Karnataka High Court
Sri Theerthaprasad H S vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4897 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI THEERTHAPRASAD H.S.,
S/O SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A NO.CH-36, 6TH CROSS
K.R.VANAM, ASHOKAPURAM
MYSURU - 570 008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SUB-DIVISION
ASHOKPURAM POLICE STATION
MYSURU - 570 008
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. APTHA SAMALOCHAKARU
(CLOSE CONSULTANT)
SAKHI ONE STOP CENTRE
CHELUVAMBA HOSPITAL
MYSURU - 570 008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 25.04.2022 PASSED
BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1,
MYSURU, (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES FILED
UNDER POCSO ACT) IN SPL. C. NO. 202/2020 ON AN APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO. 11 UNDER SECTION
227 OF CRPC AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER
THERE BY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FROM THE
CRIMINAL CASE IN SPL. C. NO. 202/2020 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC 1, MYSURU
(SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES FILED UNDER POCSO
ACT), FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376(2),
376DB, 354(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 5(m), 5(g), 6, 9(g), 9(m), 9(c), 6
AND 10 OF POCSO ACT 2012.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.06.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order
dated 25-04-2022 passed by the Additional District & Sessions
Judge (FTSC-I), Mysuru (Special Court for trial of cases filed
under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
('POCSO Act' for short)) in Special Case No.202 of 2020 whereby
the application filed by the petitioner seeking his discharge from
the proceedings is turned down. While framing charge, the
petitioner is arrayed as accused No.11.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as
projected by the prosecution, are as follows:-
A complaint is registered before the Police by the close
consultant of Sakhi One Stop Centre, Cheluvamba Hospital,
Mysuru alleging commission of sexual acts upon the victim who
was 8 years old. The complaint or its merit is not the issue in
the present lis. Based upon the said complaint a charge sheet is
filed by the police for offences punishable under Sections 5(g),
5(l), 5(m), 6, 9(g), 9(l), 9(m) 10 of the POCSO Act and Sections
354A, 376(2) and 376DB of the IPC. The petitioner herein was
not added as accused neither in the FIR nor while framing the
charge. Evidence is recorded in Special Case No.202 of 2020. At
the time of evidence during examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of the victim facts that emerged led the prosecution
to file the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. seeking
arraigning of the petitioner along with five others as accused
Nos. 6 to 12. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.11.
3. On the petitioner being arraigned as accused in the
charges framed against other accused Nos. 1 to 5, the petitioner
files an application before the learned Sessions Judge under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the case
on the ground that he has nothing to do with the offences so
alleged or the evidence that has come on record. The learned
Sessions Judge by his order dated 25-04-2022 rejects the
application on the ground that there were indications in the
evidence about the involvement of the petitioner in the offences
so alleged. It is this order declining to discharge the petitioner
that drives him to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Heard Sri Rudrappa.P, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently argue and contend that Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
cannot be abused in this manner to direct anyone and everyone
who are not connected with the offence to involve them. The
evidence nowhere indicates any act of the petitioner that can
become offence punishable under the POCSO Act or even
offences under the IPC, as alleged and, therefore, seeks dropping
of the name of the petitioner from the array of parties in the
special case.
6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would refute the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to contend that the material that led
the prosecution to bring in the petitioner as an accused is based
on evidence and it is a matter for the petitioner to come out
clean.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and
perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts as to what drives filing of the
application by the prosecution to bring accused 6 to 12 into the
array of accused after filing of the charge sheet is not in dispute.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been abused by dragging in the
petitioner into the web of the lis along with others, without there
being any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, it becomes germane
to notice Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
reads as follows:
"319. Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence.--(1) Where, in the
course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears
from the evidence that any person not being the accused
has committed any offence for which such person could be
tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed
against such person for the offence which he appears to
have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he
may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the
case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not
under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such
Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the
offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person
under sub-section (1), then--
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person
shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-
heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the
case may proceed as if such person had been an
accused person when the Court took cognizance of
the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was
commenced."
Section 319 deals with power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of the offence and directs that in the
course of any inquiry or trial of an offence if it appears from the
evidence that any person not being the accused has committed
any offence for which such person could be tried together with
the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the
offence which he appears to have committed.
9. Before embarking upon consideration of the facts of the
case at hand, I deem it appropriate to notice the interpretation of
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in
the case of RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF
U.P.1 in CRL.A.NO.990 OF 2021 decided on 13.09.2021 has
held as follows:
"10. The test as laid down by the Constitution
Bench of this Court for invoking power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only
when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a
2021 SCC OnLine SC 741
person from the evidence the power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The power cannot be
exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test
to be applied, as laid down by this Court, is one
which is more than prima facie case which is
applied at the time of framing of charges.
11. It will all depend upon the evidence which
is tendered in a given case as to whether there is a
strong ground within the meaning of paragraph 105.
12. We are of the view that from the facts of this
case, it becomes necessary for us to direct the Sessions
Judge, Khiri, to consider the matter afresh in the light of
the principles which have been clearly enunciated by this
Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in a later judgment rendered on 10-03-2022 in
Criminal Appeal No.397 of 2022 in the case of SAGAR V. STATE
OF U.P. AND ANOTHER2 has held as follows:
"7. The respondent/complainant, father of the
deceased, filed Criminal Revision Petition before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The learned Single Judge,
without even appreciating the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2,
which was recorded during the course of trial, in a casual and
cavalier manner, set aside the well-reasoned order passed by
the learned trial Judge under its order impugned dated 28th
July, 2021. It will be apposite to quote the manner in which
the learned Single Judge has set aside a cogent reasoning
recorded by the learned trial Judge under its order dated 28th
July, 2021. The relevant portion of the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 28th July, 2021 is reproduced hereunder:
2022 SCC OnLine SC 289
"I have perused arguments of Ld. Counsel for
Revisionist, the case file and order under question.
After going by the arguments of both sides the Ld.
Counsels and the perusal of the case file, summarily the
order dated 30.04.2018 passed by Additional Session
Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar seems erroneous.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision is hereby accepted
and Session Revision No. 508 of 2015, State v. Jagpal,
passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1
Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 30.01.2018 is hereby
quashed it is hereby directed that without being
influenced by the merits of any observation made in this
order, after allowing sufficient opportunity to the
parties, and after complete perusal of the case file
appropriate order be passed in the matter within two
months.
The Office is hereby directed to ensure of sending a
copy of this order and the record of the case to the Court
concerned without any delay."
8. The scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code has
been well-settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab1 and paras 105 and 106
which are relevant for the purpose are reproduced hereunder:
"105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a
discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be
exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge
is of the opinion that some other person may also be
guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and
cogent evidence occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the court that such power should be
exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie
case is to be established from the evidence led before
the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-
examination, it requires much stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to
be applied is one which is more than prima facie
case as exercised at the time of framing of charge,
but short of satisfaction to an extent that the
evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to
conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the
court should refrain from exercising power under
Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of
providing if "it appears from the evidence that any
person not being the accused has committed any
offence" is clear from the words "for which such person
could be tried together with the accused". The words
used are not "for which such person could be
convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the court
acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to
the guilt of the accused."
9. The Constitution Bench has given a caution that
power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and
extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and
only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so
warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be
applied is one which is more than prima facie case as
exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of
satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted,
would lead to conviction. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court has even failed to consider the basic principles laid
down by this Court while invoking Section 319 of the Code,
which has been considered by the learned trial Judge under
its order dated 30th January, 2018.
10. Consequently, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to
succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The order
passed by the High Court dated 28th July, 2021 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgments, holds that the
power of the Court to add the accused is available under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C., but it should be exercised cautiously, where
there is evidence and the Court being satisfied with such
evidence.
10. In the case at hand, initially, the complaint was
registered only against 5 persons as the de facto complainant
had narrated the incident as was narrated by the child to her.
The police registered the compliant on several grave offences
under the POCSO Act as also, the offence of gang rape of a
minor girl under the IPC and began to conduct investigation.
After conduct of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against
several persons but not against the petitioner. The evidence of
the child before the Court reveals certain grave instances of
offence committed by other accused as well. The cross-
examination of the child on 12-2-2021 and 20-02-2021 assumes
significance and reads as follows:
"¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢:12.02.2021 gÀAzÀÄ PÀgɹ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ªÀZÀ£À ¨ÉÆâ¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
¥ÁnøÀªÁ®Ä: DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîjAzÀ:
£Á£ÀÄ 3£Éà vÀgÀUÀw NzÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. C¥Àà wÃjºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ. AiÀiÁªÁUÀ
wÃjºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. £À£ÀߣÀÄß D±ÀæªÀÄPÉÌ ©lÖ ªÉÄÃ¯É vÀAzÉ wÃjºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ.
£À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ (C¥ÀÄà) «±Áé¸À. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ CfÓ ªÀÄ£É 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï
C±ÉÆÃPÀ¥ÀÄgÀA£À°è EzÉÝ. £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ. CzÀÄ 10£Éà PÁæ¸ï
£À°èzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß CPÀÌ ¸ÀÄUÀÄtPÀÌ, £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä DmÉÆÃzÀ°è ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ.
DmÉÆà CAPÀ¯ï ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ UÉÆæ. UÉÆæAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAdÄ DAn. £À£Àß
¸ÀÄUÀÄtPÀÌ£À ªÀÄ£É ºÀwÛgÀ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÀ®Ä DmÉÆà ºÀvÀÄÛwÛzÉÝ. ¸ÀÄUÀÄtPÀÌ £À£Àß zÉÆqÀتÀÄä£À
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ. CªÀ¼À ªÀÄ£É 10£Éà PÁæ¸ï £À°èzÉ. ¸ÀÄUÀÄtPÀÌ 6£Éà PÁè¸ï. ¨É½UÉÎ 7 UÀAmÉ
£ÀAvÀgÀ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ. ±Á¯É¬ÄAzÀ 4 UÀAmÉUÉ §gÀÄwÛzÉÝ.
¨ÉÆÃgÀfÓ 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï £À°è «Ã¼ÉåzÉ¯É Rjâ ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁPÉðmï £À°è CAzÀgÉ
aPÀÌUÀrAiÀiÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÀÄä CfÓ £À£ÀUÉ 10 CxÀªÁ 20 gÀÆ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.
£Á£ÀÄ wArAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÉnÖUÉ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝ. ¥ÉnÖUÉ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°èzÀݪÀgÀ
ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. nà CAUÀr JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqÉ w«Ää DAn vÀgÀPÁj ªÀiÁgÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ
¸Àj. w«Ää DAn(3£Éà DgÉÆæ) ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ bÀvÀæ¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ Hl
vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
w«Ää DAn £À£Àß §mÉÖ PÉÆ¼É DzÁUÀ CªÀgÀ vÀAV ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À §mÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ
ºÁPÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß CfÓ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÁߣÀ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £É®zÀ°è
ªÀÄ®UÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ 3£Éà DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÉÆqÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ®V¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ
ºÀĵÁj®è¢zÁÝUÀ ¸ÀÄ«ÄvÀæªÀÄä¼Éà £À£ÀߣÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV OµÀ¢ü
PÉÆr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.
¸ÀÆAiÀÄð £À£Àß aPÀÌ¥Àà JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß gÀ«Ää JAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ
JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀgÀAiÀÄ®è. CªÀgÀÄ wÃjPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. CAUÀ£ÀªÁr nÃZÀgï ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ
JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄätÂÚ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CAUÀ£ÀªÁr nÃZÀgï
AiÀıÉÆÃzÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É 1£Éà PÁæ¸ï £À°è EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
ªÀÄgÀÄ«ZÁgÀuÉ: E®è
(£À£Àß G ªÉÄà vÀ £Áå ¨É ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ)"
"¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢:20.02.2021 gÀAzÀÄ PÀgɹ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ªÀZÀ£À ¨ÉÆâ¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀ ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä : DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîjAzÀ:
AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ CAUÀ£ÀªÁr nÃZÀgï JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è
£ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉ. CAUÀ£ÀªÁr nÃZÀgï AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV®è.
ªÀÄAdÄ DAn UÉÆvÀÄÛ. CªÀgÀÄ AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn vÀAV JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
§©vÁ DAn UÉÆwÛ®è. n« £Á£ÀÄ C¥ÀÄà £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä EzÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
£ÉÆÃrwÛzÉÝ. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £À«Ã£À CtÚ wÃxÀð CtÚ UÉÆwÛ®è.
gÀAUÀ 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀw NzÀÄwÛgÀĪÀªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w«Ää DAn ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ
UÉÆvÀÄÛ. CªÀ£À ªÀÄ£É UÉÆwÛ®è. 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀw NzÀÄwÛzÀÝ gÀAUÀ ££ÀÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ
ªÀiÁrzÀÝ. 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀw NzÀÄwÛzÀÝ gÀAUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸À° £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå
«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ QÃl¯É ªÀiÁrzÀÝ. K£ÀÄ QÃl¯É ªÀiÁrzÀ JAzÀgÉ
CªÀ£ÀÄ ªÁ±ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÁ±ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ ºÁQzÀ.
ªÀgÀÄuÁ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÀĪÀ£À C£ÀÄߪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ wÃmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀÄ CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï ¥ÁQðUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV wÃmÉ
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DmÉÆÃzÀ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÀÆ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÀÆ ZÁPÀ¯ÉÃmï PÉÆr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÀAUÀ
AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw wÃmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÉÆà CzÉà jÃw ªÀgÀÄuÁ, ¨sÀĪÀ£À C£ÀÄߪÀ
ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ wÃmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀ: ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ
ªÀgÀÄuÁ, ¨sÀĪÀ£À ræAPïì ªÀÄqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀgÀÄuÁ, ¨sÀĪÀ£À C£ÀÄߪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀÄ
CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï ¥ÁQðUÀÆ gÁdgÁt ¥ÁQðUÀÆ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÀÄ
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀj§âgÀ eÉÆvÉ E¤ß§âgÀÄ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀgÀÄuÁ,
¨sÀĪÀ£À 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀw NzÀÄwÛzÀÝ gÀAUÀ, E¤ß§âgÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀÄ F LzÀÄ d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß
©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ K£ÀÆ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ gÀAUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀ 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀw NzÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ
gÀAUÀ C®è, £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ gÀAUÀ £À£ÀUÉ NzÀ¨ÉÃqÀ £Á£Éà ¤£Àß C¥Àà
CAvÀ C¥Àà£À vÀgÀºÀ ªÉõÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉzÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ gÀAUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÄÊPÉÊ ªÀÄÄnÖ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁr®è.
3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ w«Ää ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁUÀå CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É ¨ÉÃgÉ
¨ÉÃgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä §zÀÄQzÁÝgÉ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝgÉ.
£À£Àß vÁ¬Ä C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ¸ÀvÀÄÛºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉý®è. ¥ÁQðUÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ
d£À ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃqÀ CAvÀ ºÉzÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß
¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
30.12.2019 gÀAzÀÄ £À«Ã£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï C£ÀÄߪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß UÀ°èUÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ
¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d vÁjÃRÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß
AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃqÀ ºÉýzÀgÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉzÀj¹zÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
D £À«Ã£À PÀĪÀiÁgï AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn ªÀÄUÀ JAzÀgÉ UÉÆwÛ®è.
£À«Ã£À£À eÉÆvÉ E£ÉÆߧâ zÀ£ÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ EgÀÄwÛzÀÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
£À«Ã£À£À eÉÆvÉ E£ÉÆߧ⠺ÀÄqÀÄUÀ ¨ÉÆA§ C£ÀÄߪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ EgÀÄwÛzÀÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
¨ÉÆA§, zÀ£ÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ PÀÆqÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ
¸Àj. CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D jÃw £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ J°èzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ
UÉÆwÛ®è. 1 jAzÀ 5£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ CAvÀ
¥ÉưøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉüÀÄ JAzÀÄ AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn ºÉýPÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn ºÉýPÉÆlÖ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁUÀÆ
¥ÉưøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ 5 d£ÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ
PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ ºÉýzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn M¼ÉîAiÀĪÀgÀÄ, CªÀgÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ DUÁUÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV £Á£ÀÄ
¸ÀtÚ¥ÀÄlÖ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CAUÀ£ÀªÁrUÀÆ ºÉÆÃV
¸ÀtÚ¥ÀÄlÖ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn vÀÄA¨Á ¦æÃw
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn ºÉýzÀ ºÁUÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÉüÀÄvÉÛãÉ
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ DUÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ
DAnUÉ E§âgÀÄ UÀAqÀĪÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ¢£Á®Ä AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn
ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn w£Àß®Ä wAr PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, ºÉƸÀ §mÉÖ
PÉÆr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ E§âgÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ wAr w¤¸ÀÄ
PÉÆr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ Qè¥ï ¨ÁåAqï ZÀ¥Àà° ZÁPÀ¯ÉÃmï J®èªÀ£ÀÆß AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ
DAn CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ PÉÆr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. FUÀ®Æ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn £À£ÀUÉ
vÀÄA¨Á EµÀÖ eÁ¹Û ºÉÆvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄwÛzÉÝ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ±Á¯ÉUÉ
CªÀgÉà nÃZÀgï. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è n« £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝ. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn
ªÀÄ£É ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°è EzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É 10 £Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°è EzÉ. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ
DAn ªÀÄPÀ̼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £À«Ã£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wÃxÀð JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À«Ã£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wÃxÀð
C£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj, AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn
CAUÀ£ÀªÁrUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ £À«Ã£À, wÃxÀð ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃV Hl PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ ºÉý CªÀgÀ §mÉÖ ©aÑ £À£Àß §mÉÖ ©aÑ CªÀgÀÄ
ªÁ±ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ±ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ eÁUÀ ºÁPÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F
«µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ CªÀÄä¤UÉ ºÉýzÀgÉ ¨ÁA¨ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ
ºÉzÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn F J¯Áè «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉưøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ
ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃqÀ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn £À£ÀUÉ ºÉýPÉÆlÖ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÉÄïÉ
¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ ºÉýzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
DgÉÆævÀAiÀiÁðgÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ J®Æè ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃqÀ CAvÀ §AiÀÄÄåwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, ºÉzÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, D
PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀgÉ ºÉzÀgÀÄwÛzÉÝ. £À£ÀUÉ CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ
zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 1 jAzÀ 5£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ
DAn £ÀqÀÄªÉ DUÁUÉÎ dUÀ¼À DUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D PÁgÀt¢AzÀ
DgÉÆæUÀ½UÀÆ AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAnUÀÆ DUÀwÛgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CzÀPÁÌV £Á£ÀÄ
AiÀıÉÆÃzÀ DAn ºÉýPÉÆlÖAvÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ºÉýPÉ
¤ÃrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
ªÀÄgÀÄ«ZÁgÀuÉ: E®è
(£À£Àß G ªÉÄà vÉ £Áå ¨É ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ)"
(Emphasis added)
The evidence insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the child
narrates that one Naveen and the petitioner had sexually
assaulted the victim and on many instances, the petitioner had
taken the child to certain places on the ground that he would get
her some food and used to undress himself and undress the
child. Certain other statements that are made by the child are so
grave that they cannot be transliterated. It is on this evidence
the petitioner is made an accused in the case along with others.
Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that without there being any evidence whatsoever in
any statement during the trial the petitioner is dragged into
these proceedings is unacceptable.
11. Though the complaint did not narrate names of several
accused, but the child while tendering evidence before the Court
speaks of abhorrent acts committed by the petitioner along with
other accused. It is in the teeth of this evidence, the prosecution
files the application to bring in the petitioner into the
proceedings as an accused. The order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge on the allegation reads as follows:
":: ORDERS ON APPLICATION FILED U/S. 319 CR.P.C.::
This is an application filed by the learned Public
Prosecutor praying this court to proceed as against the other
proposed accused persons appearing to be guilty of the
alleged offences as mentioned in the charge-sheet.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor in the application has
submitted that when the victim was examined before this
court has not only made the allegations of the sexual offence
committed as against her by the accused in this case, but
also other persons such as Varuna, Bhuvana, Ranga,
Naveen Kumar, Bomba & Theertha.
3. Thus it is the submission of the prosecution
that the evidence of the victim prima-facie goes to
show that even the proposed accused persons have
committed the sexual offence as against the victim
herein and has prayed that summons has to be issued
to the proposed accused persons and they should be
tried together with the accused persons in this case for
the alleged offences in the charge-sheet.
4. On careful perusal of Sec.319 of Cr.P.C., it is
clearly mentioned that where, in the course of any inquiry
into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that
any person not being the accused has committed any offence
for which such person could be tried together with the
accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the
offence which he appears to have committed.
5. Even in the case on hand, if the evidence
placed on record by the victim who is aged about 8
years and who is examined as PW 1 if carefully looked
into she has given incriminating evidence as against
not only the accused persons in this case, but also as
against one Ranga, Varuna, Naveen Kumar, Dhanu,
Naveen, Theertha & Bomba and has stated that even
these persons had sexually abused her.
6. As the ingredients of Sec.319 of Cr.P.C. is made
out and as the learned Public Prosecutor has rightly drawn
the attention of this court to the evidence placed on record
and it appears from the evidence that the victim has
categorically stated that the proposed accused persons were
very much involved in the sexual offence as against her.
Therefore, it requires that even the proposed accused
persons have to be tried along with the accused persons in
this case and for the reasons stated above the following
order:-
:: ORDER::
The application filed U/s.319 of Cr.P.C. by the learned
Public Prosecutor is allowed.
The proposed accused persons by name Ranga,
Varuna, Naveen Kumar, Dhanu, Naveen, Teertha &
Bomba are impleaded as accused No.6 to 12.
Office to issue summons to accused No.6 to 12,
returnable by 04.01.2022."
(Emphasis added)
The learned Sessions Judge on going through the evidence and
the purport of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has come to a prima
facie conclusion that the petitioner/accused No.11 is also
involved in the offence. Therefore, in the light of the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court recognizing the power of the Court
under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. as well as glaring revelations by
the child in her evidence, I do not find any warrant to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in declining
to discharge the petitioner from the proceedings. It is for the
petitioner to come out clean in the trial.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition lacks
merit and is dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2022 also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
