Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
SAKRE BOSAIAH S/O SAKRE MALLAIAH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 2011
Decided On : 04-07-2024
Rape - Conviction - IPC Sections 375, 376, 506 - The court analyzed the definitions and evidentiary requirements for rape under IPC, emphasizing the necessity of consent and the burden of proof on the accused, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, believing the accused's claim that her husband was in the forest, accompanied him, where he allegedly raped her. The victim reported the incident the next day, leading to the accused's arrest and conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence in the prosecution's case, leading to doubts about the victim's account and the nature of the encounter, ultimately questioning the credibility of the evidence presented.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the evidence presented, which was found to be contradictory and lacking in corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases and the presumption of innocence.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the accused is acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
1. The appellant herein being the accused before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Sessions case No. 53/2009 has questioned the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2011 by filing this appeal.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:
3. That victim lady resident of Muttigarahally, Mysarahatty Village in Molakalmuru, as shown in the complaint, lodged a complaint at 7.00 p.m. on 10.09.2008 by appearing before the Molakalmuru Police Station stating that she is the housemaker residing with her husband and three children at the address stated in the complaint, and she is also an agriculturist. Her elder daughter Manjamma, who has delivered a child, is residing in her house. Her husband’s whereabouts were not known for the last one month prior to she filing complaint.
4. It is stated by the complainant that, at about 10.00-11.00 p.m. on 09.09.2008, when she was in her house, accused Bosaiah S/o. Sakre Mallaiah came on a motor cycle and told her that her husband was at a forest place and asked her to bring the dinner for him. The victim lady, believing the version of the accused, prepared the dinner, carried it in a tiffin box, and went along with the accused on his motorcycle. The accused took her towards Muttigarahally, Kamaralavalu, near Ballary Nursery in the forest area. Thereafter, he got down from the motorcycle and took her inside the forest, stating that her husband was in the said forest area. At about 11.30 p.m., by taking her inside the forest, He told the complainant that her husband was not there. By saying so, he dragged her and committed rape on her. He also gave a threat, stating that if she informs this fact, he will take her life. Thereafter, he ran away. As it was night time, she was unable to understand the road leading to her house. Because of that, she moved here and there and reached her house at 2 a.m. on 10.09.2008. As she was tired. Her son-in-law by name Gopala examined as PW-5, and her husband’s sister Gangamma examined as PW-4. enquired her. She revealed the fact of rape on her by the accused under the guise of taking dinner to her husband when she went along with the accused. This fact was also made known to her brothers. Her brothers took her to her father-in-law. She explained the aforesaid fact to him. As she is illiterate, she was informed to lodge a complaint. Accordingly, she lodged a complaint before the Molakalmuru Police Station, which was registered in Crime No. 110/2008 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and criminal law was set in motion.
5. The Investigation Officer-Dr.M.Ashwini examined as PW-15, on taking up the investigation, went to the scene of the offence on 11.09.2008 and conducted the spot panchanama between 9.50 a.m. and 10 a.m. in the presence of panchas. She deputed her staff for the purpose of tracing the accused, who was caught in the government hospital by her staff. They produced him before her. PW-15, after the completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
6. Before the learned trial Court, to prove the case of the prosecution, in all, it examined 16 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 with respective signatures and also MOs Nos. 1 to 4 and closed its evidence.
Cognizance before the trial Court:
7. During the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused has produced certain documents along with his statement. The same was taken on record by the trial Court.
8. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as under:
The judgment underscores the necessity for corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases and the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the consistency and reliability of the victim's testimony, the absence of prevarication, and the corroboration of evidence to estab....
Consent in sexual relations must be informed and voluntary; mere promise of marriage does not constitute grounds for rape if the relationship is consensual.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and unnatural conduct of the victim and her mother.
The absence of physical injuries does not negate a credible victim's testimony in rape cases, which can be sufficient for conviction.
The conviction for rape can be upheld based on the victim's credible testimony, even in the absence of corroborative physical evidence, emphasizing the importance of direct ocular evidence.
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and appellate courts should be cautious in interfering with acquittals unless based on a perverse appreciation of the evidence.
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
