Karnataka High Court
Shri Aravinda B R vs State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.73 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SHRI. ARAVINDA B.R.,
S/O. SHRI. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT BELUR VILLAGE,
KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. ... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE]
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMAN POLICE,
MANDYA - 571 401.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SNEHA H.V.,
D/O. VINOD KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
R/AT CHOWDAIAH BADAVANE,
HOLALU VILLAGE,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER NATURAL GUARDIAN,
HER MOTHER SMT. PACHCHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R.1;
SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R.2.]
***
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.145/2021 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 366(A), 376(3), 376(2)(n),
354(D) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 6 AND 12 OF PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AND SECTION 9 OF
PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT AND UNDER SECTION
3(1)(w)(i)(ii) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT
MANDYA.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1/State and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/victim.
2. Appellant is the sole accused facing trial in
Spl.C.No.145/2021, pending on the file of Additional
District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Mandya, for
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(3),
376(2)(n), 354(D) of IPC and Sections 6 and 12 of The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and
Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and under
Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015.
3. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated
04.10.2021 has rejected appellant's prayer for bail,
hence he is before this Court in this appeal filed under
Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. It is the case of prosecution that the victim
belongs to Adi Dravida coming under Scheduled Caste
and she is aged about 16 years. The accused having
knowledge about her caste and her age induced her to
accompany him and married her in front of
Pandaveshwar Temple by tying a turmeric thread and in
the house of CW.14 and CW.15 committed aggravated
penetrative sexual assault on her. On account of the
same, the victim became pregnant and thereby the
accused committed the chargesheeted offences.
5. The learned counsel appearing for appellant
has contended that infact there was a love affair between
the victim and the appellant and the entire act is
consensual. He contends that the victim was not a minor
at the time of incident as alleged by the prosecution. He
submits that the evidence of the victim has been
recorded and her evidence shows that she has
voluntarily accompanied the appellant and got married
and there is no inducement or force as such. He has
further submitted that as per the victim herself she was
aged about 19 years at the time of incident in question
and therefore, submits that further incarceration of the
appellant may not be necessary and by imposing any
conditions he may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/victim submits that the victim has delivered a baby
and there is no one to take responsibility of the family.
He submits that the victim was not a minor as alleged by
the prosecution.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader
contends that the prosecution has collected the age
certificate of the victim from the headmaster of the
school where the victim studied, according to which the
date of birth of the victim is 06.03.2005 and therefore,
at the time of commission of offence, the victim was a
minor. He contends that the victim became pregnant
and subsequently delivered a baby and therefore there is
a prima facie case made out against the appellant. He
submits that in view of the serious nature of the offence
committed, the appellant is not entitled for any relief.
8. The appellant was arrested on 19.06.2021
and he is in judicial custody since then. According to
prosecution, accused induced the minor victim girl and
kidnapped and married her in front of a temple by tying
a turmeric thread and kept her in the house of his
grandmother-CW.14 for about one month and
committed penetrative sexual assault on her.
Thereafter, took a house on rent from CW.15 and stayed
with the victim in the said house till 09.06.2021 and
committed penetrative sexual assault on her, on account
of which she became pregnant.
9. The victim's evidence is already recorded. The
perusal of the same goes to show that there was no force
or inducement as such. However, the question is as to
whether the victim was a minor at the time of incident.
The prosecution has relied on the certificate issued by the
headmaster of the school. According to which the date of
birth of the victim is 06.03.2005. In the said certificate it is
stated that the victim joined 9th standard in the year 2018-
2019 and she passed SSLC during the academic year 2019-
2020. However, the victim has stated that as on the date of
her marriage she was aged about 19 years. The learned
counsel for the appellant has seriously disputed the age of
the victim as claimed by the prosecution. The learned High
Court Government Pleader submits that apart from the said
certificate issued by the headmaster there are no other
documents collected by the prosecution. The prosecution
has to establish its case by adducing cogent evidence with
regard to the age of the victim. Hence, no detailed
discussion is required at this stage regarding the age of the
victim, since the trial is pending. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, since the evidence of the victim
is already recorded, without expressing any view on the
merits of the case I deem it proper to allow the appeal.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The order dated 04/10/2021 passed by the Court of
Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Mandya in
Spl.C.No.145/2021 is hereby set aside.
The appellant/accused shall be enlarged on bail in
Special Case No.145/2021 (Crime No.25/2021 of Mandya
Women Police Station) pending on the file of the Court of
Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Mandya,
subject to following conditions:
(a) The appellant shall execute a
personal bond in a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for
likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.
(b) Appellant shall furnish proof of his
residential address and shall inform the
I.O./Court, if there is any change in the
address.
(c) Appellant shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly.
(d) Appellant shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior
permission of the learned Sessions Judge.
(e) Appellant shall appear before the
trial Court on all dates of hearing.
The observations made in this appeal shall be
confined to the disposal of this case and shall not influence
the trial of the case in any manner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB/-
