Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These two appeals arising out of the acquittal Judgment passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi in S.C.No.149/2015 dated 04.10.2019, wherein, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief are;

P.W.18 being victim in this case on 22.06.2014, lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad as per Ex.P.18 before P.W.22 which came to be registered in Crime No.22/2014 dated 22.06.2014 as per Ex.P32, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') against the accused; alleging that the accused/respondent and his son are from Gamanagatti NC: 2024:KHC-D:2839-DB village and have purchased plot and agricultural lands in Kubihal village in the year 2010. As such, the accused was visiting the house of P.W.4, who was the relative of victim where the accused and victim had met for the first time. Further, accused and victim both used to travel in the bus from Hubballi to Kubihal, since, the victim was pursuing her education at Mahila Vidyapeetha, at Hubballi. Thereby, they both fell in love and consequently, he had also gifted a mobile phone to her with sim card bearing No.9738116342 and accused used to text her and also they were used to converse with each other by mobile phone. It is in this background, he gaining her trust and also by swearing to God, promised to marry her and took her to his pump house in his garden land at Gamanagatti village and had forcible sexual coitus with her, though she had not consented for the same. However, they both had sexual coitus repeatedly then onwards. Thereafter, he took her signature on white papers to register their marriage and took the joint photographs and finally when she raised the marriage issue, he refused to marry her on the ground NC: 2024:KHC-D:2839-DB that, she is from the poor background and also his marriage is fixed with some other girl who belongs to rich family.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.100006/2020, vehemently contends that, the Judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. According to the learned counsel, P.W.18- victim has categorically deposed in her evidence NC: 2024:KHC-D:2839-DB about the fact how the accused came in contact with her, and the promise made by him to marry her, so also about the sexual coitus committed by him in the pump house of his landed property on several occasion against her consent. She also deposed about the threat foisted by the accused after the incident when she requested to marry her. The said evidence of P.W.18 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.22- Police Inspector who registered the case and investigated the same. Further, the Doctor-P.W.1 who conducted her examination, issued the certificate as per Ex.P.1 and opined that, 'she might have undergone any act like that of sexual intercourse'. In such circumstances, there are no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.18-prosecutrix. According to the learned counsel, it is the settled position of law by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the evidence of prosecutrix has to be treated on a higher pedestal and the Court should not insist for any corroboration for her evidence if the same has withstood the rigors of cross-examination. Hence, according to him, the learned Sessions Judge without NC: 2024:KHC-D:2839-DB considering the above aspects, has proceeded to pass the impugned order of acquittal and as such, he prays to allow the appeal and to convict the accused.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2839-DB perspective has proceeded to pass the impugned Order and as such, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the State.

12. Refuting the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused, in support of the impugned Judgment of the trial Court, would assert this Court that, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.18- victim, she was aged about 23 years at the time of the incident, who emphatically deposed that she voluntarily accompanied the accused and they both had consensual sexual coitus on several occasions. In such circumstances, the act of the accused does not fall under the ambit of Section 376 of IPC. Moreover, since P.W.18 herself admitted in her cross-examination that, they both had developed physical relationship on several occasions and she lodged the complaint, only when the accused

17. On careful perusal of the messages exchanged by the accused and P.W.18 as per Ex.P.31, the same depicts the relationship of love between the accused and P.W.18. To particularize, ever since 13.12.2013 there are

- 19 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2839-DB multiple messages exchanged between them and there are no messages to corroborate the facts as pleaded by the prosecution that, they were having physical relationship with each other, except the unconditional loving relationship between them. At the cost of repetition, it is important to note that, though P.W.18 stated in her evidence that, the accused had coitus with her forcibly against her will, repeatedly, nothing prevented her to inform the same to her parents or to lodge any complaint for a period of six months. Hence, on careful perusal of the above evidence, the testimony of P.W.18 does not inspire confidence of this Court about the forcible act or the coitus committed by the accused to her.