Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. Veerappa, Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.
Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi, S/o. Kariyanna - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, by Sira Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1610 of 2017
Decided On : 30-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 376, 377, 499, 375(a), (c), 11, 404, 503 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27, 57(13) - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3(42) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Sexual Offences Act, 2003 - Section 70 - Murder offence – Sexual intercourse on dead body - Appeal against conviction - Appellant/accused filed Criminal Appeal against judgment of conviction – There is no offence in IPC made out to punish such persons who committed sexual intercourse on dead body of woman - Para 65.
Finding of the Court:
Charge is accused first murdered victim and had sexual intercourse with dead body - Though it is an unnatural offence, as defined under Section 377 of IPC, which defined whoever voluntarily has carnal inter-course against order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine - There is no offence in IPC made out to punish such persons who committed sexual intercourse on dead body of woman - Therefore provisions of Section 376 of IPC would not attract - Material aspect has not been considered by learned Sessions Judge, thereby erroneously convicted accused under provisions of Section 376 of IPC in absence of any provision attracting offence under provisions of Indian Penal Code - Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence made convicting accused under provisions of Section 302 of IPC is hereby confirmed - Impugned judgment of conviction under Section 376 of IPC is hereby set-aside.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
Key Points: - The court held that sexual intercourse with a dead body does not attract Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as the dead body is not considered a person under the law (!) (!) . - Article 21 of the Constitution emphasizes the right to life with dignity, which extends to the dead body, ensuring its respectful treatment and protecting against indignity (!) (!) . - The Indian Penal Code lacks specific provisions to punish necrophilia or crimes against dead bodies, highlighting the need for legislative amendment to include such offenses (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
B.VEERAPPA, J.
The appellant/accused filed the present Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 09.08.2017 and order of sentence dated 14.08.2017 passed in S.C.No.82/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, convicting the him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/-in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, and convicting for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
I. FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is the case of prosecution that, P.W.1-Nagesh, brother of victim-deceased Rathnamma, filed complaint-Ex.P.1 dated 25.06.2015, stating that, he is permanent resident of Javanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District. Rangappa and Rangamma are his parents. He is the elder son in the family. His elder sister-Lalitha is married. His younger sister-Rathnamma/victim, aged 21 years, completed her Bachelor Degree in Arts from Badavanahalli Government College. She had joined computer classes in Badavanahalli. She used to return home from computer class at 3.30 pm. As usual, on 25.06.2015, Rathnamma went to computer class at 10.30 am. Till evening she did not return home. He was under the impression that she might have gone to her friends house. When he was working in the village Dairy, around 6.15 pm, people who came to Dairy were talking among themselves that some one has murdered a girl by slitting her neck in Doddahalla situated by the side of road running from Gulagenahalli to Javanahalli. He along with his uncle's son-Prasanna Kumar went to spot and saw that the girl who was murdered was none other than his sister and noticed that some miscreants had thrown the chutidar pant, underwear and veil worn by his sister-Rathnamma on the bush and had raped her. Under the fear that she may reveal the incident, they have murdered her by poking her neck with some weapon, and had thrown the school bag nearby, which she used to carry every day. The incident might have happened between 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm. Therefore, prayed to apprehend the accused and punish in accordance with law.
3. The jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No. 149/2015, drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and seized M.Os.1 to 9, investigated the matter and apprehended the accused. Later, recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P.21, and recovered M.Os.10 to 14. Thereafter, Investigating Officer filed the Charge Sheet.
4. After taking cognizance of the offence, learned Magistrate committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, who, after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, framed Charge against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, read over the same to accused in the language known to him who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution, in all, examined 15 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15 and produced material documents Exs.P.1 to P.27 and material objects, M.Os.1 to 14. After completion of evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied all incriminating circumstances adduced against him by prosecution witnesses, however, did not chose to adduce any defence evidence.
6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Sessions Judge framed the following points for consideration.
(1) Evidence is only to be weighed and not to be counted – It is essentially, for prosecution to decide as to how many witnesses are to be examined to establish its case on any particular point.(2) D....
The court affirmed the death sentence for brutal rape and murder, emphasizing the need for strong judicial responses to restore public trust and safety.
(1) Minor contradictions do not go to root of matter and destroy whole prosecution which is firmly made out against accused.(2) Protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of Constitution of India does....
The court found the dying declarations credible, linking the accused's rape to the victim's suicide, justifying conviction under IPC Sections 376 and 306.
The dying declaration made by the deceased was voluntarily made and in a conscious state of mind, and it was supported by witness testimonies, medical and forensic evidence, leading to the conviction....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, following proper procedures for recording confessions, and adhering to statutory prov....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
