Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj Alias Nagappa Mahadevappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17 t h DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100308/2022
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ
ALIAS NAGA PPA M AHADEVAPPA MAY APPANAVAR
AGE.21 YEARS , OCC.COOLIE WORKS ,
R/O.YAKKERI , T Q.,SAVADATTI,
DIST.BELA GAVI-591116
...A PPELLAN
(BY SRI. B.S. KUK ANAGOUDAR, ADV OCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SAVADA TTI POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROS ECUT OR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH, DHARWAD-580011.
2 . BASAPPA
S/O BHIMA PPA BA NDIVADDAR
AGE.65 YEARS , OCC.COOLIE WORK ,
R/O.YEKKERI , T Q.SAVADATTI,
DIST.BELA GAVI 591 116.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP FOR RES PONDENT No.1.
SMT. JOSHNA P. D HANAVE, ADV. FOR RES PONDENT No.2)
THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL IS FILED U/ S 14 A( 2) OF S C AND
ST (POA) ACT , 1989, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL
APPEAL AND BE PLEASED TO PASS A N ORDER, RELEAS ING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUS ED ON BAIL, IN S.C. NO.79/2022,
2
SAVADATTI P.S., CRIME NO.40/ 2021, PUNISHABLE U/S 363,
376(2)( n), 376( 3), 307, 325, 506 OF IPC, AND U/S 4, 6 OF
POCS O ACT, 2012, AND U/S 3(2)(va) , 3(2)( v) OF SC/S T (POA)
ACT, 1989, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2022
VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUD GE AND SPECIAL COURT , BELA GAV I, AND
PENDING ON ITS F ILE.
THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 08.06.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.580/2022 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, whereunder the bail petition of the appellant/accused sought in Crime No.40/2022 registered for the offences under Sections 363, 376(2)(n), 307, 325, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for short), Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act', for brevity) and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as 'SC & ST Act', for brevity) came to be rejected.
3
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, one Basappa Bhimappa Bandivaddar, grandfather of the victim girl, has filed the complaint which came to be registered in Soundatti Police Station Crime No.40/2022. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed for the offences stated supra. In the charge-sheet it is alleged that the complainant belongs to Hindu Waddar caste coming under SC and he is residing along with his wife, son, daughter- in-law, grandchildren, victim girl, Vital and Nagaraj. The victim girl is studying in 10 t h standard at Munavalli Government High School and the appellant/accused, aged 21 years belongs to Kuruba caste and he is the neighbour of the complainant, who used to follow the victim girl often telling her that, he is loving her and he wants marry her and he used to take often the victim girl on his 4 motorcycle etc. That on 14.02.2022 at 10:00 am when the victim girl was at Panchalingeshwar cross at Munavalli on the way to her school, the appellant/accused came on his motorcycle bearing No.KA.26-EM/6056 took her forcibly on his motorcycle to celebrate valentaines day in spite of refusal by the victim. After wandering here and there, the appellant/accused took her to the terrace of a single storied building at Munavalli APMC yard and spent time chit-chatting there and at 2:00 pm, the appellant/accused had sexual intercourse with her in spite of refusal and threatened her not to reveal the same before anybody and they were there upto 6:00 pm. The appellant/accused earlier had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim girl for 2 to 3 times. When the appellant/accused was pushing and pulling the victim girl, at that time, the complainant came there and on seeing the complainant, the appellant/accused with an intention to kill her, pushed her from the building and she fell on the ground. Charge-sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 307, 5 325 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v)and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act. The appellant/accused filed bail application in Crl.Misc.No.580/2022 and the same came to be rejected by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated 08.06.2022. The appellant/accused has challenged the said order in the instant appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that the alleged incident has occurred on 14.02.2022 and the complaint came to be filed on 15.02.2022 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that the appellant/accused is a neighbour of the complainant and he is in love with the victim girl. The victim girl who has been examined by the doctor has given history that she is loving the accused and they used to meet often. It is his further submission that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and charge-sheet is filed and 6 therefore, the appellant is not required for any custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition of the appellant/accused which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant would contend that, there is statement of one Sri.Nagaraj Gowda who has seen the appellant/accused taking the victim forcibly on his motorcycle. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated the forcible act of the appellant taking her and having forcible sexual intercourse on her. The Doctor, who examined the victim girl has noted that hymen is not intact. The victim girl, as per her school records, is born on 05.05.2006. Charge-sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition of the 7 appellant/accused which does not require any interference by this Court.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State contended that the Doctor who examined the victim girl has noted that hymen is not intact. The Doctor, who examined the victim girl has also issued wound certificate wherein it is mentioned that left ankle swelling present and tenderness present and the said injuries are grievous injuries. The appellant/accused pushed the victim girl from the terrace with an intention to kill her. The appellant/accused and the victim girl belong to different caste. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition of the appellant/accused which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government 8 Pleader for respondent No.1, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
8. The grandfather of the victim girl has filed the complaint on 15.02.2022. In the said complaint, there is a specific mention that, on 14.02.2022 at 6:00 pm when he went near APMC building in search of his granddaughter, he saw the appellant/accused pushing and pulling his granddaughter, the victim girl, and on seeing him, the appellant pushed her from the building and she fell down on the ground and sustained injuries to her left ankle, waist and knee and she has been taken to the hospital. The victim girl has narrated the acts of the appellant/accused before her grandfather regarding the appellant/accused forcibly having sexual intercourse with her by giving threat to her. The victim girl in her statement recorded by the police and also before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated the acts of the appellant/accused. There is no mention of any love affair between the appellant/accused 9 and the victim girl in the statement of the victim girl. The victim girl in her statement also stated that he appellant/accused pushed her from the terrace of the building and she fell on the ground and sustained injuries. The Doctor, who examined her and issued wound certificate stated that, left ankle swelling present and tenderness present and it is grievous injury. The doctor who examined her has also stated that hymen is not intact. The date of birth of the victim girl, as per her school records, is 05.05.2006. The victim girl belongs to SC and the appellant/victim belongs to Kuruba caste.
9. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition of the appellant/accused. There are no grounds to interfere with the said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv