Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.V. PINTO, J.
N.D. RAVEESHA @ RAVI —Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2011
Decided on : 21-06-2013
IPC - Sexual Offences - Section 366-A, Section 376, Section 417
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a 15-year-old girl, was induced by the accused to go to a movie and then forcibly sexually assaulted by the accused on multiple occasions. The accused was convicted by the trial court, and the judgment was challenged in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused committed sexual intercourse by force or inducement, and acquitted the accused of all charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the consent of the victim, the presence of force or inducement in the sexual acts, and the accused's intent to marry the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence proving the accused's use of force or inducement in the sexual acts and the victim's knowledge of the accused's marital status, which negated the charge of cheating.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges. The accused was directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
B.V. PINTO, J.-This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Fast Track Court-IV at Tumkur in S.C. No. 162/2007 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 366-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine amount of Rs. 20,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months and further convicting him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of four months and also further convicting him for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the said offence.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 16.08.2007, victim who was aged about 15 years was induced by accused to go to Tiptur alongwith one Bhavya with the knowledge that, it is likely that the victim will be seduced to illicit sexual intercourse after having witnessed the cinema at Tiptur and while returning back to Nagathihalli village, the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim at the place situated behind the school of Nagathihalli. Thereafter, he took her to Heggere near Tumkur during night hours and again he had sexual intercourse with her, thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 366-A of IPC.
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that, six months prior to 16.08.2007, the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim knowing fully well that she was just 15 years old and thereby he has committed an offence under Section 376 of IPC. It is the further case of the prosecution that, accused having had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim at Nagathihalli about six months prior to 16.08.2007, made her believe that he would marry her and as such called upon her not to disclose about the incident to anybody and having made her believe so, again had sexual intercourse with her at Nagathihalli and Heggere near Tumkur and thereafter, accused refused to marry her, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 417 of IPC.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 13 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 19 and produced MOs.1 to 7. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, he got marked Exs.D1 and D2- being portion of the statements of PWs.2 and 4 respectively. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and the defence found that the accused is guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as aforementioned. It is this Judgment of conviction which has been challenged by the accused in this appeal.
5. On 19.08.2007, at about 9.30 a.m., the complainant by name Smt. Chikkamma wife of Eshanna approached the Honnavalli police Station, Tiptur Taluk and gave a written complaint stating that her daughter/victim was going to Kannada Bharathi Higher Secondary School and was studying in 9th Standard. On 16.08.2007, i.e., Thursday, she had been to school at Honnavalli, but did not return. Her husband came to Honnavalli on that night and enquired about her daughter. No trace was available till 18.08.2007 about her daughter/victim. The victim came home and when enquired, she has stated that one Raveesh @ Ravi of Nagathihalli had taken her to Tiptur on the pretext of going for a cinema and she had gone with the accused to Tiptur alongwith one Bhavya and all of them watched the cinema. Thereafter, both of them went to Tumkur by an auto and in Tumkur, Bhavya went to her friend's house whereas, she was brought by Raveesh @ Ravi to Singatkere and they remained in the open field in Singatkere during that night. It is stated in the complaint that, on the said night, accused promised the victim that, he would marry her after obtaining permission from her mother and thus saying he had inte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
