Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Yashodha was given in marriage to one Basavannyya and their marriage took place on 24.04.2001. She led married life with the said Basavannayya for a period of one and half years. Thereafter, she left the house and at that time she was pregnant. Subsequently, she fell in love with accused and started living with him at Byadgi along with her five year old daughter, who is examined as PW.7 (hereinafter referred to as "prosecutrix" for short). Thereafter, they shifted to Basaveshwarnagar of Haveri and were staying in a rented house. At that time, her daughter was studying in Rotary School.

19. During the course of their evidence, complainant i.e., PW.1 and the prosecutrix in clear and unequivocal terms have deposed that accused was living with them in their house at Haveri. PW.1 has stated that before shifting to Haveri, they i.e., herself, prosecutrix and the accused were staying together at Byadgi and at that time, prosecutrix was aged five years. During her cross- examination though PW.1 has deposed that from Byadgi they shifted to Motebennuru and from there they shifted to Haveri, she has denied the suggestion that she lived at Bankapura for two years, also at Devagiri and Sirsi. When the incident in question has taken place at Haveri, the cross-examination of PW.1 as to the previous places she stayed does not assume importance.

20. To prove that accused was living with the PW.1 and the prosecutrix, in addition to their evidence, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PWs.5 and 6, who are their neighbours living in the opposite house. According to PW.1 and the prosecutrix on 26.07.2014, when they went to the Hospital, PWs.5 and 6 also accompanied them. PWs.5 and 6 have deposed that at Haveri they were living in the house opposite the house of PW.1 and the prosecutrix and on 26.07.2014, they had also gone to the District Hospital, Haveri with PW.1 and the prosecutrix. However, they have not identified the accused. In this regard, PWs.5 and 6 have stated that they have not seen the accused in the house of complainant. During her cross-examination by the prosecution, when suggested that accused was also living in the house of PW.1 and the prosecutrix, she has not denied the said suggestion, but expressed ignorance. However, during his cross-examination by the prosecution, PW.6 has denied that accused was living with PW.1 and the prosecutrix. They have also denied that after the examination of the prosecutrix by the Medical Officer at District Hospital, Haveri, they came to know that she was pregnant and the accused was responsible for her pregnancy.

35. On this aspect, PW.12 has deposed that after giving birth to the child and discharged from Davanagere Government Hospital, the prosecutrix was admitted to Government Hospital, Haveri and for a period of three months she was given treatment and during this period, she got the feed back about the case. Based on this information, she has deposed to the above facts. While giving evidence she has brought the copy of case file of Davanagere Hospital which was forwarded to the Government Hospital, Haveri. It is marked as Ex.P26. The Copy of DNA report is marked as Ex.P26(a). The first instance when this witness examined the prosecutrix on 26.07.2014 she got her examined through the dentist and the dental report at Ex.P26(b) determines her age as 12 to 14 years. PW.12 has also identified the accused as the person whom she enquired on 26.07.2014 and who admitted of having raped the prosecutrix.