Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1083 (KAR)

Lakshminarasimha Murthy v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-17

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No. 55/2022 registered by Tumkuru Women Police Station, Tumkuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012('POCSO Act' for short). 2. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. The respondent No. 2 is also represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 2 Hanumantharayappa, filed a complaint with the police on 05.05.2022, alleging that his niece victim girl aged about 15 years is residing with him in his house where his father is also residing. The parents of the victim girl died about eight years back and she is studying in IX standard. About 15 days prior to the filing of the complaint, he had been to his wife's native place and when he came back, the victim was not found in the house. On enquiry, he came to know that she was in the grandmother's house. Thereafter, he went there and questioned and at that time, she revealed that about 15 days back, the accused came inside the house when it was raining and he closed her mouth and committed rape on her when she was alone in the house. Thereafter, after one week, again he came to the house at 10.00 a.m. and gave keypad Carbon mobile phone and he stated he will come back with SIM card. Thereafter, once again he came on 02.05.2022, and took her to Kyatasandra. Thereafter, he is said to have committed sexual assault on her once again and therefore she left the village and went to grandmother's house. After coming to know about the incident through the victim girl, the complainant filed the complaint with the police. During the investigation, the police arrested the petitioner and he was remanded to judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected and hence he is before this Court. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated. During the investigation, the police arrested the petitioner and he was remanded to judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected and hence he is before this Court. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated. He is a RTI activist and staying opposite to the house of the complainant and there was a serious allegation against him that he was a RTI activist against land grabbers. A civil dispute between one Girish and the complainant is pending before the Civil Court and therefore in order to overcome the civil case, a false case has been foisted against him. There are inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement of the victim made before the police as well as the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. where she has not stated anything about the threat made by the petitioner and his family, whereas she has stated before the Magistrate that there was a threat made by the accused. The victim was a minor girl and tutored. In order to prevent the voice against the land grabbers, a false case has been foisted. The medical evidence is also not against the petitioner. There were different versions which reveals a false case was made against the petitioner to implicate him. The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and he is ready to abide by the conditions and hence he may be granted bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contends that the age of the victim is 14 years 7 months and her date of birth is 22.12.2007. The medical examination report clearly reveals that there was sexual assault on the victim. The opinion is also given by the doctor about the sexual assault. There is no inconsistency in the statement of the victim made before the Magistrate and the police in respect of the sexual assault. There was a serious threat on the victim and her family. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses. He also further contended that the victim lost her parents and she is residing in uncle's house and now after the incident she is forced to drop out from the school. Therefore, prayed for rejecting the bail petition. 6. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses. He also further contended that the victim lost her parents and she is residing in uncle's house and now after the incident she is forced to drop out from the school. Therefore, prayed for rejecting the bail petition. 6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that it is not in dispute that the parents of the victim girl are no more and she is residing in the house of the complainant. The age of the victim is below 15 years and she is a minor and 'child' within the meaning of the POCSO Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being a neighbour came inside the house of the victim when she was alone. The accused is said to have gagged the mouth of the victim and committed sexual assault on her. Subsequently, he threatened her not to disclose the same to anybody and thereafter, after one week he came and again he sexually assaulted her by giving mobile and without providing SIM. Thereafter, on 02.05.2022, once again he is said to have committed the similar offence. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate where she has categorically stated that the petitioner is a neighbor and he came to the house and gagged her mouth and committed sexual assault on her. The statement made by the victim before the medical officer also reveals that she has stated about sexual assault on her. The statement made before the police also reveals that there was a sexual assault on her by this petitioner. There might be little inconsistency in the statement made by the victim and the victim family, but that cannot be considered as a material inconsistency in respect of sexual assault made on her. That apart, the medical examination report furnished by the learned counsel clearly reveals the hymen was old tear and it was ruptured. The doctor also has given the opinion that there was a sexual assault on the victim girl, which reveals that there is a prima facie material to show that this petitioner committed sexual assault on the minor victim girl below 15 years. 7. The doctor also has given the opinion that there was a sexual assault on the victim girl, which reveals that there is a prima facie material to show that this petitioner committed sexual assault on the minor victim girl below 15 years. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed. But, the learned High Court Government Pleader seriously apprehends that if the petitioner is granted bail, he may tamper and threaten the witnesses. The victim also stated in her 164 statement that there was a serious threat on her and her family members. The same was reflected by the same witness before the doctor also. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though charge-sheet is filed and investigation is completed, but the petitioner is said to be RTI activist and there is no material placed on record as to what is the enmity between this complainant and the petitioner to falsely implicate the petitioner by them. That apart, the medical evidence and the statement of the victim goes against the petitioner for having committed the sexual assault on her. When such being the case, at this stage, we cannot go into the inconsistencies of the statements of the witnesses and the statement of the witnesses made before the police or the Magistrate. There is a prima facie material placed on record for having committed the sexual offence and there is a serious threat on the victim family and therefore I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose the main matter of as early as possible.