Nagarjuna vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2016

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Nagarjuna vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2016

Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

                      BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1024/2015

BETWEEN:
NAGARJUNA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O NARASIMHAPPA
KADADIBBURU VILLAGE
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563125

                                      ... PETITIONER
(By Sri: SHANKARAPPA, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY CHIKKABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION
       CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUQ
       CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563125

2.     SHASHIKALA
       W/O MARIYAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
       R/AT KADABIBBURU KASABA
       CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: S.RACHAIAH, HCGP, FOR R1
SRI: B.N. MANJUNATA, ADV FOR R2)


    THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT
                               2


THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DIST. AND S.J., CHIKKABALLAPURA IN S.C.NO.111/2014.


     THIS CRL. RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                       ORDER

Matter is admitted. With the consent of learned HCGP and learned counsel for the petitioner, matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. Charge sheet is filed against this petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC. An application had been filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to discharge him for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 511 of IPC. Learned Judge has passed the impugned order and reasoning portion is in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order. The same is as follows:

"6. I have gone through the complaint, charge sheet as well as the doctor's report. The allegation against the accused is that while 3 the victim girl was playing in front of his house, the accused took her into his bedroom and attempted to commit rape on her who is aged about 10 years. In view of these allegations, no medical evidence can be found against the accused. Merely because, the relationship between the accused and the victim girl is that of brother and sister does not give rise any presumption in favour of the accused. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER The application is hereby dismissed."

3. After perusing the statement of victim girl and other witnesses, no allegation of sexual assault except making an attempt to commit sexual assault is found. What is alleged by the victim girl and other witnesses is that the accused put a cloth in the victim's mouth and he attempted to rape her. It is this aspect is not properly considered by the trial in the reasoning portion found in paragraph No.6. It is a glaring illegality on the face of the record inviting the revisional jurisdiction of 4 this Court. Accordingly, impugned order is to be set aside and matter is to be remitted to the trial Court to arrive at a proper conclusion. Accordingly, following order is passed:

ORDER Petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider all the materials on record with reference to the sections invoked in the charge sheet and pass appropriate orders.

All contentions are kept open to be urged by the prosecution as well as the accused. This exercise shall be done at the earliest.

Office to send a copy of this order to the trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE VMB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court