Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 810 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Krishnamurthy

2012-09-25

DILIP B.BHOSALE, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2012
JUDGMENT Dilip B. Bhosale , J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 22nd June, 2007, rendered in S.C. No. 238/05 by the Presiding Officer; Fast Track Court, Ramanagaram. The accused was charged and tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.9.2003 at 11.30 a.m., when the prosecutrix (P.W.I) was carrying tiffin for her parents, the accused caught hold of her and committed rape. After the rape, the prosecutrix went to the garden land where her mother was working and informed her about the occurrence. The prosecutrix and her mother P.W.2 waited till evening for her father to return. In the evening they informed about the alleged occurrence to her father P.W.4. Her father took her to the house of one Shivanna, the brother-in-law of the accused and informed him about the sexual assault committed on his daughter. Shivanna told him that he would advise the accused. He then returned home at 6.30 p.m. Next day her father went to the garden land as usual and informed about the incident to P.W.3. Thereafter, the father and P.W.3 went to the police station and lodged complaint at 7.00 p.m. on 26.9.2003. It is on the basis of this complaint investigation was carried out, the accused was arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded including PWs. 1 to 12, medical certificate and other documents were collected during investigation and 3 material objects langa viz. MOl, blouse MO2 and under garment MO3 were seized. The Sessions Court after having recorded the evidence and taking all the materials placed on record in support of the prosecution case into consideration acquitted the accused of the offence under section 376 IPC, mainly relying upon the medical evidence. The learned Judge in the course of Judgment has also discussed in depth the evidence of prosecutrix and noticed several discrepancies, inconsistencies, which made, her evidence untrustworthy. 2. We have gone through the entire evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The prosecutrix P.W.1 in her evidence has given detailed version as to how the incident occurred. We have also perused the evidence of P.W.2 the mother of the prosecutrix. 2. We have gone through the entire evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The prosecutrix P.W.1 in her evidence has given detailed version as to how the incident occurred. We have also perused the evidence of P.W.2 the mother of the prosecutrix. She, in her evidence, apart from what was informed to her by her daughter (prosecutrix), also states that since the clothes of her daughter had become dirty they were washed before handing over to the police. The father of the prosecutrix (P.W.4) has not offered any explanation as to why he did not approach the police on 25.9.2003 in the evening when he was informed about the occurrence by his wife and the prosecutrix. Even on the next day, he did not approach the police till 7.00 p.m. He went to police only after having discussed the matter with P.W.3. P.W.3 was his master and the defence has suggested that he had some grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him in the alleged occurrence. 3. In view of this evidence, we have carefully gone through the medical evidence to find out whether the allegation of rape is true and correct. We would also like to make reference to the defence propounded by the accused. According to the accused he has been falsely implicated by the father of the prosecutrix at the instance of P.W.3. In short, his defence is of total denial. In addition to the mere denial of the alleged incident, the accused also placed on record his written statement contending that there was an affair between him and the prosecutrix and they wanted to marry. Their decision of marriage was not approved by her parents and in view thereof, false complaint was lodged against him. 4. In this backdrop we perused the evidence of Dr. Prabhavathi P.W.9. She examined the prosecutrix on 27.9.2003 at Vani Vilas Hospital, Bangalore. She specifically states that she did not notice any external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix or on her private parts. It would be advantageous to reproduce the certificate issued by the doctor after examining the prosecutrix which reads thus: Certificate This is to certify that I have examined Kum. Asha D/o. Rajanna, brought by PC No. 1346 Harohalli Police Station Cr. No. 150/2003-376 IPC a case of alleged rape and the examination findings are as follows. It would be advantageous to reproduce the certificate issued by the doctor after examining the prosecutrix which reads thus: Certificate This is to certify that I have examined Kum. Asha D/o. Rajanna, brought by PC No. 1346 Harohalli Police Station Cr. No. 150/2003-376 IPC a case of alleged rape and the examination findings are as follows. Identification Marks; 1. A pin head sized black mole on the left cheek over the maxilla. 0/E BP-120/80 mg Hg Pulse -88/mm. Temp (N) No external injuries anywhere on the body. Local Examination: No external injuries on the genitalia. No redness, tenderness, No bleeding or white discharge. Hymen is intact. Vaginal swab & smear taken and sent for forensic examination. Clothes not collected as she had changed clothes and taken bath. Case referred to Department of Radiology for age estimation. 5. In view of the evidence of Dr. Prabhavathi we also perused the evidence placed on record by the prosecution in the nature of report of Forensic Science Laboratory. It is in respect of 3 articles viz. M.O.1 - langa, M.O.2 - blouse and M.O.3 - undergarment. Except langa, the test in respect of other items was negative. Insofar as langa is concerned, the report shows presence of seminal stains. According to the defence, seminal stains were planted by the prosecution after recovery of langa and in support of this contention, our attention was invited to the admission given by her mother P.W.2. She in her examination-in-chief itself, states that she was not knowing that the clothes of her daughter would be required for investigation or required to be handed over to the police and therefore, she washed it and later handed over to the police. We would like to narrate the relevant portion from her examination-in-chief for better appreciation of her evidence in this regard. The relevant portion reads thus: As the wearing clothes of my daughter became dirty they were washed. As we were not knowing that the wearing clothes of my daughter have to be handed over to the police, we washed and later handed over to the police. 6. It is thus clear that even the evidence in the nature of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory would not help the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence. 6. It is thus clear that even the evidence in the nature of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory would not help the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Even if it is assumed that the langa had seminal stains, they cannot be stated to be that of the accused. Prosecution has not brought on record any material to connect the accused with those stains. This assumes importance in the backdrop of the medical certificate issued by the doctor (P.W.9) which shows that the prosecutrix did not suffer any injuries and even the hymen was intact. It is in this backdrop the learned Judge has acquitted the accused. The view taken by the learned Judge, in our opinion, is plausible and deserves no interference. In any case, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be termed as perverse. We do not find any manifest illegality in the Judgment. In the result, we confirm the judgment and dismiss the appeal.