Karnataka High Court
Sri K Nemiraj vs State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38643
CRL.A No. 960 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 960 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K NEMIRAJ
S/O BONYALA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KOPPADANGADI HOUSE
KADIRUDYAVARA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK. D.K
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
signed by HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
SUMITHRA R
BANGALORE
Location: ...RESPONDENT
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:30.8.11 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
S.J., FTC, PUTTUR IN S.C.NO.50/10 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 354 OF
IPC AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS. HE IS ALSO
SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.500/- FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S
448 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS FURTHER
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS. HE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38643
CRL.A No. 960 of 2011
IS ALSO SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,000/- FOR AN
OFFENCE P/U/S 354 OF IPC. BOTH THE SENTENCE SHALL RUN
CONCURRENTLY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the accused against the
judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC at Puttur, D.K. in
Sessions Case No.50/2010.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has
convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable
under Section 448 and 354 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for a period of three months each for the said
offence and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/-
respectively, with default sentence to undergo S.I. for a
period of one month. Further, the entire fine amount, if
deposited, has been directed to be paid to PW.2/victim as
compensation, under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2023:KHC:38643
CRL.A No. 960 of 2011
3. The case of the prosecution is that the
victim/PW2 is a resident of Jaliyar House, Kuvettu Village
of Belthangady Taluk. She had completed her PUC and
preparing for her D.Ed course. While she was in the High
School, she had received student scholarship from
Guruvayankere Nagarika Seva Trust. The accused was a
member of the said trust. Hence, he knew the victim girl.
On 09.01.2010 at 4.00 p.m., the accused visited the
village of the victim and trespassed into her house while
she was alone and on the pretext of asking for drinking
water, he held the victim with an intention to commit rape
and carried her to the room inside the house and made
attempts to commit rape on her. While she was resisting,
her brother (PW.3) entered the house and on seeing him,
the accused escaped.
4. On a complaint lodged by the victim, a case
was registered against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC. Charge
sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections
NC: 2023:KHC:38643
CRL.A No. 960 of 2011
448, 376 and 511 of IPC. After committal of the case to
the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed
charges against the accused for the aforementioned
offences, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses and got marked 8
documents and MOs.1 and 2.
6. The defence of the accused was one of total
denial. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence
on his behalf.
7. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the
accused guilty of the charged offences and convicted him
for the said offence and imposed sentence as noted supra.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for
NC: 2023:KHC:38643
CRL.A No. 960 of 2011
the respondent/State and perused the evidence and
material on record.
9. The victim girl is examined as PW.2. She has
deposed about the accused coming to her house on
09.01.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., while she was alone and
asking for water and when she brought water and gave to
him, he held her hand and took her to the room and tried
to molest her. She has stated that on hearing her
screaming, her brother came and at that time the accused
ran away. She has stated that at the time of incident she
was wearing a nighty and a petticoat and the accused had
attempted to commit rape on her. There is nothing
worthwhile elicited in the cross-examination of the victim
so as to deny the incident. A perusal of her evidence
reveal that the accused had trespassed into her house on
09.01.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., while she was alone and
molested her.
10. PW.1 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl
on 10.01.2010 at around 1.00 a.m. She has spoken about
NC: 2023:KHC:38643
CRL.A No. 960 of 2011
the victim giving history before her. However, she has
stated there were no injuries noticed on victim's body. She
has issued the medical certificate marked as Ex.P1.
11. The brother of the victim is examined as PW.3.
He has also corroborated the evidence of PW.1 stating that
he heard the cries of his sister while proceeding to his
house on 09.01.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. and he saw the
accused running away. He has stated about PW.1
revealing the incident to him.
12. PW.4 is the father of the victim. He has also
deposed about his daughter revealing to him about the
incident. Even though he is a hearsay witness, his
evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PWs.2 and
3.
13. PW6 is another brother of the victim. He has
also supported the case of prosecution. Though the
accused took a defence that there was some financial
dispute between himself and PW.6 and due to the said
dispute a false case was registered, the same was denied.
NC: 2023:KHC:38643
CRL.A No. 960 of 2011
The said defence taken by accused has not been proved.
Further, the evidence of the victim girl is acceptable and
trustworthy and on the same day of incident, the
complaint was lodged without inordinate delay.
14. The material witnesses have supported the case
of prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve their
evidence. The trial Court has held that the act committed
by the accused attracts the essential ingredients of Section
448 and 354 of IPC, but essential ingredients of attempt to
commit rape has not been established. The findings
recorded by the trial court does not call for any
interference.
15. The trial Court has sentenced the accused to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for
the offence punishable under Section 448 and 354 of IPC
with fine and default sentence. Both the sentence has
been ordered to run concurrently. The material on record
reveal that the accused was arrested on 11.01.2010 and
he was released on 29.04.2010 and therefore, he has
NC: 2023:KHC:38643
CRL.A No. 960 of 2011
undergone the sentence imposed against him by the trial
Court .
16. The reasons assigned by the trial Court for
convicting the accused for the offence under Section 448
and 354 of IPC are in accordance with law and does not
call for interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB
