Back
2016 Supreme(Kar) 197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar and B. Veerappa, JJ.
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Vs.
Gowtham – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 964/2011 (A)
Decided On : 29-02-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.M. Nawaz, S.P.P.
For the Respondents: Sampangiramaiah N.S., Amicus Curiae
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and reliable evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving the victim's age and allegations of sexual assault.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Offence under Sections 366A and 376 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 366A, 376 - The court discussed the evidence related to the victim's age, consent, and the alleged sexual assault. It highlighted the importance of proving the victim's age and the lack of evidence supporting the sexual assault charges. The court emphasized the need for clear and reliable evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution charged the accused with offences under Sections 366A and 376 of the IPC for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting the victim. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the state's appeal against the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted material omissions and inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution, casting doubt on the alleged incident.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the victim's age, consent, and the alleged sexual assault. The court analyzed the evidence related to these issues and found that the prosecution's case lacked clear and reliable evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the victim's age and the lack of evidence supporting the sexual assault charges. It highlighted the need for clear and reliable evidence to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The court also ordered the payment of an honorarium to the amicus curiae.
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.
1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.3.2011 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, in S.C. No. 77/2010 is called in question in this appeal by the State. By the impugned judgment and order the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused who was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the victim PW.2 was aged about 15 years at the time of incident; her date of birth is 27.4.1995; PW.3 - C.V. Mohan is her father and PW. 12 Rajeshwari is her mother, PW. 1 - C.V. Yathish Kumar is her junior paternal uncle. The accused used to force the victim/PW.2 to marry him; about 2 months prior to 3.12.2009, the accused with the help of his brother Abishek and sister Tejaswini took the victim to Chamundi Hills and all of them told her to marry the accused; after some time said Abijith and Tejaswini went back to the house in Maruthi Van, whereas the accused and the victim stayed back for some time near Nandi Statue of Chamundi Hills, Mysore, and they came back to Mysore on motor cycle of the accused; on 3.12.2009 around 6.00 p.m. when PW.2 was returning to the house from the shop to which she had gone for purchasing soap, the accused came on a Hero Honda Motor Cycle and forcibly took the victim on the motor cycle; PW. 1 - uncle of the victim saw the accused taking her on the Motor Cycle; PW. 1 chased the accused but could not catch him; the accused took the victim to Nanjangud and stayed in a lodge i.e., Mahadeshwara Palace and committed sexual assault on the victim during the intervening night of 3.12.2009 and 4.12.2009; between 9.30 and 10.00 a.m. of 4.2.2009, the accused went along with the victim on Motor Cycle towards Mysore and on the way the police stopped the Motor Cycle and apprehended the accused, inasmuch as by then the complaint came to be lodged by PW.1 as per Ex. P.1. After securing the presence of the victim, her statement is recorded as per Ex. P.3 on 4.12.2009. Based on Ex. P.1 the complaint lodged by PW.1, Crime No. 213/2009 came to be registered in Saraswathipuram Police Station at 10.30 a.m. on 4.12.2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 366Aand 114 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC. Initially the brother and sister of the accused viz., Abishek and Tejaswini were arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 3. After registration of the crime, the statement of the victim came to be recorded as per Ex. P.3. Based on such statement, the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC also came to be added. After completion of investigation, the police laid the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of IPC against accused.
3. The Trial Court framed the charge under Section 366A and 376 of IPC.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses and marked 34 documents and 11 material objects. Three documents were got marked as Court documents; on behalf of the defence Ex. D1 came to be marked.
5. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record and after hearing the defence acquitted the accused of all the charges leveled against him. Hence this appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.
6. As mentioned supra, PW.1 is the first informant who is none other than the paternal uncle of the victim. He lodged first information as per Ex. P.1. According to the prosecution, PW1 saw the accused forcibly taking the victim on the Motor Cycle at 6.30 p.m. on 3.12.2009. PW.2 is the prosecutrix; PW.3 is father of the prosecutrix, he has deposed about the date of birth of the victim as 24.7.1995 - Ex. P4 is the birth certificate of the victim which has been obtained from Mysore City Corporation; PW.12 is the mother of PW.2/prosecutrix, she has also deposed that the date of birth of the victim is 24.7.1995 and her second daughter was born on 17.6.1997 and third daughter was born on 15.3.1999; PW.4 is the owner of Lodge - Mahadeshwara Palace, Nan
