IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Mohammad Nawaz, J.
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2011
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Sec. 376 - Rape - Ss. 376, 417, 420 of IPC - The court discussed the evidence related to the victim's age, consent, and the accused's guilt. The court found the accused guilty under Sec. 376 of IPC but acquitted him based on lack of evidence for the victim's age and consent.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appealed against his conviction and sentence under Sec. 376 of IPC for raping a minor girl. The victim alleged that the accused promised to marry her, committed forcible sexual intercourse, and refused to marry her after she became pregnant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under Sec. 376 of IPC but acquitted him due to lack of evidence for the victim's age and consent. The court noted discrepancies in the victim's age mentioned in different documents and the lack of medical examination to determine her age.
Issues: The key issues were the victim's age, consent, and the accused's guilt under Sec. 376 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was aged below 16 years at the time of the offence, and there was consent on the part of the victim. Therefore, the conviction under Sec. 376 of IPC could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the accused's conviction under Sec. 376 of IPC was set aside, and the bail bonds were cancelled.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction and sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - III, (sessions), Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government pleader for the State and perused the material on record.
3. The charges were framed against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 376, 417, 420 of IPC. The trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Ss. 417 and 420 of IPC. However, found him guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.35, 000.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
4. In so far as acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 417 and 420 of IPC, the same has become final, as the State has not preferred any appeal.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is a minor aged below 16 years as on the date of commission of the offence. While she was going to school in D.B. Jodahalli, the accused used to follow her and tell her that he will marry her. Thereafter, both of them fell in love with each other. The accused with a promise of marriage committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, on account of which she became pregnant. On 26/12/2009 at about 6.20 p.m., the victim gave birth to a female child. Thereafter, when the victim requested the accused to marry her, he refused to marry and told her that he is not responsible for her pregnancy.
6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 10 witnesses and got marked 9 documents. The defense got examined 3 witnesses.
7. The victim girl is examined as PW1. She has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. She has stated that the accused has committed sexual intercourse on her and promised her that he will marry her. Therefore, she did not inform the incident to her father. Thereafter, she became pregnant and when she informed the accused about her pregnancy, he told her to abort her pregnancy. Later, she informed the incident to her father. Then a Panchayat was convened. In the Panchayat, the accused told that he will give a sum of Rs.30, 000.00 for terminating the pregnancy and that he will marry her. Thereafter, when she gave birth to the child, the accused refused to marry her and told her that he is not the father of the child. The complaint lodged by PW1 is marked as Ex.P1.
8. PW-2 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar. Exs.P2 and P3 are the spot mahazars, where the accused is alleged to have committed rape on the minor girl. He has also stated that in the Panchayat, the accused told that he would pay a sum of Rs.30, 000.00, which was not agreed. He has stated that victim delivered a baby in the year 2009 and thereafter accused refused to marry her stating that there is no relationship between himself and the child.
9. PW-3 is the Medical Officer, who has stated that on 26/12/2009 the victim got admitted to the hospital and delivered a female child. He has issued a certificate as per Ex.P4.
10. PW.4 - Medical Officer, has examined the accused and issued Ex.P5 stating that he is capable of performing sexual intercourse.
11. PW-5 is a teacher of the Government Pre-University College. Ex.P6 is the certificate, wherein the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 7/2/1995. Further, Ex.P9 is the copy of the relevant page of the Admission Register showing the entry with regard to the admission of the victim in the school.
12. PW-6 is the uncle of the victim and PWs-7 and 8 are the parents of the victim. They have stated that accused is responsible for the victim to become pregnant and have deposed about the Panchayat held. They have stated that the victim gave birth to a female child and later the accused refused to marry the victim.
13. PW-9 is a police constab
The prosecution must establish the victim's age and consent beyond reasonable doubt in cases of sexual offences involving minors.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable evidence and corroboration in cases involving sexual offences, especially in the absence of conclusive evidence reg....
The Court ruled that evidence of school records is primary for establishing age in sexual offense cases, and a minor's consent is irrelevant. Conviction under Section 366A was modified to Section 363....
Consent obtained under false pretenses of marriage does not absolve the accused of criminal liability for statutory rape.
Court cannot determine age of a person on basis of any declaration about age.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the stringent burden of proof required in cases involving offences against minors, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence to establish g....
Consent of a minor is not valid under law, affirming the conviction for rape while setting aside the kidnapping conviction due to lack of evidence.
Consent of a woman above 16 years negates the charge of rape; the prosecution must prove all elements of the alleged offences.
Point of Law : Statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is a previous statement and can only be confronted in accordance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act and relevant portion shou....
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.