Karnataka High Court
Manjula @ Manjamma vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.305 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MANJULA @ MANJAMMA
W/O LATE RAGHU, AGED 40 YEARS,
R/O BEDATHUR MIDIGESHI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU - 572 133.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GNANESH H. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KODIGENAHALLI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT SUMITHRA
W/O RAMANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O SUDDEKUNTE VILLAGE
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU - 572 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
31.01.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (FTSC-1), TUMAKURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.78/2022 AND b)
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.69/2021 OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 i.e. KODIGENAHALLI POLICE AND NOW PENDING
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
2
JUDGE (FTSC-1), TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.NO.353/2021 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 342, 376, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 6, 17 OF
POCSO ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Gnanesh H. Kempanna, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned Govt. Pleader for
respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has been served with notice
but there is no representation.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short, the S.C. & S.T. Act). The appellant is
accused No.1 in Spl. Case No.353/2021 on the file of the Addl.
District & Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Tumakuru. She and two
other accused have been implicated for the offences punishable
under Sections 342, 376, 506 IPC, Sections 6 & 17 of POCSO
Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v-a) of S.C. &
S.T. Act read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that daughter of the
second respondent aged about 15 years was taken by the
appellant to her house in the guise of taking a photograph to be
sent to LIC on whatsapp, aided accused No.2 to commit rape on
the girl. It is stated very specifically that the appellant pushed
the girl into the room and locked the door, thereafter accused
No.3 caught hold of the girl and accused No.1 committed rape.
The girl has given statement to this effect under Section 164
Cr.P.C. The medical report clearly states that the girl was
subjected to rape.
4. Though the specific act of committing rape is
attributed to accused No.1, there are allegations that the
appellant herein was the one who took the girl to her house and
aided accused No.1 to commit rape. Investigation has been
completed. Though appellant is a woman, but the charges
against her are very serious. She being a woman should not
have indulged in aiding the other accused to commit rape on the
girl. In this view, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned
order. No case is made out to admit the appellant to bail.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sac*
