Karnataka High Court
State Through Mudhol Police Station vs Lalappa S/O Ananthayya Kotageri on 9 June, 2010
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, K.Govindarajulu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE--'4"5§0I,:(I'. ~
PRESENTA
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1cE_K.sRrf.E'DI}1A_i§2
AND V
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTicE:K.G0V1NDARAJULU
cR1M1NALA--APPEAL N"Q.I1"062/2006
BETWEEN:
STATE:1HR0UG}_1"M_UDHdL"~I1: _ "
POLICE STATI_(')N*3_.' ; '_-_'1..A9p1;:LLANT
I (I3Yé;.R1 SPF.)
AND: ~
LAIAPPA _ _ . ;
s/0.ANANT4rmYyA.KQTA:Gt:R1", 21 YRS,
occ: AGRL; R/0.IV'A2\zAV1HAPUR,
SEDAM TA;,=UK,.,GULBARGA.'BD1sT. . . RESPONDENT
V, SR1 SK; FOR SR1 VEIERESH B. PATIL, ADV.)
IS FILED U/3378(1) & I3} CR.PC BY THE
' sTATE':3RAY1NG~~To GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST
"ME JU-Dj€:MENT"DT. 27.2.2006 PASSED BY KTHE III ADDL. S.J.
CULBARGA;'j_ FIN s.c. N0.113/2005 ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTVF/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S/376, 419
; AND 5o6_IPc.
TIIIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINALIHEARING THIS
I' _ADA_Y_,5SREEDHAR RAO J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
'sf
2
JUDGMENT
The materiai facts of the prosecution case discloses that one Srishailamma PW--1 is the'. About 2 --~ 3 months prior to the comp1aint..§'_:mPW§--_' _ walking in the land. The accused caxne;-jiiieidi PW::'1"'= forcibly, took her to the 1'1l3a1'b3vf..'f;r(;f1'1Ci'l 'and. rape. The accused threatened PV'\'/"--~1V: not incident to anybody and that__s1ae would "be,_Mk.iH1fed if she wiii to reveal the act t0""a.ny- the accused promised that_he_ is PW--1 came home.' thewincident to anyone. The accused later to 5 times, had intercourse PWW ltd' thatvhe is going to marry her. PW--1 sta'teg§.~yfhatr~.she hecame pregnant. The mother noticed On enquiry, PW--1 informed her relation ship w._ith»t'he accused. PW~1 gave a complaint to the peiiceofi 14.6.2004 at 7.00 pm. Law'!
2. PW~1 is referred to medical examination. The report shows that Hymen is torn and PW~1 is used to sexual intercourse but there is no recent 1ntc_rc--o_u.rse. Urin test for pregnancy was negative. The V' further reveals that PWs.2 & are.:.rjr1other'--l.ian'dA brother had also seen the 'and'v'../l3\?'xI--i together in their house earliq},:'1%~~t,to it The' accused is chargefi .,.,,f(i)r offerice under Sections 376, 419 and'AV_5l)'6" Trial Court acquitted the lagousegd h0ldingl:.th_at,_.t1Tie prosecution has failed to 51"-_ the accused beyond reasonablelland.:_ac_qt1itted the accused. The State is in appeal.
The following are the discrepancies evident in 'prosecution to justify the acquittal:
in the complaint states that accused first commits rape, gives threat to her not to reveal anybody and also told her that he will marry her, which is evidently after the act of rape. (2) In evidence, PW-1 states that accused forcibly raped her in the land and gave a threat not to disclose the fact to anyone. About 2 ~-- Sildays later, he convinced her that he her.
{3) In the evidence, PW--2.....states'"""' it visited the house for ahout-A~£§--.17'4'ti.1h§1..és- afteij; first act of rape, b.ut_ he d-idnot in'. sexual intercourse during his 9 (4) In the later.» portion 'evidence.v...st.ates that accused had llintercourselé Wi'th'11er for 2-3 times. There is incvonsistericv, in""the'i.p3.r'ersion of PW--1 regarding of L1 ' proinise to marry.
(5) that a proposal was """ with accused. The to marry her. But the
Csister b_r:%;«otl"ler of the accused was not L vvillii'V1g..forA"the'.. proposal. The negotiations for 5 rr_1arriage-----took place prior to the complaint. The "~.co_Ir1plaint does not mention any of those 'V " T material facts.
states that she had become pregnant and " it came to the knowledge of her mother. The medical evidence discloses that there is no pregnancy.
5
4. The evidence of PW--1 does not disclose that the first act of sexual intercourse was under the pretext of promise to marry. The evidence is totally con'tra'I3r_l'to the contents of the complaint. The age * according to the complaint is 17 years' to, nu medical evidence, she is more t'hari_ll8 _ goes by the evidence of PW;..ip:;"~.gomhplaint,1theflaccused l' committed rape and threatened:h'erV"not toreveajl. About 2 --- 3 days after the inci.dent,"Vi"l<ie the house of PW--1 and corzvintzed to marry her.
If really.' the takenmplace, complaint should have been after the incident. The evidence of 8t."-Sllthat they had seen the accused 1" atogether' in their house earlier to the to be an artificial statement. If it is so,"t.hey' would have come to know about the affair of .]"J'R\7\T.--__1 arid the accused and complaint should have been ladged much earlier. In View of the above discrepancies, ' "the order of acquittal recorded is sound and proper. 5% P1* Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
A Sd/__ 1; ; :{[ if _ _ 4%