Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ravindra B Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23413
CRL.A No. 1065 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1065 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVINDRA B SHETTY
S/O. SRI. BHUJANGA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A. NO.52, 15TH 'C' CROSS,
8TH MAIN, BANDAPPA GARDEN,
Digitally signed by B
MUTHYALANAGAR,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
BENGALURU.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
JAYANAGAR POLICE, BANGALORE-560 011,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. PRAMODINI R
D/O. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/A. 476, K.R. LAYOUT,
6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23413
CRL.A No. 1065 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2023 IN SPL.C.NO.839/2023 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU
ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.42/2023 OF RESPONDENT
JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
RELEASE THE ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL
IN THE ABOVE CASE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 354(A), 506, 504, 376 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1)(r), 3(1)(xii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.839/2023.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 14(A) (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, is filed for setting aside the order of dismissal of the petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., dated 29.05.2023, passed in the Spl.C.No.839/2023, by the Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71) arising out of Crime No.42/2023 registered by the Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Sections 354(A), 506, 504, 376 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (xii) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities).
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:23413 CRL.A No. 1065 of 2023
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Respondent No.2 though served with notice remained unrepresented.
3. The case of the appellant-accused No.1 is that, on the complaint of respondent No.2 on 16.02.2023, initially, the Police registered the FIR against the appellant for the offences as stated above. It is alleged in the complaint that, respondent No.2 was working as beautician in Gold Finger Saloon for one and half year and subsequently there was the change in the Management in January 2023 and sister of the present appellant-accused No.1 took over the Management and this appellant-accused No.1 who is the brother of the accused No.2 was frequently visiting the saloon and was availing all the services which were not offered for other customers. On 14.02.2023, at about 2.30 p.m. after coming to know that the respondent No.2 was all alone in the salon came inside the salon asking that what she was doing and he forcibly dragged her to staff room and sexually assaulted her by removing her clothes and subsequently she came out from the room and accused No.1 came from her behind and consoled her. Thereafter, she came out of the saloon at 5.30 p.m, went to -4- NC: 2023:KHC:23413 CRL.A No. 1065 of 2023 her house and thereafter she lodged a complaint before the Police.
4. The Police after registering the case on 17.02.2023, for the above said offences remanded the appellant-accused No.1 to the judicial custody. His earlier bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court in this appeal for grant of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 submits that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and there is no material placed on record to prove that he has sexually assaulted the victim-lady and the clothes and under garment seized by the Police were sent to the FSL and the FSL report indicates that there is no seminal stains in all the items. It is further submits that from almost 3 months the accused is in judicial custody and now that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and the complainant-respondent No.2 has changed her version in the further statement. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP supports the case of the prosecution and prays for dismissal of the appeal. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:23413 CRL.A No. 1065 of 2023
7. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant- accused No.1 is said to be the brother of the accused No.2, accused No.2 is running a salon shop and respondent No.2 was working in the salon and after knowing that the victim was alone in the salon on 14.3.2023 at about 2.30. p.m., accused No.1 entered the salon asking as to what she is doing and dragged her to a room, kissed her against her will and touched her private parts and tried to have sexual intercourse from backside and thereafter he penetrated his penies into her mouth and forcibly discharged his semen inside her mouth which resisted her from taking breath. Thereafter, she escaped from him and came out of the room and accused No.1 followed her and tried to console her and also threatened to remove her from the service if she disclose the same to anybody. Later on, she managed herself and came out of the salon at 5.30 p.m.
9. Ingredients of section 375 of IPC, it is not like earlier definition, un-amended code. Now the definition is changed, if a person penetrates his penies into the mouth, -6- NC: 2023:KHC:23413 CRL.A No. 1065 of 2023 anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, that also constitutes an offence under Section 375 and punishable under section 376 of IPC.
10. On perusal of the medical report, of course, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused No.1 has inserted his penis into the vegina and discharged the semen, whereas, he has inserted his penies into the mouth of the victim lady forcibly which resisted her breath. Statement of the victim lady reveals that though she is a woman aged about 21 years, the accused No.1 taking advantage of she being alone in the salon run by sister of the accused No.1, sexually assaulted her by committing heinous offence. Now that the charge sheet is filed is not a ground to grant bail to the accused No.1. At this stage, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly dismissed the bail petition and the same does not warrant any interference.
11. Accordingly, criminal appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR