5 she resisted, thus, she bitted on right hand and scrolled with nail marks on back of the
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 neck of accused. It shows that the accused forcibly committed sexual act on the victim without her consent and will. In support of the oral evidence of the victim, PW.3 - cook and PW.6 - son-in-law of the victim categorically stated about the incident and the Medical Officers also corroborate the oral testimony of the victim.
18. Admittedly, in the evidence of PW.5, there are no contradictions omissions and improvements. The testimony of PW.5, in fact, can be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars as the evidence of PW.5 - victim stands at a higher pedestal than any other witnesses. Soon after the incident, the victim went to the house of PW.4, where his wife gave a saree to her and in turn, PW.4 informed the incident to the Police, called the Ambulance and she was shifted to the Hospital for treatment. Later, the victim lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.7.
19. In a prosecution for rape, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent. Accordingly, presumption is drawn under Section 114(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, holding that there was no consent on the part of the victim.
20. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the fact that, on the relevant date, time and place, the accused had forcible sexual intercourse on the victim. Thus, she lodged the complaint and gave her statement before the Police as well as the Medical Officer. If at all PW.5 was not subjected to the alleged rape, she would not have filed the complaint against the accused. Admittedly, all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and their oral testimonies have been supported by other surrounding circumstances.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRAMOD SURYABHAN AND PAWAR v. STATE OF
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 has held that the "Consent to Sex" of a woman with respect to Section 375 of the IPC must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act.
22. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the decisions cited supra, there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the victim-PW.5, when the deposition of the victim is found to be trustworthy unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. As a general rule, conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony, without any corroboration. Further, the sole testimony of the victim should not be doubted by the Court, merely on the basis of assumption and surmises. Further, the testimony of the victim is vital and unless, there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of the testimony, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim, of the sexual act alone to convict
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 the accused, where her testimony inspires the confidence and is found to be reliable. In support of oral testimony of the victim, oral testimonies of PWs.3 and 6, and evidence of Medical Officers and the F.S.L. Officers corroborate with each other.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHAMSINGH v. THE STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2018) PART 18 SCC 34 has observed that seeking corroboration of the statement of the victim before relying upon the same, as a general rule, in such cases amounts to adding a salt to injury.
24. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, in the case on hand, there are no valid reasons to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 6 and the evidence of PW.5 is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused by relying upon the corroborative testimony of PWs.3, 5, 6
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 and the medical evidence for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 506 of the IPC.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged incident took place on 20-7-2016 and the Police arrested the accused on 22-07-2016 and till date, he is in judicial custody. The accused has completed the sentence of seven years and two months in judicial custody. Therefore, lenient view may be taken in respect of imprisonment imposed on the accused to sentence him for seven years, or to set off the period already undergone by the accused.
26. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that a lenient view may be taken in view of the fact that the accused remained in custody for almost seven years and two months and he is the only sole bread earner in his family.
27. As per pre-amendment Section 376 of the IPC, the minimum punishment shall be seven years. However,
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 as per the proviso, the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded, imposed sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. No exceptional or special reasons are made out to impose the sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. On the contrary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that, the accused had been dealt with slightly high by imposing minimum sentence of eight years of rigorous imprisonment.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PHOOLSINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2022) 2 SCC 74 held that, if special reasons are assigned, the Court can impose sentence for a term of less than seven years.
29. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, the period of seven years and two months already
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 undergone by the accused is liable to be set off, as he has completed minimum sentence of seven years.
30. Looking from any angle, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed rape on PW.5 - victim. Since the alleged rape was committed by the accused on PW.5 - victim without her consent, the trial Court has rightly drawn presumption under Section 114(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as there was no consent on the part of PW.5-victim. Further, the prosecution was able to prove that soon after the incident i.e., on 22-07-2016, the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and he has completed almost seven years of imprisonment. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the affirmative and Point No. 2 answered in the negative. Point No.3:
31. For the reasons stated above, the accused has failed to prove that the judgment of conviction and order
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 on sentence passed by the trial Court is perverse. However, the sentence passed by the trial Court liable to be modified. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER i. Criminal appeal is partly allowed; ii. The judgment of conviction dated 25-2-2020 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Sessions Case No.11 of 2017 is confirmed and order on sentence dated 26-2-2020 is modified. The sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for a period of eight years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC is modified to seven years;
iii. The appellant is entitled for set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the period already undergone by him;
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7812 CRL.A No. 200117 of 2020 iv. Since the appellant is entitled for set off, he is set at liberty, forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, and v. So far as fine amount is concerned, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court in favour of PW.5-victim, and the appellant shall deposit the said fine amount within six months from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39