Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for brevity.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, the victim filed a complaint before the Gundlupet Police Station as per Ex.P1 alleging that the accused is her father. Her mother Srija died about four years prior to the filing of complaint. After the death of victim's mother, her father/accused contracted a second marriage with one Susheela. The victim stayed with the accused and her step mother in Ooty where the accused was working in a footwear shop. Just prior to the incident, the accused and the victim came back to their native place at Melukamanahalli village. She has further alleged that the accused quarreled with his second wife, who is victim's step mother and hence, her step mother went to her parents' house. After that the victim alone was residing with her father in Ooty. At that time, her father, the accused committed rape on her and also threatened to kill her brother and sister, if she disclosed it to anybody. Thereafter the accused brought the victim back to Melukamanahalli village, Gundlupet Taluk and stayed in his mother's house. There also the accused compelled her to fulfill his sexual lust. That on 26.10.2013 at about 11.00 p.m., when the victim was sleeping in her grand mother Smt.Kengamma's house, the accused forcibly had intercourse with her. When she raised an alarm, her grand mother Smt.Kengamma enquired her and she revealed that the accused sexually assaulted her. Smt.Kengamma discussed about the said issue with one Chikkathayamma and Rani, who are members of Women's Organization and they advised the victim to lodge a complaint. Accordingly, the victim lodged a complaint on 29.10.2013 at about 14.30 hours, which came to be registered as Crime No.336/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Gundlupet Government Hospital and was subjected to medical examination. On the same day, the victim was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The accused also was subjected to medical examination and was taken to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet before the Special Court against the accused for offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'). The Trial Court after taking cognizance, framed charges for offence under Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 of IPC and later framed altered charges for offences under Section 3(a) and 5(n) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376(2)(f) of IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined eight witnesses as per P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked ten documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. After closure of prosecution case, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating evidence adduced against him and submitted that he has not entered the witness box however, he has examined one Smt.Julia as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D1.

5. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Judge by the judgment dated 25.02.2015, having found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 5(n) of POCSO Act, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two and half years. Hence, the accused has filed criminal appeal No.518/2015 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him whereas the State has filed criminal appeal No.829/2015 seeking for enhancement of the sentence passed by the Trial Court.

ii) Whether the State has made out a case for enhancing the sentence passed by the Trial Court from ten (10) years to life imprisonment for the alleged offence committed by the accused?

8. The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently contended that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge is not sustainable in law as the evidence of P.W.1, the victim is not consistent to believe her version about the commission of offence since as per the evidence, she has stated that the accused committed rape on her while residing in Ooty, hence she went to the house of her uncle, but she has not disclosed about the commission of rape. Later, she came back and stayed with the accused in Ooty. Thereafter, when he took her to Melukamanahalli village, she has not disclosed to her grand mother about the offence committed on her. Even otherwise, the statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. does not reveal any offence of rape committed by the accused at Ooty and her complaint does not corroborate with the statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 does not corroborate with the Medical evidence. As per the evidence of P.W.6, the Doctor, who examined the victim, no seminal stain on the cloth was recovered from the victim for the purpose of sending it to the forensic science lab. Further, spermatozoa also was not collected from the victim in order to confirm the commission of rape. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that as per medical jurisprudence, the spermatozoa is to remain in the vagina up to 17 days. But the Doctor has not collected any such smear or spermatozoa from the victim. Apart from that, the place of offence is also not properly proved by the prosecution. The victim has stated in the complaint that the offence was committed in the room and in the deposition, it is stated that the offence was committed in the hall. There is inconsistency in her evidence which is not believable. The entire episode has been pre-concerted for falsely implicating the accused at the behest of P.W.3, one Rani, who is the author of the case. Therefore, without corroborating evidence of P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be acceptable in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution case is not acceptable.

- 23 -

she was having inimical terms with the accused. A suggestion was made in the cross-examination that the accused went to purchase site and P.W.3 was coming in the way of purchasing the site and because she had vengeance, she got a false complaint filed through the daughter of the accused against the father of the victim. Therefore, the suggestion made by the accused to the victim cannot be acceptable. In the statement made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has not denied the age of the victim that she was minor and his statement is as usual denying of evidence as false. However, he has examined D.W.1, one Hostel Warden. According to her evidence, when the victim was staying in hostel, she was in depressed condition because of the death of her mother and her grandmother and one Rani took her from the Hostel during summer vacation and they did not send her back to the hostel. Therefore, her evidence cannot be taken in order to disprove the case of prosecution.