SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 1209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
J.M. Khazi, J.
Madhu - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 2022
Decided On : 13-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Nagabhushana Reddy K., Adv., for the Appellant

The vulnerability of the prosecutrix and her family is a key factor in considering bail applications for offences involving sexual assault and abuse.

Headnote:

Bail - SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Sections 323, 354B, 376(3), 504, 506 I.P.C, Section 4(2), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act

Fact of the Case:

Accused sought bail for multiple offences including sexual assault and abuse. Accused claimed innocence and consent of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix and her family alleged sexual assault, abuse, and threats by the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found a strong prima facie case against the accused and denied bail considering the vulnerability of the prosecutrix and her family.

Issues: Bail application for offences under SC & ST Act, POCSO Act, and IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot indulge in appreciation of the contents of the charge sheet at the stage of considering the bail. The vulnerability of the prosecutrix and her family was a key factor in denying bail.

Final Decision: Appeal for bail is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

J.M. Khazi, J. - In this appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, appellant who is accused is seeking bail in Cr. No. 91/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354B, 376(3), 504, 506 I.P.C, Section 4(2), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act, by setting aside the order dated 01.08.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.1297/2022 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural District.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. Respondent No. 1-State has appeared through High Court Government Pleader.

4. Respondent No. 2/complainant is duly served.

5. Accused is seeking bail contending that based on complaint dated 30.06.2022, filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2, a case in Cr. No. 91/2022 came to be registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354B, 376(3), 504, 506 I.P.C, Section 4(2), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act.

5.1. He is innocent of the offences alleged. There is inordinate delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint. The contents of the complaint indicate that it is drafted at the instance of persons who are inimical towards accused and his family members. The complaint as well as statement of the prosecutrix indicate that she is consenting party and there was no force by accused. The provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354B, 376(3), 504, 506 I.P.C, Section 4(2), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act are not attracted. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for accused submitted that the case of the prosecution consists of full of contradictions. There are no other criminal cases pending against the accused and prays to allow the appeal and release him of bail.

6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the following decisions:

    (i) 2016 Supreme (Kar) 142

    (ii) 2015 Supreme (P 7 H) 1104

    (iii) 2014 Supreme (Ker) 8

    (iv) Crl.P. No. 4306/2018

    (v) AIR 1984 (SC) 372

    7. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader resisted the appeal and submitted that when the complaint was filed the prosecutrix was aged 16 years. The complaint averments reveal that since about one year prior to the date of complaint i.e., when the prosecutrix was aged 15 years, accused started sexually assaulting her and on the date of incident i.e., on 26.06.2022 at 11.30 p.m. on hearing the cries of prosecutrix, when her parents i.e., complainant and his wife rushed to the spot consisting of a trench  surround by bushes which is at a distance of about 10 feet from their house, they found accused sexually assaulting the prosecutrix and when they intervened, accused abused them in filthy language referring to their caste and saying that being a person belonging to higher caste he is entitled to enjoy the girls and women of lower caste and he also attempted to disrobe the mother of the prosecutrix by pulling her saree and assaulted her. He also gave threat of killing the prosecutrix and splashing acid on her. The complaint further reveal that from the prosecutrix the complainant and his wife came to know that she was being sexually assaulted about 5-6 times by the accused since one year under a promise to marry her. After the incident, complainant approached the brother of the accused and informed him about the incident. Since there was threat by the accused, he did not choose to file complaint immediately and hence the delay in filing the complaint.

    8. Based on the complaint, case is registered against accused and the Investigation is taken up. The statement of the prosecutrix as well as her mother is recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein they have reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. The accused is arrested and both accused and prosecutrix are subjected

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top