Karnataka High Court
Ramesha @ Ramu vs State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.656/2011
BETWEEN:
RAMESHA @ RAMU
S/O NINGARAJU, AGE 31 YEARS
LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE
MYSORE TALUK
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHAMARAJANAGAR EAST POLICE
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR .K.K, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:28.3.2011 PASSED
BY THE P.O., FTC, KOLLEGAL SITTING AT CHAMARAJANAGAR -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 376 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused No.2 has preferred this appeal
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.03.2011
passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast
Track, Kollegal sitting at Chamarajanagar in
S.C.No.19/2010, convicting and sentencing him for the
offence under Section 376 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the
material on record.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on
27.06.2004 at about 10.00 a.m., when the victim was alone
in her house at Haradanahalli village, the accused persons
kidnapped her by stating that her aunt is not well and took
her in a car to Ranganatha Palace Lodge near Nanjangud
and committed rape on her.
4. Charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to
3 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 323, 506 and
376 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6
of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Accused
Nos.2 and 3 were shown as absconding in the charge sheet.
5. Accused No.1 was tried in S.C.No.10/2005,
wherein he was convicted vide judgment dated 31.08.2006
for the offence under Sections 366, 323, 376 and 506 Part
II read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 5 of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
6. After arrest of accused Nos.2 and 3 they were
tried in the spilt up case i.e., in S.C.No.19/2010 and
S.C.No.36/2010. The trial Court vide common judgment
dated 28.03.2011 found the appellant/accused No.2 guilty
of the offence under Section 376 of IPC in S.C.No.19/2010.
The accused No.3 in S.C.No.36/2010 was acquitted of all
the charges.
7. The incident has taken place on 27.06.2004 at
about 11.00 a.m., The victim has lodged a complaint as per
Ex.P1. She has stated that accused No.1 is known to her.
On 27.06.2004 at about 11.00 a.m. when she was alone in
her house, accused No.1 came and informed her that her
aunt is unwell and she has been admitted in the hospital in
Mysore. Initially she refused to believe his words, later on
she accompanied him and then she was asked to board the
car and found that there were other accused persons in the
said car. She has stated that she was forcibly taken in the
said car and the accused committed forcible sexual
intercourse in different lodges.
8. The victim is examined as Pw.1 and has
corroborated the complaint averments insofar as accused
Nos.1 and 2 committing rape on her. There is nothing
elicited in her cross examination to discredit her testimony.
Even though the prosecution witnesses namely Pws. 2 to 4
have turned hostile, the evidence of the victim with regard
to the appellant herein committing rape is believable and
trustworthy.
9. It is relevant to mention that accused No.1
preferred Crl.A.No.445/2007 before this Court against the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed
against him. This Court vide judgment dated 12.08.2009
has confirmed the impugned judgment passed by the trial
Court.
10. Insofar as accused No.3 is concerned, the trial
Court has observed that victim has not at all identified the
said accused and she has not at all whispered anything
about him in her entire evidence. He was therefore,
acquitted by the trial Court and the said finding has become
final.
11. In view of the trustworthy evidence of the
prosecutrix, the prosecution has established the guilt of the
appellant-accused No.2 for the offence under Section 376 of
IPC.
12. Learned HCGP has filed a memo along with copy
of the intimation issued by the Jail Superintendent, Mysore,
wherein it is stated that the appellant after serving the
sentence has been released on 24.02.2016.
For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
