Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha K vs State Of Karnataka Through on 4 July, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3864 OF 2017
Between:
Manjunatha K
UTP No.4471
Central Prison Davanagere
Aged about 28 years
Son of Siddalingaiah
R/at Doddagannarakeri
Honnali Town & Taluk
Davanagere District
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Nova Bethania S, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka
through Honnali Police Station
Honnali Circle, Davanagere
Rep. by Government Advocate
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru - 560 001
... Respondent
(By Sri. S. Vishwamurthy, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.
No.19/2017 pending on the file of II Additional District
2
and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere and
Crime No.300/2016 of Honnali Police Station, Davanagere
for the offence punishable under Sections 376C, 354C,
506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section
67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is chargesheeted by the respondent- police for the offences punishable under Sections 376C, 354C and 506 of IPC, under Sections 6 and 14 of POCSO Act and under Section 67 of IT Act.
2. The allegation is that the petitioner is the brother of the complainant and thus maternal uncle of the victim girl-Ramya and under the pretext of assisting her to prosecute her studies he took the victim girl to his rented house at Honnalli; when his wife had been to Hassan, he committed rape on her and put her under the threat of dire consequence if ever she discloses the matter. On 22.09.2016, the mother of the victim girl took her back to her place. The accused insisted his sister to bring her to 3 Honnalli and allow him to take her to the bank to withdraw the money. Relying on the same victim/CW1 and her mother came near the shop of the accused and under the pretext of taking her to the Bank, the accused took her to his house and committed rape on her and photographed the incident in his mobile phone. He also threatened the victim that he would put the photos in whatsapp, if she discloses the matter to others and thereafter, he has exhibited those photos in whatsapp.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case of the prosecution is a concocted story. In fact, the mother of the victim girl wanted the accused to marry her daughter, since it did not materialize she has concocted/created a false story. The whatsapp through which the obscene photos are said to have been published is from the phone belonging to his wife and no prudent person will use the mobile phone of his wife to record the incident. Though the prosecution alleges that the girl was 4 taken under the pretext of withdrawing the money from bank, no investigation is made about the account standing in the name of the victim girl in any of the Banks. The incident of 28.09.2016 was such managed only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner for not marrying the girl-Ramya. No scientific investigation is done to ascertain the age of the victim girl. Further more, ingredients of 376C of IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. No injury is found on the body of the victim during her medical examination. The victim was staying in Bengaluru and was boarding in Karunalaya Children's Home. At that time, she fell in love with a third person and in that context, she was thrown out of the school. The love letter written by her at that time to her fiancee is produced as Annexure-F. Since, the chargesheet is filed, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail so that he can effectively defend himself.
5
4. Learned HCGP opposes the petition and submits that the school records confirm that she was born on 16.08.1989. The radiological examination report is not yet received. Even otherwise, there is medical evidence to establish that the victim was subjected to sexual assault, the obscene photos exposed through whatsapp by the petitioner through mobile phone of his wife is established from the F.S.L Report. There is prima facie case against the petitioner for commission of rape against the victim girl. If enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of causing danger to the life and limb of the victim.
5. In the light of the arguments addressed by both the counsel, I have perused the chargesheet papers so also Section 164 of CR.P.C statement of the victim girl. It appears, the incident came into light when the obscene photos of the victim was published. As per the submission at the Bar, though the chargesheet was submitted during January 2017 till date charge are not framed. As per 6 Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act, the court is obliged to record the statement of the victim girl within one month of taking cognizance which obligation is lost sight of the concerned court. In that view of the matter, it is felt that it is not in the fitness of things at this stage to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the petition is rejected.
6. Trial court is directed to pre-pone the case, frame charges and procure the witnesses and record the statement of the victim girl forthwith.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move fresh bail petition after the statement of the victim girl and vital witnesses are recorded.
Sd/-
JUDGE DN/-