Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka Rep By Hunsur Rural ... vs K D Nataraja S/O Doddaveerasetty on 7 April, 2010
Tao FRAP EPO Rt AE PB OTE tae Baa ab HSL ed a aes Eh Say, " Tne Kea eel BE Gud Bah SRE Ma BH tage Ma St BM A, Sh BRAM HAE AP AAR tt AR hae Ml Rag BP, Rl RU TRIS Rath GA PE dy Bg Se IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE O77 DAY OF APRIL 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BV.PINTO | CRL.A.NO.300/ 2002 (SA BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNAT REP, BY HUNSUR RURAL (BY SRIARS AND: i. m MOHARAD 8/0 LATE. RA RD. NATARAJA, S/O DOL DAVE EERASETTY, AGED ABOUT <1 YEARS, : ROOM NO.2, NEELAKANTESEW, aT HARISHANDESA ROAD, E.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE CITy,. . H/G KERALAPURA, ABRAKALGUND TALUE, HASSAN DISTRICT. : AGED S ABOUT 38 YEARS, ° NANDIGUNDA GR DOOR NO.1 8/1, T CROSS, 4 MUTT, RAL POLICE. ~~... APPELLANT SNSH CSU) OF KARNATAKS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF RARNAIABA THe LLsUIk respondents 1 te 4 for the offence puriehable une '#s BRR SGTE Nau taal Bal EO CA 2 OS, 5TH BLOCK JOHALLY, N/O BELLADAHALLY ' SOM ARPET TALUK, COORG DISTRICT. 4. RAVEESEHA, 8/O DODDABASAPPA, -- AGED 3 ABOUT 46 VEAP RAVANDUR R HOBLL, PERTVYAPATNA TALI. (RY SEI PRASA! BRI C.H. JADHAV, ADVS. ) THIS ORL. APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C. BY THE STATE PP. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HONT:LE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 11.10.0001 PASSED By THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE. iy & NG. 26) 90 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS-ACCUSED 'POR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 343, 265 AND-a¢ &/W 34 OF IPC. THIS. CRL. APPEAL, fore ; DAY, THE Cc CURT DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWIN SUDGEMENT "> Segsions Judge, Mysore in S.C, No.30/90 acquitting section 243, 566, 354 R/w 34 of IPC. LAP AAA Pee Le i 2 c arate ee ee CC a rt a ea ee a ee Oe ce ke . geeeauited or used cru 2. The prosecution case is to the effect that one R.AJyothi aged about 20 years as on 17.05.1988. is fed, to have been kidnapped from near her house in. Krishnapure in Huneur Taluk, on 17.05, 1988. and she was wrongfully confined in gus places . like, Namiigunda, Shr rer and Bangalore, between 17.05.1988 and 23.05. 1988 and thereby the respondents have cominittid ary. offence punishable mider Section 343 r/w Section. 34 of TPC, " 3. It is further alleged that dving the said period Lé., OTL 7.08: 1988 'at about aa "30 p.m. and thereafter the reeponderiis: 'have abducted the sal PW - Jyothi from Krishracur with at intert that she may be forced ' ry accused No.l agameat her will. Thereby, the : accused are allaged to have committed the offence ite foorther purzis hable under Section 266 rfw 34 TPC. ec tint an or about 22.05.1968 the 1@ reapondent inal force against PW1 ~ Jyothi intending to outrage her medesty and thereby the ae his ster inside TEE MERITS ENGR COURT OF KARNATAKS HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR respordent Ne.i is offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, +. The complemt was registered on rhe basis of : an information given to the Police ty; one R, A. Netarni, who is the brother of Jyothi and whe has. been a ey "e ed ES The said complaint . has 'been marked as Ex,P1 and th 1G Sane has been received by the police at Hunusur Rural Police | station at 1.30 PM eh 18.05.1988, In the said | complaint, Pa 3 hee stated that his sister Jyotts and. ° "another sister by Sri. Geetha. were = going to take a . photograph ef] At that cme one va > bearing registration Ne. CNZ 167 & and fiom that Vari some persons forcibly pulled ladmapped her 'thereafter Jyothi has not come to the house, Therefore, the complaint was lodged in the police station which istered as crime No.105/88 of Hunusur Rural ~ 'poles station. S. Tt as the case of the prowecution the red Recah tration of the case, the police went and ae Nant oF uk ea WR OR RP EEO hae wk HSB Yon ade 8 a ee Se et a CL ee a ee ed ee oe ee BE Tay OR That et tha? HH, Te REE WR eR REF 'Additional Government Advocate appe the missing grlie., CWl and subsequently she was found and after recording her statement and further staterment of the complainant, mvestigating officer filed -. harge sheet for the offence mentioned above. During the course of the trial im the. sessions Court. the : uned Pw to: Pw ive and the got prosecution has & marked document: as Exe.Pl to F Pla. The defence has got marked the documents 08 _ Bxs. Dit to to DS in their defence. Ther tr, after bearing the prosecution and the defence, the earned Sessions | Judge was pleased to record an order + f acquittal, , acquitting all the accused for the offence charged. & age them. The State has come up in appeal iis this cage, 6... Heard Sint) A.R.Sharedambha, the for the accused/ respondents. on record. 7. From 1 lence that has been preduced it could be seer that the alleged victim Jyothi had been a TSIEN ENT IRI OP RARNATAKA GIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR es m. surrounded, "her a PW before the Seseione Court. Her examination-in-chief was recorded on 14.10.1996, and in her exarmination-in-chief she hes stated thot 17.05.1988 she has gone to take a photograph soo with her sister by name Geetha. and, as about 7.00, te : 7.30 p.m. when she and her. sister Geetha were -geing near the house of Chi svesrappa, a van came from K.R.Nager side and stood rear them from behind. It wee about 50 meters away y from their ho: tae, There were 7-8 people and they surrounded her ti wmely Jyothi and her eister, At thet tien ne the co accused ~ Raveeshae pushed her s nis ter and oe: "BoC ised - K.D.Nataraja pulled PW inside the van. 7 "Immediately she shouted for Peace, nut all the other persons inside the van i 18 accuse] put the tape recorder very ual, and one MLK. Raju, van driver took the hicle 2 Tn a very hig. tee Mutt a RY he lL DEAR ER UE A ORF i ei ek ee Ce a ee ek eC kT ee a a ke SORAPALIR 2 URI Ba 1 Sere "rest? Nine a they came to Be officer is ane DB | after some time 1" accused take food in that house « told her that he wanted to marry her and that is. why they have taken her in that feshion. U1 further stated i in her evidernos that her engagement waa meade with, one : age. in order to preven tt het merriage. with the eaid lecturer, the 1" accused has commit ed this Act, It is her further case that on LBA. 1988 at about 3:00 te 4:00 pom the let respondent brought one car é brought her to Bexgsbve vie 1 Shringeri. 'The 1#t accused has forced her te: mary hina and she says that she was rot willing to the suid maucriage, She hee also further stated that in » Sheingert 'pleo ghe was put in one roorn ore, she was uade to stay in the house of one Police Officer by name : mame of the wife of that police t houses, Orie day the 1" accused brought a stamp paper ark her far whach she refused to eign. we tye wy house of Nejappa, ' SMEAR OW PURI ARE Gh COURT OF KORN ATARS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATARA MiGeri LOlUR the 1* accused brought another car and made the wife of the police officer to put a new sari to her and forced her to get into the car. Thereafter, she was.taken to _ Arya Samaj in Bat walore and there also she was i Aerood Was threatened and she world be. sold te somebo ay: after, she wae forcer to stand at "the place where ome pricst was chantirig mantras. and that the 1* accused tied the Thali to her 2 neck, avert though ehe was not willing | for thy e same. tt is her vase that she was ri be Chatuiya hovel, where there waesedurmer. She Was made to eat the food forcibly and after the dinner, she was egain taken to- the heuse of ane person by e Nanjappe and she was kept there. It ia to the y, she has not disclosed the aie was rescued. Howes wim which ehe was taken for res poridernits. on Hieneir-chief of fl Wes «@ a 14.10.1996. She has also stated that even #f she sces the car ahe carnet tell the mumber of the said car or ARLE Mandl BB She Nan Mad A A al PRP AN A TSE Se PES RY SAS aA eee 1 SP GP PUR SA PR A RE RE BAT a * Pwa - ~ RA. - Rataraja ig the brother of F "the cai re ~ dintence 1 by drivi ideniity the saul var or temmpo. This witriess wae cross- examined on 08.03.2001 Le., nearly four years after the examination-in-chief was recorded. In the CrOES * examination she has a by to her mination-in-chief by anawering all : evidence in the ex the questions asked by the defence counsel s tating, that ") don't know". Virtually, her. evidence int . the cress- examination started with phrase" SE don't know", in articular she has not identified thie 2 friends or the 1* accused axd says that she "does nov know any of the freexiis of the accused, Wo inchiding accused No.2. PW = Geetha ja the older ainter of PW = Jyothi and she has stated regarding the facts leading to the indnap of her sister "Jyothi from their house on 17.05.1988. He nae sisted: th wat. he Was present when his sister was inapped in the van on 17.05.1988 and he followed ang No. CNZ 167 for a cormiderabie scooter. However, he could not catch the van which was proceeding towarde Mysore road on that dey. He has further stated that he had ¢ oan -
thes nelghour of C Ch MET ME AMRIT ALARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR his sister Jyothi and since his sister's taped . waa fixed with another person, the 1. sccused hes:
committed thie act by forcibly talcing.. his sister. I the :
orosa-exkatniis vation he has. Stated that the complaint } By Ex.PL wes written by one Sash! kumer who is hie ther stated that vest t sumber was informed ~ him by the police as CNZ 1282. "pws ~ oR. Le Anrain A Betty ia the relative oF accused 3 1 to 4, He stated that on 17.05. 1988 PWei i. A were: in his house arm they were 7 at about 10:COpm: _He further stated regarding ir sz of the complaint | house oF one person in Rajajines e of the progecutier.
that the date of birth of iS conection ac Tal recorded the statement of the wit
- evlerices, the lear EE EI SE EERE ERE EER EE EI aR RE PL PP RO See ee OP MOREA A ee ee COURT OP KARNATAKA HIGH COUR ii PWi11- K.C.Subramarya, is the PSI of Hunusur Rural Police station at the relevant time, who has traced the tempo bearing No.CNZ 1352. PW12 ~ Shivanna, is the | gignatory to Ex.P2, Al3e- Sathyawathi, is the tiother of the victim PWi. But she has not supported: the CARE :
of the prosecution and the Public Prosec: futor: bas treated her hostile. PW14 - Neels ri, 8 the } Hotel M who haa alec not stated: any 'thing abou at the victim girl ung to then hotel : iL Humusuc Pwis is the Head Cometable &, . who has "registered the case in Crime No. 105/88 wider Section 363 ot IPC. He jemarajaich, has 'turned Nostile to the case of the is the Circle prosecution. Pw? a By spector who has conducted the investigation and Rled a charge siviet i in thia case. &. 5 ' Pursuant to the recording d that ed Sessions Judge has opin the complaint we ie AE a posbibiliiy of many peo 7 if at all Pw wanted to rai as public and thus pre _ tating the victim in their SWNT WE AMSIMALARA FiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR and that shroude the case of the prosecution with suapicio wn:
9.
Secondly, it hae been observed. by | the 7 learned Sessions Judge that the mumber of the van which came to kidnap PW-1 is CNZ 167 as written in| Ex.P2. The said van has not been traced nor its owner's a are mentioned, whereas, sccording to the prosecution case, in the witness. box the ven in which the persons kidnapped. the victim bear R istration: Ne:CNZ. 1359. ~
10. Thirdly, the learned Sessions Judge has d that it wae abowt 7:00 or 7.30 pom. when the incident took place aryl it is the time when people would nt the resporsients from & Therefore, the theory of ap in the van iteell becomes suspicious. Mort UU Woe BUNA She COMIRT OF KARNATAKA MiGM COMMIS AB hal EB Sar aod Had ae MMR ok, BO 2A A SOK EE aa 7 further the case of the prowecution that after marri li. Fourthly, the person where the vicum wae placed that is (Police officer -Shiveluimar's house) as mot been cited as a witness and exan mined by the.
iage. She has also not been cited or examuned by the prosecution. The prosecution further wants to believe that the 'victizn waa ultimately rescued from the house. ofc ere. » Nanjappe | in i Rajajin @ Bangalore, nove fom the house of Naniappa have beer ine ad te show thet Pw : was s infact reecued from the house of Nanisnpa. it 6 further the case of the prosecution that the marriage was taken place in Ary a}, Bangalore, in front of Priest, who was charting a mantras anid j Ht whose presence the 1*t accueed hae tied ined. Itis That. bean that priest has not been exarr ; hunch was arranged in the hotel Chalukya. Na decuments has been produced nor the persons were that euch persone arranged the dinner in the hotel Chalikya on the alleged date of the TS MAT MT SARITA MiGh COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR i4 inciklent. Over anc above all these factore, PW1 herself in the cross-examination has given a clear go by te the theery of ladnap and the theory of forcible marriage and 7 the theory of keeping her in unlawful custody. --_
12. On going through all these material on | record, I am of the opinion thet the learned Sessions Judge is right in passing the order of acquittal there wm no illegality or pe --
sity in the judgm ed Sessions Judge. The réasoning of the learned Sessions Judge-is proper atei does not suffer from any lity of kupropricty.. From the evidence on record, it ig established that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyorid Lhe reasoriable doubt and I find no good ground oo interfere with the order of acquittal passed by 'the earned Sessions Judge. Therefore, | see no merit in wland the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vel / Po