Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1372 (KAR)

Basavaraj Shedar @ Shivappa v. State of Karnataka

2019-06-21

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary in SC No.53/2008 dated 15.11.2010 where under appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(XI) of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and also under Section 506 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant victim was working as a Conductor in KSRTC at Huvinahadagali. It is alleged that the appellant-accused who is working as Supervisor in the said depot used to give sexual torture by saying he will come to her house and he is having interest in her. Orally she refused many a times and warned him. In that light on 20.03.2008, after depositing the amount received from route No.11, when she is ready to go to her house at that time the accused who is near the Administrative office told her that she has to collect the fine amount order and asked her to come. By giving respect to the words of superior officer, she went to the branch and at that time the accused caught hold of her hand and touched her body and asked her that he will come to her house for sexual favour and she told that in his house, he is having his wife and children and she will send her brother to his house. It is further alleged that as she belongs to SC/ST caste, accused abused her by taking her caste and accused told that if she is not going to hear his words, she is going to be troubled and thereafter, he abused her with filthy language and he also told her that he is going to save her from problems and he will also send her to better route if she obey his words otherwise he will send the ticket checker to her route and he will see that she will be troubled in her service, if she is not going to heed to his requests. Further, he threatened her that he will also recommend her name and she will not get the charge sheet every day and if, any such cases are there he will request to put little fine and also he has given life threat to her. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered. 4. After investigation, the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter, Special Court took the cognizance and after following the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed and read over to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and as such trial was fixed. 5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has got examined 20 witnesses and got marked 17 documents and also got marked one material object. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded on the basis of incriminating materials available as against him. Thereafter, he has not led any evidence on his behalf. After hearing learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the prosecution, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence was came to be passed. Assailing the same accused is before this Court. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that all the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the only evidence which is before this Court is that of PW1-victim and it also suffers with many contradictions and omissions. It is his further submission that PW3 is a Supervisor of the Depot who is also present at the time of galata. In his cross-examination, it has been elicited that he heard a loud voice and he do not know what they were talking and the complainant has not informed the same in the complaint. It is clearly goes to show that no such incident has taken place as alleged. It is his further contention that a cheque bounce case has been registered as against one Mruthunjaya Swamy and complainant and the Mruthunjaya Swamy had been to Murudeshwara and other places and only at the instigation of the said Mruthunjaya Swamy, a false complaint has been registered. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court. Further, he submitted that there is a delay of eight days in filing the complaint. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court. Further, he submitted that there is a delay of eight days in filing the complaint. No proper explanation has also been given in this behalf by the complainant. 7. He further submitted that the material which has been produced has not been properly considered and appreciated and without there being any corroboration, the evidence of PW1 has been accepted wrongly and trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds, he prays to allow his appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. It is the submission of the learned HCGP that PW1 is a victim, her evidence corroborates with the complaint Ex.P1. Even, the material which has been produced clearly goes to show that there was some galata between the accused and complainant and all the witnesses have substantiated the said fact and PW1 in her evidence and complaint categorically stated that the accused has caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty. The evidence of PW1 is sufficient to come to conclusion that the accused know fully well that she belongs to Chaluwadi Community and he tried to sexually assault her and has tried to outrage her modesty. He further, submitted that trial Court after placing all the material placed on record has convicted the accused for the alleged offence. The accused has not made out any good grounds to allow the appeal and acquit him from the charges leveled against him. On these grounds he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. As could be seen from the records, the prosecution got examined 20 witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant/victim. In her evidence, she has deposed by reiterating the contents of the complaint that on 20.03.2008 at about 7:00 or 7:30 p.m., she went to the chambers of the accused and he behaved badly with her and got caught hold of her hand. As could be seen from the records, the prosecution got examined 20 witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant/victim. In her evidence, she has deposed by reiterating the contents of the complaint that on 20.03.2008 at about 7:00 or 7:30 p.m., she went to the chambers of the accused and he behaved badly with her and got caught hold of her hand. When she told to leave her hand, he told that he will come to her house and there they can talk and at that time he put his hand on her shoulder, but she do not know with what intention he has put his hand and when she told not to put his hand on her body accused told that he will come to her house and she told that there is no need to come to her house. She further deposed that the accused knowing the said fact that she belongs to Chalawadi community the alleged act has been done by the accused. She has also further deposed that she joined to the services three years prior to the incident and earlier to the alleged incident also the accused used to call her over the phone and used to tell that he will come to her house and she has also deposed that she has filed the complaint as per Ex.P-1. 11. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the said evidence of PW-1. Though it is suggested that herself and one Mr. Mrutyunjaya Swamy had been to Murudeshwar and the said fact has been appeared in the news paper. But that admission is not going to throw any light to discard the case of the prosecution. PW-2 is the father of the complainant. He has deposed that PW-1 is working as a conductor since one year and PW-1 his daughter informed him that in order to give a proper route to her, accused has demanded Rs.4,000/- and when accused came to his place he has given Rs.4,000/- and at that time PW-1 was also there in the house. It is also further deposed that, PW-1 has also informed about the said incident over the phone. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. PW-3 who is also a Supervisor of the Depot. It is also further deposed that, PW-1 has also informed about the said incident over the phone. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. PW-3 who is also a Supervisor of the Depot. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. But however, during the course of cross-examination, it has been elicited that he heard a loud voice and he do not know what they were talking and the complainant has not informed that in the complaint, the accused has put his hand and tried to outrage her modesty. PWs-4 to 11 are the employees who were working in the said depot. They have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. Even during the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the prosecution. But however in the evidence of PW-1 and other witnesses, the presence of the accused and the complainant near the depot and the 'galata' has been elicited and the same has not been discarded and challenged during the course of cross-examination. PWs-12 & 13 are the Mahazar witnesses. They have also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-14 is the Police Constable who carried the FIR to the Jurisdictional Court. PW-15 is the Village Accountant who has issued the 'Khata extract'. PW-16 is the Doctor who examined PW-1 and issued the wound certificate, as per Ex.P-13. PW-17 is the Tahashildar who issued the Caste Certificate of the complainant, as per Ex.P-14. In his evidence, he has deposed that the complainant belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe. PW-18 is the Police Sub-Inspector who registered the case on the basis of the complaint. PW-20 is the Dy. Superintendent of Police who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. By going through the entire material, which has been produced, the only evidence available before the Court is that of PW-1. Only the question remains for consideration is whether the said evidence is trustworthy and reliable. 12. PW-20 is the Dy. Superintendent of Police who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. By going through the entire material, which has been produced, the only evidence available before the Court is that of PW-1. Only the question remains for consideration is whether the said evidence is trustworthy and reliable. 12. On going through the evidence of PW-1, she has categorically deposed that she belongs to SC i.e. Chalawadi community and the accused knowingly fully well that he used to call her and he used to tell her that he will put her to a better route and other things and on the date of alleged incident when she had been to his office, he caught hold her hand and put his hand on her shoulder. Though she has deposed that she does not know for what reason, the accused has put his hand on her shoulder, but when the accused is discharging his duties in the office and there is no question of he being putting any hand on the shoulder of the accused for some other better reasons. Apart from that, PW-2 has corroborated with the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that in order to give a better route he has paid Rs.4,000/- and other witnesses including PW-3 and others have also substantiated the fact that the accused and the complainant were there in the said chamber and they heard the 'galata' and the presence of PW-1 in the chamber's of accused is also not seriously disputed. Under the said facts and circumstances, the evidence of PW-1 can be acceptable in this behalf. No doubt, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that except the self interested testimony of PW-1, there is no corroboration, but when the accused has committed the offence under Section 354 of IPC, by outraging the modesty of a women, then under such circumstances, the said evidence is like that of a injured witness and it can be relied upon without corroboration and such cases stand on a different footing insofar as appreciation is concerned. 13. 13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that one Mrutyunjaya swamy as against him that the accused has filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act and in order to pressurize the accused to withdraw the complaint with the help of the complainant a false case has been registered. Only suggesting that the victim and the said Mrutyunjaya swamy had been to Murudeshwar and it has appeared in the news paper, no other admissible evidence is there to accept the said version. Even the accused has not produced any documents to show that he has filed the complaint against the said Mrutyunjaya swamy and the said case is pending in the absence of any material. The said contention is also not acceptable. 14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a delay of 8 days in filing the complaint. Though there is a delay in filing the complaint, especially when an offence has been committed against the women, immediately she will not come forward to file the complaint, but she will try to resolve the same and ultimately if it becomes inevitable, with the further discussion and deliberations with the members of the family and other persons the complaint is going to be filed. When other witness have stated that galata has taken place on the alleged date and time between complainant and accused. The said delay will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution to hold that a false case has been registered. In that light, the contention of the appellant-accused is rejected. 15. Be that as it may. When the alleged incident is not disputed and other evidence also substantiate the fact that the said incident has occurred and there was a 'galata' between the accused and the complainant. When that fact is not disputed, then under such circumstances the delay caused in filing the complaint will not be turned as a belated complaint and it is a false complaint and thereby the entire evidence cannot be discarded. 16. Under the said facts and circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is not acceptable. When that fact is not disputed, then under such circumstances the delay caused in filing the complaint will not be turned as a belated complaint and it is a false complaint and thereby the entire evidence cannot be discarded. 16. Under the said facts and circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is not acceptable. By going through the evidence of PW-17, it goes to show that he has issued the caste certificate as per Ex.P-14 and it is not disputed that PW-1 belongs to Chalawadi community and it was also within the knowledge of the accused that she belongs to the said community and knowing fully well that if he has put his hand and tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant, who was working along with him in the same department, then under such circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is not perverse and is not illegal. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. The order the Trial Court deserves to be confirmed and accordingly it is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.