The Karnataka High Court has declined to dismiss a rape complaint filed against an advocate based in Mangaluru by a law student who was interning at his office.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that if a young and inexperienced law student, working as an intern, encounters such horrifying acts within the premises of an advocate's office, it would have a chilling effect on the entire legal profession. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the accused to clear their name through a comprehensive trial.
Brief Facts:
According to the complainant, a law student started working as an intern at the petitioner's office. On a fateful evening, only the two of them were present in the office. It is alleged that the petitioner called the complainant into his cabin and engaged in disturbing acts. The complainant also stated that she possessed a recorded phone call in which the petitioner admitted attempting to rape her. As a result, a complaint was filed, and charges were brought under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioner admitted to being guilty of certain sections related to harassment and assault. However, it was argued that there is no evidence, even on a preliminary level, to support the inclusion of rape charges under the IPC sections mentioned. The defense claimed that neither the complaint nor the summary of the chargesheet indicate the occurrence of a rape offense. While the complaint mentioned an attempted rape, there is no further evidence to suggest the actual commission of rape.
Observations of the Court:
The Court stated that the petitioner fulfills the positions described in the relevant provisions. He holds a position of authority and trust over the complainant, akin to that of a teacher, and exercises control or dominance over her. The Court acknowledged that the contention made by the petitioner, arguing that the act was a mere preparation or attempt and not the actual commission of rape, would be a disputed question of fact to be determined during the trial.
The Court then proceeded to describe the incident narrated in the complaint, which involved various actions by the petitioner toward the complainant. The narration, supported by the statement given under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), vindicated the allegations made in the complaint. The Court emphasized that the distinction between preparation, attempt, and commission would depend on subsequent actions and would be subject to evidence and further examination during the trial.
The Court rejected the petitioner's submission that the victim's extrajudicial statement to the doctor, which indicated no sexual intercourse, should be conclusive. It held that this narration, as well as other evidence such as CCTV footage and voice samples, would be matters of evidence and part of seriously disputed questions of fact. The Court stated that it could not delve into these facts under its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka HC dismissed the plea and emphasized that the intention, preparation, attempt, and commission of the offense would all be examined during the trial and not solely based on the charge sheet or witness statements.
Case Title: Rajesh K S N And State By Karnataka Through Mangalore Women Police Station
Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.10550 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: SRI PARAMESHWAR N.HEGDE
Advocate for the Respondent: SMT.K.P.YASHODHA
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
