Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 930 (KAR)

Raghavendra S. M. v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-19

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No. 7/2022 of Shravanabelagola Police Station, Hassan, for the offence 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the victim is the resident of Mallenahalli village and she was pursuing I PUC at Shravanabelagola and she came in contact with this petitioner and this petitioner being an auto driver used to drop her to her village. That on 02.05.2021 at about 12.30 p.m., when the victim girl came to Shravanabelagola, this petitioner dropped her to her house and when the victim invited him for coffee and when she was preparing coffee, he committed rape on her against her wish and caused threat to her not to reveal the same to anybody else. It is also an allegation that this petitioner went near the college in which she was pursuing her education and took her to his pump house and committed the sexual act and also persuaded her that he would marry her and subjected her for sexual act 8-10 times, as a result, she became pregnant. It is also an allegation that on 20.07.2021, he took her to Bookanabetta Ranganathaswamy Temple and married her and hence complaint was given and case has been registered and matter has been investigated and filed the charge-sheet. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when this petitioner is having acquaintance with the victim, there was a love affair between them and not subjected her for sexual act against her wish and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel submits that according to the prosecution, the incident was taken place on 02.05.2021, and the complaint was given in January 2022 and the marriage was taken place on 20.06.2021 and only false accusation is made against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that after the marriage when the differences were arisen between them, all these false allegations are made. The learned counsel submits that after the marriage when the differences were arisen between them, all these false allegations are made. The learned counsel submits that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is also filed and no need of further custodial trail and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the date of birth of the victim is 27.07.2004 and she was a minor and knowing fully well that she was a minor, the petitioner subjected her for sexual act forcibly in her house and thereafter he took her to his pump house and subjected her for sexual act on several occasions and hence it attracts Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel submits that in 164 statement, the victim has categorically stated the manner in which she was subjected to sexual act and it was a continuous sexual act against the minor girl. The learned counsel submits that DNA test request is also made and yet to get the permission and hence at this juncture, it is not a case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The learned counsel submits that due to the act of this petitioner, she became pregnant and also she gave birth to a child. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, the date of birth of the victim, according to the prosecution, is 27.07.2004. The alleged incident of forcible sexual act was taken place on 02.05.2021, that too in the house of the victim. An allegation is made that the petitioner threatened her not to reveal the same and thereafter also with threat took her to pump house and subjected her for sexual act more than 8-10 times and subsequently marriage was also taken place on 20.06.2021. An allegation is made that the petitioner threatened her not to reveal the same and thereafter also with threat took her to pump house and subjected her for sexual act more than 8-10 times and subsequently marriage was also taken place on 20.06.2021. The fact that there was a marriage is not in dispute though the victim in her 164 statement says that it was a forcible marriage and the Court has to take note of the material on record, but specific allegation is that on 02.05.2021, she was subjected to sexual act and at that time, she was a minor and subsequently also she was subjected to sexual act 8- 10 times according to the prosecution and thereafter marriage was performed. In her 164 statement, the victim girl says that now he is refusing that the child does not belong to him and he is not the cause for her pregnancy. The medical report placed before the Court discloses that she was subjected to sexual act and history is given that first time sexual act was done by force. An allegation is made when giving history before conducting physical examination that, he had sexual intercourse 8-10 times and when the said fact came to light, marriage was performed by both the parents at a Temple. 7. Having taken note of the material available on record, admittedly she is a minor and allegation is made that forcibly she was subjected to sexual act and thereafter also due to threat, she was subjected to sexual act more than 8-10 times and as a result, she became pregnant and history given before the Medical Officer is also that for the first time, it was a forcible sexual act and in her 164 statement, she reiterated subjecting her for sexual act. When such material is available on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the case, at this juncture, cannot be accepted for the reason that the materials which have been placed before the Court discloses she became pregnant in view of the alleged act of subjecting her for sexual act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the case, at this juncture, cannot be accepted for the reason that the materials which have been placed before the Court discloses she became pregnant in view of the alleged act of subjecting her for sexual act. The other contention that he has been in custody from January 2022 is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail when he subjected the minor girl for sexual act. No doubt, the material discloses that later on they have married and the same is subsequent to becoming pregnant and sexual act was done prior to marriage. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Court after the examination of C.W.2 and also doctor.