IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, C.M. JOSHI, JJ.
State by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Puttur – Appellant
Versus
Mithun Kumar S/o Shivaram Naik – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2016
Decided On : 03-11-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 376 and 34 - SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Offence of Rape – Common intention - Sexual assaults – Charged - Victim aged about 16 years had filed a complaint making allegations against accused - It is stated in complaint allegations that victim was residing along with her mother/PW-2, father/CW-2, sister PW-9 and younger brother PW-10 - She is said to have studied upto 7th Standard at Government School at Salmara of Puttur and thereafter had joined High School of Puttur in year 2009 for her 8th Standard and thereafter she is said to have discontinued her education and is said to have started working as a housemaid - In month , PW-8 namely victim girl along with her younger brother namely PW-10 and younger sister namely PW-9, had been to Brahmaratha festival which was held for about a week’s time at Puttur Sri Temple - It is alleged that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were known to victim girl, her brother as well as her sister, is said to have taken all of them from Car Festival field to house of Accused No. 1 - It is stated that victim girl, her brother, sister and Accused No. 1 had slept in house of said Accused No. 1/ - At that time, it is alleged that Accused No. 1 had committed sexual intercourse with victim girl - As a result of these two incidents of sexual assaults by Accused Nos. 1 and 2, victim girl is said to have become pregnant - Victim girl had lodged complaint against accused persons when she was eight months carrying woman, alleging in her complaint that accused persons knowing fully well that victim girl belongs to a scheduled caste, had deliberately commit above said atrocity against her.
Finding of Court : Though entire investigation has been carried out by Investigating Officer who laid a charge-sheet against accused in respect of heinous offences under Section 376 IPC, but Investigating Officer has not made an endeavour to secure specific DNA report to prove paternity of child delivered by PW-8/victim girl in order to establish offence of rape so as to secure conviction - Unless cogent, corroborative and positive evidence to probabilise that accused and accused alone had committed alleged offences, it is not possible for Court to render a conviction judgment - Under Doctrine of Criminal justice delivery system, when doubt arises in evidence of prosecution, said benefit of doubt should be extended to accused and accused alone - Trial Court has rendered an acquittal judgment relating to offences under Section 376 IPC and so also for offences under the Special Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 - Court are of view that acquittal judgment rendered by Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and there is no perversity, absurdity or illegality committed by Trial Court - Court are of opinion that appeal deserves to be rejected on merits - In view of above said reasons and findings, Court find no fault in the judgment of Trial Court calling for any interference in this appeal. [Para 31]
Result : Appeal is hereby rejected.
JUDGMENT :
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of the II Addl. District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, in Spl. C. No. 2/2011 dated 08.10.2015 acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376 of IPC, 1860 besides Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. This appeal has been filed by the State seeking intervention by considering the grounds urged therein and to set-aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and to consequently to convict the accused for the offences leveled against him.
2. Heard the learned HCGP for the appellant/State and so also the learned counsel Shri B. Lethif for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In this matter, though process has been served on Respondent No. 3/Malini, she remains absent and unrepresented. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in Spl. C. No. 2/2011 consisting the evidence of PW-1 to PW-14 and several documents got marked at Exhibits P1 to P16.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
4. Based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion by registering a case in Cr. No. 221/2010 against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are arraigned as respondents for offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC and for offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. The FIR came to be registered as per Exhibit P8. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer had taken up the case for investigation and conducted investigation thoroughly and had visited the scene of crime at Nekkila village, namely the front room of the house of Accused No. 1/Mithun and conducted spot mahazar as per Exhibit P12 and also prepared rough sketch of the spot as per Exhibit P13. The Investigating Officer/PW-13 thereafter had visited another spot of the incident namely by the side of pathway leading to the ho
Point of Law : Acquittal judgment rendered by Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and there is no perversity, absurdity or illegality committed by Trial Court. [Para 31]
The court emphasized that prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of medical evidence prohibited sustaining the conviction.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing a proper explanation for the delay in filing a complaint and highlights the rarity of false charges of rape.
The court affirmed that acquittal was proper, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases and the prosecution’s failure to prove kidnapping or consent under the specified ....
The prosecution must prove the victim's age and presence of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt; lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of corroborating evidence can weaken the case.
The prosecution failed to prove the accusations of kidnapping and sexual offences beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the trial court's acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.