Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 501 (KAR)

STATE BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE v. K. D. NATARAJA

2010-04-07

B.V.PINTO

body2010
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 30 of 1990 acquitting the respondents 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 343, 366, 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution case is to the effect that one R.A. Jyothi aged about 20 years as on 17-5-1988 is alleged to have been kidnapped from near her house in Krishnapura in Hunsur Taluk, on 17-5-1988 and she was wrongfully confined in various places like, Nandigunda, Shringeri and Bangalore, between 17-5-1988 and 23-5-1988 and thereby the respondents have committed an offence punishable under Section 343 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. It is further alleged that during the said period i.e., on 17-5-1988 at about 7.30 p.m. and thereafter the respondents have abducted the said P.W. 1-Jyothi from Krishnapur with an intent that she may be forced to marry accused 1 against her Will. Thereby, the accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is further alleged that on or about 22-5-1988 the 1st respondent assaulted or used criminal force against P.W. 1-Jyothi intending to outrage her modesty and thereby the respondent 1 is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. 4. The complaint was registered on the basis of an information given to the Police by one R.A. Nataraja, who is the brother of Jyothi and who has been examined as P.W. 3. The said complaint has been marked as Ex. P. 1 and the same has been received by the police at Hunsur Rural Police Station at 1.30 p.m. on 18-5-1988. In the said complaint, P.W. 3 has stated that his sister Jyothi and another sister by name Smt. Geetha were going to take a photograph of P.W. 1. At that time one van bearing registration No. CNZ 167 came and from that van some persons forcibly pulled his sister inside the van and kidnapped her and thereafter Jyothi has not come to the house. Therefore, the complaint was lodged in the police station which was registered as Crime No. 105 of 1988 of Hunsur Rural Police Station. 5. At that time one van bearing registration No. CNZ 167 came and from that van some persons forcibly pulled his sister inside the van and kidnapped her and thereafter Jyothi has not come to the house. Therefore, the complaint was lodged in the police station which was registered as Crime No. 105 of 1988 of Hunsur Rural Police Station. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that after registration of the case, the police went and searched for the missing girl i.e., C.W. 1 and subsequently she was found and after recording her statement and further statement of the complainant, Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet for the offence mentioned above. During the course of the trial in the Sessions Court the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 17 and the got marked documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 12. The defence has got marked the documents as Exs. D. 1 to D. 8 in their defence. Thereafter, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to record an order of acquittal, acquitting all the accused for the offence charged against them. The State has come up in appeal in this case. 6. Heard Smt. A.R. Sharadambha, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri Prasanna Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused/respondents. Perused the materials on record. 7. From the evidence that has been produced it could be seen that the alleged victim Jyothi had been examined as P.W. 1 before the Sessions Court. Her examination-in-chief was recorded on 14-10-1996 and in her examination-in-chief she has stated that on 17-5-1988 she has gone to take a photograph along with her sister by name Geetha and at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. when she and her sister Geetha were going near the house of Chikkaveerappa, a van came from KR. Nagar side and stood near them from behind. It was about 50 meters away from their house. There were 7-8 people and they surrounded her namely Jyothi and her sister. At that time the 4th accused-Raveesha pushed her sister and 1st accused-KD. Nataraja pulled P.W. 1 inside the van. Immediately she shouted for rescue, but all the other persons inside the van surrounded her and 1st accused put the tape recorder very loudly and one M.K Raju, van driver took the vehicle in a very high speed. At that time the 4th accused-Raveesha pushed her sister and 1st accused-KD. Nataraja pulled P.W. 1 inside the van. Immediately she shouted for rescue, but all the other persons inside the van surrounded her and 1st accused put the tape recorder very loudly and one M.K Raju, van driver took the vehicle in a very high speed. Thereafter, it is her case that she was taken to a place called Nandigunda Village and there she was placed in the house of the 2nd accused who is one of the friend of the 1st accused. Thereafter, it is stated by her that she was forced to take food in that house and after some time 1st accused told her that he wanted to marry her and that is why they have taken her in that fashion. P.W. 1 further stated in her evidence that her engagement was made with one lecturer and there were 15 days remaining for the said marriage. In order to prevent her marriage with the said lecturer, the 1st accused has committed this act. It is her further case that on 8-5-1988 at about 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. the 1st respondent brought one car and he brought her to Bangalore via Shringeri. The 1st accused has forced her to marry him and she says that she was not willing to the said marriage. She has also further stated that in Shringeri also she was put in one room and thereafter from Shringeri through Chikkamagalur they came to Bangalore in a car. In Bangalore, she was made to stay in the house of one Police Officer by name Shivakumar and the name of the wife of that police officer is one Dakshayini. After remaining in that house, one day the 1st accused brought a stamp paper and asked her to sign for which she refuse to sign. Thereafter, two days later, i.e., on 22nd of the said month, the 1st accused brought another car and made the wife of the police officer to put a new sarry to her and forced her to get into the car. Thereafter, she was taken to Arya Samaj in Bangalore and there also she was forced to sign certain papers, otherwise it is her case that she was threatened and she would be sold to somebody. Thereafter, she was taken to Arya Samaj in Bangalore and there also she was forced to sign certain papers, otherwise it is her case that she was threatened and she would be sold to somebody. Thereafter, she was forced to stand at the place where one priest was chanting mantras and that the 1st accused tied the thali to her neck, even though she was not willing for the same. It is her case that she was taken to Chalukya Hotel, where there was a dinner. She was made to eat the food forcibly and after the dinner, she was again taken to the house of one person by name Nanjappa and she was kept there. It is to the house of Nanjappa, that her father and police came and she was rescued. However, she has not disclosed the register number of the van in which she was taken for the first time near from her house by the respondents. This examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 was carried on 14-10-1996. She has also stated that even if she sees the car she cannot tell the number of the said car or identify the said van or tempo. This witness was cross-examined on 8-3-2001 i.e., nearly four years after the examination-in-chief was recorded. In the cross-examination she has given virtually a go by to her evidence in the examination-in-chief by answering all the questions asked by the defence Counsel stating that "I don't know". Virtually, her evidence in the cross-examination started with phrase "I don't know". In particular she has not identified the friends of the 1st accused and says that she does not know any of the friends of the accused 1 including accused 2. P.W. 2-Geetha is the elder sister of P.W. 1-Jyothi and she has stated regarding the facts leading to the Kidnap of her sister Jyothi from their house on 17-5-1988. P.W. 3-R.A. Nataraja is the brother of P.W. 1. He has stated that he was present when his sister was kidnapped in the van on 17-5-1988 and he followed the said van bearing No. CNZ 167 for a considerable distance by driving his scooter. However, he could not catch the van which was proceeding towards Mysore road on that day. He has further stated that he had gone to the police station and filed the complaint i.e., Ex. P. 1. However, he could not catch the van which was proceeding towards Mysore road on that day. He has further stated that he had gone to the police station and filed the complaint i.e., Ex. P. 1. It is his case that the 1st accused wanted to marry his sister Jyothi and since his sister's marriage was fixed with another person, the 1st accused has committed this act by forcibly taking his sister. In the cross-examination he has stated that the complaint i.e., Ex. P. 1 was written by one Sashi Kumar who is his friend. He further stated that van number was informed to him by the police as CNZ 1352. P.W. 4-R.L. Annaiah Setty is the relative of accused 1 to 4. He stated that on 17-5-1988 P.Ws. 1 to 3 were in his house and they were crying at about 10.00 p.m. He further stated regarding the lodging of the complaint and rescue of P. W. 1 from the house of one person in Rajajinagar, Bangalore. P.W. 5 is the neighbour of Chikkaveerappa of P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 6-Govindaswamy is the signatory of mahazar i.e., Ex. P. 2, who was near the scene of occurrence. P.W. 7-Nataraja, P.W. 8-Somashekara, P.W. 9-Mahadevappa have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 10-Teena, stated that the date of birth of P.W. 1 is 28-8-1968 and in this connection a certificate has been issued by her. P.W. 11-KC. Subramanya, is the Police Sub-Inspector of Hunsur Rural Police Station at the relevant time, who has traced the tempo bearing No. CNZ 1352. P.W. 12-Shivanna, is the signatory to Ex. P. 2. P.W. 13-Sathyavathi, is the mother of the victim P. W. 1. But she has not supported the case of the prosecution and the Public Prosecutor has treated her hostile. P.W. 14-Neelakanta, is the Hotel Manager, who has also not stated anything about the victim girl coming to their hotel in Hunsur. P.W. 15-Lakshmana is the Head Constable, who has registered the case in Crime No. 105 of 1988 under Section 363 of the IPC. P.W. 16-Hemarajaiah, has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 17-B.D. Nanaiah, is the Circle Inspector who has conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed a charge-sheet in this case. 8. P.W. 16-Hemarajaiah, has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 17-B.D. Nanaiah, is the Circle Inspector who has conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed a charge-sheet in this case. 8. Pursuant to the recording of all these evidences, the learned Sessions Judge has opined that there is inordinate delay in registering the complaint and that shrouds the case of the prosecution with suspicion. 9. Secondly, it has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the number of the van which came to kidnap P.W. 1 is CNZ 167 as written in Ex. P. 2. The said van has not been traced nor its owner's name or particulars are mentioned, whereas, according to the prosecution case, in the witness-box the van in which the persons kidnapped the victim bear Registration No. CNZ 1352. 10. Thirdly, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that it was about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. when the incident took place and it is the time when people would frequently walk in the town place. Therefore, there is a possibility of many people waking at that relevant time. If at all P.W. 1 wanted to raise alarm it could have alerted the public and thus present the respondents from taking the victim in their van. Therefore, the theory of kidnap in the van itself becomes suspicious. 11. Fourthly, the person where the victim was placed that is (Police Officer-Shivakumar's house) has not been cited as a witness and examined by the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that the wife of the said Shivakumar helped P.W. 1 to wear sarry for the registration of the marriage. She has also not been cited or examined by the prosecution. The prosecution further wants to believe that the victim was ultimately rescued from the house of one Nanjappa in Rajajinagar, Bangalore, none from the house of Nanjappa have been examined to show that P.W. 1 was in fact rescued from the house of Nanjappa. It is further the case of the prosecution that the marriage was taken place in Arya Samaj, Bangalore, in front of priest, who was chanting mantras and in whose presence the 1st accused has tied thali. Even that priest has not been examined. It is further the case of the prosecution that after marriage, lunch was arranged in the hotel Chalukya. Even that priest has not been examined. It is further the case of the prosecution that after marriage, lunch was arranged in the hotel Chalukya. No documents has been produced nor the persons were examined to show that such persons arranged the dinner in the hotel Chalukya on the alleged date of the incident. Over and above all these factors. P.W. 1 herself in the cross-examination has given a clear go by to the theory of kidnap and the theory of forcible marriage and the theory of keeping her in unlawful custody. 12. On going through all these material on record, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge is right in passing the order of acquittal and there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or impropriety. From the evidence on record, it is established that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt and I find no good ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, I see no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.