The State Of Karnataka vs Ravish
2022 Latest Caselaw 7493 Kant

                              1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1359 OF 2021

BETWEEN

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.                         ... APPELLANT

[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP]


AND

1.    RAVISH
      S/O. CHIKKALINGAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
      R/O. MARASHINGANAHALLI,
      MANDYA TALUK - 571 401

2.    RAGU @ RAAGHU
      S/O. JAYARAMU,
      AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
      R/O. KONANAHALLI,
      MANDYA - 571 401.                   ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. H.M. UMESH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]

                             ***

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378(1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
07.10.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, MANDYA IN SPL.C.NO.51/2016, ACQUITTING THE
                             2




RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366 OF IPC AND
SECTION 12 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC.

   THIS   CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the State against the

impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2020 passed

by the Court of I Additional Sessions and Special Judge,

Mandya in Special Case No.51/2016, thereby acquitting

the accused/respondent of the charged offence

punishable under Section 366 of IPC and Section 12 of

POCSO Act.

2. Heard the learned High Court Government

Pleader and perused the material on record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on

12.04.2014 at about 12.00 noon at Marashinganahalli

accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 kidnapped

the victim with sexual intent, on a motor cycle bearing

registration No. KA-11/EB-6349 and kept her in the

house of CW.5 and committed sexual assault on her.

4. The charges were framed against accused

Nos. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 363,

366A read with 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act

read with Section 34 of IPC.

5. The trial Court vide impugned judgment, after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on

record acquitted the accused extending them the benefit

of doubt, which is under challenge in this appeal.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused,

the prosecution has got examined 10 witnesses and got

marked Exs.P1 to P6, before the trial Court.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader has

contended that the victim who is examined as PW.2 is a

minor aged about 17 years, which is not disputed by the

defence. He submits that the victim has supported the

case of prosecution and the complainant who is her

father, examined as PW.1 has also deposed that his

minor daughter was missing from the house on

12.04.2014 and later returned on 14.04.2014. He

submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is further

corroborated by the evidence of PW.8. He contends that

the trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground

that there is delay in lodging the complaint and there is

no medical report of the victim. He contends that the

said aspect cannot weigh much in a case of this nature,

where the victim has supported the case of prosecution.

He therefore contends that the reasons assigned by the

trial Court in acquitting the accused are not in

accordance with law.

8. It is the specific case of prosecution that the

victim a minor aged about 17 years was kidnapped by

accused No.1 on 12.04.2014 at about 12.00 noon and

she was taken to the house of CW.5 in

Yalavanathadoddi. Subsequently, on 14.04.2014 at

about 1.00 p.m., the victim was brought back to her

house by CW.5-Venkatesh. Insofar as the age of the

victim is concerned the prosecution has examined the

retired Head Master of Marashinganahall, Higher Primary

School as PW.7. He has issued Ex.P4, the age certificate

of the victim, according to which her date of Birth is

20.05.1997. Taking into consideration the same the trial

Court has come to the conclusion that the victim was

aged about 17 years at the time of incident. Even

otherwise, the victim being a minor at the time of

incident is not seriously disputed by the defence.

9. Though it is the specific case of prosecution

that the victim was kidnapped by accused No.1 on

12.04.2014 and taken to the house of CW.5 at

Yalavanathadoddi, till 14.04.2014 there was no

complaint lodged regarding missing of the victim. The

victim who is examined as PW.2 has deposed that there

was a complaint lodged by her father after she was taken

by the accused. However, the material on record

disclose that there was no such complaint which was

lodged prior to 14.04.2014. On the other hand, only after

return of the victim to the house on 14.04.2014, a

complaint came to be lodged against the accused.

10. PW.1, the complainant has deposed that 3 to

4 days after his daughter was missing from the house,

the uncle of accused No.2 brought his daughter to the

house and only thereafter he came to know that it was

the accused who kidnapped his daughter. In Ex.P1, the

complainant has stated that the person who brought his

daughter back to his house is one Venkatesh from

Yalavanathadoddi Village. The said person has been

citied as CW.5. However, he is not examined by the

prosecution.

11. PW.2-Victim in her evidence has deposed that

accused No.1 asked her to go along with accused No.2

stating that he will provide a job to her. On 12.04.2014

both the accused took her to Yalavanathadoddi Village

and kept her in the house of CW.5. She has further

deposed that in the said house they touched her cheek

and chin and CW.5 told her that accused No.1 is going to

marry her for which she replied that accused No.1 is like

her brother. Thereafter, CW.5 brought her back and left

her in her house on 14.04.2014.

12. In the cross-examination, PW.2 has admitted

that when she was taken by accused No.1 she did not

quarrel. She has admitted that 4 days after she returned

to the house, she was taken to the hospital. She has

admitted that she did not disclose before the doctor that

she was taken by the accused forcibly. She has further

admitted that she has not stated before the police that

the accused have touched her cheek etc.

13. The victim was taken for medical examination

on 19.04.2014. However, since she refused to undergo

any medical examination, no medical examination was

conducted.

14. According to PW.1, he lodged the complaint to

the police on the next day morning after his daughter

found missing from the house. As per prosecution the

victim was missing from the house on 12.04.2014 but

the complaint was lodged on 14.04.2014. Hence, the say

of PW.1 that on the very next day he lodged the

complaint is not supported by any documentary

evidence. Further, PW.1 has stated that at the time of

lodging the complaint there were about 20 people and

after discussion he lodged the complaint. He has

admitted that father of accused No.1 and himself are

brothers. According to the defence, the brother-in-law of

PW.1 by name Hanumanthu was intending to marry the

victim girl and a false complaint was lodged against the

accused at his instance. It is relevant to see that PW.1

has admitted that the complaint was lodged through the

said Hanumanthu.

15. PW.8 is a hearsay witness. He has deposed

that uncle of accused No.1 was working in Bengaluru and

PW.2 i.e., the victim was requesting that she should be

provided a job and therefore, she was taken to

Yalavanathadoddi to the house of a relative of accused

No.2. In the cross-examination he has stated that

accused No.1 will become brother to the victim. He has

admitted that he has not stated before the police that

the victim was taken by accused No.1 to the house of

one Venkatesh at Yalavanathadoddi.

16. Considering the above evidence and material

on record, the trial Court was of the view that the

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused that

they have committed the offence charged against them.

Hence, extending the benefit of doubt, the accused were

acquitted. The reasons assigned by the trial Court to

come to the said conclusion cannot be held to be either

perverse or illegal. This being an appeal against the

judgment of acquittal, no sufficient grounds are made

out to reverse the same. Therefore, the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HB/-