Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
Bellunke A.S., J.
Shivanand @ Pappu Babu Mali @ Malagar - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100130 of 2017
Decided On : 04-07-2019
Mahesh Wodeyar, Adv., Raja Raghavendra Naik, Adv.
In cases involving sexual offences against minors, the testimony of the victim, if corroborated, can be relied upon to base a conviction, and minor discrepancies in witness testimony should not be given much importance.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Conviction under IPC and POCSO Act - Section 376(1), 307 of IPC and sections 4, 6 and 10 of POCSO Act
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant was convicted for offences under sections 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case involved the accused taking away a 4-year-old girl, sexually assaulting her, and attempting to kill her. The prosecution presented evidence including witness statements, medical reports, and investigation findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The court rejected the appellant's contention that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry and found that the evidence, including the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements, supported the conviction.
Issues: The key issues were whether the prosecution had proved the accused's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and whether the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were perverse and against the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in the absence of medical examination, the testimony of the victim, if corroborated, can be relied upon to base a conviction. The court also highlighted that minor discrepancies in witness testimony should not be given much importance, and the testimony of the prosecutrix should be appreciated carefully.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
Bellunke A.S., J.
This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.04.2017, imposed on him by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C.No.360/2013, for the of fences punishable under sections 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act").
2. By the impugned judgment the accused has been sentenced for the aforesaid of fences and he has been handed over punishment as stated below:
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the of fence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, in default to pay fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in default to pay fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, in default to pay fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
The accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the of fence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, in default to pay fine, accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the of fence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act, in default to pay fine, accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
3. In nutshell the facts are that on 23.09.2013 at about 20.30 p.m., the minor daughter of the complainant was taken away by the accused by making some attraction of an eatable. She was taken to an open space near a temple and at about 9.00 p.m., he is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on the child aged about 4 years and raped her and also attempted to kill her.
4. The father of the victim on noticing that her child did not return to the house went in search of her child. Then a witness, who saw the accused and the victim girl together, informed him that the accused had taken away the child and he brought back and left her under a tractor trailer. On tracing the child, the father found that his daughter was in serious condition. Therefore, she was taken to the hospital, where she was admitted and treated. On examination, the doctor found that the child has been sexually abused and also found evidence of rape on the child.
5. Consequently on the complaint filed as per Ex.P.1 by the father of the victim PW.1 and a crime came to be registered by the Police. The Investigation Officer took up investigation. Spot panchanama and seizure panchanama was conducted. The statement of the victim was recorded. Medical reports were collected. Report from DNA Center and other experts' reports were taken. The statements of witnesses were also recorded. Based on the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, charge sheet came to be filed before the jurisdictional magistrate for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.
6. During the course of investigation, the accused has been arrested. He was also subjected to medical test and report pertaining to the accused had been obtained.
7. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and registered a case against him in S.C.No.360/2013. After securing the presence of accused and after hearing both side charge came to be framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
8. After holding trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has proved
