IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 7497/2019 BETWEEN MR. GOWTHAM KRISHNA L.M S/O. MANJUNATHA AGED 29 YEARS LABOURER, R/O. JAIPURA TANIGEBAILU VILLAGE TARIKERE TALUK – 577 228 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND STATE BY LINGADAHALLI POLICE REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHITH B.J, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.37/2019 REGISTERED BY LINGADAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 201, 366, 376(1) AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS- 4 AND 14 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 65 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned HCGP for the Respondent –State. Perused the records.
2. The Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.37/2019 of Lingadahalli Police Station. The respondent-Lingadahalli Police after thorough investigation have laid charge sheet against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(1), 506, 201 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 14 of the POCSO Act and also under Section 65 of the Information Technology Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant, who is the grandmother of the victim girl, has lodged a complaint stating that, the victim girl was studying in II PUC and she was also attending the computer classes. From past few months, she was not mingling with others and she was looking dull. In spite of best efforts of the complainant, the victim girl was not disclosing anything to her. It is further stated that, the complainant noticed that, on 29.06.2019 the victim girl was weeping and she did not go to computer classes. Then the complainant forced her to tell the reason why she is weeping. Then the victim girl has disclosed that, since two years, the petitioner was known to her and about one year back, ie. on 02.06.2018, she had been to STG College at Chuikkamagaluru for admission and when she was waiting for bus in the bus stand of Nandibattalu Colony at 4.45 p.m. to return home, the petitioner/accused stating that he will drop her to her house, took her on his scooter. But, he took her to a landed property stating that he will show her the garden land and there, he threatened her with dire consequences of killing her and thereafter, undressed her and he undressed himself and forcibly committed sexual act on her and due to which, the victim girl sustained injury to her private part. It is alleged that, he also took photographs of he committing rape on her and threatened her stating that, he will show those photographs to his friends.
Subsequently, it was also stated that, her menstrual cycle was prevented for two months. Suspecting that, she became pregnant, she ate Pappaya Fruit to set right that problem.
4. After coming to know of the above facts, the complainant, who is the grand mother of the victim girl, has lodged a complaint before the respondent- Police Station. The victim girl was subjected to medical examination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that, absolutely no injury was sustained to the victim girl and the Doctor, who examined the victim girl, in his report has stated that, the hymen was intact. Further he has stated that, the allegation in the complaint is that, the incident has happened one year back, but before the Magistrate, the victim girl has stated that the incident happened on 02.06.2019. This shows that, there are divergent statements made by the victim girl. Further, the Doctor has stated that, no specimen is collected since the incident has taken place one year back and there is no specification that the victim girl was at any point of time accustomed to any sexual activity.
6. Looking to the above facts and circumstances, though the victim girl was also examined under Section 164 of Cr.PC., she has reiterated the above said aspects. Therefore, it is clear that since two years the victim girl and petitioner/accused were known to each other and she states that the incident has happened one year back and she did not disclose the incident to any body and she wanted to correct her health problem by medicating herself.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been arrested and he is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest and it is also stated that charge sheet has already been filed. Further, it is stated that the age of the victim girl is more than 18 years as on 02.06.2019. Therefore, if the incident has happened on 02.06.2019, the alleged provisions of the POCSO Act do not attract in this case. Even if the incident has happened, prior to one year, then also the victim girl crosses the age of 17 years. Therefore, in view of the divergent statement of the victim girl and the opinion of the Doctor, at present it is not known whether the victim girl was aged below or above 18 years. At present, the exact age of the victim girl is not known and it is also not known whether the incident has happened due to any understanding between the victim girl and the accused, and whether she was a consenting party or there is any forcible sexual act by the accused. Therefore, all these aspects have to be thrashed-out during the course of full-dressed trial.
8. In view of the above said doubtful circumstances, in my opinion, pre-trial conviction is not warranted. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following,-
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused-L.M. Gowtham Krishna shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.37/2019 of Lingadahalli Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District, registered against him for the aforesaid offences, now pending before the Court of I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Spl.C. (POCSOA) No.39/2019, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of.
KGR* Sd/- JUDGE