State Of Karnataka Through K R S vs Sarvesh @ Cherbi on 27 November, 2008

506 AND 375 R,/W sec 34 0:: we Am ;s_E::;,3(2)::s;}’–:0?..$;C; 8-,3?’
(POA) ACT 1989. * _ ‘ A ~

THIS AWEAL ¥R’$A”§._;§”%”–€~§S5%:%”{,;-

BANNURMATH }., SELIVERED Ti-i”EV_E€fti.Li3WE%iG’3
:..;s..D.§.:~:¥m:E8:kk%A%VF ‘

“mere is a de2a7″33 ieff{~d’a3}’§– f§:§»’V”ffiéaag we Bfifiéfiis

I.A.I/’O8 hasVhééifi-».fi£e§”‘f§f~–;”:n*:§or:atis;’: af fiaiay. fiistica $3
orc¥ered.'”L?,és.p§fidé’éts.§.%’e served wha have {wt 55% easy

objégtiefiizs. H2:-n;;_¢__,_”.taEVwr.: uané : t’hg fact that deiay £5 hanfiy 3 éays, %z’*: the

‘§~:§i:.erejS.i’&V’«9zf.. jfiéfice, we deem it pmper to cerederse the

; de£ ay,’ IéV.A’.’ i/98 is atiowed. Defay mndeaea.

2. Haard the Eearrzeé State Rsbfic ?:’asectster re:

V% .V ___éc¥mEssion.

3. Beéng aggrieved by the judgmem: ef_4e§jc3-skit-:33

dated 19.92.08 passed by the éearned Ses;=:;E3:t’3.i:’*§s;”b53i’;2:a§§-:s._,_T’.

Mandya, in Spi. Case :uo,34/zeezfsefixe p_:”‘eSe§t’_’:a’fieea% M’

fiied. The respcndents / eccasviezeé;”w.ere’=.€ér§~e§ ‘fe§e,,\.At’h.e

offences panishabie under E’$_e’c:§;..éorzs. -:~?’é;1,

read with Section 34__ IPC ;§¢;A–.jse;t:e:§” «éqzjgfgf: s? the
Scheduied Castes (¥>:’evention sf
Atrocities) Act, 3.939. 1.Afiecetirfdieg.;.j;e A.”teée’.:v.Tb}*osecut§en, er:
11.09.2005;_,_.é§: jei eE£ue§*épure Véfiage, when
the vie§im_ AVVV!¥’?’;%”.*f«._1_i€”$’e{ae.V’_’:%’-etu-rn§:ee to her mesa frem tfze
shop, eff vetfjiee W331; wrengfufiy restrained and

dragg’ecie..her:te ..aj_ n5eaa;’:3y heystack and ccsmmitted rape oe

‘r*e«eé:fVf

V the Tréai Court, the eresecutéee reééee

ugfiairn ex§vé’def2:{:e of 11 witnesses and got marked Exsfié Ee

ais’»–§ve§2 as court easements Exai ta 13. 3:’:

a_7ppr.e€§atiors ef the evidence, the Tr%a§ Ceurt, §§V§%’i§ eenefit

doubt to the accesefi, acquitted him an the %’a¥%ew§§*:g

V’ grounds:

L

J3

(i) Inconsistency in the evéciemsa cf v%ct§§’;'{‘$%§%’$;–:T’ _

via: the wfiinesses wine iaéébeged $:¥:3″?:’:éi¥.é:gf,%:’?;e’;*é§sir:VV u
tha accused ieavmg ti;-g p;’_%a?:é
after the §;1<:§deE3t;~ '~.._ V 'V ' V' V . .

(ii) Deiay in lcdging thgjvjéfi-5j_p-i.§vin%;.”

(iii) Absence of §§§écijiC’$§ $fi§defi;§’?egardEng the
raPe..v _»u ‘=’V 2 . ‘v V
S. _ t¥3a4~4~’~é-.ijé’V%:-‘.«”‘§a.r’iVVcJ:ézfré’ce far the limited
purp<§sé"as;§éi:v£ Tr%a¥ Court, ii is ts be

noted 7t.ha:t..the. aged neariy 6% years am} as

pezfihver cbm_fi§a§fi–t i:_ie€zs?':Lése, she bamngs 2% me §:3w:'%-

ciass, Atxhiev'~a::'cuseé was wefe ha:d%*g aged 21 K 24

y§_a":'s,:"-v¥j:a5°c.§rr§.m§tted the effarsca. Ne deamt, in {age 9?

.fa;§é,, no age Emit of the victim be csrssidered ma

the Cséiirts though, rape on old weman aged 69 years $3

A agrfizqmmon. Simiiariy, as she is aged sersen, ésardiy fiéxem

' Qivouié be any medécai evidence aasaééable as ta tése vietém

beéng subjected ta rage e$pe€%a¥§y when she has been

examineé by the dcctor after four at five days a?" the

64/'

incident, In the fight of the tend mark ptet;ct–t3t§¥¢}é}§"{€'ennit*~*téfv.'

the Apex Court it; the case of _B.tt§AfP;W£3;§A""§§.t§§fi{3E4%£vB§*§_aF%.f"

HIRJIBHAI Vs. STATE or $U3ARg§?:;'_te.$atte§"' :§{i§5{:'-~.:;f§~3f3

SC 753 ever: the deéay sirr:'§f'é':.§.tor tty.itzctgtntj:tttggcomgpiaént»L'

of this nature wiii falsify t}:§:-sfivéégncét victim 52'
acceptable or be§§evVah9.§é._Aé} sVt1s;.h}.'¢;%.tt'te:1tions of Eearnect

State Puhitc Presecut9r'~§'n..thisrggattit tttéfnct be raéevastt.

As such, wé: !:'_f«':'.*.€€avt'3}'E'§':iV§e£'Ed ttta evidence

atso keepfig. ftietti-ed fititttifitfi tteat the

Ap;2eEi;ate§' shiauié net interfere wtttt ttae

;?t2c£gme£1t._ uf”t.a}~f;§ttg éiternate View tmiess, the Aapefiate

E”¥9″‘i:igt:t:?_f-.”«._tv?*sat the appmctatiot: of evidence or the

‘~§tat:_¢§4iss-§v6’a V_réfictiad by the Tréa! Cetsrt are ttstaity Eitegaé,

per’vers.;e in téatu re.

AA Qn perusat of the evtderrce of the victim » WEE-

‘ especéaliy the cross-examttzation, it is dear that stte ts

“”‘…’vttta£Ey irtccsnsistent as ta her case grojacteé t§’§.”‘GE.t§%’t the

first infarmatten as wet: as her evidence in €}(3n”i?§°ta’lZ§G%’;-§?’§*-

9″‘

chief, The mace of the incident, the time
varies; creafing some doubt as te.-the–«e);’aee”e’e’eAe§4_;%v§_i’;;;;§¢~;;3 V’
cf the incident. If there is
regard, the evidence ef ethee§Ee{;*ebe”ret§eeeéé;§t}é’*eeeee: Pwe
2 to 6 also requires te. be se:e§V§:fiL’§se’:§-»_eeeeAes’e-, Eetee time

and mace vanes, the efieggee iifeese eeeeeeeee
immedéateiy after fee ;.;~:’c%§efija%:V_e§f;.%;.e. t§r:§sVe’eee péace géeee
by them aise regard, ii is efee
to be netee fedged afier deiey ef
three ééeyss ens; eerticeiers ef tee

accused aeif keewe 4eer§§er re the victims and wéieesses $5

fe£52f§ed’ in the”1eress~exeminat%ee, the so cefied wsteesses

§év’he_’}e£’e “a»¥{e–gvee is have r:et%eee and wentifiee the eecesee

é?*:2r¥3[e;fiAia5’te¥S,{v.._e’f§_e:9 the iecédent am the answers given: fie

_ the efoseéiexeexinatien that they did net knew the acceeee

4e§ev§ee4us§Vy’..creetee further dent fie the vezrecity ef Eee

” -pre;sTe:;et§on versien.

7. Even after inzzéepeedeet re–eeeeesmee% ef tee

evidence as we as net flee feel’: with the reaeeeéeg ef ‘tee

(fig,/L

Tféa! Court and even ctharwése, as we
there is just possibfééty sf g駫{%.§2.§__’ber:’§f§<§V"'é?'fiv ti:
accessed, we 69 net thmk t?2§s:°;'-s ai..'_'_'%-'ai:<:é'sé*': %:$ %a€§é§f§'e§§3,55%???' J
the judgment 3? acq:.2Ef.:'¥V:_aff«~…..V_ E-i"é's:<$::_'e,V wysfi :*z2a?'a"%Li:.

Appeai is rejected.

I1; ‘………..—-*’

. ..

Judy?

…. .. Sd/’E

Judge

;I’AF«TIv