Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
B.A. PATIL, J.
Basavaraj Shedar @ Shivappa - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2856 of 2010
Decided On : 21-06-2019
S.S. Patil, Adv., H.N. Gularaddi, Adv., Praveen K. Uppar, Adv.
The victim's testimony can be relied upon without corroboration in cases of sexual harassment, and the delay in filing a complaint may not be fatal to the case.
Headnote:
Sexual Harassment - Criminal Law - IPC Section 354, Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(XI), IPC Section 506
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, Section 3(1)(XI) of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, and also under Section 506 of IPC for sexually harassing a victim belonging to the SC/ST community.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim to be trustworthy and reliable, and the delay in filing the complaint was not considered fatal to the case. The court concluded that the accused knowingly tried to outrage the modesty of the victim, and the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court were confirmed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the delay in filing the complaint, and the accused's knowledge of the victim's community.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's testimony, corroborating evidence, and the accused's knowledge of the victim's community to establish the offence of sexual harassment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Trial Court's conviction and sentence were confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary in SC No.53/2008 dated 15.11.2010 where under appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(XI) of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and also under Section 506 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant victim was working as a Conductor in KSRTC at Huvinahadagali. It is alleged that the appellant-accused who is working as Supervisor in the said depot used to give sexual torture by saying he will come to her house and he is having interest in her. Orally she refused many a times and warned him. In that light on 20.03.2008, after depositing the amount received from route No.11, when she is ready to go to her house at that time the accused who is near the Administrative office told her that she has to collect the fine amount order and asked her to come. By giving respect to the words of superior officer, she went to the branch and at that time the accused caught hold of her hand and touched her body and asked her that he will come to her house for sexual favour and she told that in his house, he is having his wife and children and she will send her brother to his house. It is further alleged that as she belongs to SC/ST caste, accused abused her by taking her caste and accused told that if she is not going to hear his words, she is going to be troubled and thereafter, he abused her with filthy language and he also told her that he is going to save her from problems and he will also send her to better route if she obey his words otherwise he will send the ticket checker to her route and he will see that she will be troubled in her service, if she is not going to heed to his requests. Further, he threatened her that he will also recommend her name and she will not get the charge sheet every day and if, any such cases are there he will request to put little fine and also he has given life threat to her. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered.
4. After investigation, the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter, Special Court took the cognizance and after following the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed and read over to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and as such trial was fixed.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has got examined 20 witnesses and got marked 17 documents and also got marked one material object. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded on the basis of incriminating materials available as against him. Thereafter, he has not led any evidence on his behalf. After hearing learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the prosecution, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence was came to be passed. Assailing the same accused is before this Court.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that all the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the only evidence which is before this Court is that of PW1-victim and it also suffers with many contradictions and omissions. It is his further submission that PW3 is a Supervisor of the Depot who is also present at the time of galata. In his cross-examination, it has been elicited that he heard a loud voice and he do not know what they were talking and the complainant has not informed the same in the complaint. It is clearly goes to show that no such incident has taken place as alleged. It is his further contention that a cheque bounce case has been registered as against one Mruthunjaya Swamy and complainant and the Mruthunjaya Swamy had been to Murudeshwara and other places and o
