Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. Nagarathna, E.S.Indiresh, JJ.
Ravi @ P.Ramakrishna, S/o. Parameshwara - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.617 of 2015 [C]
Decided On : 18-06-2020
For the Appellant :Sri. Hashmath Pasha, Sr. Counsel For Sri. Santosh B., Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION] 366A, 376, 302 IPC AND 3(2)(V) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - [SUBJECT] CONVICTION - [ACT SECTION LIST] 366A, 376, 302 IPC AND 3(2)(V) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - [SUMMARY] The court acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 366A and 302 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the accused had kidnapped or murdered the victim, and that the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict the accused. The court also held that the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act was improper as there was no evidence that the offence was committed against the victim on the ground of her caste.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The prosecution's case was that the accused had kidnapped, raped and murdered the victim, who was a minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be innocent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the accused had kidnapped or murdered the victim, and that the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict the accused. The court also held that the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act was improper as there was no evidence that the offence was committed against the victim on the ground of her caste.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the accused had kidnapped, raped and murdered the victim? 2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the accused had committed the offences charged? 3. Whether the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act was proper?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had kidnapped, raped and murdered the victim. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the accused had committed the offences charged. 2. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the accused had committed the offences charged. The court found that the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict the accused. 3. The court held that the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act was improper as there was no evidence that the offence was committed against the victim on the ground of her caste.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 366A and 302 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred by the accused, being aggrieved by his conviction by the judgment and sentence passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Special (A) case No.50 of 2013 dated 30th December, 2014.
2. The appellant accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant—Hanumanthaiah is the father of Pratiksha, aged about sixteen (16) years, and she was residing at Battemallappa village with her grandmother Durgamma, as his wife (mother of Pratiksha) had died. According to the complainant, Ravi and Nethravati (Netra) were residing in a rented house opposite Durgamma’s house. That on 22nd July, 2013 at about 06.00 p.m., Netra went near a well to commit suicide, but on being queried, Netra stated that her husband and Pratiksha were seen inside her house and on seeing her, they ran away through the back door of her house. According to the complainant, later the neighbours Smt.Lakshmamma (CW17) and others searched for Pratiksha, but in vain. That Pratiksha might have been kidnapped by the accused—Ravi. Hence, a complaint was lodged on 23rd July, 2013. On receiving the complaint, a case in Crime No.111 of 2013 was registered by the Hosanagar Police for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC. The first information report was prepared and sent to the Court and the copies thereof were sent to the higher officers of the Police.
4. On the next day, i.e. on 24th July, 2013, a dead body was found near the tank bund at Battemallappa village. The dead body was of Pratiksha which was identified by her father—complainant. He alleged that Pratiksha had been murdered. That they belong to Scheduled Caste community and hence, offences under Sections 376 and 302 IPC as well as under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Act were incorporated. The Deputy Superintendent of Police carried out the investigation by conducting the inquest on the dead body, recorded the statement of witnesses and made arrangements for conducting the postmortem examination. Thereafter, on 09th August, 2013, the accused was apprehended, arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. On the accused being traced and arrested, his voluntary statement was recorded. The accused led the mahazar witnesses to the place of the incident and a mahazar was drawn. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376 and Section 302 IPC as well as for the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act by dropping Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Act.
5. Subsequently, the accused was summoned. He was provided a counsel and on hearing him, the charges had been framed. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution letin the evidence of PWs1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to 29 and MOs1 to 6. Subsequently, statement of the accused as per Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was recorded. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances against him in the prosecution case, but got marked Ex.D1 which is a portion of the statement of PW.2. He had not led any other evidence. Thereafter, the trial court on an application and on hearing, framed the charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 366A IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused was to undergo imprisonment for six months. The accused was sentenced to undergo sentence for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and
