IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.252 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELTHANGADY POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-II) AND:
MR. SANTHOSH SON OF MR. KARINJA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT ADILU HOUSE KOYYARU VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 214. ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.05.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.32 OF 2017 TO THE EXTENT OF ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, H.P.SANDESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 02.05.2018 passed in S.C.No.32 of 2017 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code. The records disclose that the Court below convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The main grounds urged in this appeal are that the Court below has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim PW.1 with consent. No complaint was given against the accused in spite of the accused copulating on two dates i.e., on 27.07.2013 and 11.01.2013. If really he had forcible sexual intercourse, she would have lodged the complaint and complaint was lodged only after the accused refused to marry her. The Court below also observed in the judgment that the victim is a major. She went to the spot on the call of the accused and both of them went to a movie and came to the room situated in the place where the accused was working and had sexual intercourse. Hence, it cannot be termed as an offence within the meaning of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the State and on perusal of the material on record particularly the evidence of PW.1, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The evidence of PW.1 reveals that on the call of accused she herself went to Santhwana Kendra wherein the accused was working and stayed with him on two different dates and did not give any complaint even though the incident had taken place on 27.07.2013 and 11.01.2013. The complaint was given only in the month of March 2014. Hence, the conclusion arrived by the trial Court is based on the material available on record. Hence, we do not find any reason to admit the appeal based on the evidence of PW.1 who has spoken with regard to the forcible sexual intercourse with her in spite of there being no material with regard to the same.
5. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal for an offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code to come to the conclusion that the trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record as contended by the learned State Public Prosecutor-II.
Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE akc