Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri Paruvangada Bopanna on 16 March, 2017
Bench: B.S Patil, B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1820/2016
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 1. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI: S. RACHAIAH, GOVT. PLEADER)
AND:
1. SRI. PARUVANGADA BOPANNA
S/O P.S. DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
ESTATE WRITER,
R/O BESAGOORU VILLAGE,
BEKKESODLUR POST,
VIRAJPET TALUK - 571 218.
2. SMT. CHOKIRA PARVATHI
W/O C.N. NANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
HOUSEWIFE,
R/O KAKOORU POST,
SRIMANGALA VILLAGE,
VIRAJPET TALUK - 571 218.
3. SRI. CHOKIRA NANAIAH
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O KAKOORU POST,
SRIMANGALA VILLAGE,
VIRAJPET TALUK - 571 218. ... RESPONDENTS
-: 2 :-
(BY SRI: D.P. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)
*****
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) CR.P.C BY THE
STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 9.3.2016 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DIST. AND S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN SPL.C.NO.44/2015
- ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 363, 354(A)(1)(i), 376(2)(n), 212 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
U/S 4, 6, 8, 12, 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Session and Special Judge at Kodagu, Madikeri, in Spl.Case (POCSO) No.44/2015, by which the respondent/accused are acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 363, 354(A) 1(i), 376(2)(n) and 212 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Accused No.1 was in judicial custody and was ordered to be released forthwith and accused Nos.2 and -: 3 :- 3 were on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties were ordered to be cancelled automatically in terms of Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
3. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 06/06/2015, at about 10.00 a.m., accused No.1 spoke to CW.3 over phone and said that, if she did not go to Virajpet, he would die by consuming poison. Thereafter, accused No.1 kidnapped Kum. Thasleena who was a minor and took her to the house of accused Nos.2 and
3. That on 07/06/2015 i.e., on the next day of the incident, during night hours, accused No.1 committed the offence of rape on her in the house of accused Nos.2 and 3. Further, accused Nos.2 and 3 assisted accused No.1 by harboring him and PW.3 in their house on the foresaid two dates. That, on 07/06/2015, accused No.1 committed the offences of penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault -: 4 :- and sexually harassed PW.3 the minor girl. PW.1-
Abdulla is the father of the victim-PW.3, who lodged the complaint against the accused. A case was registered in Siddapura Police Station in Cr.No.95/2015 for the aforesaid offences. FIR was sent to the special court. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) submitted a charge-sheet against the three accused and the same was registered in Spl.Case (POCSO) No.44/2015. The presence of the accused was secured, charges were framed after hearing both sides. They were readover and explained to all the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty of the offences and hence, claimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked as many as nine documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was not recorded as the trial court did not find any incriminating material or circumstance in the case.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court framed nine points for consideration and answered all of them in negative and -: 5 :- acquitted all the three accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
5. We have heard learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State and Sri D.P. Prasanna, learned counsel for respondent/accused and perused the material on record as well as the original records.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has taken us through the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the contents of the documents marked by the prosecution and contended that the evidence of PW.1/complainant and the documentary evidence would clearly prove the guilt of the accused and the trial court has not appreciated the case of the prosecution in its proper perspective. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that PWs.1 to 3 have turned hostile and not supported the case of the -: 6 :- prosecution. Further, the evidence on record do not bring home the guilt of the accused and therefore, the judgment of acquittal is justified and does not call for any interference in this appeal.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and considered the evidence of the witnesses and the judgment passed by the trial court. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined three witnesses. PW.1 is the father of PW.3, the victim and the complainant PW.2 is the elder sister of PW3. He has deposed that he does not know the accused and that on 06/06/2015, his daughter went missing from home without informing him as he had scolded her to study well. That he went to the police station and the police took his signature on Ex.P-1 without appraising him about its contents. According to PW.1, PW3 returned home after three days. PW.2, the elder sister of PW.3 the victim, has also not supported the prosecution case. She has stated that the police took her signature on the document, which is in the nature of second complaint, -: 7 :- which was not read over to her and she has denied the contents of Ex.P-2 as false. PW.3 who is the victim, has stated that, on 06/06/2015, she left her home without informing her father/PW.1 and others in the house went to the house of Smt. Rasheed at Nelliahudikeri Village, as she was scolded by her father and after two days, she returned home. Further, she has deposed that the accused did not kidnap her nor did accused No.1 commit rape on her and that accused Nos.2 and 3 did not give shelter to them. That she has signed the spot mahazar Ex.P-3 pertaining to kidnap and Ex.P-4 spot of offence mahazar, without knowing the contents of the said mahazars. She has further deposed that on 01/07/2015, she gave a statement before the court of JMFC Madikeri, which is marked as Ex.P-5 on the direction and pressure of police and not on her own volition.
9. In view of the above, it is noted that all the three witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution and infact, PW.3 has also denied Ex.P-6 apart from the other documents. -: 8 :- When they were cross-examined by the learned State Public Prosecutor, no incriminating evidence has been elicited from them. All the suggestions have been denied by them as false. In fact, the trial court has not examined the other witnesses having regard to the fact that the so called victim, her father and her elder sister turned hostile. Further, PWs.1 and 3 have also denied the genuiness and contents of the documents, which they have signed. Therefore, the trial court concluded that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are not guilty of the offences charged against them.
10. Having regard to the evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence on record it is clear that the finding arrived at by the trial court, holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for having comitted the offences punishable under Sections 363, 354(A) 1(i), 376(2)(n) and 212 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17 of (POCSO) read with Section 34 of the IPC is justified, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and that the finding of the trial -: 9 :- court does not suffer from illegality or error warranting interference in the appeal. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed. The order dated *09/03/2016 passed by the Prl. Session and Special Judge at Kodagu, Madikeri, is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE S* *Corrected vide chamber order dated 31-10-2017