Karnataka High Court
Santosh S/O Mahaveer Mangasuli vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.102141 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH
S/O MAHAVEER MANGASULI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCC: PHOTO STUDIO
R/O HARUGERI VILLAGE
RAIBAG TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
PIN - 591 317.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.S.YADAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HARUGERI POLICE STATION
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
2 . XXXX
XXXXX
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
2
R/O SAPTASAGAR
ATHANI TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 304.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE TAKEN FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376(2)(N), 323, 384, 504, 506 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC. AND SEC.3(1)(r), 3(2)(s), 3(1)(W(1)), 3(2)(Va) OF
SC AND ST (POA) ACT. 1989 AND AMENDMENT ACT. 2015. BY THE
III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT. BELAGAVI, IN
SPL.C.NO.186/2022. (ARISING OUT OF HARUGERI POLICE P.S
CRIME NO.92/2022) DATED 18.08.2022. IN SO FAR THE
PETITIONER/ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.01 RESPECTIVELY. AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL.C.NO.186/2022 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE BELAGAVI. AT BELAGAVI, (ARISING OUT OF HARUGERI
POLICE P.S CRIME NO.92/2022) FILED AGAINST THIS
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376(2)(N),
323, 384, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC. AND SEC.3(1)(r), 3(2)(s),
3(1)(W(1)), 3(2)(Va) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT. 1989 AND
AMENDMENT ACT. 2015. IN SO FAR THE PETITIONER
HEREIN/ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 RESPECTIVELY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.186 of 2022 pending before the III 3 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi arising out of crime registered in FIR No.92 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short) insofar as the petitioner is concerned including the cognizance taken thereto.
2. The facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant, a student in a college next to which digital kiosks of the petitioner is situated. It appears that the complainant in the month of April, 2021 visits kiosks run by the petitioner for the purpose of uploading a form for scholarship. At that point in time mobile number of the complainant is shared and later it is averred in the petition that two get intimated and indulged in sexual intercourse. Long after several instances of such physical relationship, the complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 25-05-2022 alleging offences as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation, record statements of several witnesses and file a charge sheet against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1.4
Filing of charge sheet has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri Mallesh S. Yadahalli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the very registration of crime is contrary to law as it was a consensual act of having sex between the complainant and the petitioner on several occasions. Though the petitioner was married, the act of having sex was not on account of promise of marriage but it was purely consensual between the complainant and the petitioner. He would further contend that merely because the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the offences under the Act are also laid against the petitioner. He would submit that permitting further proceedings would be contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DR. DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR v. STATE OF 5 MAHARASHTRA1 and SHAMBU KHARWAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH2 as also judgments rendered by this Court following afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court. He would seek quashment of entire proceedings.
5. Per-contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently oppose the petition contending that charges against the petitioner are all prima facie met in the investigation so conducted by the Police and a charge sheet is filed. It is not a question of relationship of love between the petitioner and the complainant nor consensual acts spanning over several years for the petitioner to contend that it is consensual and, therefore, offence of rape cannot be laid against the petitioner. He would seek dismissal of the petition contending that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
1 (2019) 18 SCC 191 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032 6
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Though afore- narrated facts are a part of the record, a little elaboration with regard to the allegations would be required to consider the contentions of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent registers a complaint on 25-05-2022 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and similar offences against other accused. For considering the reason for registration of crime, a little flash back is required. The complainant is a student of Sri Siddivinayaka Nursing College studying in 2nd year B.Sc Nursing. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner runs a digital kiosks and a photo studio which is adjacent to the College. The complainant walks through digital kiosks of the petitioner day in and day out to go to the College. It appears that the complainant wanted to submit an application online through the system that was in the digital kiosks of the petitioner and, therefore, sought to get a photograph clicked at the photo studio of the petitioner and upload the application. The petitioner seeks mobile number of the complainant on the score that OTP would come to the mobile number of the petitioner and, therefore, it would be required for uploading the form. He takes the mobile of the complainant and records the number. He also 7 secures Aadhar card and other documents all on the score that they would be required for online application. He does not upload the application of the complainant. The complainant then visits the petitioner's studio 2 or 3 times asking him to upload the documents.
8. After about a few days, it appears that the complainant, due to exertion, goes to the photo studio of the petitioner to take some rest. The petitioner is said to have got her tender coconut in a glass after which it is the averment in the complaint that she gets unconscious. She wakes up after about 2 - 3 hours and sees that her clothes are scrambled and she was lying on a bench. She goes back home on being pacified by the petitioner. She then developed pain in the lower abdomen and vaginal area. She then strongly feels that she has been sexually abused. The complainant calls up the petitioner and asks about the information of what has happened on the said day. What she receives in reply, is a nude picture of hers on her mobile, through whatsapp. It is then the saga of agony of the complainant begins. The averment in the complaint is that the petitioner at every point in time threatened the complainant 8 that he would make the nude pictures public and so threatening takes her to two or three places in a period of six months and has sexual intercourse with her. Whenever the complainant would protest, the petitioner would threaten and use her physically. The averment is that the petitioner also indulged in using the threat by directing the complainant to have sex with his friends as well. Later, the wife of the petitioner calls up the complainant and hurls abuses that the complainant would come to such things as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is the afore-narrated facts that form the fulcrum of the complaint. Since the entire issue is now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:
"EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¦.¸ï.L ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ ºÁgÉÆUÉÃj.
zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀ¼ÀÄ: PÀĪÀiÁj xxx vÀAzÉ xxx xxx, ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 21 eÁw »AzÀÆ ªÀiÁzÀgÀ(SC) GzÉÆåÃUÀ: «zÁåyð¤.
«¼Á¸À: ¸À¥ÀÛ¸ÁUÀgÀ, vÁ: CxÀtÂ. f: ¨É¼ÀUÁ« «µÀAiÀÄ: ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ªÀĺÁ«ÃgÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¸Àƽ, eÁw eÉÊ£À, GzÉÆåÃUÀ: ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆ, «¼Á¸À: ºÁgÉÆÃUÉÃj, EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ IPC-375 ºÁUÀÆ zÀ°vÀ zËdð£Àå PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄr zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä «£ÀAw Cfð.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, 9 £Á£ÀÄ PÀĪÀiÁj xxx vÀAzÉ xxx eÁw »AzÀÆ ªÀiÁzÀgÀ (SC) ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 21 EzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ²æà ¹¢Ý «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ £À¹ðAUï PÁ¯ÉÃd ºÁgÉÆUÉÃj E°è 2 £Éà ªÀµÀð (BSc) £À¹ðAUï ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ. ¸ÀzÀj ©¹JªÀiï ºÁ¸ÉÖïï («zÁåy𠤮AiÀÄ ºÁgÉÆUÉÃj E°è ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀ EzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ «zÁåyð ªÉÃvÀ£ÀPÁÌV Cfð¸À°è¸À®Ä J¦æ¯ï 2021 gÀ°è ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ªÀĺÁ«ÃgÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¸Àƽ EªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃzÀ°è Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ (online) ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ EzÉ JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉݪÀÅ. DUÀ OTP §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JAzÀÄ ºÉý. £À£Àß ªÉƨÉʯï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß £ÀA§gï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß DzsÁgÀ PÁqÀð ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀ PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¢£À Cfð ºÁPÀzÉ. EzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£Á®Æ ºÉÆÃV PÉý PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÉ. PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ CªÀgÀ ªÉÆ £ÀA:9481211430 ºÁUÀÆ E£ÀÄß½zÀ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸ÀASÉåUÀ½AzÀ ªÉĸÉd ªÀiÁr ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁªÀ£ÁvÀäPÀªÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár £À£Àß vÀAVUÉ PÁå£ÀìgÀ EzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ ±ÀÄUÀgÀ EzÉ. EzÀPÉÌ®è K£ÀÄ ºÉÃUÉ JAzÉ®è PÉý ¸À®ÄUÉ ¨É¼É¹PÉÆAqÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨sÉÃnÖAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä £À£Àß PÁ¯ÉÃd ºÀwÛgÀ ºÁ¸ÉÖî ºÀwÛgÀ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ §ºÀ¼À MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw¸ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ±ÀÄUÀgÀ ¥É±ÉAl EzÉÝ£É §ºÀ¼À ¢£À §zÀÄPÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ EzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ RĶAiÀiÁV EgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÉ®è ºÉýzÀ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ CªÀPÁ±À PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉý £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¦æÃw¸À®Ä M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ eÁwAiÀĪÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ w½zÀgÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è M¦àzÀgÉ ªÀiÁvÉæ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉÝ. »ÃUÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀzÀÄ. ¨ÉÃnAiÀiÁUÀĪÀzÀÄ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29/10/2021 gÀAzÀÄ CAzÀgÉ PÀ£ÀßqÀ avÀæ £Àl ¥ÀĤvï gÁdPÀĪÀiÁgÀ wÃjPÉÆAqÀ ¢£À £À£ÀÄ £À£Àß PÁ¯ÉÃeï¢AzÀ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÉ. §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀĸÁÛVzÀÄÝ E¯Éèà PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ CªÀ£À ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆà ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃzÀ°è PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÉ, DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÀÄrAiÀÄ®Ä J¼É¤ÃgÀÄ vÀgɹzÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ PÀÄrAiÀÄ®Ä PÉÆlÄÖ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÄrAiÀÄ¢zÁÝUÀ vÁ£Éà ¸ÀévÀ PÀÄr¸À®Ä §AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊ PÉÊ ªÀÄÄlÖ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ J¼É¤ÃgÀÄ PÀÄrzÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ PÀtÂÚUÉ ªÀÄAdÄ §AzÀAvÉ D¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀæóeÉÕ vÀ¦àzÀAvÉ D¬ÄvÀÄ DUÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2 UÀAmÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 5 UÀAmÉUÉ JZÀÑgÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¨ÉAZï ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ®VzÀ CªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°èzÉÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß §mÉÖ C¸ÀÛªÀå¸ÀܪÁVzÀݪÀÅ £Á£ÀÄ »ÃUÉÃPÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¥ÀæeÉÕ vÀ¦à ªÀÄ®VzÉÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ¸Àé®à ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÀ¨ÉÆâmÉÖ £ÉÆêÀÅ PÁt¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀªÁV §¼À¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ w½¬ÄvÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆ£ï ªÀiÁr «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ ºÁUÉ®è K£ÀÆ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¢£À PÁ¯ÉÃfUÉ §gÀzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÉÝ. JgÀqÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr £Á£ÀÄ PÀgÉzÀ°è ¤Ã£ÀÄ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ E®èªÁzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß 9964869110 ¸ÀASÉå ªÁåmïìC¥ïUÉ £À£ÀßzÉà §mÉÖ E®èzÀ (¨ÉvÀÛ¯É) ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ £À£ÀUÉ DWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À PÁ®Ä ©zÀÄÝ UÉÆüÁrzÀgÀÆ ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß r°mï ªÀiÁqÀ°®è, C¤ªÁAiÀÄðªÁV CªÀ£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ºÁUÉ PÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. ¢£ÀA¥Àæw £À£Àß ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ ¯ÉÊAVPÀªÁV ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À®Ä ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄwÛzÀÝ, C¤ªÁAiÀÄðªÁV CªÀ£À eÉÆvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. CªÀ£ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ªÀĺÁ«ÃgÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¸Àƽ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤gÀAvÀgÀ CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀªÉA§gï 2021gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è CªÀ£À ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃzÀ°è JgÀqÀÄ ¨Áj £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¯ÉÊAVPÀªÁV §¼À¹PÉÆArzÁÝ£É. ºÁUÀÆ JgÀqÀÄ ¨Áj UÉÆÃPÁPÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV "gÁAiÀįï" ¯ÁqïÓ ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀߥÀÆtð 10 ¯ÁqÀÓUÀ¼À°è CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £À£Àß ºÀÄlÄÖ ºÀ§âzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22 ªÀiÁZÀð 2022 gÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®ªÀÅ V¥sïÖ ¤ÃrzÁÝ£É. ºÁUÀÆ JgÀqÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ªÀÄvÉÛ UÉÆÃPÁPÉÌ PÀgÉPÉÆAiÀÄÄÝ CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÀPÀ¼ÉzÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ £À£Àß UɼÉAiÀÄgÀ eÉÆvÉUÀÆ PÀÆqÁ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄ®UÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÁÝ£É £À£ÀUÉ ¢£ÀA¥Àæw ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr PÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ, F «µÀAiÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À vÁ¬Ä C£À¸ÀÆAiÀÄUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ºÉýzÉ. CªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉüÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ MAzÀÄ ¢£À CAzÀgÉ K¦æ¯ï wAUÀ¼À°è wæªÉÃt JA¨ÁPÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ£ï ºÉAqÀw ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À eÉÆvÉ E¢ÝAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÆý, ¨sÉÆøÀÄr, ¸ÀÆ¼É JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £À£Àß eÁw PÉý ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀƼÉAiÀÄgÀÄ, ºÁzÀgÀVwÛAiÀÄgÀÄ, JAzÉ®è eÁw »rzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀ¼ÀÄ F «ZÁgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ¤UÉ PÉýzÁUÀ DPÉ £À£Àß CtÚ£À ºÉAqÀw JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj £À£ÀߣÀÄß CªÀ£À ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃzÀ°è PÀÆræ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ UɼÉAiÀÄ£ÁzÀ ¥ÀÄAqÀ°PÀ PÁA§¼ÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ CvÁåZÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÁÝ£É EzÀPÉÌ®è £À£Àß UɼÀw ¦æÃw UÀÄgÀªÀ CªÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹zÁÝ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ 18 K¦æïï 2022 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃfUÉ §gÀĪÁUÀ ºÁgÀÆUÉÃj §¸ÁÖöåAr£À°è ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ£À ºÉAqÀw wæªÉÃt £À£ÀߣÀÄß »rzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ-§qÉzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr £À£Àß ªÉƨÉʯï PÀ¹zÀÄPÉÆArzÁݼÉ. £Á£ÀÄ JµÉÖà ºÉýzÀgÀÆ £À£Àß §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt ªÀiÁ£ÀågÁzÀ vÁªÀÅ £À£Àß zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ªÀĺÁ«ÃgÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¸Àƽ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É IPC 375- IPC 376 gÀ Cr ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ CvÁåZÁgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÆ zÀ°vÀ zËdð£Àå PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄr ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ wæªÉÃt ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¸Àƽ ºÁUÀÆ C£À¸ÀÆAiÀÄ ªÀĺÁ«ÃgÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¸Àƽ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¸À¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è PÀ¼ÀPÀ½AiÀÄ «£ÀAw".
The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.92 of 2022 for the afore-quoted offences. The Police conduct investigation and after recording statements of various people and examination of medical records files a charge sheet against three accused. Accused No.1 is the petitioner, accused No.2 is the wife of the petitioner and accused No.3 is one Smt. Anasuya. Different charges are laid against accused 1, 2 and 3. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, 11 the offences are under Section 376 (2)(n) r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. Against others the offences are different. Therefore, it is not a case where sweeping offence of Section 376 of the IPC is laid against all the accused. It, therefore, becomes germane to notice the summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column 17. It reads as follows:
"17) PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀ (CªÀ±ÀåPÀ«zÀÝ°è ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ºÁ¼É ®UÀwÛ¹):-
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt:-
EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ PÀÄ. xxx @ xxx. ¸Áll¸À¥ÀÛ¸ÁUÀgÀ. vÁllCxÀt FvÀ¼ÀÄ »AzÀÆ ªÀiÁzÀgÀ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt CAPÀt 12gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ »AzÀÆ eÉÊ£À ¥ÀæªÀUÀð 3© ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ J-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-3 EªÀgÀÄ »AzÀÆ vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ ¥ÀæªÀUÀð 1 eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ºÁgÀÆUÉÃj ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ºÀ¢Ý ¥ÉÊQ ºÁgÀÆUÉÃj ¥ÀlÖtzÀ ²PÀët ¥Àæ¸ÁgÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½Ã (JZï.«í.JZï PÁ¯ÉÃd) gÁAiÀĨÁUÀzÀ PÁA¥ÉèÃPÀìzÀ°ègÀĪÀ DgÉÆæ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¸Àƽ FvÀ£À ¥ÀzÁäªÀw ¥ÉÆmÉÆÃUÁæ¦ü ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «rAiÉÆà UÁæ¦ü, rfl¯ï ¨ÉÆÃqïð. «fnAUï PÁqÀð. ¥Áå£ï PÁqïð, PÀ¯gï gÀhÄgÁPÀì CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è (CPÁëA±À 16.512787. gÉÃSÁA±À 74.948405) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29/10/2021 gÀAzÀÄ 14:00 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ PÁ¯ÉÃd¢AzÀ §gÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀĸÁÛVzÀÝjAzÀ vÀ£Àß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄzÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt CAPÀt 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ DgÉÆæ J-1 ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ EªÀ£À ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃUÉ PÀĽvÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ºÉÆzÁUÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¸ÀĸÁÛV ¥ÀæeÉÕ E®è¢zÁÝUÀ 14:00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 16:30 UÀAmÉ £ÀqÀÄ«£À ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÁæ¸À DVzÀÝPÉÌ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ PÉýzÁUÀ K£ÀÄ E®è CAvÁ ºÉý £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£Àß eÉÆvÉ £À£Àß ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃzÀ°è £ÉÃPÉqï ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ vÀUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉÆùAiÀÄ¯ï «ÄrAiÀiÁzÀ°è ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ ºÉzÀj¹ CªÀ½UÉ ¦æÃw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ MvÁ۬Ĺ CªÀ½UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ £ÀA©¹ CªÀ½UÉ vÀ£Àß ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃPÉÌ PÀgɬĹPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀzÉà ¥ÀzÉà CªÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉà DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ vÁ£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ PÉüÀ®Ä QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ PÁ¯ÉÃd ©qÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ JAlÄ ¥ÉãÀÄ Q®ègï ªÀiÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÁUÀ EzÀgÀ°è ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ C.£ÀA.22 EªÀ¼ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£À CAUÀrUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ¤UÉ AiÀiÁPÉ ªÀµÁð vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛ¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ CAvÁ PÉýzÀÄÝ C®èzÉ DgÉÆæ J-3 EªÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£À ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ G¥ÀÄà ¤Ãj 12 PÉÆr¹ ªÁAw ªÀiÁr¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ F «µÀAiÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃqÀ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ£À ºÀwÛgÀ ¥ÀÆæ¥sï CzÁªÀÅ ¤Ã AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýzÀgÀ ¤£Àß ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉ£É ºÉÆÃUÀvÉÊw ¤£ÀUÉ CªÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É E®è ¤Ã AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÀgÉ F «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉý¢ CAzÀæ £ÉÆÃqÀ ºÀÄZÀÑ ¨ÉÆøÀr ¤ªÉïÁè ªÀiÁzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀƼÁågÀ »AUÀ EjÛgÉãÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ EªÀ£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀAUÀ PÉüÀ E®è CAzÀgÀ ¤£ÀUÀ £Á ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ PÉÆr ¤£ÀUÀ R¯Á¸À ªÀiÁqÉ ©qÉÛêÀÅ CAvÀ fêÀzsÀ zsÀªÀÄQ ºÁQzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ vÀ£ÀUÉ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DgÉÆæ J-2 eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ EzÀÝ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀzÉ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ £ÀA©¹ ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ«, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀqÉUÀ¼À°è PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CqÁØr¹zÀÝ®èzÉà ¢£ÁAPÀ 13/02/2022 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV UÉÆÃPÁPÀ 1 £Éà £ÁPÁ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ ºÉÆÃmÉïï C£ÀߥÀÆtð ¯ÁrÓAUïzÀ°è gÀƪÀÄ ªÀiÁr ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉÃ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 10/03/2022 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ ¥Á®ìUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CqÁØr¹ C°èAzÀ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ j¸Álð ¯ÁqÀÓzÀ°è gÀƪÀÄ ªÀiÁr C°è ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DgÉÆæ J-2 wæªÉÃt EªÀ½UÉ vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ DgÉÆæ J-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ eÉÆvÉ ¥ÉÆãÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wgÀÄUÁqÀĪÀzÀ£ÀÄß EzÀgÀ°è ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ C.£ÀA.22 jAzÀ PÉý UÉÆvÁÛzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ J-2 EªÀ¼ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¥sÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁr ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À eÉÆvÉ E¢ÝÃAiÀÄ ¤ªÉ¯Áè ªÀiÁzÀgÀ ¸ÀƼÉAiÀÄgÀÄ »AUÉ CAvÁ eÁw JwÛ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÝ®èzÉà ¢£ÁAPÀ 18/04/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ vÀ£Àß Hj¤AzÀ ºÁgÀÆUÉÃj PÁ¯ÉÃfUÉ §¹ì¤AzÀ ºÁgÀÆUÉÃj §¸ÁÖöåAqÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 9 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ §¹ì£À°èAzÀ PɼÀUÉ E½zÁUÀ DgÉÆæ J-2 wæêÉÃt EªÀ¼ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ºÀÄZÀÑ ¨ÉÆøÀr, ºÁzÀgÀVwÛ. ªÀiÁzÀgÀ ¸ÀÆ¼É CAvÁ eÁw JwÛ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁ𢠺ÀwÛgÀ EzÀÝ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt CAPÀt 11 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÄ¢¹zÀ C.£ÀA.7 «ªÉÇà PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ºÁåAqÀ¸Émï ªÉÆqÀ¯ï £ÀA§gÀ: «ªÉÇà 1904£ÉÃzÀÝ£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ.
EzÀgÀ°è DgÉÆæ J-1 ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ FvÀ£ÀÄ PÀ®A 376(2)(J£ï), ¸À/PÀ 34 L.¦.¹. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3(1)(W[1]), 3(2)(Va), J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n (zËdð£Àå vÀqÉ) wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝ 2015. £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ J-2 wæêÉÃt EªÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ®A 323, 384, 504, 506, ¸À/PÀ 34 L¦¹. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3(1)(r), 3(1)( s), 3(2)(Va), J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n (zËdð£Àå vÀqÉ) wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝ 2015 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ J-3 C£À¸ÀÆAiÀÄ EªÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ®A 504, 506, ¸À/PÀ 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3(1)(r), 3(1)( s), 3(2)(Va), J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n (zËdð£Àå vÀqÉ) wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝ 2015 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÉøÀVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
(Emphasis added) 13 The summary of the charge sheet is in elaboration of what is found in the complaint supra. The places that the petitioner has taken the complainant on threatening her that her nude photographs would be made public are brought out along with the evidence in the complaint. Since the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste and her modesty is taken away by an act of the petitioner, the offences under the Act are also laid.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that it was a consensual act on the part of the complainant to have indulged in sex with the petitioner and, therefore, it makes out no offence. This submission on the face of it is unacceptable. The consensus that the petitioner seeks to project is not a consent that is offered out of free will by the complainant. The complainant had at no point in time did fall in love or had consensual sex with the petitioner. The first instance happens when the petitioner secures mobile number of the complainant in the garb of securing an OTP. He then uses the innocence of the complainant, molests her at the outset, at the premises she was made unconscious, captures her nude pictures in the mobile phone 14 and sends them to the complainant through whatsapp. Holding those pictures on his phone, goes on threatening the complainant that he would make the nude pictures public on social platform if she would not budge for having sex with him. It is here the complainant left with no choice had to yield to the carnal desires of the petitioner who has unleashed it on the victim not once but many a time. At no point in time, the complainant has on her own volition had sexual intercourse with the petitioner. It is the finding in the charge sheet that at every point in time the victim has been threatened by the petitioner and had sex and even threatened to finish the complainant if she did not yield to the demands of the petitioner. Section 90 of the IPC deals with consent and it reads as follows:
"90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.--A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or Consent of insane person.--if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or 15 Consent of child.--unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age."
Even in terms of Section 90 of the IPC, consent is known to be given under fear or misconception, is known to be consent. The petitioner as observed hereinabove, on every occasion has threatened the complainant that he would publish her nude pictures if she would not yield to the carnal desires of the petitioner. Such acts of threatening the helpless victim and having sexual intercourse can never be termed to be a consensual act.
10. It is ununderstandable as to how the judgments that were rendered by the Apex Court as quoted supra which were clearly on consensual acts spanning over several years in a live-in relationship between the accused and the victim in those cases would become applicable to the facts of the case at hand. The act of the petitioner in the case at hand is gross and he has made use of the innocence of the complainant, luring her and using her giving threat or coercion at every point in time. This unless proved to be otherwise, it amounts to ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 376 of the IPC. The learned counsel 16 makes vehement submission to project the petitioner to be innocent prima facie. This projection of innocence is only masquerade which requires a full blown trial for the petitioner prove his innocence.
11. Insofar as offences under the Act are concerned, what is laid against the petitioner is concerning offences punishable under Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act reads as follows:
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.--(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
... ... ...
(w)(i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent;
... ... ...
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-clause
(i), the expression "consent" means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures, or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act:
Provided that a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe who does not offer physical resistance to any act of a sexual nature 17 is not by reason only of that fact, is to be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity:
Provided further that a woman's sexual history, including with the offender shall not imply consent or mitigate the offence."
Section 3(1)(w)(i) makes it an offence against a person who intentionally touches a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and such act is of sexual nature without her consent. The explanation of 'consent' depicts to be unequivocal voluntary agreement. The other offence is Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. It reads as follows:
"3.(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
(v-a) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine."
Whoever commits an offence against a person or property of a member belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is said to become open for punishment. Both these offences are prima facie met in the case at hand. The complainant belongs to a Scheduled 18 Caste is a matter of record. This is within the knowledge of the petitioner is also a matter of record. The ingredients are thus clearly met albeit, prima facie. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial. The horrendous facts would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to show any indulgence at this stage of the proceeding.
12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition would necessarily meet its dismissal and it is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:SS