Karnataka High Court
Raja vs State By Kikkeri Police on 11 November, 2011
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 114 DAY OF NOVEM BER ZO} } BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC# SUBHASH } B. ADI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37 8 OF 2005 BETWEEN : RAJA 5/O NARASIMHAIAH AGE: 26 YEARS FLARIJAN COMMUNITY AGRICULTURIST , R/O GADIDE HOSU Ro AKKIHEBEAL-HOBLI ; ee K.R-PET TALUK Pe ee .. APPELLANT (BY s SRL. NS. SAl iss iAY GOWD: A ADVOCATE) AND AND: oe STATE BY KIRKERY POLICE ; IKKE RE, AK R PE T TALUK .. RESPONDENT "By, SRi CG H SRY NIVASA REDDY, HCGP) Thi 8 Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of rp .C. "against the judgment dated 11.9.9005 passe a "by the P.O., Fast Track Court- Ht, Mandya in $.C.No. 123/1999 convicting the appellant ~accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Seritencing him to undergo RI. for 6 months. ne This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: JUDGMENT
Appeal by the accused against thie jedgment. of F . BS . beh e ; .
conviction in S.C.No.123/1999 dated 1 7 29 2005 on ihe file of the Fast Track Court-ll I, Manelya,
2. Accused was 'chaige sheeted and tried for the offence punishable under Sections: "354 and SO7 of Indian Penal Code. The ' Trial aut 'on appreciation of the evidence on reson has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. However, has convicted | the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced
- with six months 3 rigorous imprisonment, as against "which, the BOe ised is before this Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the victim Parvathamma had taken cattle to Rer land for @Fazing at about 4 p.m. en 15.1.1899. Accused was in another land. He came io her land and suddenly he 7 hugged her and irled to rape by seratching « or her body, |
- tearing her blouse and removing her saree and when _ . : she fell down, he Sai on her and held her neck. 'By shat - 7 7 time, Pw- 5 Javaregowda and PW-6. Gangedhara wh oO a _ were: in the adjacent land, came: to the spot. On seeing
- PWs-5 5. and | 6, accused ran away from : the" place. Oia me Javaregowda g gave the clothes t6 the victim and took. her 7 feo | " the Government hospital at about' 6 8 p. mL, where Pw- f : - | Doctor "examined Pw: 4 and, 'issued the wound oe ° . --- Bis, Pa be, "Thereafter, Pw. 4 "along with. PW-5 7 went j io. the police station. Bw 7 PSI registered the case u on in Crime No. 5/1 1999 for the offence punishable under a
- Section 35a! of PC and after. Feceipt, of the wound coe | 2 eetinckie. he "regstered the: case: for 'the. offence as . | pu Estab ander Section 307 of I IP. He went to the a sheet. Since the charge sheet was filed for the nifence rye punishable under Section 307 of IPC, the Ie: armed Magistrate commuted the case to the learned Sessiows:
Judge. The learned Sessions: wdlge 0 on * committal, framed the following charge for" the offenc: eo op inishable. under Sections 354 and 307 ortPC, | That on 15.1 1999 al 4 £ 00 DM, at Gadde Hosur Village, within. 'ine Tints 'of Kikkeri Police Station, when CW- 1 Parevathamma was grazing cattles 'hear her land, you the accused werit "the eo hugged her and outraged "cher 7 omedesty and thereby committed ant olier ne e sunishable u/sec, 354 of t the IPC. and within: my cognizance.
ee Secondly, on the above said date, time and | plac € you "the accused after outraging the ; modesty of CW-1 asking her not to reveal]
- about : 'i with anybody, fell her on the . ground, pressed her neck tightly and tried to strangulate her with the such intention or "inowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the d eath of CW-i you would have been gullty of murder and there 'by comritted an olferice t a Ft punishable U/sec. 307 of the IPC and within a my cognizance...
4. The prosecution. in order to prove. the guilt-of the accused, examined PWs-1 fo 7, Toarked Exs.P- 1 to P-5 and produced MO-1 saree and MO-2 blouse. On' the side of the defence, no evidence was ted. : The Trial Court, on appreciation, of the entire evidence, held that the prosecution has faited to prove the charge for the offence punishable under 'Seetion 207 of IPC. However, has convicted the, acctised for the oflence punishable under Section 354 of IFC.
5. Heard Sri.Sanjay Gowda. learned counsel for ~. the dccused and the learned Government Pleader for the . State.
6. Learned counsel for the accused relied on the evidence of the vietim and PW-1 Doctor and submitted that there is material inconsistency in the evidence of victim as well as the Doctor. He submilted that the & victim, in her cross-examination, has admitted that the accused is a well-behaved man and had not, a "arly time, misbehaved with her. He also submitted that thes victim had stated that the accused catised "several scratches on her body. But. PW! 'octor, ib his.
evidence has only found abrasion on the refi and right elbow joint, pain in, the . reek, abrasion on the left breast, abrasion on ihe. back of Iumibo sacral joint and do not show any seratches.on the body of the victim, He also submitted. that-in the cross-examination, victim has admitted that there was a friction between the accused 'and her in connection with the payment of labour charges to the accused and there was enmity
-- betw Len Javaregowida and accused, relying on this . : eviele nice, he further submitted that the evidence of the victim: is "not natural and she has not narrated the oe incident: but has only answered to the suggestions. Her ; evidence is not credible and not free from suspicion and the trial court erred in relying on her evidence te convict the accused.
mae
7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader :
Supported the judgment and submitted tha t, When the.
victim, in categorical terms, has narrated the meident in for the offence punishable under Section '354 of IPC and ane itis supported by two eye Witnesses viz. PWs-S and 6.
their evidence is credible and reliable.
&. According to. the. evidence of Pw -4, she has stated that at 4 p.m., she was tn her land. At that time, accused came van d tried to molest by removing her blouse and saree." He also scratched on her face and other parts of her body, she fell down, the accused held her Heck and 'she suflered injury all over the body. She hed admitted in her examination-in-chief that she did "not protest. and she Had not stated that accused tried to kill her: The prosecution treated this witness as hostile and cross-examined, In the cross-examination, she has acimitted that the accused came and tried to molest her "by snatching the blouse and saree and scrat ching on her body. No doubt, in the cross-examination of the accused, she has admitted that the accused had behaved well and he never misbehaved with" her, however, the admission that the aceuised, "never -
incident, he had not misbehaved with) ner and nob.
committed the offence. In the examination- in: » chief and cross-examination, the evidehes of victim is consistent that the accused came. to hér'l and ana pul his hand on her blouse and, caused injartes. Tt is 'also supported by the evidence oof PPS ; and 6. who, on hearing the scream of the v victim, they came to the spot and saw that the victim: had fa le a on the ground and accused was sitting 'on her. and 'Holding her neck and her blouse _ was removed and Saree was torn. PW-5 stated that, on . S cing PW 5. and 6, accused Fran away. PW5 gave the clothes ie oh victim and took her to the hospital. PW-6 also suy ppor ted the case of the prosecution.
G. No doubt, the victim has stated that there WHS enemity between PW-5S and accused and at the instance of SAT. th. at on a he dat te >of a :
of PW-5, she filed a complaint, but, it is in the evidence of PW-4 that after the incident. {, villagers told her io file a complaint and she Wied the same. That t dees.n rk ot vfiean » that no incident occurred, The. vietim was 38 years ond on the date of incident and shé. was alone in the Tand.. The evidence of the victim that the accused 'used force to molest her is cleay. and. "< 'andistent The Trial Court, on proper appreciation of he: evideiee, has held that the prosecution has. provéd-tlie: charge for the offence punishable u nd er Section : a84 G f IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
10. -Even if there are inconsistencies in the a evidence of victim. but as far as the incident is soincermeds hes < _evidenc é is clear and it is natural and her evidence. stands on higher priority when she herself has come before the Court and adduced thal the "accused tried to molest her. there is nothing to disbelieve her evidence, not on the ground that there was a friction between the accused and victim 8 days 10 prior to the incident. In My opinion, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, t il. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant ~ accused submitted that the ~appelan t is young-and is"
coming from backwe: ard commu tity. and poor. Even in the evidence of the viet: 'she "has 'stated that the accused has Sever "misbehaved "with her and was behaving we u all. the time. Bven in the examination-in- chief, she stated thar. even On. that day. she did not file the complain t but "Bed the same on the instigation of the villagers. In the.circu mstances, punishing the . accle ised. would 'be. .harsh and leniency be shown by 7 im posing fie. :
"dz. On the other ha nd, learned Government Pleader submitted that. when the evidence is clear, ~aence is proved, reasonable punishment may be imy 20sec, il 13, Accordingly, appeal filed by the accused fails, The Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial 'Court in S.C.No. 123/1999 dated 11.2.2005 on the ile of the Fast | Track Court-Iil, Mandya stands con firmed, : However, on . ihe pretext that the accused has undergone : pretrial ; imprisonment for certain: period, taking the sare into consideration and also the age of the actitsed and the evidence of the victim, | find that the accused could be sentenced with a fine of z 10.060/ ; of which €.7,500/- should be paid 'by way Of compensation to the victim PW-4. and &.2,506/ 46 be "appropriated in the State account. In defiant of payinent of fine amount, accused shall undergo ; "sentelice of two months simple a imprisonmen t.