Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Chickballapur ... vs Sri T S Nagaraj S/O Thotlappa on 11 December, 2008
c:g}ge'" £33"-..f3a5-A, 35% and" 505 of we. Psggrieved "by tfie=éC§u£t$el this appeal has been yreferred. efe;f§ the appellant. The eouneel for the ' respondent is absent.
exeminee by the decters and. eftex securing the reports W Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.? and after recording the statement cf the witnesses the charge sheet came te be fiied against the accmsefi "fez 'tge« abeve said offences.
During the tria §,WJ the"~-§reeeeeEfiefix~ehee examineé 9&3 1 to ? and ieQV€fieie 'eyi$§n$ei=§ee_ marked the decumefite Vigesx Pf: tie 1§;€1~m'°The* statement of the eecueeel wee _re§¢r§§¢ _5/S 313 Cr.P.C. He has takeefififie §g%ég¢§*gf total denial and bee nee leefi any éefefiee evidence. The7afiriei_ Ceurt on apereciatien ef the material on record acquitted the accused fer the 3,7 K have heard the leereed Gevt., Pleader ég The point that arise for my consideration is: 64:1' Whether the judgement and Order VQL_"
acquittal of the respsndent fer _§hé' * cfiarge UKS 366mg, 334 and sea s§.:§;.;s£* illegal and yervezse?
5. ?t is tfie c0ntentiQfi¥_0f tfié* 1earfiedH Gavt., Pieader that ?W43 S thé prfigeéuéfiég £3 a girl aQed less t319V16f?e5§§"3§d £fiat*§he was kidnapped by the §dfi§séd ;$i€hfl é§' intention to have illicit_$e§ua; ififéffiafirfig egg was taken ta Malluru gi§§fig%:janfi; Eh§r@af;é§1w£o Bangaiore and that by' fQ$c%5_$é *%$fri§§ }hez and thereafter cammififieé-%§é 2%fiQffiflutraging her modasty and in ihe cifiegfistfinfiégg :§@ §@bmits that the evidence of §§;3.a$@a§;sb fie! mother ~ ?W.6 is sufficient fl"to "pf§¥éU the guiit of the accused beyofid 1,rQasGn$b;eV'fiQubt. in the circumstances, it is big cemfienfiion :hat the trial Ceurt committad ax <_iiiega;ity in granting the Qrder cf acquittal. b. I have scrutinised the evidence lead by the §rosecutisn. ?W.1 is the dector wkc examined Pfi.3 « the prosecutrix and after collecting the vaginal smear and swab sent it to PW.5 A the 'the_:§cidedt_is aiieged to have takan giacg at abcut ;1®a:m; when thexe wexe many students and '_ friends and informed that her mother was sick and *that'th@y have is go to fihe hospital. After going ._fiC the nearby raad a $3: Game amd tnat She was examine& PW.? - an exyert who after examinatisn of the bones has given the f€§Offi ~ EX.?.? which reveais fihat tue age cf the pro$ecutrixvw&$fl;n between ?5 to 16 yaara. It i3 r@iavagt*Z§,§étex [II that the evidence mf ?%.? i the Qpifiié:.efiideaceu and as could be seen frem fifiéifiefifigea-§zi;§i§}@« by the Agex Court a va§iati$x,5§zth§§¢ y@af§ $fi both the sideg has to baj%gons§dgge$;;xFi§W éhis aspect of th@ matte: is tafiéb ifitc éénsiéaration in tha context of kt$§' r§§§r£? } QEz,§.7 and tha admissien of_ PR.3: €fiag¥V§h§ xQég{fl§ged abcut 1? years at ,tEe i§@¢ev_g§*_:h@ Igficifiént would go to Show fiha§:éH& w%3 a§é% moxe than 16 years at the time i'§:<;_;:idéé~;":.%:";--.___ "
"§.8g' uP%.3".wagv studying in the coiiega and 5he"3tate§ that the accused came aleng witfi his » pushed inside and was taken to M&lluru village. It is reievaat :9 hate ihai despite the fact that 04/ M 4":
£1) ether friends of accu$ed, wha played a 3019 in taking P%.3 in the car.
11. In the circumstances, E fie not find any graund to warrant intarference. Hence, I answer ihe paint in negative and proceed. to mpaés, the- following:
0 R D E EWMH The appeal is dismi3Se§;W ENS _