Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
B.V. Pinto, J.
Raju @ Rajashekhar Bharmanna Nayak —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2858 of 2011
Decided on : 31-01-2013
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ravi Mattur, Srinand A. Pachhapure, for the Appellant
Mr. V.M. Banakar, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony, corroborating evidence, and medical examination results to determine the appellant's guilt for kidnapping, illegal confinement, and attempt to rape.
Headnote:
IPC - Kidnapping, Illegal Confinement, and Attempt to Rape - Sections 363, 343, 376, 511 - The court confirmed the conviction for the offences under Sections 363 and 343 of IPC, set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 366 IPC, one year for the offence under Section 343 IPC, and two years for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping, illegal confinement, and attempt to rape a minor victim. The victim was induced by the appellant to go to a village, where she was kept against her will and sexually assaulted. The appellant denied the charges, but the court found him guilty based on the victim's testimony and corroborating evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of kidnapping and illegal confinement under Sections 363 and 343 of IPC, respectively. The court set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. The court also modified the appellant's sentence based on his age and time served in custody.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's guilt for the alleged offences, including kidnapping, illegal confinement, and attempt to rape. The court had to consider the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements to determine the appellant's culpability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's testimony, corroborating evidence, and medical examination results to establish the appellant's guilt for kidnapping and illegal confinement. However, the court set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 376 of IPC due to lack of conclusive evidence of forcible sexual intercourse, but convicted the appellant for attempt to rape based on the victim's testimony and medical evidence.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the appellant's conviction for the offences under Sections 363 and 343 of IPC, set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. The appellant's sentences were modified based on his age and time served in custody.
B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 19.9.2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in S.C. No. 207/2010 convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 366, 343 and 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for an offence under Section 363 IPC; RI for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for an offence under Section 343 IPC and RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-for the offence under Section 376 IPC with default clauses and further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.4.2010 at about 11 a.m. the appellant has kidnapped the victim, aged about 15 years by inducing her to come alongwith him and took her from her residence to Honaga village, thereby he is alleged to commit an offence under Section 366 IPC. It is further alleged against the appellant that in the Honaga Village of Belgaum Taluk, the appellant kept the victim from 10.4.2010 to 13.4.2010 in illegal confinement, thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 343 IPC. It is further the case of the prosecution that between 10.4.2010 and 13.4.2010,the accused has committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim in the house of Basavaraj Bharmanna Naik in Honaga village, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 376 IPC.
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has in all examined 21 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and produced MOs.1 to 7. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the impugned Judgment, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the convicted accused has filed this appeal.
4. The prosecution in this case has commenced with filing of the complaint by victim herself. She has stated in the complaint that about 2 to 3 months prior to the incident, she and her father had gone to coolie work near Hindalaga, Sinnolli village and in the said village, they were working in a stone quarry. Her sister Savita and her husband Shivaji had accompanied them to work in the quarry. The accused was the driver of the tractor owned by the quarry owner. He became acquainted with the victim and in talking terms with her. On seeing the said conversation between the accused and the victim, the sister of the victim sent the victim to her house and hence she came back to her father’s house. It is stated that on 10.4.2010 when the victim and her brother was in the house and when their parents and brothers had gone to work, the accused came at about 3’o clock and asked her to go to their village for the purpose of marrying and he induce her to go to Honaga Village. He took her there to Honaga village and kept her in one room and thereafter he promised to marry her and told him that he himself is her husband and that she is his wife and he asked her to sleep with him. When she refused he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused thereafter took her from that house and made to stay in the house of his relative from 10.4.2010 and again committed rape on her. Thereafter people from her village including her father came to the house and on seeing her relatives; the accused ran away from the house. When enquired she disclosed that the accused had taken her by inducing her to come alongwith him. Her father advised that since she is a small girl, she should not go anywhere and hence he took her to the police station where a complaint came to be registered. She has stated in the complaint that her date of birth is 20.5.1994 and that she would submit the birth certificate. Based on the said complaint, the police of Guttal Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 85/2010 for the offences under Sections 366(A), 376 IPC and commenced i
