Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Pradeep Kumar on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
CRL.A No. 1218 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1218 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI, DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-577001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
AND:
1. PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O LINGESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
Digitally R/O MELLAKATTE VILALGE
signed by
SANDHYA S DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001
Location: 2. RAMESH
High Court S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
of
Karnataka R/O MELLAKATTE VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001
3. PRASHANTH
S/O NAGARAJAPPA
R/O MELLAKATTE VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S N SAMEER., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
CRL.A No. 1218 of 2016
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.01.2016 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DIST. AND S.J., DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.111/2015
THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED /RESPONDENT OF THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 366 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC;
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant-State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge Davanagere (for brevity hereinafter referred to
as the "trial Court") in SC No.111 of 2015 dated 30th January,
2016, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under
section 363, 366 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal are referred to as per their status and rank before the
Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution is that on 09th
November, 2010 in the house of complainant-PW1 situate at
Mellakatte, Davanagere Taluk, the accused No.1 to 3, with
common intention, kidnapped the daughter of PW6 who was a
minor girl aged about 17 years from the lawful custody of her
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
father. Further it is alleged that the accused 1 to 3 kidnapped
the minor girl with an intention that she may be compelled to
marry against her will and forced to illicit intercourse with
accused No.1. Further it is alleged that accused No.1
committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW1 with dire
consequences of life. Thus, accused have committed offence
punishable under Section 363, 366, 504 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation,
Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the
accused for commission of alleged offences. After filing of
charge sheet, the committal court has taken cognizance against
the accused for commission of alleged offence and case came
to be registered in CC No.1428 of 2014. Thereafter, the case
was committed to the Sessions Court and was registered in SC
No.111 of 2015. In pursuance of summons, the
accused/respondents appeared before the trial Court. The trial
Court has framed charges for alleged commission of offences
and same was read over to the accused. The accused having
understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined eleven witnesses as PW1 to 11 and thirteen
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P13. No material
objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On closure
of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.
Accused denied the incriminating evidence adduced against
them and they have chosen not to lead any defence evidence
on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred
this appeal.
4. Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is
contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. The reasons
assigned by the trial Court in the impugned judgment of
acquittal is erroneous and improper. The Sessions Judge has
not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance
with law and facts and law. On all these grounds, he sought to
allow the appeal.
5. Sri S.N. Sameer, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused submitted that the trial Court has
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with
law and facts and there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment of acquittal and accordingly sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
following points would arise for my consideration in this appeal:
1) Whether the appellant-State has made out a
ground for interference with the impugned
judgment of acquittal?
2) What Order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: negative
Point No.2: as per final order
Regarding Point No.1:
8. I have carefully examined the materials placed
before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09th
November, 2010, the accused No.1 to 3, with common
intention, kidnapped the daughter of PW6 who was a minor girl
aged about 17 years from the lawful custody of her father.
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
Further it is alleged that the accused 1 to 3 kidnapped the
minor girl with an intention that she may be compelled to
marry against her will and forced to illicit intercourse with
accused No.1. Further it is alleged that accused No.1
committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW1 with dire
consequences of life. Thus, accused have committed offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366, 504 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation,
Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the
accused for commission of alleged offences. After filing of
charge sheet, the committal court has taken cognizance against
the accused for commission of alleged offence and case came
to be registered in CC No.1428 of 2014. Thereafter, the case
was committed to the Sessions Court and was registered in SC
No.111 of 2015. In pursuance of summons, the
accused/respondents appeared before the trial Court. The trial
Court has framed charges for alleged commission of offences
and same was read over to the accused. The accused having
understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined eleven witnesses as PW1 to 11 and thirteen
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P13. No material
objects were marked on behalf of the prosecution.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that the age of
PW6-victim was 17 years. To substantiate the same, the
prosecution has produced Date of Birth Certificate-Exhibit P13
issued by the Head Master of Government High School,
Mellekatte, Davanagere Taluk. It reveals that the date of birth
of victim was 24th July, 1997. The alleged incident took place
on 09th November, 2014. If it is calculated, the age of the
victim comes to 17 years 6 months and 10 days. During the
course of cross-examination of PW1, he has clearly admitted
that the victim was born in the year 1996 and at the time of
admission to the school, he has wrongly stated her date of birth
as 1997. Apart from this, the Investigating Officer has not
collected the birth certificate or original admission register
maintained by the primary school authorities. During the
course of cross-examination of PW6, she has clearly admitted
that her date of birth is 27th April, 1996. Hence, this admission
of PWs1 and 2 clearly goes to show that the age of victim PW6
was 18 years, 6 months 10 days and accordingly, prosecution
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
has failed to prove that at the time of alleged incident, the age
of the victim was below eighteen years.
10. With regard to other evidences are concerned, it is
appropriate to mention here the essential ingredients to prove
the alleged offences.
11. The essential ingredients with regard to Section 363
of Indian Penal Code, reads thus:
"Essential Ingredients:- An offence under Section 363 has
following essentials:
(i) That the accused did:
(a) Forcful compulsion or inducement by
deceitful means;
(b) The object of such compulsion or
inducement must be the going of a person
from any place;
(ii) That such kidnapping of any person was done from
India or from the lawful guardianship.
12. The essential ingredients with regard to Section 366
of Indian Penal Code, reads thus:
"Essential Ingredients:- An offence under Section 366 has
following essentials:
(i) Kidnapping or abducting of any woman;
(ii) Such kidnapping or abducting must be-
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
(i) with intent that she may be compelled or
knowing it to be likely that she will be
compelled to marry any person against her
will; or
(ii) in order that she may be forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it
to be likely that she will be forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse; or
(iii) by means of criminal intimidation or
otherwise by inducing any woman to go
from any place with intent that she may
be, or knowing that she will be, forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse.
It is immaterial whether the woman kidnapped is a
married woman or not.
13. The essential ingredients with regard to Section 504
of Indian Penal Code, reads thus:
"Essential Ingredients:- An offence under Section 504 has
following essential ingredients:
(i) Intentionally insulting a person and thereby
giving provocation to him;
(ii) The person insulting must intend or know it to be
likely that such provocation will cause him to
break the public peace or to commit any other
offence. The intentional insult must be of such a
degree that should provoke a person to break
the public peace or to commit any other offence.
The person who intentionally insults intending or
knowing it to be likeluy that it will give
provocation to any other person and such
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
provocation will cause to break the public peace
or to commit any other offence, in such a
situation, the ingredients of section 504 are
satisfied. One of the essential elements
constituting the offence is that there should have
been an act or conduct amounting to intentional
insult and the mere fact that the accused abused
the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by
itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504,
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860."
14. In the case on hand, PW6 has not stated as to the
alleged commission of offence. On the contrary, she has clearly
deposed in her evidence that she was willing to marry accused
No.1. Even PW2-Hanumanthappa who is said to be the attestor
to mahazar Exhibit P2, has not supported the case of the
prosecution. PW4-Shashikala, who is the mother of victim girl
is a hearsay witness. PW5-B.J. Veerappa, is also a hearsay
witness. PW7-Shashank has not supported the case of
prosecution. PW8-B. Venkatesha has deposed as to the seizure
of car in mahazar Exhibit P4. PW9-Rajendra the owner of the
car has not deposed anything against the accused. He is also a
hearsay witness. PW10- Girisha has deposed about the seizure
of the car as per Exhibit P4. PW11-Siddesha M.D., who is the
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
Investigating Officer has deposed as to the investigation. On
careful examination of all the material witnesses, there is no
consistency in the evidence and on the contrary, there are
material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PWs1
and 6. Absolutely, there are no cogent, corroborative and
convicting trustworthy evidence to attract the alleged
commission of offence. The trial Court has carefully
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts and I do not find any legal infirmities/illegalities in the
impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, I answer point No.1 in
the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
15. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Appeal dismissed;
2. Judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in SC
No.111 of 2015 dated 30th January, 2016, is
confirmed.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42775
3. Send the copy of this judgment along with the
trial Court records to the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
