{"id":14435,"date":"2010-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-28T02:32:35","modified_gmt":"2018-01-27T21:02:35","slug":"gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada … on 10 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada … on 10 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
3. _ By Paijagada Police\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 10\"\" DAY OF NOVEMBER \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICE E    \n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL      \n\nBEE WEEN:\n\nGopinaika\n\nS \/ o Sevya Naika\n\nAged about 34 Years ._  I\nLambani, Shepherd  V\n\nR \/ o Jajurayan_a}'ia1i*i. 1\n\nPavagada Taiuk .3 in ._ . A    V\n\nTumkur Disi'tric7f';'.T\"\"\"'--V._ b    ...APPELLANT\n\n[By Sri.S\u00a7 \nAND: 0 V 0 1'\n\nState ofuKarf1'atgika. \n\n TL1m'}*;1,ir i-DiVst'r..ict. 3' 'E ...RESPONDEi\\IT\n\n  Majage, HCGP)\n\n is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C\n\n \ufb02againsi;..1:he judgment dated 10.12.2003 passed by the\n'A n T Addi-tionai Sessions Judge, Tumkur in\n\n- \u00e9 \u00bbS;C.N'o,26\/ 1997 convicting the appeiiantwaccused for an\n\n3' ,offe'm:e' punishable under section 376 IPC and\n ___\"\"se1i;tenci13g him to undergo 10 Years RI. and pay fine of\n\n_ ..'_\"Rs-;010,000\/~, in defauit, to undergo SI. for 8 months,\n\n  'the substantive sentences shah run ooncurrentiy.\n\nThis appeai coming on for hearing this day, the\nCourt delivered the following:\n\n\n\nJ U of GKMNE N T\n\nThe appellant [hereinafter referred to as accused)\nwas tried and convicted for offences punishable under\nSections 376 and 341 I.P.C. Therefore, he has filecijthpis\nappeal.   \n\n2. I have heard Sri.S.K.Venkata   H\nCounsel for appellantaccusedizii  iv\nMajage -- learned Government Ifleaderrfor thef\u00e9tated} if if if\n\n3. The inter se re1at1'on._si1i_p of--- s:o'rr1e:?\u00a7of the\n\nprosecution wi'tr;.es\u00bbs'es_\"and----_the ease of prosecution may\n\nbe stated\u00e9th\u00e9uisj  . p _ :\n,ji~3'\u00bb1z.1 V--\"AriithaV'Bai is the daughter of PW.7 --\n\n   and PW.8\u00ab Shalibai. PWs.3 to 6 are\n\nrelated  accused. The accused is the cousin\n\n _ brother of  The father of PW.1 and the father of\n\n:_acc:.i.sed\"\"are direct brothers. At the relevant time, they\n\n\"residents of Jajurayanahaili, Pavagada Taluk,\n\nT Tumkur District. g\\J.--~,:_\/1  . I\n\n\n\n4. It is the case of prosecution that during the year\n\n1995, PW.1 was aged about 12 years and sheVp'p\"Was\n\ngrazing the sheep. On 29.12.1995, PW.1 \n\nPW.4~ Lalu Naik and one Gopi were grazing.,t1t1eir:s1i4eep'\"1  1 \n\nin a land near Jajurayanahalli.   \n\np.m., Gopi S\/0 Gyananaika,-s__.PW.4._V_'%\" Lalu'  \/to\nKunte Ramanna returned to viiiage to take V'}At that\ntime, PW.1 and accused_i2E~'ere_  sheep near a\n\nplace called Govinakatte:  Vaceused  PW. 1 on the\n\npretext of   fruits. The\naccusedvddciinihed  treewavnd plucked tamarind\nfruits and 'g-a\\Vre-  The accused suddenly\n\nfe11ed_.'PW.andfcorniriitted rape on PW.1 despite\n\n1'it\"prot'e--s:ts:,,\"by\" somehow managed to escape\n\nifronfi  of accused and proceeded towards her\n\n1  Village.  way, she met one Pujari Naik and Lalu\n\n and: informed them about the incident. They\n\n a._q'ue'stioned the accused, the accused did not express\n\nit  1*egrets for What he had done, on the other hand he told\n\nit that he would not leave any woman except his own\n\nsister. PW} reached the house, her father; P'.V.7 --\n\nT\\}\":  :1. *\u00bb---CK. L\n\n \n\n\n\n4\n\nSevya Nayaka and mother PW.8 -- Shalibai were not in\nthe house and she informed the matter to some oiithe\n\nelders of Village.\n\n5. On the following day, ie., on  \n\nabout 4.30 p.m., first information got\":\n\nsome person and the same was ll'odgetdl5 the\njurisdictional police station (Paika\ufb01adpa Po1ic_eStati;on], on\nthe basis of which  \\i_Ias_Vregist\"ered against the\naccused. PW.l was se.nt.._for  Vei\u00e9pamination and\nshe was  pW..l;;i}ai;shm1 Rajyam who\nnoticedllithefol_loi'_ring:~  ' l\n'*-'t'fI'l1e  'condition of the patient was\nnormal. V Pulse' is\" also normal. No external\n\"~injt1'1iies ._oVertl*iel face, breast and thighs and\nl * .V:gVe--niteria. On P.V.examination (for\n* A H 'vaginaflp:\u00abexamination admit one finger). Lower\n'\"part'oft'he hymen is torn and reddish. Service\npnomrial and pubic hair, vaginal swabs and\nit  'smears collected and sent for chemical\nexaminer's report. Clothes are also preserved\n\nand sent for chemical examiners report.\"\n\n?l\\3' _. V  ,.L,. C'\/\\ LL46)' '\n\n\n\n6. The Investigating Officer Visited the place of\noccurrence and recorded statements of un'tnesses'f:a'nd\nsubmitted charge sheet against accused \npunishable under Sections 341 and 376  V  l l\n\n'7. During trial, PWs.1 to  \ndocuments as per Exs.Pl   \nMaterial Object viz., tamarindlVi4l'fr;uit.s_  ',_l<l\u00a71ried.l:'f.flowers\nwere collectively marked_._a"3_  1'  if if\n\n8. The defence of total denial.\n\n9.:':_Th.e   Judge on appreciation of\n\nevidence and ovnl"hear1'ng; learned counsel for parties,\n\n_._heldv. t'accuse'dw:g_uilty of offences punishable under\n\n 341 I.P.C. Therefore, accused is before\n\nthis .Court.A7fj  l\n\n appeal following points would arise for\n\nit ' '  d,ete1*rnination:\n\n r.1]'A.v_V"w'-Vhether the prosecution has proved that on\n\n29.12.1995 at about 4.00 p.m., when PW.l was\n\ngrazing sheep near a place called Govinakatte of\n\nJ\\'}.  Crxx-\u00abJ1; .\n\n\n\n6\n\nJajurayanahalii Village, accused induced PW.1 to\npluck tamarind fruits and thereby accused took her\nnear Halia and feii on her on the ground and\ncommitted rape on her against her will, thereby\ncommitted an offence punishable under secti,o'n-.\n1.<\/pre>\n
p.c.?  W ”\n<\/p>\n
2] Whether the learned Trial Judge _.has=.::’_proper1y1. ” if
\nappreciated evidence on record? A if if ”  if<\/p>\n
3) Whether the impugned. judghient  <\/p>\n
interference?\n<\/p>\n
4) What order ‘?\n<\/p>\n
11.  ‘  examined by the<\/p>\n
prosecution,”-\u00ab.materia}’~.V\\X7itnesses are PW.1 {victim} her<\/p>\n
 fath\u20ac\u00a7pr\u00a7”iPW;7:_ Seyya\u00e9l-ayaka and mother PW.8- Shaiibai.<\/p>\n
he  “othe_ri .,4″witnesses are either post occurrence<\/p>\n
witr:esses_ or’iWiVtnesses for spot inspection conducted by<\/p>\n
 Investigating Officer, they have not supported the<\/p>\n
A   prosecution. The medical evidence is given by<\/p>\n
  10 — Dr.Lakshrni Rajyam.\n<\/p>\n
12. As per evidence of PW.i and her parents,<\/p>\n
PW.I was aged about 11-12 years at the time of<\/p>\n
. w-._c.. \ufb02\/\\_\/L  I<\/p>\n
occurrence. PW.l had not gone to school and there
\nwere no school records in proof of her date of birth.__ The
\nparents of PW.1 are shepherds by occupation. They”‘–are<\/p>\n
illiterate persons. The mother of Victim has <\/p>\n
age of victim as 11-12 years at the time of  <\/p>\n
The report given by the Radiologist
\nBangalore, indicates that PW.1_ {victim}  llaljout
\n15-16 years at the time of occvdurrenpcef  facts are<\/p>\n
not disputed and therefozre’it–l_lca;1 held that the victim<\/p>\n
was less than 16..yearsA.of.,age at  occurrence.<\/p>\n
The    PW.1 is the cousin
\nsister oiuthe other words, the father of<\/p>\n
victim.PW.7l””—_:SexfyaA”Nail{a and the father of accused<\/p>\n
 1. “namely S-avi’ya  direct brothers.
\n v   , has deposed that, on the date of<\/p>\n
occ.urrence.V–“s_h.evlhad gone for grazing sheep along with<\/p>\n
lv.co-villlagerslnaniely Lalu Naik, Gopi, S\/o Gyananaika,<\/p>\n
 Naik, S\/0 Kunte Ramanna and Pujari<\/p>\n
 M\ufb01il\ufb02ainumanaika and the accused. Around 2.30 p.m., the<\/p>\n
Tabove two persons namely Lalu Naik and another<\/p>\n
returned to the Village to take food. At that time,<\/p>\n
gm.   CW \\  .\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span>
\naccused and PW.1 were grazing sheep in a land near<\/p>\n
Govinakatte. There were tamarind trees nearby. The<\/p>\n
accused took PW.1 to pluck tamarind fruits. ___The<\/p>\n
accused climbed tamarind tree and plucked <\/p>\n
fruits, PWT1 picked up the same.\n<\/p>\n
of the sheep ran towards the
\ntowards Halla to get back the
\naccused ran towards PW.i aI1:d”~~forcibl3r ‘fell and
\ncommitted rape on her-.._. PWJI has’l’d.eposled”‘ab’out the<\/p>\n
acts committed by accused  act of forcible<\/p>\n
penetration.” T. .V <\/p>\n
During lcrossf<e;i'am1n:ation, PW.1 has admitted<\/p>\n
that she sufferedvi1'ijuries"'when she tried to escape from<\/p>\n
lllllthe "clut(:ehes_of accused. She has admitted that her<\/p>\n
lelothels lst:ai.ned with blood and there was bleeding<\/p>\n
frorr:–..4__l\\Iag,\u00a7i1*3ap,l'..- PW.1 has deposed; when she returned<\/p>\n
.l""'-__lhompe,  father was not in the house, therefore, PW}
\n a.land*\u00bb-her mother informed the matter to the elders of the
\nit village who advised them to lodge a complaint against<\/p>\n
it accused. On the following day, PW.1 and her parents<\/p>\n
went to Pavagada RS. and got the Complaint written by<\/p>\n
 4- 3,,"   L –\n<\/p>\n
In the mean’while;Cone’-i ‘
\n.H’ali.aA Eil_I1dLllF’\u00bb.l:7,\\\/r4.1lll  l<\/p>\n
 at  , <\/p>\n
some person and PW.1 affixed her LTM and lodged the
\ncomplaint. PW.1 was sent for medical examinationda-nd
\nshe was examined by PW.1O —\n<\/p>\n
LMO.\n<\/p>\n
14. The post occurrence:v”iii}it11ess.es
\nsupported the case of  T  it
\nwitnesses, who had uritnessedi:.V:VVspot  the
\nPolice S11b–ins;)ector{I-7?\/”\u00a3>,_). V V’  V ‘A it<\/p>\n
15. The mother of!’ – Shalibai<\/p>\n
has deposiede:…:edurii.f1″g  evening of day of incident.<\/p>\n
PW.1 was  told PW.8 that accused<\/p>\n
committed rape ‘or:  contacted some of the<\/p>\n
the v111;ig”e’;as her husband was not in the<\/p>\n
‘1viliage;i’ ‘thVe.v:’f01lowing day, they came to Pavagada<\/p>\n
police stiationn’ and lodged the first information. Similar<\/p>\n
  the xrersion of the father of Victim girl.<\/p>\n
During cross–exaII1ir1at1’on, PW.7 and PW.8<\/p>\n
adrnitted that there was enemity between accused on<\/p>\n
it one side and PW 7 and PW 8 on the other side. They<\/p>\n
were fa.cing sessions trial for an offence punishable<\/p>\n
5\\_}\u00a3 c.’.”:.’\u00a2\u00a3\\ -~..,.{‘\/\\ -‘1.,.-‘W <\/p>\n
under Section 302 i.P.C., on the allegation that they<\/p>\n
had committed the murder of junior aunt of <\/p>\n
however, PW.1 has clarified that alleged <\/p>\n
murder occurred after the incident of  ll  <\/p>\n
further clarified that alleged incident…’<\/p>\n
which the parents of PW.1 Were.__arrajre_dl’ as
\nplace several days after the    has
\ndenied suggestion thatlvgiie   implicated the
\naccused due to pre_.exis.tintg   the parents
\nof PW.1 and   <\/p>\n
16l’–:.__ PW ‘Rajyam — LMO who had<\/p>\n
examined vPVi’7l'(‘vic'”t-irrl) on 30.12.1995 [on the<\/p>\n
._.V.3.\u00b0ollo\\2sri\u00a7A1:’l1<lg day of o–cclurr<:=:nce) at about 4.00 p.m., noticed<\/p>\n
0":  "~ . __<\/p>\n
 'ltfiiherellllwere no external injuries on the
\n'face..,_"bi*elast and thighs and external beneteria.<\/p>\n
A jOn"  examination (for vaginal examination
\n  one \ufb01nger) Lower part of the hymen is
\n torn and reddish. Services normal and public
\nhair vaginal swabs and smears collected and<\/p>\n
sent for chemical examiners report. Her<\/p>\n
\/A?\n<\/p>\n
W ~   i<\/p>\n
clothes were collected and sent for chemical<\/p>\n
examination.”\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P8 is the Forensic Science Laboratory”‘:re\ufb01crrtv..
\nwherein the test of seminal stains on  —
\nvaginal swab was found to be\u00b0MnegatiVoe..;<  <\/p>\n
presence of seminal stains was not'dete_eted  \ufb01le  'V<\/p>\n
coat of the Victim. After recei}'5"r\u00bbF'SL renorth;-I   has
\nopined that the case to be avirajae.<\/p>\n
17. The V evider1_ce._  PW.1 1 —\n<\/p>\n
Dr.V.K.Chovvdi_ari to of accused and
\nhis capiabi1.itynVt;o” .pe_rforrn_:sexu1ai intercourse. PW.11 had<\/p>\n
examined”accuse’d_   at about 7.30 p.rn.,<\/p>\n
 andmfjourid thlatlavccused was capable of performing<\/p>\n
 sexual i,nte1’course. There are no documents in proof of<\/p>\n
agedhof’ could be seen from the charge sheet<\/p>\n
Iand other documents, accused was aged about 21 years<\/p>\n
A Catt’ t’1″eAtirne of occurrence.<\/p>\n
9′ “A18. Sri.S.K.Venkata Reddy ~\u00bb~ learned counsei for<\/p>\n
 accused referring to the evidence of PWs.l, 7, 8 and 9<\/p>\n
has made following subrnissions:-<\/p>\n
F<\/p>\n
.4<\/p>\n
I. The evidence of Victim that accused committed<\/p>\n
rape on her does not find corroboration from
\nmedical evidence. The Victim had not suffered
\nexternal injuries nor there were injuries
\nprivate parts to indicate that she  ”<\/p>\n
subjected to rape.\n<\/p>\n
II. There was pre existing enmity_..tl1e
\nmembers of victim  farnily ‘   of<\/p>\n
accused. In fa(:t,~.__the.vr”parei?tse’.._of l3lW”;1″”name1y<\/p>\n
PWs”‘7’lfacinglpsessions trial for an
\n  Section 302 I.P.C., on
\nthe alltegationh.’-that  had committed the murder<\/p>\n
     1.
\n  unexplained delay of 24 hours in
\nA  first information. The immediate post
\n it occurrence Witnesses have not supported the case<\/p>\n
V  of prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
  In View of positive opinion furnished by PW.1O<\/p>\n
that it is not a case of rape, the trial court should<\/p>\n
am . :3\u00bb “ix x 1″\/x–\n<\/p>\n
not have held the accused guilty of an offence
\npunishable under Section 376 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
V. The learned Trial Judge without noticing “the
\nmaterial discrepancies and lack of
\nevidence in support of evidence of  ~
\nconvicted the accused for  ll
\nunder Section 376 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
judgment cannot be   l  ‘A is l<\/p>\n
19. The learned HCGP  submit Atizat.-niedical<\/p>\n
evidencel\u00a7iV’en1vf,byllll?f’Vw’. that hymen of PW.1
\nwas torrikandlthe”Vl’ovg}er.:lP’\u00a7r–t of Vagina was reddish in<\/p>\n
colour, _Whici1V_:Vcle.a;–rl3}’\u00bb. indicates that PW.1 had been<\/p>\n
‘l is “s1ibj’estei;i’A tg\u00bb tape. A V” lllll ” by<\/p>\n
I  is  learned counsel for accused has relied on<\/p>\n
2  _ a decision .Vlo’fAlBombay High Court reported in 1998<\/p>\n
  3l68 (in the case of Shivraj Chandrappa Yadav<\/p>\n
  ‘State of Maharashtra and another} and a decision of<\/p>\n
it :l.4:”Orissa High Court, reported in 1991 cr1.L.J.1594<\/p>\n
A’ (Basudev Naik Vs. State]. L <\/p>\n
I
\nam. a’–\u00bbf9*’\\.  ca.\n<\/p>\n
“ha 4<\/p>\n
PW.l had no motives to falsely implicate accused<\/p>\n
in a case of rape that too when accused is nonehother<\/p>\n
than her paternal cousin brother. an<\/p>\n
unmarried girl and she had no reasons..,to~V.Vcolncoct. 2 <\/p>\n
case of rape against accused
\nher honour but also effect tic-r_.mariA’:a’l’     V<\/p>\n
During cross–eXamination,   lil\ufb01admitted
\nthat her father and   sessions trial for
\nan offence puni.shable’- l.P.C. on the
\nallegation._th\u00a7at   murder of her junior
\natint.h;l\u00b0W.’1lAtliat alleged incident occurred
\nseveral’   date of incident of rape.<\/p>\n
Th.c;ijefore, asuon lt\ufb02hedate of incident of instant case and<\/p>\n
‘l,o’dgi1i\u00abg”0fe.fi1*st information, PW.1 had no reasons to<\/p>\n
falselylvinipliciate the accused. PW.1 is a humble rustic<\/p>\n
 villagerzand shepherd by occupation and she had not<\/p>\n
A  even attended the school. From the evidence of PW.8~\u00bb<\/p>\n
  mother of victim and PW.7–father of victim, I find that<\/p>\n
they did not have any motive to falsely implicate
\naccused. Their evidence does not suggest that they had<\/p>\n
any enmity against accused to concoct. a case of rape<\/p>\n
N _  0’\\i_’k<\/p>\n
against accused that too, by staking modesty of their
\ndaughter. The evidence of PW.1 cannot be discarded on<\/p>\n
the ground that there was enernity between the parents<\/p>\n
of PW.1 and the parents of accused.
\nthe occurrence. PW.l had narrated to her   i
\nwhat had happened. They had   <\/p>\n
to the elders of the village. It appears,’
\navailable after the incident. surrendered
\nbefore the Trial court  abscondance<\/p>\n
of accused is also a str’ongfcircu_Iristanc,eagainst him.<\/p>\n
Thou gh “the  ‘eifidencel  completely positive
\nabout sexua.l  evidence of PW.1O that<\/p>\n
on examination’ ofl-3W’;_1  10 found that lower part of<\/p>\n
‘l  of PW.1 wasftorn and it was reddish in colour<\/p>\n
ll’wou_eld *  version of PW.i that she was<\/p>\n
sexdu-allyi by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
  ” During crossmexamination, PW.lO was<\/p>\n
 ilsuggetsted that partial tearing of hymen and reddish<\/p>\n
  colour of hymen could be due to selfwin\ufb02icted injuries.<\/p>\n
it It was suggested to PW.lO that such an injury could be<\/p>\n
caused if one were to insert knails into the Vagina.<\/p>\n
\ufb02’: .  \\\u00ab \u00a3’\u00bb*\\ -\\ x <\/p>\n
17<\/span>
\nThese suggestions do not fall within the realm of
\ninvestigation. The defence of accused that PW.1 had
\nin\ufb02icted injuries on her vagina by inserting knaiis to<\/p>\n
concoct a story of rape against accused is far <\/p>\n
and it cannot be accepted, particu1.a’f’iyvfhi\ufb01’ <\/p>\n
background of parties and their-admitted  <\/p>\n
24. I \ufb01nd from the report (Forensic ,<\/p>\n
Laboratory that test for pr’esence of..semfii1aI’–,fstains on’<\/p>\n
vaginal swab and presence”of’s_perinatozoa”onVthe petty<\/p>\n
coat of Victim was found.’negfati;Ve,..:_ffA.t juncture, it is<\/p>\n
re1eva.nt._to jtiaatvrifagiiial swab which was collected
\non the “”fo1ioVwii1gRfefdaj””_.\u00bbe.i.4e., on 30.12.1995 had been<\/p>\n
reta.ine’d by uftheLuiniiestigating Of\ufb01cer til} 25.1.96 and<\/p>\n
Vthereafter’.,_f”they were sent to Forensic Science<\/p>\n
“Laboratorj,f.fp’.I=f’f’he report of Forensic Science Laboratory<\/p>\n
 is  93.9.1996. The test was conducted about few<\/p>\n
 idays prior to preparing the report. If the test was<\/p>\n
conducted after such a long time, it would not be<\/p>\n
impossible to find the presence of seminal stains and
\npresence of spermatozoa on vaginal swab and petty coat<\/p>\n
of PW.}. Therefore. these lapses on the part of<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer would not eriure to the benefit of
\naccused or there cannot be grounds to discard evidence<\/p>\n
of PW.1.\n<\/p>\n
25. The cross~eXamination of PW.1 <\/p>\n
indicate that she had other reasons <\/p>\n
injuries noticed by the Medical Qfi’icer.   nu<\/p>\n
examination of PW. 1, it is not estab1is:he’d <\/p>\n
reasons to faiseiy implicate’ none
\nother than her pE\u00a3’\u00a3\u20acI’I’k8;1.zCOu$i’1’i’ Breather thAat”too;: at the<\/p>\n
risk of exposing her chastity i~aund  Therefore,<\/p>\n
I do  fi_ndgvVa’i.;y,_prea’svons__ to suspect the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW.1. Though  “\ufb02ied-icdaievidence does not completely<\/p>\n
 support the version of:PW.1, the evidence of PW.1O and<\/p>\n
 oi”‘2vo1i_nd certificate indicating that iower part<\/p>\n
 was torn and it was reddish in colour,<\/p>\n
\ufb02gwouiud .. support evidence of PW.} that accused<\/p>\n
it ‘v.:tcoArntrn.itted rape on her. Therefore, the submission of<\/p>\n
 .___”‘i’.’iea;r’ned counsel for accused that there is lack of medical<\/p>\n
\ufb02’veviden_ce and the prosecution has failed to prove the<\/p>\n
essential ingredients of rape to attract an offence<\/p>\n
punishabie under Section 376 IPC cannot. be ac Eepted.<\/p>\n
26. In a decision of the Bombay High Court,
\nreported in 1998 Crl.L.J. 3168 (in the case of
\nChandrappa Yadav Vs. State of  _
\nanother] the accused was tried  ‘*
\nunder sections 354 and 342 I.P.Cl.’-._p  if  if f <\/p>\n
In a decision of Orissal””i:l:”lig’h’  in<\/p>\n
1991 Crl.L.J.1594 (Basgu-dev_”‘il.\\laiA1fil:YslW.State]lithe Court
\nhaving regard    time of
\noccurrence   of an offence
\npunishable  and 324 i.p.c.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, \u00bbheld  afore stated decisions
\nis not applicable  case.\n<\/p>\n
[In the case, PW. I has given the details<\/p>\n
cf;”sexLial.i’assault committed on her, which would<\/p>\n
constitultellessential ingredients of offence of rape. In the<\/p>\n
‘,circumsta.nces, I do not find any reasons to suspect the<\/p>\n
if li~lleniidence of PW.1. The learned Trial Judge on proper<\/p>\n
 appreciation of evidence held the accused guilty of an<\/p>\n
 offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. <\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of Ten years. In View ofupthe
\nsentence passed for an offence under Section 376:
\nthere is no need to pass a separate  S’
\noffence under Section 342
\nis essentially involved in an
\nSection 376 I.P.C. The  does   any
\ncriminal antecedents. V  to r’efo”rrr1″.v:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
31. Therefore, whiie  judgment of
\nconviction,  I    and pass the
\nfollowinvgpiVSA–.,,,F__ff it ‘ it it if S V<\/p>\n
 44  <\/span><\/p>\n
The appeaiis. accepted in part. The conviction of<\/p>\n
 ..accus}ed;\u00bb_’for V.o.ffenxce’s*”under Sections 376 and 341 I.P.C.,<\/p>\n
“=is”‘co’nfiTrnied’\u00a7 accused is sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years for an<\/p>\n
f”=~v.___offence”punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The fine by<\/p>\n
   .Trial Court for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C.,<\/p>\n
S'”v..i_s_.;confirrned. The sentence imposed for an offence<\/p>\n
“Sunder Section 341 {PC is set aside. The benefit<\/p>\n
extended under Section 4-228 Cr.P.C. is confirmed. Office<\/p>\n
T\\). N \u00a3;,\u00abe.–., <\/p>\n
is directed to send back records along with a copy of
\nthis judgment. The learned trial Judge shall s:a e(:1,1:’e<\/p>\n
accused to implement the sentence.<\/p>\n
 L~M\ufb01.  ‘.1.\n<\/p>\n
    a
\n%;:+ {free
\n‘ 3<\/p>\n
Np<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada … on 10 November, 2010 Author: N.Ananda 3. _ By Paijagada Police IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10″” DAY OF NOVEMBER BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE E CRIMINAL APPEAL BEE WEEN: Gopinaika S \/ o Sevya Naika […]<\/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-14435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada ... on 10 November, 2010 - 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\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada ... on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-27T21:02:35+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopinaika S\\\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada … on 10 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T21:02:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2373,\"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\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Gopinaika S\\\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada ... on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T21:02:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopinaika S\\\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada … on 10 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada ... on 10 November, 2010 - 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\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada ... on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-27T21:02:35+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada … on 10 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T21:02:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010"},"wordCount":2373,"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\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010","name":"Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada ... on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T21:02:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopinaika-so-sevya-naika-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-pavagada-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopinaika S\/O Sevya Naika vs State Of Karnataka By Pavagada … on 10 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/14435","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=14435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}