Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that accused has taken away the victim from the lawful guardianship. Even the age of the victim is also uncertain as observed above, as the prosecution has not made any efforts to ascertain the exact age of the victim. Ex.P-14 is a proforma of the examination of the victim and there is specific mention in column No.12(a) that the rape was said to have committed on 12.09.2014 but as per the case of the prosecution, the rape was not committed on 12.09.2014 but subsequently it was committed in a farmhouse in Doddaballapura. Apart from that in column 12(b) the place of rape was shown as Mangaluru at a rented house. It is nobody's case that the victim and accused have traveled to Mangaluru and any rape was committed in Mangaluru but in Ex.P-14, the place of rape is shown to be Mangaluru. In this regard, PW-15 is the doctor and her evidence discloses that she has made entries as per the say of the victim girl and victim had attained puberty. In her cross-examination she further admits that the hymen was ruptured and asserts that for other reasons also the hymen can rupture. She specifically asserts that the victim claimed that she is still virgin. If this statement is taken into consideration, it is evident that the victim never admitted the rape before the doctor. Further in the cross-examination, it is evident that the entry in column No.12(a) of Ex.P-12 regarding date of rape is mentioned as per the say of the victim. But there is no evidence that victim had at any time traveled to Mangaluru along with accused.

22. On the contrary, PW-22 Yogesh is also another Investigating Officer. He deposed that on the basis of the mobile said to have been used by the accused, he learnt that accused was in Mangaluru. He secured CW-11 and her family members. But very interestingly, what is the mobile number of the accused is not at all forthcoming. The entire case of the prosecution does not disclose as to in which period the victim and accused have stayed in Mangaluru. The victim is said to have been given information regarding the date of rape as 12.09.2014 in Mangaluru but it is not the case of the prosecution. Further, he admits that on 24.11.2014 when medical examination of the victim was concluded, she has refused to go with her mother and since both victim and accused belonging to different communities, PW-22 apprehended communal disruptions. In the cross- examination, he admitted that he did not make any attempts to obtain details of mobile used by the accused. He has also admitted that he did not recorded the statement of staff who had been to Mangaluru. Even he has not made any attempt to secure any evidence regarding marriage said to have been performed in Marulsiddeshwar temple of Shikaripur Taluk. Hence, on assessment of the entire evidence, it is evident that the prosecution has withheld the very genesis of the case and tried to conceal certain material aspects regarding victim visiting Mangaluru. Even the Investigating Officer did not bother to obtain call details and rape alleged to have committed on 12.09.2014 but the prosecution case put forward is different. Even place of rape is completely contrary compared to medical evidence.

25. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Alamelu and another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2011) 2 SCC 385, no evidentiary value can be attached to Ex.P-16 under Section 35 of the Evidence Act in the absence of corroborative evidence. As such, even if it is accepted that victim and accused eloped with each other, in the absence of material evidence regarding the age of the victim and subsequent conduct of the victim, the offence under Sections 363 and 366 as well as 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act would not apply to the case in hand. It appears that it was a love story of two individual persons from different castes and since there was possibility of communal disruption without proper investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet. The allegations of rape, the date of rape and place of rape does not tally and except evidence of interested witnesses and the police officials, there is no other material evidence to show that accused and victim stayed in a farmhouse in Doddaballapura as other material witnesses in this regard have turned hostile. The evidence of the victim discloses that she is changing her stances as per her convenience and hence, her evidence alone is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.