Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 72 (KAR)

Sharangouda v. State

2020-01-08

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for regular bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Cr.P.C.) in Crime No.65/2019 of Kembhavi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 354(A), 506, 376 and 511 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC) and sections 10, 4 and 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as POCSO Act), pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir, in Spl.Case POCSO No.79/2019. 2. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he attempted to commit rape on a minor girl aged about eight years in their village when she was going all alone to get some sugar and tea powder for her house. It is at that time on 29.05.2019 in the afternoon the petitioner is said to have followed her on his motor cycle and made her to sit on his motor cycle. He is said to have taken her to a nearby bush and he was attempting to commit rape on her. It is at that time, due to intervention of one Shri Ningappa S/o Hanamanthraya Chigarihal, the accused is said to have ran away from the place. The said Ningappa is said to have brought the victim back to her house. Hearing the details about the incident from his daughter, the mother of the alleged victim has lodged the complaint against the petitioner in the respondent police station which was registered in Crime No.65/2019 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 354(A), 506, 376, 511 of IPC and sections 10, 4, 18 of POCSO Act. The accused was said to have been arrested on 03.06.2019 and since then he is said to have been in judicial custody. The complainant police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 354 (A), 506, 376, 511 of IPC and sections 10, 4 and 18 of POCSO Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is a created and concocted story at the instance of one of the relatives of the alleged victim girl who is a habitual complainant in many of the criminal cases against the family of the accused and various other villagers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is a created and concocted story at the instance of one of the relatives of the alleged victim girl who is a habitual complainant in many of the criminal cases against the family of the accused and various other villagers. He further submitted that the alleged tracing of the motor cycle for nearly a day in the same alleged spot of crime is also another suspicious circumstance because, had really the accused been there near the place of the alleged incident, he would have ran away from the place along with his motor cycle and would not have left his motor cycle. He also submits that medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader apart from filing his statement of objections also contended that the statement of the girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C. also go to show that it was the accused who has committed the alleged offence. The wound certificate issued by the doctor would go to show that the victim had sustained injuries on her scapula/back which has caused in the attempt by the accused to molest her and sexually assault her. As such, considering the seriousness of the offences, though the investigation has been completed, the accused does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. According to the prosecution, the only witness to the alleged incident apart from the victim is one Sri Ningappa S/o Hanamanthraya (CW-7). The said witness is said to have stated before the Investigating Officer that while he was grazing his sheep near the alleged place of incident, after hearing the yelling noise of a girl, he went to the spot only to see that the victim was standing there and accused ran away from the place. On his enquiry with the alleged victim girl, he came to know that the accused put cloth in her mouth and attempted to pull her legs, at that time, due to his intervention, the accused ran away from the place. On his enquiry with the alleged victim girl, he came to know that the accused put cloth in her mouth and attempted to pull her legs, at that time, due to his intervention, the accused ran away from the place. At the same time, the statement of the alleged victim girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C. appears to have shown that at the alleged time of incident the person who came to the spot was the elder brother of the accused, however, his name is not shown. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the query of the Court, says that the accused and CW-7 Ningappa S/o Hanamanthraya are in no way related to each other in any manner. This keeps a gap wide open as to who is that elder brother of the accused, who according to the victim in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C., said to have come to the place at the time of the alleged incident. Even otherwise, whether a mere alleged act of pulling the leg of the girl would attract section 376 read with section 511 of IPC and also sections 10, 4 and 18 of POCSO Act is a matter of trial. Admittedly, the accused is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest and the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed. In the said circumstances of the case, I am of the view that imposing reasonable conditions the accused can be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.65/2019 of Kembhavi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 354(A), 506, 376 and 511 of IPC and sections 10, 4 and 18 of POCSO Act pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir in Spl.Case POCSO No.79/2019. However subject to the conditions: (i) That accused/petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court. (ii) The petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard. (iii) The accused/petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing. (ii) The petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard. (iii) The accused/petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing. (iv) The accused/petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents in any manner.