Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 371 (KAR)

Raviraj v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-07

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for regular bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Cr.P.C.) in Crime No.18/2019 of Bidar Women Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 376AB, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC) and section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as POCSO Act). 2. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he committed sexual assault on her minor daughter. The complainant is the mother of the victim i.e., she is also the wife of the accused/petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to the strained relationship between the husband and wife, the mother making use of daughter, has lodged a false complaint against the present petitioner. He also submits that there is no corroborative medical evidence to support the case of the prosecution, as such also the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader, who has filed his statement of objections, submitted in his argument that it is one of the most heinous and rare case where the father himself has committed rape against her minor daughter. He says that the statement of the wife and the victim clearly go to show that the accused being the father of the victim has committed the alleged offence, as such, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. In the instant case, the complainant is none else that the wife of the present petitioner, who has stated in her complaint itself that her daughter who was studying in sixth standard stated to be aged twelve years, since couple of months was regularly complaining about misbehaviour of her father with her. The said father/accused was also stated to be consuming liquor since about six months and coming home in inebriated position. The advise as well the warning by the complainant/wife to her husband also did not yield any result. That being the case, when the complainant had been to her parents house, which was in the same place, the accused was said to have forcibly kept her daughter retained in his house on that night. The advise as well the warning by the complainant/wife to her husband also did not yield any result. That being the case, when the complainant had been to her parents house, which was in the same place, the accused was said to have forcibly kept her daughter retained in his house on that night. Having no other option, since it was her husband who was asking her not to take the daughter, the complainant is said to have left the daughter at home further on the belief that her mother-in-law would take care of her grand daughter. However, when she returned next day morning, the minor daughter told to her that on the previous night the father slept next to her and subjected her to rape and sexual assault. The girl is said to have stated that the father also put her to life threat that in case if she discloses the same to anyone, he would kill her. Noticing the condition of her daughter and assessing the situation, the complainant also said to have confirmed herself about the occurrence of incident. When she enquired with her husband/accused he is said to have admitted his guilt, however, was not repented for the same. Her mother-in-law did not support her stating that she was asleep on that night, as such, she does not know anything. However, discussing the matter with her sister-in-law, the complainant is said to have lodged the complaint though with a delay of a day. 6. The victim girl is also said to have given her statement on the similar lines before the Investigating Officer. A perusal of the charge sheet papers, at this stage, would go to show that the victim girl is shown to have given a detailed account before the Magistrate in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. That being the case, the contention of the petitioner that there was a strained relationship, as such, false complaint has been filed, cannot be accepted at this stage. Considering the heinous nature of the offence, that too, by a father against her daughter and also genuine apprehension by the prosecution that in case of enlargement of the accused on bail, there is all the possibility of the accused, being the husband and father of the complainant and victim respectively, tampering the witnesses, I am of the view that the petitioner/accused does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.