IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARMA TAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-IES THE 24TH DAY 01+' AUGUST. 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHALI NA G;4sAJ.s ii " 3"
Criminal Appeal No. ~1s8Ao2%"
Between
1 Raja S / O Rangadasappa
Aged About 37 Years, E' u ' . .--
R/O.Meson,Qua_rters Of.Tiles 'F_,acto:y",«
R/ O. Turnkur, Native Of Sl'1i€l'.ti}{v.'6I'C,
C.N.Halli Talukfir _ I = = .,
-- I Appellant
[By Sri: DinesE1.._K1;:mar K Rao ;..A'dVo.cate )
And:
1 Thel'St=ate of1.Karnataka .
'By. New E5§tension__Po1ice,
Tumkur'._ " 4' "
... Respondent
Satish ii; Giiji HCGP }
T _ "owl is filed U/8.374(2) Cr.P.C by the advocate
" ._for:_ the .appellant against the Judgment dated 18.4.2005 in
S,C.No._19-9/A03 on the file of the S.J, Turnkur, - convicting
the ap_pei.a"nt/accused for the offence P/U/8.376(2) [F] and
Sec.:?s06;_ Of {PC and further sentencing him to undergo RI
.. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-- for
Vanaoffence P/U/S. 376[2}[F} IPC and 1.1) of payment of fine,
he-shall undergo imprisonment for another period of one
'year. and further sentenced to undergo R1 for a period of six
' = ..--months for an offence P/U/S. 506 IPC. both the offences
shall run concurrently.
M
g.
This Crl.A. coming on for Hearing this day, the Court
delivered the Following:
JUDGMENT:
The appellant herein who was the accused in Sessions
Case No. 199/2003 on the file of the learnted’
Sessions Judge, Tumkur [hereinafter referred: tofas l’Ti~lila3l’
Court” for short), has challengedilrlile’ ‘7
conviction and sentence dated
said case convicting him for offences. under 3’76
{2)(f) and 506 of I.P.C., therebyilpsentencing lhirnito undergo
RI for a period of to pay fine of
Rs. 10,000/– of ‘iinprisonment for a
further of to undergo R1 for six
months for er section 506 IPC.
_ 2. the argufnents of Sri. Dinesh Kurnar, learned
for the”app’ellant–accused and Sn’. Satish R. Giiji,
[Court Government Pleader for respondent-
Eltate. the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence and also the entire material found
“ll” original records obtained from the Trial Court.
3. Stated in brief, the case of the prosecution as
alleged in EXP} complaint filed by PW1, victim girl, namely,
(……(“”””I—
PW} Kumaré Surna aged about 10 years cl/o PWS 3 and 4
respectively, Smt. Jayalakshrni and Sri. Shivaliumar,
residing at Upparahalli in Tumkur town is as under’ ~
(21)
{-bl
Complainant has been residing it
at the said address. On 7L~2..3..o.2oo3isst§.sb5ut;.9.teoo it
a.m., the complainant wasgrcasding sitting Zosutside
her house. At that_4_time’,* mother”.
Jayalakshmi was ‘prepa1’ing ufood. housed
PW2 Ravi is/o SAperu’Vor._ ‘materna}…Aau.nt of the
complainant. his ;siste.r”.C”W4- Bagya were also
in the house. _ L” V i h l h
At. tiIr_1e,€ (husband of
– s_ister=of complainant’s father) came to the
__ hou:;g)..v_tal.ked_lltothe complainants mother. While
returnir;gsfro*:n”‘tl’re complainants house. the said
xP..aja talked to… the complainant and asked her to
acclomparayhim, saying that he would take her to
jher grand– mother’s house and she could also
‘l’_.to her friends. Believing his words the
‘ *V–V’cor.r1plainant accompanied him;
,, {oi}
The accused, instead of taking her to the house of
her grand mother, took her towards Sapthagiri
Talkies. When the complainant asked him as to
why he was taking her towards the said Talkies,
he told her that some of his friends were there and
¢——(¢*””-‘\–°
he would talk to them and then take her to her
Then he tool: the
complainant to an old vacant residential”«ho~use.
grand~mother’s house.
When he took her there, she beca_rr’1’e”‘frig.h’te:ied
and cried. But the accused forciljly velosled ‘her’
mouth and said that ‘is. ‘were Vsilentlheu ‘ j it
would get her chocolate, andr1:>-iscuits o’ther:W.isi2ier1ie
would kill her if she «cries. Sinee: a’£;cused’g
threatened her. sheahept quiet.._V
Then the langag’ removed her
underganneants’andV .:é1I::so jtookudclit his pant, felled
her to the ground and forcible sexual
in?’tere:o.urse:3-.orip her “inserting his private part
into Corisequently, she sustained
_ .severe._ pain, — also severe bleeding from her
‘private’ A..jpart._f”‘~After completion of his forcible
L”-sexualintercourse on her. the accused threatened
her sayingpzhat if she discloses the said incident to
anyone, he would kill her. He further told her that
id she were not to disclose, he would give her
i * money.
Thereafter. the complainant returned to her house
running and informed her mother about the said
incident. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital
and admitted in the hospital as inpatient. While
she was in the hospital, police came there and
recorded her complaint statement as per EX.P1.
‘____f’\.—e–=~\,..»-=~
4. On appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to
13, the documents at Exs.P1 to 12, the Trial Court, by its
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence,
convicted the accused–appe11ant for the said offence’sg:”‘and
sentenced him to under go imprisonment and1t”o 4’
aforesaid. The defence of the accused ‘one.-VI/ofddthetotaluY.
denial. Therefore, he has not chosen to get daily Witnesses
examined nor as he chosen to produce any_docum’ents’.
5. Of the 13 u7i_tI1esses_.,e§§a1nined forthe prosecution,
PW1 is the victim giri;*flP–W2._ } saw the accused
taking the girland be.for’e-ifitholnfflfiedvgirf iinfonned about the
Said respectively, mother and
father7of*the’ and 6 are the Doctors who
examinedéddthev girl’- and also the accused; PW7 is the ASI who
recorded the complaint statement of PW1 complainant and
‘V’registered’uthiehucase against the accused and PW10 is the
who has given the Ex.P11,the date of birth
Certificate in respect of age of the girl.
6. PW5 Dr. Dwarakanath, the Honorary Medical
vdgofficer at District Hospital, Tumkur, has stated in his
evidence that on 12.10.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., he
JR
-5-
examined PW} Kumari Suma who was admitted in the said
hospital with a history of rape committed on her on the same
day by one Raja. He has further deposed that on his clinical
examination of the said girl under general Anaesth.esi:a..Ahe
found that there was second degree perenn:ial.:Agteari
vaginal laceration at right latera1..Wail,4extending;
to vault and there Was bleedingthVat:lhe”‘ tlfie
said laceration and repaireLi._tii.e pelvic flour a«nd;~.s1ie was ‘
treated as inpatient in the sai.dflh.ospital i”rorr:.i_12,flO.2003 to
18.10.2003. He has entire case sheet,
consisting of totally six”sheets;’ .i1’1_respectv”of the admission
of the said antiithetreattnentgiven to her as inpatient in
the said hiospital; A:_ijp’H:le”~1t1:as.f’urther deposed that the girl was
aged _abo1it” 3′.ears”vas«”on the said date and the injuries on
V’ _ tiieliperineiim whichhe noticed on the person of the said girl
“wasa.p’cssi1:5ie, if a person of the age of the accused in this
rape on that girl and that on his clinical
examination, he found that the said girl was raped on that
A if _c:1.%iy;.
‘7. PW6 Dr. Shivaram, the Senior Specialist District
Hospital, Tumkur, has stated in his evidence that on
(…,__«{”-””””*’\.’-w
12.10.2003 at about 1.15 p.m.. the girl was produced before
him by her parents with a history of rape on her and then he
secured PW5 Dr. Dwarakanath, Gynecologist and reqiiested
him to examine the said girl. He has further that
he issued EXP4, certificate to that effect. 4_
deposed that after he admitted..the._’saidH
hospital. he sent intimation to the per
Ex.P5 and thereafter, the police-..came”there aiidhreceorded the it
complaint statement of the girl: “.H€.._haS.f1;117t.hCI:_é1tatCd that
according to him, the pwas aged -9_ years.
8. PWIO smt. Meera iBai”M’..,.._ifich;§:¥ge’ Headmistress of
Govezvhnmentwfivigherl P:rimary_Sehool at Tumkur, has stated in
her etfidence tnatfjvofii’3:.l”1»:2.~2o03 the police of Thilak Park
v.a.pproac’hed her and requested her to issue
theadate of birthvveerttificate in respect of PW} complainant,
‘V’Si_i1’na”‘and’Vt’therefore, she issued the Ex.Pl1 date of birth
Certificate;’lbVased on the records maintained in the said
school”; She has further deposed that as per the records
“id .ma’intained in the said school and as mentioned in Ex.P11
Vbieertificate, the date of birth of PW} Suma was 1.7.1993.
(–….».x/”‘-“—-=~
9. Though PWS 5, 6 and 10 are cross» examined on
behalf of accused at length, nothing is brought on record to
disbeiieve their above evidence. Therefore, the TI’i€IJ___Court
has rightly believed the evidence of these urit1iesvs_”esg:”‘and
rightly recorded its finding that the PW1 ‘
about 10 years as on the date of the said that ‘ .
forcible sexual intercourse was committed’ on
12.10.2003 at about 10.00″a,,:m.V_ as aiiegedg ii1_Ath_;e«~._goInp1airrtit
Ex.P1.
10. PW1 stated in her evidence
in clear terms that on ‘the’sa1′.d’ date “time, while she was
sitting reading outsideher house, the accused came to the
house; met herVn;ot11er._yvho’ was preparing food in the house
.whi1e”‘going.haxyaydhe took her with him saying that he
g ‘h’ei-‘to the house of her grandmother. She
S udeposed that after she accompanied the accused,
Shetookdheriiztowards Sapthagiri Talkies and then to an old
Vacant’:.house. She has further deposed that when she asked
it , as to why he took her to the said place, he said that he
was to pay some money to Mason and therefore, he took her
there. She has further deposed that after the accused took
¢~
-9-
her into the said house, he removed her clothes, he
removed his clothes also, laid her on the ground and
committed forcible sexual intercourse despite her resistance
and, when she cried, he threatened her sa3n’rig~,t_’hat.,Ahe
would murder her. She has further depose§i;—-that;.v:atf
time, he forcibly inserted his private’ partmiritofv r e,
part and thereby committed forc;:ib1e’_’_’seXual_ i’nterco:u;g.éi1.iQn
her and consequently, she” sustained severe. pa_irr..anid also’
bleeding from her private par_tslland’Vwhi1elI1e_vvasvvigoing away
from the said place, hellpthreatened–Vjheri that if she were to
disclose the said inciderit.loefo’re’=her.rnother or anyone else,
police inthat event, he would kill her.
She has further” that, after the accused left the
place, she” _retur–‘ned her house and informed the said
iiicident to herflmother [PW3 Smt. Jayalakshmi], her cousin
S Ravi’fVag:id_:.,thereafter, she was taken to the Government
lit{ospita1l’a}_.”3Fumkur and got her admitted there. She has
furtZt:er’:.deposed that the Medical Officer of the said hospital
.,tel’e«phohed to the police and, in response thereto, the police
came there and recorded her complaint statement as per
EXP} as narrated by her and after the complaint was
c_________,{“1..-»-\,,…,,
written, its contents were read–over and explained to her.
She has further deposed that she showed the _4poIic»e~..the
scene of offence which was situate in an oid.«§(acant’=h0§use,
behind Sapthagiri Talkies and the
panchanama Ex.P2 in respect of the
her signature on it. A it t t 1 it u l
11. The above evidencedéllat ivficonsistent
with the allegations’ it PW13 ASI
Doddarachappag has “hi.§~.’,:’,_’exridence that on
12.10.2003 received written
intimation. V. tOfficer of Government
PW1 complainant was
admitted!’ inlthei Immediateiy thereafter, he
rushed to ‘fl1€V3_VvSE1.i,C.§; hossbital and recorded her statement as
;lEx;-P1 and obtained her signature on it as per Ex.P1(a}
_ an.d’th’en.; registered crime against accused on the basis
of saidgcomplaint for the said offences and issued FIR
‘ accordingly.
I 12. PW 2 Ravi, the cousin of prosecutrix has stated in
his evidence that on the date of incident, white he was in the
house of the complainant at about 9.30 a.m., he saw the
(¥__’f”~=–\_.»\
accused taking the prosecutrix Surna with him and he also
saw the prosecutrix returning home by about 10.15 or 10.20
a.rn., crying. He has also deposed that she told him that she
was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by
¢—“””””‘
behind-«fie Sapthagiri Talkies.
13. PWS 3 and 4 respectively,-Smt.’_’davaiai~:s1*irni. andu’
Sri. Shivanna @ Shivakurnar, the
consistently stated in theirf._eVidenee that on day of’
incident, at about 10.00 am, had gone
along with the accused from othaeiir uresiidetiice returned to the
house and 1nfof.’.’1ed,m= ci¢ra11.,.fthe “hf forcible sexual
intercoursfe’ her bfvflaccused. They have further
deposedthat the’§:1’rl,fbtook«.ti1em to the scene of offence that
was situatedV_:Vin_a–nfold” vacant house in the Nilagiri grove
behind-3,Sapthagiri'”‘Talkies in Turnkur Town and thereafter,
iadmitted in the Government Hospital, Tumkur.
the above evidence of PW1 prosecutrix, PWs
3 an_d”[.4 her parents, PW2 Ravi her cousin, clearly
.establishes that it was this accused, who subjected her to
fforcible sexual intercourse on the said date, time and place.
c____”_’/”M”-z,–~»
-12-
15. Further Ex.P11, the date of birth certificate issued
by PW 10, I”-Ieadmistress and her evidence which has
remained totally unchallenged clearly establishes that, as
on the date of the incident, the girl was aged less’
years. Besides this, the oral evidence of
that of PW9 Investigating Officer ciearly the’
scene of offence was situated inVan:_A_old vacant resi_dential
house situated in the Nilgirigrove behind ‘*ij’alkie’s 0′
in Turnkur City and the saidp_I..0’vdrewup.the_Ex,li52 scene of
offence panchanama the..::of. _PW8 Jayaram as
panch. Ex.P3′,– the VCaS€__ is.heet”.v”pertaining to the
treat:d1entl’f’g»i’ven 71¢ prosecutrix in District Hospital,
Tumkur, for the’ inJiut=ies~«.sustained by her as a result of
forcible se;§;’ual int’erconr’se on her on the said date and time,
‘ V’ __ ciearly-eestablishesthat, as a result of sexual assault on her,
“she a.su«staine_d’*severe injuries on her private parts and she
treatedas inpatient from the date of incident i.e. from
12.103003 to 18.10.2003 as deposed by PW5, Dr.
A ” .I§iv’arakanath.
16. From my above discussion, it is quite clear that
the prosecution has proved the above case against the
r~f”‘”‘-“””-
appellantwaccused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences
under section 376 (mm and 506 of iPC. Therefore, E do not
find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order of conviction. As to the sentence imposed’ onthe
accused, the learned counsel appearing for’?.__him,suhmits ”
that in View of the fact that the has_:4ton”support f
family consisting of his wife and minor.chi1dren,..Vfthenn
sentence of imprisonment years’ imposede” on the
accused for the said effence,ha_rsh and..therefore, the
same deserves to be against”‘this. learned High
Court Government contends that the Trial
Court, after” faet and also other submissions
made on behalf nof,jaecu.sfe’d. and also following the judgments
of the Sup1~e_me..C2ourtfr.eported in 11.12 2004 Kamataka
A1’-a§37;,._—{ista,;e offitmjab Vs. Ramdev Singh and (2000) 4
V Journal page 3673 (Birendra Sah Vs.
‘State fiihar) has rightly imposed the said sentence and
as such, it does not call for interference in this appeal. The
. acc’1_«1sed- appeliant has not made out any adequate and
special reasons for reducing the sentence of imprisonment
from ten years to any lesser period and imprisonment for
-…….pt'(m’~'”‘°”
l V’ . tsn..*{‘
ten years is minimum sentence to be imposed on a person
who commits an offence under section 376 [2}[fl of IPC. It is
pertinent to note that the punishment for this offen_pCe_p»l*may
also be imprisonment for life also. Therefore_,_$iHdo
any special and adequate reasons to reduce”therse’ntence_ Of”.
imprisonment from the minimunipof
period’ .._ _ _ ._ .
17'. For the reasons appeal is dismissed as being' Thel impugned
judgment and order ‘»*sen’tence passed by
the Trial Cc;’urEj::jp.iagairéstHtiie llappelianbaccused is hereby
coniiirned ir1-toto.
\
IUDGE