{"id":119172,"date":"2009-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-06-06T12:46:01","modified_gmt":"2016-06-06T07:16:01","slug":"gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Jagannathan<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT 012'   2 MA\n\nCIRCUIT BENCH A'1fIii\u00a5:\u00a7-=sI2i.ie\u00a5;x1:>  -  \n\nBATED THIS THE 2ND my (3\u00a7F_1:3=;'EiBi?I,?vP\u00a3;E\"~3\"\u00a7?\":2A%30\u00e9f3\u00e9.\"' V\n\n %   %\nTHE HOWBLE uJ\u00a7gsff:\u00a7E['y;'}J,qQAr\u00a2%biA*i'HAN\nBETWEEN?'   \n\nGadepp\u00e9,   \nAged ab+:m:A33 y\u00e9ars,  Agriculture,\nR \/ \u00a33: iiiirebc1\"1a}\u00a7a}, \"'.]Tah;Vk\u00ab: ___C+_1:{_1gavat}1i,\n\nDist: Kopya}. ' ' ' ..AppeI1ant\n\n(By Sri  Mahabaleshwar Hasinai\n S1': _Mahan_t\u00a2'sh C'.I{0ttL11*shettar, Advocatas}\n\n..Respo1<1de::11:\n\n7 (By 'S1:~i P;,}i.Ga:kI;indi, HCGP)\n\n_     This criminal appeal is filed :_1nder_Se<:t:i<;)n 374(2)\n V' (3\u00a7r.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed\n  the P.O., F'i'C\u00ab-I, Koppel in S.C.N\u20ac).33\/2005\n\n" com:ic1:i;1g the appellant\/ accused for the o\ufb02ences\n\np\/11\/$3.376 and 506 of IPC and sentencing him 1:9\nundergo RI. far 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.S,OO0\/~ in\nCiefauit, he shall undergo S3. for 1 year. Apart from this\n\n\n\nhe shall pay compensation of Rs.'2(),{}OO\/- \n\nPW.\u00a7 U\/s. 357 of Cr.P.C. for the offence p.,f5_uf'S;f:}?'Z\u20ac$  \n\nIPC anti further eentencing him to undergo Frljgi for' -2\n\nyears and pay a fine of Rs.1,{}(}C\u00a5f;;f0r a1f;'e\ufb01'e\u00a7iee"'pfu\/ "'\n\n506 of IPC in default of payment \u00ab oi';_fme,__" b_.e._ \nundergo S.I. for 3 months. ;"'I'hVe *._se;j1teIV1ee--, {if\n\nimprisonment passed against the.accuse{1..';f0i"'bo\u00a5:}3. 't'i1e'--..L\n\noffences shall run eoneumentiyj.\n\nThis criminal appeal e_(iVifI:i11'g.._\u00bbon..fo1<:vif:eHa;i"*ir3g this\nday, the Ceurt. c1eiive1'e<*i\u00a2_ the feV_11:0ta:_i::;.g:--_\n\n  -  \n<\/pre>\n
;}’fhe_  in ques\ufb01on his conviction for
\nthe o\ufb01’eIi’ees* puf;ie\u00a5;ebie”_1irider Sections 376 and 506 of<\/p>\n
 ‘arid tk1e”$eif1te::1ee passed thereon by the learned<\/p>\n
 .th.e”i9’ast Track Court, Koppel.<\/p>\n
  TV prosecution case in Sheri: is” that, the<\/p>\n
 preseez\ufb01zix being a married Woman having three<\/p>\n
   and husband, had been to the land of {me<\/p>\n
   …_Hireha;r2umaWa on 14.10.2004 around 12 noon in murder<\/p>\n
to collect fodder and the accused also had come tie the
\nvery same land in order to eeilect fodder for his “cattle.<\/p>\n
><\/p>\n
‘1<\/p>\n
E %&\u00a32:s:s$<\/p>\n
The accused asked the preeecutrix to Ii\ufb01 the
\nwhen the preseeutzix tried to ii\ufb01: the f0dde.If _byj   ‘
\nthe accused caught her and Igrlreerteraerlp   AV<\/p>\n
wouid destroy her (-‘5\u00a7@%~3;”u 95?} z\u00a7nd if  go: <\/p>\n
submit herself, he would   ‘2Vi:}:1e ;accused
\nmade her fall and  her  _1ange1 ‘and then
\n[meaning thereby  case of the<\/p>\n
rosecutien es }:.e:\u00e9 fire ieem _41aiii:5’aVezrnents that the
\n. 1L , , . V<\/p>\n
accused e\u00a7:’enj.5qffer\u00a7e\u00a71 _– as she kept mum, the
\naecusecf’eo131mitrf:.\u00e9e!:.’  act on her hoiding her both<\/p>\n
 In {uhe.:Vpreeees, \u00ab\u00a7’:.he bangles of her hands broke<\/p>\n
.  \u00e9:fe:i_1f   It is the further case of the<\/p>\n
Vpreeee:\u00bb}.fi9_i1  per the ccmpiaint version that the<\/p>\n
prceecLriri>r.:\u00e91iso had a similar incident happening to her<\/p>\n
   “2.1bQut .E3~<;")r 6 months earlier W\u00a7'l\u20acI1 the accused had tried<\/p>\n
 e._'E\u00a7\u00a7e\u00abveIy same act on her. But the prosecumx retorted<\/p>\n
   the accused kept quite and the prosecutrix did not<\/p>\n
inform of this incident ts anyone.\n<\/p>\n
y<\/p>\n
,9<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
3. It is fmthee caee of the proseeutien tiiagafter
\nthe incident mat teak place on 14.10.2004,
\nheme weeping and teak bath and rinsed
\nthere aftexwards when q116S\ufb01OI1\u00a7?.v:}”b}f   K V’ ‘
\nprosecutrix again told him that     3
\nThere aftezwalds, her hus}\u00a7a:3:iit:*._\u00bbteei{ \u00a7k__1e:%’E’10i:e1 ef ‘ ‘ L\u00bb
\nthe accused. But tlf1e__zaec1,1se d:.”Lj.ar\u00e9{3′ nef:\ufb01 them} and the<\/p>\n
brother ef the accusegi’ ‘r1;:r..\u00a7;Ij:V’e1jg? I\ufb01\ufb01gemanurappa was<\/p>\n
presem  of the incident. and said
\nYamaneeeppe  he would call the eiders and<\/p>\n
t\u00a7}e\u00a7?WQuld decide the future course of action. Hewever,<\/p>\n
.’ 011 :the eeeurance gven by the said Yamanurappa, the<\/p>\n
   her husband came home and die not<\/p>\n
  iziigmg the eempiai\ufb02t in the face ef the said<\/p>\n
 ., ‘aeeferehce. But hewever, as on the following day, the<\/p>\n
“A’1\u00a7eei’:her ef the aecuse\u00e9 took a di\ufb01erent stand by stating<\/p>\n
V’  “that he would not pmduce the accused. before the elders<\/p>\n
and the proeecutrix can decide her course of actiorz. The<\/p>\n
prosecutrix came to the Police Station and lodged the<\/p>\n
3\u00bb<\/p>\n
‘J<\/p>\n
compiaint as per exhibit 13.1 and it  w. <\/p>\n
p.m. on 14.10.2004 an\ufb01 3 Casi:\n<\/p>\n
crime No.15!)\/2004 of Gar;gavathi.__\u00a7’;1m1  <\/p>\n
offences punishable under SLe{:_xtions  T.i)’5{)4 ;and 506
\n1’\/W. 34 ofI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
4. Thai mvesilga\u00e9idil’\ufb01\u00a7j\u00a2:1f*e..\u00a7;;f\u00a7;e:I9xxz’:;\u00a7I9t:1s proceeded on
\nthe expected””1ini\u00a7@$,’;’-_Vi:1 13111c\u00e9h::\u00ab’;asVV\u00a7*;I1e statement of the
\nh11Sbar1d'”‘uf’\u00a7;’c1e   other witnessets were
\nrecord\u00e9d, “victi1″1*:\u00a7   accused were subjected<\/p>\n
ta 1;3\u00a2dic\u00a7\u00e91~~  before PW.1(3 and PW.2<\/p>\n
 ‘  _res,};:\u00a7\u00e95ct\u00a7.3ze:ij,z.A ‘I’h\u00e9’sp’o’t panchanama was drawn and \u00bb()I1<\/p>\n
  <:exi1p1et%\u00a7\u00a711..1::-f_t_i"z.e ixwestigation, charge sheet was laid.<\/p>\n
 5,v–..'T.hc"'V'accused cisrlied the charges lavelled against<\/p>\n
k.\n<\/p>\n
  and there afterwards the proseczztian was<\/p>\n
   upon to prove the case against the accused and<\/p>\n
T  ” ”pt;1rsua:1t to the same, the pmsacution led the evidence<\/p>\n
U by examining 12 witnesses axgd produced 10<\/p>\n
dacuments, apart from 4 material cxbjects. 011<\/p>\n
$14<\/p>\n
.\/\/'”\n<\/p>\n
‘P<\/p>\n
fatal enough 1:0 discard the testimeny of .. <\/p>\n
the trial Court also fauna t\ufb01at   cie’f\u00a2’r1\u00e9:\u00e9=.<\/p>\n
accused that a faise case has be<\u00e9i':_ L.<\/p>\n
also was not an acceptable    hel\u00e9ing
\nthat the eviderxce of   to prove
\nthe case agains\ufb01  convicted
\nthe: accusgti 44 beghming ef the
\njudgggmi   Q undergo 7 years
\n\ufb01gor\u00e9gxs  to pay \ufb01ne of Rs.5,00{)\/–, in
\ns:%\u20acfau1t”tt”–:’e simple imprisorlment and in<\/p>\n
adr\ufb01tiom ta   (:o1:11pe:1sation of Rs.20,000\/– to the<\/p>\n
,A \ufb01u\u00a7..c_1V;i111u:  -rfespect of the o\ufb01enca under Section 357 of<\/p>\n
 z   regards the 0ff\u20acII1\u00a3’.3$ under Sectien 506 of<\/p>\n
” ..  is concerned, the accused was sentenced to 2<\/p>\n
‘A rigorous ismprisoizment and pay {me of Rs.1,tZ)0O\/~,<\/p>\n
V  “in defat\ufb01t ta undergo 3 moimths simple: imprisonment. It<\/p>\n
is thi\ufb01\ufb01 judwent: of convictian and sentence that is<\/p>\n
assailed in this appea} by thf: accused.<\/p>\n
R<\/p>\n
8. I have heard the arguments  by V\u00bb <\/p>\n
learned Counoei Sri M.B.Gu11};1aw-a?i\u00e9;  e,soi.ste(i” Viby <\/p>\n
Mahabaleshwar Hasinai     <\/p>\n
learned Government Advooa#}e” for the
\nState and carefu113*_fr3r1I’eec\u00a7\u00bb’A e:1f;re material on
\nrecord.    1 ‘ 2 V<\/p>\n
9.  44      contention put
\n  for the appellant Sri
\n ‘E31 order to constitute the
\noffence o:fo  Section 375 of I.P.C., it is<\/p>\n
i11o1;i3ixi’bar;t oiir port of the prosecution to prove that<\/p>\n
 ti1tT;\u00a5I”\u20ac\u00a7i1i.iI\u20ac;\ufb02}\ufb01\u00a71t of explanation to Section 375 of i.P.C.,<\/p>\n
 “AV”f”\u00a7:t\u00a3~:I;%;e1iV.1″a1’.i<)I1 is sufficient to constitizte the<\/p>\n
sexi:a1"'–i:1t'ei':;:ourse necessary to the offence of ragye", is<\/p>\n
K  satis\ufb01ed and uniess and until the prosecution is<\/p>\n
  to place evidence to Show that there was'<\/p>\n
" Vpenetration", it cannot be said that the ingrediem:s'of<\/p>\n
F-Skxle.\n<\/p>\n
the offence of rape is made out. E prefacing the<\/p>\n
argument with the above definition of rape and<\/p>\n
%\/<\/p>\n
emphasis on the requirement of penetratien;jj\u00a3he\u00bb:}eeI12ed= . <\/p>\n
Ceunsei referring to the evideikce T ef ‘the.. preeeeeiifix<\/p>\n
submitted that, no where  the’-ee’ursew’V:e:\u20ac\u00a7 her’ erztire,”<\/p>\n
evidence, has the prosecutzdg’  peffietration.<\/p>\n
     e fees ‘
\nTherefore, mere use ef,”t1%1e._en::}r{i ” ” itself will<\/p>\n
not be euf\ufb01eientv to draef   there was
\npenetra\ufb01en.  the evidence of
\nthe  ene for the sake of
\narg11ri3,_en\u00a3,~ Z  \u00bb>e’ie1ie’enee on the whole, does not
\nindicate “\ufb02eet   ixad cemmitted the e\ufb01ence of<\/p>\n
rapeies. Ciei”1I’Vie~:i\u00a5,. iv 1f1″_$e{:ti0;’1 375 of I.F’.C. read with the<\/p>\n
.e;:pIaJ1e.tie3ij*~–.to the said section. Therefore, it is<\/p>\n
  testimezzy of the preseeutrix dees not<\/p>\n
V –V hefp ‘.t?1eA pfeseeutf3– in eetabiisl\ufb02ng the o\ufb01ence of rape,<\/p>\n
V’ ” H Sinee the essential iI}@’\u20acdi8l”i\u00a3S of the eaid effence<\/p>\n
–‘   “penetration” has not been proved by placing<\/p>\n
T  ‘”p\u00a7roper and iega} evidence.\n<\/p>\n
2′?\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
10. To suhstahtiafa the above conte11t:ici1′,_:”‘t,he<\/p>\n
learned Counsel for the appellant  <\/p>\n
even the medical evidence placed- by hi  <\/p>\n
through WV. 10 who examined the t\u00bbi-mu <\/p>\n
examined the accused,’  dees’  V7-.,iieip”‘ the”<\/p>\n
prosecution case any furthezfhecatise ‘in’-‘thee medicei
\nevidence of the said If}ee’toi”s,.”i”:’:,t is net. fertheeming that<\/p>\n
the victim wiae:  ‘intercourse by the<\/p>\n
aceueed  ‘i:4.10.20G4. The absence of
\ninjury’ ortthey   of the victim as well as the<\/p>\n
 andV”tize___ei):sez1ce of injury on the hack of the<\/p>\n
\u00bb $;fietim._._ gives rise to doubt the testimony of the<\/p>\n
‘p1″.0eeci:tI9i}:.Vf’7I’herefore, when the medical: evidence does<\/p>\n
Q not  the case of the prosecution in its entirety<\/p>\n
V’ V’ \u00ab ;;\ufb01d.._when PW.1{TJ~B0ctor has opined that, no opinion as<\/p>\n
 Af\ufb01egeirds sexual intercourse can be given, the further<\/p>\n
iolaservatien of the Doctor in the eerti\ufb01ce.te–exhibit R8<\/p>\n
that there were no sigxs of rape, therefore lends support<\/p>\n
tn the defence argument that, the presecution has failed<\/p>\n
3;.\u00bb<\/p>\n
‘,9<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
to establish the act of the accused having  _<\/p>\n
sexual intercourse with the victim.<\/p>\n
11. The other in\ufb01rmities ii1_t11e. presec’ut_io:t”1~:_’ca$e~.u<\/p>\n
according te the learned Cefi\ufb01sel   arell<\/p>\n
that, the incident is  to;i’:2i\\re:’ie$aI1:_ take1*1″pi”ace in the
\nland of Hirehanumavva-i.’ai1;i7’ii .x_’ee:i3e in the spot<\/p>\n
panchanaxng.   the plants had<\/p>\n
growI;”aii’ide. eround 1 feet from one
\nrow toV”‘et\u00a71erVan\u00a7i=efp_a:1*t; that, there were some small<\/p>\n
azildiiiiy  a31(i”v_tliei”efore, if the incident as alleged<\/p>\n
  by’-i:c.\u00a3he.A’-e\ufb01resecuefix'”had taker} place and further if the<\/p>\n
   for over about 10 to 15 minutes and<\/p>\n
 shouted, all this would have led to some<\/p>\n
 in_iu1’iee_l* having been caused on the body of the<\/p>\n
 ‘meeeutrix and more particularly, on the back ef the<\/p>\n
  g\ufb01rosecutrix. But however, the medical evidence<\/p>\n
indicates that there were no i3″1j”t.1I’i\u20acS on the back of the<\/p>\n
2:.\n<\/p>\n
u–”<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
groseeutrix and this also gives rise   <\/p>\n
testimony of the pmseeutrix.\n<\/p>\n
12. Another eonteniicjii-… vputA”f(:;w\u00abz*zax1i\u00bb*1,_ ieeieriiiig \u00a5:ugh the
\nprosecutrix has stated :e:;’42:2t:iV3ii:i:’);e2:ion–iI1-ci\ufb02ef that
\nthe accused    langa, yet the
\nprosecutxjlx’  about the clothes
\nof the   accused removed his
\ncietheej o1″::\ufb01\u00a7:ticu1ar1}’, she dees not even<\/p>\n
say in }ViVer_ evit\u00a5:’e:1ce”  to, what was the act of the<\/p>\n
 V.  ace'{zse<_i. _\u00a5;_1 otf1erv.saz.e:*ds, except stating that the accused<\/p>\n
 '   the prosecutrix has not speci\ufb01cally<\/p>\n
stetged  act done by the accused. Therefore, in
\n thetuabeeince of the evidence of the grosecutrix revealing<\/p>\n
"accused having had forcible sexes} intereeuree with<\/p>\n
'  her by izxserting his penis into her vagina, it is not<\/p>\n
'4 eoesibie to draw the inference from the evidence of the<\/p>\n
the accused did had forcible<\/p>\n
23.?\n<\/p>\n
prosecutrix that<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
intercourse with the prosecutrix. It is in ~~.e’ot1text<\/p>\n
that the learned Counsel had referred to   <\/p>\n
ef rape and the necessity of _the__proseeiiti\u00e9i\u00a31V’.’p1e.eii2g”  <\/p>\n
evidenee showing penetration {so * ‘te ii’eei:s’titi1tfe~..ftiie<\/p>\n
offence of rape. As such, ~.sub1:iIissieniV”jthat,”~ ‘<\/p>\n
the omission on the .part_ef _”t.'”-1e”-~.;_;}rosee:1tio1:{ to have
\nelicited from the ni1e_11t1i__   presecutrix this<\/p>\n
important aseeet is it at serio;1sV’ :iiiI’1rmity in the<\/p>\n
proseeutienxiVieaee:”‘tand:”‘e,s* such, the offence of rape
\ncannot’  said to\u00bb-  been estabiiehed by the<\/p>\n
proeeeution begzend ed} reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
   ‘_’Fi1\u00a7e—_ieamed Counsel for the appellant aieo<\/p>\n
i”efeIi’eei.te’j__t;l.\u20ace \u00e9efenee theory that, a faise case has been<\/p>\n
 foisitedt ‘;agei.nst the accused) as the husband of the<\/p>\n
 gfeeeeutrix was not in good terms with the brother of I<\/p>\n
  the accused who was riinning a hate}. To buttress this<\/p>\n
argument, the teamed Counsel else refereed to the Very<\/p>\n
conduct of the preseeutrix. It is eentended that the<\/p>\n
e-\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
proseeutrix has deposed in her evidence thei,   <\/p>\n
the alleged incident, she went Ifmme.    V ‘<\/p>\n
rinsed her eiethes and as such,”1:he’..\u00a2e_i}d1iet:0n <\/p>\n
of the victim is rather sur\ufb01\ufb02eing ‘heee1.i:~3e\u00ab”‘:,a”V persoza V<\/p>\n
subjected to an act vef..”;1et d’eet1*oyV4t11e very
\nevidence of rape by   er soon. after the
\nmeident, ‘m11_:, re\ufb01ger g\u00e9feeefve  for \u00a7he purpose
\nof medical)     V<\/p>\n
 l The.  pointed out that the<\/p>\n
other defeet in the Ap-reeeeutslen case is that, the bangle<\/p>\n
 piee\u00a7::~s   recovered from the spot and<\/p>\n
e  the Court as per M0,}, could not be<\/p>\n
 as of the bangie were by the proeeeutrix<\/p>\n
‘*._beca1.1’ee_A Tee evidence is piaeed to Show that the broken<\/p>\n
 = pieces of bangle were of the very semeAW(:r\u00a71 by the<\/p>\n
V’  vpfesecutrix and further, time of conducting the spot.<\/p>\n
 pamchanama and reeevery ef bangle pieces dees not<\/p>\n
ta\ufb02y with the time’ at which the preeeeufrix was taken te<\/p>\n
Ea<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
the Doctor for examination and as both” xe*.?e12is_ V’ <\/p>\n
have been stated ta have been  piece\u00bb:<\/p>\n
p.111., it is not possible _ to 1:\u00a7e.lie’2ze  } )1″eSec.titie\ufb01<\/p>\n
evidence with regard 1′:ee.”e$:.he  of spot<\/p>\n
panelmnama at A_  : i2a.ngle Vvfiieees being
\nrecovered from the.”  ;\u00a7.Ii~Si3I1C(?t of the<\/p>\n
  _ \u00ab.:\u00a20ntefifiei1 put forward is that,
\nassume-Im’g– for  \u00absake that the accused had<\/p>\n
sexgrial  her, yet the conduct of the<\/p>\n
‘ ‘ -. pt~e\u00a7.ee’i;:tr\u00a7:\u00a7 in ne\u00a3”it*ying to resist the accused and in the<\/p>\n
  Of’ :=ee.i$ts1nee, not getting any injuries on her<\/p>\n
  further evidence ei’ the prosecutrix that<\/p>\n
 }:he efztfre irlcident took piaee fer a period of about 10 to<\/p>\n
 –.. 15 .’,v::t1i13.u\u00a5ies, ali taken together, W113 iead ‘$0 the possible<\/p>\n
 V\u00bb  inference that the prosecutrix was rather a censenting<\/p>\n
party” I
\n.%<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
16. In the light of the foregoing   <\/p>\n
forward, the learned Counselj\u00a3ii’gue\u00a2;\u00a5,’–4\u00e9f1I:e\u00a7ATV’o\u00a7’_  <\/p>\n
prosecution has failed to pro\ufb01e ‘the offence ”<\/p>\n
having been committed  ecc_\u00a31ser_i\/  a1l <\/p>\n
reasonaioie doubt beee,use”‘o:”‘ Vt1f;eV’V”a1)se11ee”A of evidence
\nsatisfying the requireme\ufb01t :”\u00a3’1ie_-~e:i${1eI;_2n\u00a7\u00e9\u00e9;ti<}n to Section
\n375 of I.P.C,~   that the evidence<\/p>\n
of the  Vaeeepted as reliable,<\/p>\n
yet aijthe'zeoveqtgfthee,e:as\u00a7e=e1ay fali under Sectie\ufb02 354 of
\nI.P.C. n\u00e9inelgz '\u00e9:i':3se.1_\ufb01~.':.: o'r criminal force 1:0 woman with<\/p>\n
in_te:;1\u00a3: __i:o uou1er"age…_11er modesty'. Therefore, even if the<\/p>\n
' evidelacee 'efthe prosecution and mainly that of the<\/p>\n
pre'3ecut:\u00a7\u00a7; ifs accepted, no offence of rape would have<\/p>\n
 eteied to have been ma\u00e9e out. At the most, the<\/p>\n
V'  offence of SCCUGI} 354 of I.P.C3. could be said to have<\/p>\n
been committed.\n<\/p>\n
1?. As far as the sentence impose\u00e9 by the tria}
\nCourt is ccneemed, the learned Counsel referred to<\/p>\n
Sectien 357′ of Cr.P.C. to contend that the trial Ceurt<\/p>\n
3?:\n<\/p>\n
1′?\n<\/p>\n
could have awarded the compensation  \ufb01gs:<\/p>\n
\ufb01ne ameunt, but awarded compezmation  aridifi\u00e9-n ~  V’ <\/p>\n
\ufb01ne, is not contemplated underf\u00a7\u00a3:e\u00e9\ufb01o;1’\u00ab35:7  <\/p>\n
18. It is than subfnitged {fiat 1:1_1\u00e9’..Va<:{_':'us\u20acc\u00a7 is <\/p>\n
married man having two cI1il:&r\u00a2r:_. "Gui, qfi two, one
\nwas born duxing the  .. case and the<\/p>\n
accused has ai1"\u20ac=,-;1dy:'Li1i(\u00a7<=\u00a7\u00a7'g;o"I2g\u00a7:.\u00a7:uStQ( \u00a5:\u00a7z far over 2 years<\/p>\n
and      operation mcentiy and
\nhavxzagregard to -ins "-rsige,' may cons1der the 1611163118}-" of
\n % ' ;   A<\/p>\n
s\u20acz:1..t;eng:a, \u20ac'i.:'e;1'if"t13i"s Caurt were to accept the argumsnt<\/p>\n
. V.   iaffbxgce  Sectian 354 cf LRC. can be made<\/p>\n
 Gz;2?:;.   9'<\/p>\n
19',  support of the above arguments, the<\/p>\n
  1e;a11";:';6\u20aci:.Counsel for the appellant places reliance cm the<\/p>\n
 Vfbiiawing decisions;\n<\/p>\n
2008 SAR (CI’imiI:a1)89:\n<\/p>\n
2000 sec: (cm 1331
\n2002 Sac {Cri) 1149
\n200*? SAR(Crimi11a1) 579<\/p>\n
.fi<-\u00ab~<\/p>\n
, J<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
AIR 2003 SC 818
\n197′? see (Cri) 447
\n2907 SAR(Crin’1iI1al) 8ee;me\u00ab..  M
\n2007 SA}? {Criminal} 873   l<\/p>\n
20. On the other heme, the ‘I’earner_\u00a7?.l,<\/p>\n
Advocate for the respolidei1tm_Staie-. :’sLfp1:le\u00a7I”ted the
\njutigement of the   V\u00e93\u00a31;,1..vVVlAt::)I1tenelAe<lV that, the
\ntestimeny ef the   upon and no<\/p>\n
cerxevboraetieirieV';1ee<ie\u20ac1__eI:d moreover the proeeeutrix
\nhas given' in her evideiaeewlthe details of the incident and<\/p>\n
evegii\ufb01ite defexjeel hes; been able :0 elicit from the eross\u00ab–<\/p>\n
 'e}\u00a7ia:nllietlG:1Vtl1at the incident took place for about 10 to<\/p>\n
  very expression " 'g @\u00abQ i\ufb01\ufb01d" itself is<\/p>\n
sii'\u00a7ficiei1tv"i\ufb01e ciraw the infererzee that the accused had<\/p>\n
 3 'efereibfe sexual intercourse with the preseeutrix and<\/p>\n
ll"-\ufb01iefefore no defect can be feued in her testjxneny.<\/p>\n
V' " 'Moreover the evidence ef the prosecutrix has been<\/p>\n
supported by evidence of her husband~PW.8 and 'both of<\/p>\n
them ge to the aceused's brother and ii; is only when the<\/p>\n
QJ<\/p>\n
,\/I<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
22. As far as the consent is eeneeti:iegi;\u00bb.f}11e “J\u20aci*}{ <\/p>\n
evidence of the prosecutrix reveals jj.1:}1e’i ._i:i1e”aeee,se\u00e9\u00a7<\/p>\n
threatened her and hel<:i;\u00ab'h_er* haeds    L.<\/p>\n
these circumstances, the 2 Csf 1e.:*oseeut:riX
\ngiving her eonsem      "the bangle
\npieces recovered 'of is concerned,
\nit is it    evidence of the
\nprose\u00a7\\\\\\\\1\u00a7'i$,],:C;iie.:;  pieces were of the<\/p>\n
bangles  hf; the" 'p\u00a7*ovs_eeutrix.<\/p>\n
_ _ 23}Theref(;re;._it*~is contended that the question of<\/p>\n
 '  _ tiii.e*e\ufb017enee 0:?  havirig not been established Wiil 110%:<\/p>\n
   Aiglierefore the argument of the appellants<\/p>\n
'Cei11isei' lesser offence under Section 354 of LPG.<\/p>\n
 is macie out, cannot be aeeepte\u00e9. As far as the act of the<\/p>\n
  'eeeilsed is eoncemed, the very evidence ef the<\/p>\n
  V_j:)r0seeut1'i:< that the accused lifted her seree and ienga<\/p>\n
itself is su\ufb01icient indication of the accused having<\/p>\n
Committed the o\ufb01en\ufb01ef rape and having had forcible<\/p>\n
2}<\/p>\n
sexual intercourse with the proseeutrix.  the<\/p>\n
trial Court was justified in accepting the lee <\/p>\n
PW}, 13351.8 and PW.5.\n<\/p>\n
24. It is then submitted   p1.1i\u00a7;i_elj1ner1lt*::’u\u00a7*.}:e’\u00a71 u<\/p>\n
in the accused by the trial  “require V<\/p>\n
any interference as .\ufb02i\u20ac 1n\u00a71ii\u00a7x:i:t:1 puglieh\ufb01ient has been
\ngiven and there is zit.) __’_’Ie reduce the<\/p>\n
sentence eiiti-VViieiefhi-SV:l1=evgard, he placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
 Supreme 131.\n<\/p>\n
  _ ” ‘the light of the contentions put folward by<\/p>\n
  Counsel for the appellant, in particular,<\/p>\n
Wh\ufb01flflef can it be said that the proeeuctien has preved<\/p>\n
“ii .}::feyjond all reasonable doubt the commission of the<\/p>\n
l  Vlee-ffenee of rape by the accused in the light of the<\/p>\n
evidence en reeerd?.\n<\/p>\n
E—~<\/p>\n
26. Befere I proceed ta analyse  –\n<\/p>\n
record, it is necessary to keepfifih x\u00e9ievsr the’ deiinitidn of<\/p>\n
rape as de\ufb01ned under Sectien SA  A.I.P’ <\/p>\n
Section reads as thus;\n<\/p>\n
” 375. Raj)eL}A   \u00abto commit “rape”\n<\/p>\n
who, except ir;. .t.%1e_ ease’  excepted, has
\nsexi1a\u00a7j’   =  woman under<\/p>\n
~   Viincier any of the six<\/p>\n
,  ‘   .  .\n<\/p>\n
F’irs_;i:.# – V  ‘W111.\n<\/p>\n
Sei:e1}1d3y.V’- Witiaeiit her consent.<\/p>\n
V  ffhirdly.-“V  her consent, when her consent
\nV’ ‘  has been obtained by putting her or
\nany? person in Wham she is interested<\/p>\n
in fear of death as of hurt.\n<\/p>\n
f\u00a7’0urth1y.~With her consent, when the man knows
\nthat he is not her husband, and that
\nher consent is given because she
\nbeiieves that he is another man to
\nwhom she is or believes herself 1:0 be<\/p>\n
lawfully Inaxried.\n<\/p>\n
E:\n<\/p>\n
F\u00e9\ufb01hly. –\n<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
With. her consent, when, at the :3 of<\/p>\n
giving such consent, by Q1″\n<\/p>\n
unseundness of mind or 91* <\/p>\n
the: acin\ufb01nistratjgn by  ~  V. ‘ E’<\/p>\n
or through ar1(}t\u00a71(%:1ff Gf  <\/p>\n
unwholesjome s5″t1bi+:tj_2:nce}. ;3}%1e~. is;  V’<\/p>\n
to und\u00e9r\ufb01\u00e9haad  the  1   and ‘<\/p>\n
c0ns@quen_(;\u00e9s..V_i1 .s.;e11’\u00a3, when she<\/p>\n
‘  11’r1_\u20acieIj sixteen years of age.<\/p>\n
~ EV;xpZg;r::\u20aci\u00a3$idn.j’LQPenetratisI1 is sui\ufb01ciazit to<\/p>\n
:(\u00a701″;;stit1i1;c\u00abt11\u00a2.vsexua1 i1T1t\u20acI’C()1}I’S\u20ac necessary to the<\/p>\n
_ \u20ac}fff3;1:1i(:'{:’, of rape.\n<\/p>\n
.Ex::te*ptior1.- Saxual intercourse by a man with<\/p>\n
V 13′  wife, the wife not being “under \ufb01fteen years<\/p>\n
.. (3%: age, is :10: rape”.\n<\/p>\n
2?. Therefore, it is clear from the above defmition<\/p>\n
My<\/p>\n
Vfthat, what is required to be proved by the prosecution is<\/p>\n
that the person accused had sexual intercourse with the<\/p>\n
woman under the circumstances mentiongd above and<\/p>\n
I’.\n<\/p>\n
4%<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
further the oxplarlation makes it clear that,  to<\/p>\n
constitute “sexual ‘111tercourss, ponstmiior\u00e9 _ is .  _<\/p>\n
Therefore, the pi'<)S\u20acC11'(i0I1 wili' \ufb01avs \ufb02to\u00e9 pro1}f\u20ac;'.E3oV3?oi1dn'*'a11\u00bbf'. A' <\/p>\n
reasonable doubt that there Wa 8.S  po1.1i1o <\/p>\n
oven slight penetratiozl is;.:s.'2_1f\ufb01c:io:at;Q
\nconsidered these it\ufb01po\ufb01ajii'  oftho o\ufb01onco of
\nrape in the case of Pre\ufb01iiyf\u00e9l' Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan;~'('2'\u20ac2y\u00a7\u00a78 sue {:.(,'ri12;j\u00a7iii\u00e93l,_s8f}i?1') and observed at<\/p>\n
paraikitiisilss;   n
\n1 A " '_ V  ofraps occurs in Chapter
\nX\\ {J   an o\ufb02ence a\ufb01bcting the
\n L. in that Chaptor, there is a<\/p>\n
 =seTparato \u00a71\u00e9\u00e9idiI1g for 'Sexual offence', which<\/p>\n
  . ::'fo'1:\u00a5jo:\ufb01'passos Section 375, 376, 3'?6-A, 376-<\/p>\n
V's%; s3?6~o, and 375-3. 'Rape' is de\ufb01neci in
\n"—V:'So<\u00a7'tion 375. Section 375 and 376 have been<\/p>\n
a  substantially changed by Criminal Law
\n{Amendment} Act, 1983, and several now
\nsections were introduced by the new Act, is.
\n376-A, 376~B, 3'?'6–C and 3764?). Tho fact
\nthat swospirig changos were introduced
\nro\ufb02ects the legislative mis\ufb01t to curb with<\/p>\n
iron hand, the offence of rape which a\ufb01oots<\/p>\n
,%<\/p>\n
<47'<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
851$ diguity of woman. The o\ufb01emce of raga.<\/p>\n
its siznpiest terzn is ‘the ravis1ru11e13f\u00e9””<;–f.'_' :_. \u00e9 <\/p>\n
Woman, without her consent, by_.f_(3:'er3;,'f\u20acar<\/p>\n
er fraud', or as 'the caIj:3\u00e91"knpiy1e\u00a73g\u00a2"'uf 3-:3 <\/p>\n
woman by force against:"he13 :\\vi'11'\u00a7i"'R'a1\u00a7e'\u00e9 <\/p>\n
'Raptus' is whery' a.___V   hatIJ
\nknowie\u00e9ge of .9. u*o:m\u00e9\u00a7.f1 f0r{:V\u00e9~21:';Vi\u20aciV':ag::\u00a3\u00a7.i;1s't
\nher will ({)o.Liti.~1_23-.b)";"  ' "e;;pre\u00e9\u00e9;\u00e9d "\ufb01axvzw:
\nfully, rape is   1%f\u00a7b$v}e\u00e9ge of any
\nwoman, .abov\u00a7 A -1–,i*1:.:  "  years,<\/p>\n
.Vvagai1j\u00a33S: 1"i\u00e9;,\u00e9*= .w'i11;"–.0z* 'a;"won1az1 child, under<\/p>\n
 }:1r2z?it ag\u00e9\ufb01,  her W111' (Hale PC<\/p>\n
 1:1 rapa, 'carrlal kaowledge'<\/p>\n
 :11e.a 1*'1\u00a7_ the..'– p\u00e9n\u00e9ffatiozl to any tht: slightest<\/p>\n
 {_1 :eg;_'\u20ac:\u20ac  ' 'E:h=-I3' orga\ufb02 alleged to have been<\/p>\n
..Qf:i?f'I}a H}\u00a7__ imewn by the male organ of<\/p>\n
  [Stephe\ufb01s "Crinlinai Law" 931<\/p>\n
Ed M62). In 'Encyciopoedia of ilrirne and<\/p>\n
'~ Justice' (veiume 4, page 1356) it is stat\u00e9d
\nAA  "…..eve:1 slight penetration is sufficiem: and<\/p>\n
emission is unnecessary". in Halsbury's<\/p>\n
Siiatutes cf England and Walas (Fourth
\nEdition) Voiume 12, it is stated that evczn the
\nsiightest d\u20ac?}$'('.:3 cf penetration is sui\ufb01cient to<\/p>\n
pmve sexual} imerceursa".\n<\/p>\n
Q’?\n<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
28. Therefore, it is clear from the above aiiz\ufb01ysis of<\/p>\n
the de\ufb01nition of rape that, for conviction fe1\u00a7”~’.:1<ic%;.:;\u00a7:ii';s:;_r_i<;e<\/p>\n
of rape, penetratien must be establisheeij Se;:%\u00bb1 1a\u00a7_ <\/p>\n
mtemourse is deemed COl3%.1}:)1QT:,#{"\u00a7";::.  ief '<\/p>\n
penetratien only. It is with=ti1e above pos:i:tie:;,i;1 1aj;xz,"we"e.<\/p>\n
have to examine the evidence=e\u00a7:1 re<:c:rd–. e_  ' "<\/p>\n
29. The proseciif:ti:;’e-iii’ ;he;*ee’-evi\u00e9egice before the<\/p>\n
 \u00abV\ufb01\ufb01e e;ec’uee\u00e9 called her to 11:1: the
\nf0c1\u00e9e:i*_’aa’:1″d’  te do so by bending, the<\/p>\n
accused  thre’ate:;1ee–._’h.ef and then while she was about<\/p>\n
  t{:’:e_j1\u00a7ift;\u00bb\u00a7’f}1eV._fss;ii\u00a71e  evidence
\nthat she has deposedVV_\u00a7:o’ the accused had
\nsexual  on   that there was
\npenevt:rat\u00a7on;i’i’v.” _  V 1′ \u00e9 _<\/p>\n
 in the Course of her<\/p>\n
e\ufb01if\ufb02\u00e9iic\ufb01 has  that, when she examixied the<\/p>\n
  she did not find any signs of foreibie<\/p>\n
  has deposed to the fact that the<\/p>\n
ciienee\u00e9  in_i’L1ry being caused to the private parts of<\/p>\n
‘the vietim will be very remote if the victim is put under<\/p>\n
[threat and the reason fer absence of injuries could<\/p>\n
2 ”  three nameiy (i) no resietanee by her; (ii) if she is very<\/p>\n
weak and (iii) depends upon her mental state. She has<\/p>\n
also stated in her evidence that, if after the intercourse,<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
the clothes are Washed with snag), then the <\/p>\n
seminal stains remaining on the clothes &vi1’1:’a1sef’\u00a7e’*~tze:?y<\/p>\n
less.   –\n<\/p>\n
31. Exhibit R8 is the zneziamjjt%ce%r:;if1cgtte%_:ssi’gezittby<\/p>\n
the Doctor-PW.1{} and   V<\/p>\n
the {meter has   <\/p>\n
“Or:  _ i’\u00a7x’a1;1in\u00e9{tioi1′;’ there was<\/p>\n
110  }?a;:e’~”h\u00e9sA:” I\ufb01ieet\ufb01found. On<\/p>\n
 eheiiii\u00e9s\ufb02..__exa:z\ufb01i1\u00a7;1t\u00e9o1’2 only presence of<\/p>\n
xsemiria} Vet;?ij11:S”*\u00a7\u00a7ere~*’fem1d positive on item<\/p>\n
Nc\u00a7’.+-3 iv.eV.1,-._Lai1’g\u00e9\u00a7 and item 140.5(1) Le.
\ntKaCha\u00a7%      <\/p>\n
Ht   the basis of chemical report, the<\/p>\n
 ‘  found only on clothes. O11<\/p>\n
 examirxation there was no signs of<\/p>\n
2 Z Vi*3.1:$Ve’ ha$ been found so opinion on<\/p>\n
‘intercourse cant be given”.\n<\/p>\n
  ……}F’urther in the same certi\ufb01cate exhibit R8 at para 29, it<\/p>\n
‘ is opined by the Decter thus;\n<\/p>\n
)4-\n<\/p>\n
‘C<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
“Opinion:\n<\/p>\n
On physical and genital exaiuirxatic\ufb01\u00bb ”
\nSmt.Saroja1mn.a bearing the ”\n<\/p>\n
mentioned identi\ufb01ca\ufb01on.m~:3;r1\u00a7s,
\nopinion that :10 sigls  ‘Qf sra\ufb01e il\u00e9s’ V”b\u00e9ef1%.___ :3 AA<\/p>\n
found.\n<\/p>\n
Final r6I){)I’ti:’\u20ac:1’1\u20ac1iI},\u00a7#\u00a3i\u00a7”v,_I3tZ)}f  of
\nForensic  _o\u00a7)in.1}_-o1i’;.. _ _’ \u00bb  ‘ ” \u00ab . % ‘<\/p>\n
   stains on the clothes of
\nthe af\ufb01iciise\u00e9i 2;a;1V\u00e9(;1’v f(L11\u00e9i’\u00ab}T%fG$\u20ac3CUtFiX are cancemed, the very<\/p>\n
\u20acVi(}(\u00a71’1C\u20ac  \u00bbi:;f  ‘;pf(;s_s\u00e9ci1trix is that, after the izlcidant,<\/p>\n
 V’  -.  \\\u00bb;?<3;r1t'~–   tack bath and Washed her ciothes.<\/p>\n
    "_i.:,e possibility of any seminal stains<\/p>\n
 '($11 the clothes of the prosecuirix has also<\/p>\n
 A 'nee:1.,:f?$x1\u20acd}out by the above conduct; of the prosecutrix,<\/p>\n
33. As far as the accused is concerned, he was<\/p>\n
” examined by ?W.2–Dr.S.A.Katti and he has depos\u00e9d in<\/p>\n
his evidence that, after examining the accused. on<\/p>\n
18.10.2604 at 3.20 13,111., he noticed semen enly on the<\/p>\n
‘i~<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
un\u00e9ergarment ef the accused aria issued a..Vm.edicaI<\/p>\n
report as per exhibit 13.2. in the said  <\/p>\n
Doctor has epined thus “O11 the__ba$_is of  ” . <\/p>\n
the stains were found only of;\n<\/p>\n
intercourse wouid not be\n<\/p>\n
34. It is not 119 be lestVV:sigh1;L’of that._the, incident<\/p>\n
according to the preSecuti.3:i.Vg\u00e9aidefurihave occurred on<\/p>\n
14.  eeeused was examined by
\nPW.2″e1;1 after 4 days and taking<\/p>\n
mtg -veensideratien that the accused is also 9. married<\/p>\n
 ” .pe’rs03fi; if is net pessible to infer from the mere presence<\/p>\n
  ‘V  en his undergarment that the said<\/p>\n
st;a.ins__’  connected to the incident that took place<\/p>\n
 ex; 1″4;~I0.20e4.\n<\/p>\n
35, As far as the izajury on the  of the<\/p>\n
‘ ” – *pr0ee(:ut:rix is eeneerned, the meaiieai evidence of the<\/p>\n
{)e<:te:3~PW. 10 does not revea} that the victim had<\/p>\n
injuries on her back. Exhibit R8-certi\ufb01cate at para 2'?<\/p>\n
?J*:\/<\/p>\n
"fotmdling", took the View that __{:Q1}_Vietieii'ef:1;}1e"aeeuse\u20acI \u00bb _ <\/p>\n
under Section 3'?6 ef I.P.C.  ?ge.\u00e9pite<\/p>\n
the prosecution centend\u00e9g\/"tljxat the  the<\/p>\n
presecutrix on the 'hie "pancfianla" and
\nlifted her "gage"  her.\n<\/p>\n
37 . I13″  pf  of Rajasthan,
\nthe   tee Vuiga\ufb01xeictien of the accused
\nfor   Section 376 of \u00a5.P.C. as
\nthere%%ur\u00a7s \ufb01e ” on the private parts of her<\/p>\n
boriy~ and .’ne3}t’r;.er her clothes were term 1102″ there was<\/p>\n
   the accused on the private parts of<\/p>\n
I   and taking in\u00a5:o- account that the giri<\/p>\n
was fgagie\ufb01tiated to sexual intercourse, the Apex Ceurt<\/p>\n
 ..ga_.ve “tee accused the benefit ef deubt. In another<\/p>\n
 1_Vdt:ei\u00e9sien in the case ef Radhu Vs. State of Madhya<\/p>\n
 ” ‘–‘Pradesh (2607 SAR (Criminal) 873, the Apex Court did<\/p>\n
not \ufb01nd the evidence ef the proseeutrix trustworthy and<\/p>\n
as far as the injuries are concerned, taking mote of the<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
medical evidence of the Doctor that   <\/p>\n
abrasion on the left elbow and-‘a”b1’e.sio*\u00a71 Q.n \u00a51v\u20ac:r  \u00e9;:i1<:1 ' AV<\/p>\n
contrusion on her leg, the  h\u00e9igfthat
\ninjuries themselves are suf\ufb01ciient  \u00e9\u00e9af\u00e9\ufb01li\ufb01h tki\u00e9<\/p>\n
offence of rape.\n<\/p>\n
38. In a\u00a71othe3~-<'i\u00a7:{:isi<,~:1<_j1:"'{1~g\u00a7l_g;\u00e9.se of Santhosh<\/p>\n
Madavan4"a;:ia3;::jA:;nI1jth;2.*  Circle Insspecter<\/p>\n
'of pgiiee,Ei:1ai\u00a7\u00a71;ag;a.\u00a5%%jandAAxiomer (2003 <::r;.:…J. 4246),<\/p>\n
the Kefala  while dealing with the bail<\/p>\n
pefit_jox1  ref?3r'f\u20ac:d "If\u00a7) the position in iaw as regards<\/p>\n
 V,  _ A  G\ufb01enrga o1" :*;\u00e9ijj\u00e9v is concerned and having aI1a}ysed<\/p>\n
   *  of rape as contained in Section 375 of<\/p>\n
  E\u00e9erala High Cuurt has observe\u00e9 at para 18<\/p>\n
V x i;Ir113.\u00e9;, 1<\/p>\n
"In 2004 the Supreme Court heid, aftsr
\nconsidering the matter in detail that only
\npenile penetration wiil constitute rape, but
\nno other forrns of pen\u00e9tration W231 attract the
\noffe\ufb02ce under Se-sticsn 3?5 EPC. It is seer:
\nfmm the judgment in Sakshfs case (2004<\/p>\n
9\u00bb<\/p>\n
4"\n<\/p>\n
34<\/span><\/p>\n
Cr1.L.J. 2881) (supra) that the __E’s:a.1\ufb01i{eV;.1%ie–:A  ~
\nCourt referred the mattef on  to<\/p>\n
the Law Commission of  .\n<\/p>\n
whether all forms of penetg\ufb01taion
\nWithill the ambit -..Seotio11__  woijr
\nwhether any change   _et.g\u00a7tuto33f T_ fgrogfisioxz<\/p>\n
need to be  .._inIw.?1at respect”.\n<\/p>\n
and after zjeiergifing {to   Age): Court in<\/p>\n
 1), Went on to observe<\/p>\n
Sakslii\ufb01 <\/p>\n
at para 21 Vt1f1\u00a5.\u00ab’.1\u00a7’5′,’:\u00bb    <\/p>\n
A ” ‘fizz  of the above interpretation
\n gijrexg to’V”Seetien 375 IPC, it is clear that<\/p>\n
A   offeI:ze:e*-.11nder Section 375 IPC wi\ufb02 not be<\/p>\n
 unless there is evi\u00e9enee of peniie
\n_ peeeite\ufb01on. It is 21330 we11~sett1ed that partial
\n~~;:;e1.”1i1e penetration will be suf\ufb01ciem: to<\/p>\n
AA  eonstimte rape. Any injury caused by
\nV’  penetration other than penile penetration wiil<\/p>\n
not su\ufb01iee to attract offence under Section
\n376 XPC. In this ease the medical certi\ufb01cate
\nshows that “vagina admits one fmger”. The
\nvitzizim has 139?. speci\ufb01cally staied that there<\/p>\n
was any penile penetration or an attempt of<\/p>\n
\u00a33?\n<\/p>\n
such peaetratiee, There  no  <\/p>\n
the side of the investigating  Vite’ <\/p>\n
question. the child towl\ufb01tld ozityiihat ec\u00e9iatgtljf  <\/p>\n
happened. After mceitfi\ufb01g. the :ie1edieal Vlifet\u00e9ert
\nwhich shows only of one lfmgeii into
\nthe vagina,  ought to
\nhave been questlene\u00e9   whether
\nthere    or an
\n   the chilcl nor the<\/p>\n
doctor  iguestierieci  this angle”.<\/p>\n
“39.*’I1’h’:J:Vs_.,”ezteaeeful examination of the testimony<\/p>\n
of j.tt1eA  in par\ufb01ct\ufb02ar and the medical
\n  \u00e9V\u00e9tz;tie\ufb01ee”‘ ..Ql’  “” llttve Doctors-PW.10 and PWJ-3 an\u00e9
\n   produced as per exhibit 13.8 and 13.2,
\n said that the prosecution has established<\/p>\n
 AA  all reasonable doubt the commission of rape by
\n accused because the most crucial ingredient of the<\/p>\n
.—lioffence namely “penile penetration” has not been<\/p>\n
established beyond all reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
3%<\/p>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
4-0. The prosecution has not been able {te~,[e1icit<\/p>\n
from the prosecutrix as to the fact of peni}e\u00ab..pe:1,et1*.ation<\/p>\n
and mere statement of the pmsecu&ix_theit.. <\/p>\n
lifted her Saree and ianga  12  is<\/p>\n
will net lead. to the coI}cltisioIi’~At391at ‘\u00b0i”;s;ds<\/p>\n
forcible intercourse with  ‘a\u00a7.ndV’;that there<\/p>\n
was penile penetregtieii. TTt1eI:efi):%e,._t11is lapse on the part ”<\/p>\n
ef the prosecution is._aeerio1;\u00a7s lg\u00e9tpseCa:1d in the instant<\/p>\n
casegtlie   fatsl”one. The prosecutrix while
\nmentiotirisrlg -dagcccused lifted her Saree arid langa,<\/p>\n
ha.s.,noti4stated.  Word what the accused did and<\/p>\n
 it  – \u00abVtherefore  put forward by the 1eari1ed Counsel<\/p>\n
   .foi*’  “} also cannot be brushed aside as<\/p>\n
witheut_v\u00e9iaiy sigii\ufb01cance\/.because ix} order to constitute<\/p>\n
 _ thelle\ufb01lence of rape, the prosecution has to establish that<\/p>\n
A’  the accused did had forcible intercourse with the<\/p>\n
 proseeuwix and the said sexual intercourse can be said<\/p>\n
to have been established only when there is penetration.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the requirement of the expianation to Section<\/p>\n
}<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
375 of I.f~’.C.. has not been  9\u00bb<\/p>\n
prosecution beyend ail reasonaible  ‘  ” t<\/p>\n
41. Though the leatfned (\u00a7i<t:fsr\u20ac::%';'1111eIit–v_Aedvee'-i\u00e9tetyibxj<\/p>\n
the State argued that the    have
\nto be construed as~..V_t11eaziii1g'; the V'"a'c'euseti had
\nforcible sexual intemoufeeivitti th.e";5:'~\u00a3$S_ecutriX, no such<\/p>\n
iI1terferenee\u00ab  be gram  on the basis of<\/p>\n
co:"1jeetur7es~t.e';+1I;c\u00a5'?.4sumizises and in the absence of the
\nmedical' " evid.ei1e\u00a7e -siipg\u00e9or\ufb01ng the ease of the<\/p>\n
pz"esmutid1:x.,, it w1as"ali:m0re necessary on the part of the<\/p>\n
 "  to Htteve elicited from the mouth of the<\/p>\n
I   speci\ufb01c act committed by the accused in<\/p>\n
t)fder,.__’te  the ease within the ambit of defmitien ef<\/p>\n
 .. rape ‘teed with expiarzatien thereto.<\/p>\n
42’ It is well settled law that, there is a long<\/p>\n
“‘:distaI1ce between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and<\/p>\n
the presmutien will have to travei the entire distance. In<\/p>\n
the instant case, it is not possible’ to infez’ from the very<\/p>\n
9.<\/p>\n
.\/_-“I”\n<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
memiioning of the word ” ~\u00a7?-cE35 -5 Z550″,  ti*ie~.eieeused’ <\/p>\n
did had forcible intercourse sgi\u00e9ithiithe”‘.presee’L1:r\u00a7X.’ VO\u00e9ie <\/p>\n
other aspect which also will haw; is be i;a.}{e:’1 ho’\u20ac.e.”0fVisi<\/p>\n
that, nothing prevented fii:e:”e\u00bbproseC!~:ti*i.*.i-I  stating
\nbefere the com j is\/t;1at.ee”ii\u00a3;1\u00a2Mc A accused me forcible
\nintercourse with heif.V_v’i’1\\4iVVis’e_Vsr:)’  the cempiaint-<\/p>\n
exhibit P. ?E’,’  :3-memio\ufb01ed ‘—Vhtheti the accused had<\/p>\n
fO\u00a7’C3;’L)”iEfi’1I1IVZi%;?I’C0tjg1″S\u00a23’Wit}f} Eh6″‘p\u00a5’OSCCi1tI’iX. Therefere, was<\/p>\n
varieIf;ce_i:1’} pa\ufb01giculars between the complaint
\nversion   sifeiteienent made before the Ceurt by<\/p>\n
gifeseeutrix. This-aiso is an aspect which points t.ewa:rds<\/p>\n
V    of the testimony of the presecutrix in so<\/p>\n
 asv_\u00a5}1’e3\u00ab_o\ufb01’ence of rape is concerned.<\/p>\n
 The rest of the evidemce placed by the<\/p>\n
Z”-Zjjresecution do not and cannot in my View alter the fate<\/p>\n
H of the presecutien case insofar as the commission of the<\/p>\n
offence of rape by the accused is concerned. Theugh<\/p>\n
PWK8 who is the husband ef the prosecutrix has<\/p>\n
..?2\u00bb<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
deposed in his evidence about he being hiferme\ufb01 his<\/p>\n
wife about the incident, yet he aise cities’  iii  <\/p>\n
evidence before the Court that! Eiife  i~<\/p>\n
accused had forcible inte;>;i:’1g1’4\u00a7%A’.{:’t::,:\u00a7 ?:e3:1deci that a false case has been<\/p>\n
  .t;_\u00a71e.accu$ed in conneetien with the rift<\/p>\n
‘  ‘3\u00a3Wf:{\u00a7I3  husband of the pmseeutrix and the brother<\/p>\n
” of’Vet11e&aie{:LiSed who was nmning a hotei.<\/p>\n
”  As far as the evidence of ?W.5 is concerned, he<\/p>\n
”  speaks te the fact of the husband of the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix in quarrelling with the brother of the<\/p>\n
accused and the promise made by the brother Of the<\/p>\n
accused to keep present the accuse\u00e9 for enqt\ufb01xy and<\/p>\n
32\u00bb<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
was informing the prosecutrixgnd 1161*’I”2.ii\u00a7*.t\u00a7\u00e9\ufb011{;i.,Vt0vjVg\u00a3}\u00bb <\/p>\n
home. His evidence also cioes’-,no%:”iazeip’\u00bbthe_ pr\u00e9:\u00a7e{:{itiQn<\/p>\n
insofar as proving the”Toi”f(;I1ce  rap\u00e9:  beeii<\/p>\n
{mmmitted by the a\u00a7;cused,____ :’ ‘<\/p>\n
45. Thus, the abdzzg  evidence of the
\nInaterial wit:ie3$’ses:3.\u00a71ez1\u00e9’:\u00a7 fa .V.\ufb01jeVv.fo$i1oWiI1g conclusions
\nbeing dri3wnQ’_,\u00bb  ‘<\/p>\n
 TEi\u00e9T’  the vi.ctin1 1.53., the prosecutrix
\ndu:t:’111gVVh-gr t1f1a.3…g1s ‘-at’\u00abvar1ance with the F’.I.R. wt}
\n“‘m:4~ml=’-‘-r*\u00ab. ‘<\/p>\n
material V’ ‘ vv1z.,- tfrie prosecutrix dues not say in her<\/p>\n
.  ” ‘\u00a2vi\u20acie5:ice”%’t\u00a5:;at thv\u00e9’\u00e9ccz_1sed had forcible intercourse with<\/p>\n
   h\u00e9\u00a7ij;’  has been expressed by the Doctor after<\/p>\n
 examixzation about the offence of rape<\/p>\n
 xihbeen committed on the victim. No injury was<\/p>\n
A’ fomid on the back of the victim despite the incident<\/p>\n
 = — 1asti;t1g for 10 to 15 minutes, that too in the: land Wh\u20acI’\u20ac<\/p>\n
tordal plants had been gown. The victim dares not say<\/p>\n
if}. her evi\u00e9ence that she pm: up any resistance.<\/p>\n
}:\n<\/p>\n
41<\/span><\/p>\n
-\u00aba<\/p>\n
Considering the fact that she is a V:-2$;_\u20ac>1z15a’;*:1<\/p>\n
having three children, the vietjpf;  <\/p>\n
bath and washes her elothee; tl\u00e9iefebgfg\ufb01ieiieez\u00e9ij’-eegf;;;i1y<\/p>\n
seminal stains 031 the eiothes  prese\ufb02tere <\/p>\n
rendered too remete. The  \u00ab-\ufb02ees i]:i5″1\u20ac)t say in
\nher evidence before  A(:;;{)2J2If'{.vV’.S13{\u00a7\u00a7(3.iA;'[7iC;3.i1y abeut the act<\/p>\n
of the accused   does “exien say that the<\/p>\n
acctgiee\u00e9  hiSf_Cloti}.es and fe\ufb01 on her and had
\nforcibie imtercgiirse  \ufb02ex’. The most glaring emission<\/p>\n
and .. serieiiss i1*:firn\u00a7ityT is, lack of evidence as regards<\/p>\n
‘ V.  \ufb01e\ufb01etfaytic\ufb01. Neiiiier the Victim says about penetration<\/p>\n
1  3:101?’  fa:x.ediea1 evidence indicates the penile<\/p>\n
penetratiewii. in the face :31” the said eviderice on recerd<\/p>\n
 .AVi*:sivi11g regard to the decisions referred to by me<\/p>\n
‘ =. ‘e:\u00a7iier and aiscz taking inte ce\ufb02sideration the defmitien<\/p>\n
.-Tef rape arid essential ingedieme which will have to be<\/p>\n
Q..,…….;t
\npruved by the prosecution, it mag; 39% be said that in the<\/p>\n
instant case, the prosecution has succeeded in<\/p>\n
9%<\/p>\n
~42<\/p>\n
establishing the commission of the <\/p>\n
the accuseci.\n<\/p>\n
46. The next question is, v;hi:\u00a3:h&’n1\ufb01h\u00e91J dffe.\u00a71C:+::_’is .<\/p>\n
made 011: against the ap};’ x:3]xant.” ‘-Siifxca \\:i:1\u00e9:A~..j\u00a7:=.*.zri_:.dV<-:1::1(:eA <\/p>\n
record as analysed: shown
\nthat there was  indicating sexua}
\nii1tf1'1"COL'tI'S\u20ac    there being
\nabsoiutegs    pg\u00e9zifji\ufb01 iij\u00e9zfietxa\ufb01on, taking the
\nevidimce  'jiI1t<) colzsidcration, {ha act 0f
\nrs:mev\u00a7.1ig t;h:: .. Vlanga by the accused, may at<\/p>\n
 attracii "'E11\u00a2____gff311ce punishable under Section 3:34<\/p>\n
' w1.PA_.vC,  regard, I draw support from the Apex<\/p>\n
" '-   1:116 case 0f Premiya @ Pram Prakash Vs.<\/p>\n
sf;a:\u00a2'7a\u00a3 Rgasthan (2008 SAR ({3I'iI11i11a1) 891} referred ta<\/p>\n
" \u00bb  by\u00ab..:\u00abneNear}.ier and therefore accepting the evidence of the<\/p>\n
}pz*<}secu'\u00a3:1*i.x, it is g offence punishabie un\u00e9er 8631:1011<\/p>\n
L…\n<\/p>\n
 354 of me. that it can said {:0 23 esta \ufb01shed by the<\/p>\n
prasecution beyond ail reasonabie doubt. For this, para<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
45<\/span><\/p>\n
48. Having regard ta {ha above submissi\u00e9ii\ufb01i’-xfiade<\/p>\n
by the Ieazrned Counsel for the par\ufb01cff’ as  <\/p>\n
sentence is Concerned, in  vieW,’  fQr T’\u00a3l1eV(3i”f\u20aci*:c\u20ac’j’<\/p>\n
punishable under Sectian 354    21cc13’si<\u00a7(i.V xn;r'i11
\nhave to be sentenced to in1.;\u00a7ii$on1i1ent 'foi:  of
\nyears and for the o\ufb01\ufb01pce piiilivzf-:,}'3:;iE31._e u1:{d\u20ac:r- S\u00e9ction. 506<\/p>\n
of I.P.C., the accus:=.<i  is}~ii\u00a7ib1<;LT"~iir;;. i;e $en.i:enc:ed to<\/p>\n
in1pfi.so::i3ae1{\ufb01i  "of 1 year and both sentence
\nshall hziv-5: to xfinji Cr}i1ct.:i;*x*e;1t}y.<\/p>\n
  _  the accused-appellant has been in<\/p>\n
.' cii!\u00a7tac.1Ay'.V'\u00a73fo\u00a7i3 the date ofjudment of the trial Court; i.e.,<\/p>\n
2i.;2T\u00ab.-; 2006 1:11 date, it is obvious he has been in<\/p>\n
" _<:\u00a71};'s3tociy for over 2 years and as such the sentence new<\/p>\n
 %:;3Jevard\u20acd win have to be set-off against the pe:rie{i_<\/p>\n
aiready undergcrne in custody.\n<\/p>\n
,3\u00bb?\n<\/p>\n
5:6<\/p>\n
50. In the ].”‘\u20acS\u00b0L11′{, I pass 131%: fallowing-; :”    <\/p>\n
The appeal is a110\\2;?e;:_\u00a24iL:;V:””{‘heA.\u00a7;.1r:ig::\u00abi1V\u00a71$$;i’:’}\u00a7f’ we t,:’i\u00e9d
\nCourt convicting  Q22  f:\ufb01>i’ “‘*t1’1 \u00a2\u00a7: affence
\npunishable under    sevaside, ‘but:\n<\/p>\n
instead      for the offtances\n  a\ufb01d 506 of I.P.C.\n\n is'  \u00abto 2 years imprisonment in\n\n<\/pre>\n
rejspect  punishable under Section 354 of<\/p>\n
.  ” _ ‘_ 1  respect of offence }I)\u00a5.}IIiShE:lb1\u20ac under<\/p>\n
1  ‘V   I.P.C. and both the substantive sentence?<\/p>\n
22:3 rim’ 3{ii”1C1}1″I*6I1tly.\n<\/p>\n
Sings: the accused~a\u00a7pe1}a31t has aiready bean in<\/p>\n
 custody far over 2 years, the substantive sentence<\/p>\n
ixnposed shall stand set-off agajrzst their peried already<\/p>\n
undergene ix; custody.\n<\/p>\n
%~<\/p>\n
\/,,\/I’<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
The appe\ufb02ant therefore S1131} be  _A<\/p>\n
unless he is requirad in c0z1I1\u20ac:;t:t.i<}I1T   0'i:he%;' f\u00a3.T\u00a73\u00a7"}\u20ac. "<\/p>\n
His bail bond shali staxw-:1~i,scha:-gee, A
\nA copy of the j13dgIn$u:ii't  :s}1a}1   f\u00e9snhwith 1:9
\nthe trial Court anti   for immediate<\/p>\n
Compliance.    _  V<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009 Author: V.Jagannathan IN THE HIGH COURT 012′ 2 MA CIRCUIT BENCH A’1fIii\u00a5:\u00a7-=sI2i.ie\u00a5;x1:> – BATED THIS THE 2ND my (3\u00a7F_1:3=;’EiBi?I,?vP\u00a3;E”~3″\u00a7?”:2A%30\u00e9f3\u00e9.”‘ V % % THE HOWBLE uJ\u00a7gsff:\u00a7E[‘y;’}J,qQAr\u00a2%biA*i’HAN BETWEEN?’ Gadepp\u00e9, Aged ab+:m:A33 y\u00e9ars, Agriculture, R \/ \u00a33: iiiirebc1″1a}\u00a7a}, “‘.]Tah;Vk\u00ab: ___C+_1:{_1gavat}1i, Dist: Kopya}. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-06T07:16:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gadeppa S\\\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-06T07:16:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6425,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Gadeppa S\\\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-06T07:16:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gadeppa S\\\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-06T07:16:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-06T07:16:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009"},"wordCount":6425,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009","name":"Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-06T07:16:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadeppa-so-lingappa-neerloti-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gadeppa S\/O Lingappa Neerloti vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}