Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi in Sessions Case No.24/2015, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Sections 376, 292, 420 and 506 of IPC and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as 'I.T. Act for short].

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned HCGP for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.

15. P.W.12 is the CPI., who took further investigation from P.W.10. He conducted seizure panchanama of the motorcycle of the accused, received copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P3, collected RFSL and CFSL Report as per Exs.P16 and 17 etc. He has filed additional charge- sheet against the accused under Sections 376, 292, 420 and 506 of IPC and under Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act.

16. In her complaint, victim has stated that when she was visiting the house of her sister, she came in contact with the accused, a cousin of her brother-in-law. They became close to each other and the accused was insisting her to have physical relationship. She has stated that the accused had taken her picture from his mobile phone and he was threatening her stating that if she did not cooperate, he will publish her pictures. She has further stated that they were in love for the past 7-8 months and on 18.01.2010 at about 12.30p.m., the accused with a false promise of marriage, took her to Chilimbibaradi Cross, Sanuru village and had sexual intercourse with her and without her knowledge, videographed the said act and thereafter, he was insisting her to have sexual intercourse with him repeatedly threatening that he will distribute the CD, if she refused.

28. In the case on hand, a careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 would indicate that consent given by her is not under misconception of fact. However, the fact remains that the accused was a married man and according to P.W.1, she later came to know that he was already married. The prosecution has also established that the CD [M.O.2] seized from the accused contained some obscene video which is alleged to have taken by the accused in his mobile phone and later it was transferred to the CD. Hence, the material on record though not sufficient to convict the accused for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, however, the findings recorded by the trial Court for convicting the accused for offence punishable under Sections 292, 420 of IPC and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is in accordance with law. Hence, the following:

ORDER Appeal is partly allowed.

The Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, in Special Case No.24/2015, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC is hereby set aside.

The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused for offence punishable under Sections 292 and 420 of IPC and under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is hereby confirmed.