2. Appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 who have
Special Court - III, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
Complainant Muniyamma filed a complaint before
Vishwanathapura Police on 26.10.2017 at about 8.00 p.m.,
contending that she is the resident of Sunnaghatta village and
she was a building construction worker. It is her case that she
has four children and second daughter is the victim and they
belonged to Adikarnataka caste.
NC: 2025:KHC:5087
4. It is further contended that second daughter of the
complainant (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim') was
studying in Government High School in 8th standard at
Sunnaghatta at the relevant point of time and when they had
been to coolie work, accused who is the son-in-law of the
Talavaru Narasimhappa, a married person residing in the same
village, visiting the house of the complainant frequently from
January, 2017 onwards and had illicit relationship with the
victim under threat.
5. Because of such illicit physical relationship, victim
became a pregnant of eight months and the incident was
reported to the brother of the accused Mr. Gangaraju. Accused
No.1 and 2 instead of accepting the guilt, started abusing the
complainant by taking out the caste name so as to degrade
them in the public view.
6. Based on such complaint, Vishwanathapura police
registered a case in Cr.No.219/2017 and after thorough
investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable
under Section 376 (2) (i) (f), 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC
and under Section 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act ('POCSO' for short).
NC: 2025:KHC:5087
7. On receipt of charge sheet, presence of accused
persons were secured and charges were framed. Accused
pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
8. After due trial, learned Trial Judge convicted the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and
506 IPC and acquitted the accused for other offences and
sentenced as under:
"Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo S.I
for 1 year for the offence U/s 504 of IPC and further the
accused No.1 and 2 are directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each in default of payment of fine they shall under go S.I.
for 3 months.
Further Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to
undergo S.I for 2 years for the offence U/s 506 of IPC
and further the accused No.1 and 2 are directed to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default of payment of fine they
shall under go S.I. for 3 months.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Out of the fine amount, if it is deposited.
Rs.15,000/ be paid to the victim girl i.e. P.W.1 in terms of
Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of
Rs.5,000/- be confiscated to the state U/s 357(1)(a)
towards defraying expenses.
Office is hereby directed to supply free copy of the
judgement to the accused No.1 and 2 herein.
NC: 2025:KHC:5087
Further, office is directed to send a copy of the
findings and sentence imposed in this case to District
Magistrate as required u/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
The period of judicial custody under gone by the
accused is given a set-off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C
Issue a conviction warrant accordingly."
9. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants are before
this Court.
10. Sri Srikanth B., learned counsel for the appellants
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum
contended that in the absence of any appeal being filed by the
State in acquitting the appellants for the rest of the offences,
for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 IPC is
concerned, custody period already undergone by the appellants
may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the
fine amount reasonably and allow the appeal to that extent.
11. Per contra, Sri Rahul Rai, learned High Court
Government Pleader opposes the appeal grounds and
contended that very fact of appellants abusing the complainant
in filthy language and giving life threat, having been
established and therefore, appeal is to be dismissed in toto.
NC: 2025:KHC:5087
12. Having heard the parties in detail, perused the
material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record,
especially in view of the alternate submission made by the
counsel for appellants only with regard to the sentence, the
sole point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the sentence ordered by the
learned Trial Judge needs modification?
14. In the case on hand, admittedly, there was a
physical relationship between first appellant and victim. Victim
became pregnant of eight months and at that juncture, the
panchayath was held by the complainant and accused No.2.
Accused No.2 being the elder brother of accused No.1, at that
juncture, both the appellants said to have abused the
complainant and her daughter in filthy language and also gave
life threat.
15. Taking note of the material evidence placed on
record, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellants for the
rest of the offences which has become final in the absence of
any appeal filed by the State.
NC: 2025:KHC:5087
16. Material evidence also clearly establish that the
appellants belonged to a different caste than the caste of the
victim. Moreover, first accused being already a married person,
there was no remedy left for the complainant and victim and at
that juncture, complaint came to be filed.
17. It is highly unimaginable that mother of the victim
girl (complainant) did not notice for pregnancy of her daughter
till eight months. All these factors ultimately resulted in
acquittal of the appellants for the remaining offences which has
become final in the absence of any further appeal either by the
victim or by the State.
18. Therefore, taking note of the fact that appellants
are convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 504
and 506 IPC, custody period already undergone by each of the
appellants is to be treated as period of imprisonment for the
aforesaid offences by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.25,000/- each and enhanced fine amount if paid as
compensation to the victim, ends of justice would be met.
Accordingly, the sole point is answered in the
affirmative and following order is passed:
NC: 2025:KHC:5087
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
appellants for the offences punishable under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC, custody period
already undergone by the appellants is treated
as period of imprisonment by directing the
appellants to pay enhanced fine amount of
Rs.25,000/- each to be paid by the accused on
or before 10th March 2025, failing which they
shall undergo simple imprisonment as ordered
by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned
judgment.
(iii) After payment of enhanced fine amount, sum of
Rs.50,000/- (inclusive of the compensation
already ordered by the learned Trial Judge) shall
be paid as compensation to the victim - P.W.1,
under due identification.
(iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records along with copy of this order.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MR,
