Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

- State.

2.

The accused, who has been convicted for the

offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years

and to pay fine of Rs.40,000/- with default sentence and

under Section 341 of IPC is directed to pay fine of Rs.250/-

in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days, is

before this Court in this appeal.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

Upon a complaint lodged by the victim lady, Mudgal

police registered a case in Crime No.72/2014 initially for

3

the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 341 and

509 of IPC. After registering the case, the victim lady was

sent to medical examination and her further statement

was recorded. After thorough investigation, the police filed

charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

Section 376 of IPC also.

4.

In the complaint, it is contended that when the

victim lady was passing through the house of her

grandfather, the accused pulled her inside his house,

gagged

her

mouth

and

committed

forcible

sexual

intercourse with her. When she raised alarm, her relatives

came there and on seeing them, the accused ran away

from the spot.

5.

After submitting the charge sheet, the learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and

committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. Before

the Sessions Court, the presence of the accused was

secured. Thereafter, charges were framed. The accused

pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

4

6.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution,

in all eleven witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 11

and the prosecution relied on 11 documentary evidence,

which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P11.

7.

On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the

accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. came to be recorded, wherein, the accused denied

all the incriminatory materials that were put to him.

However, the accused did not place his version on record

by examining himself or filing any written submission as is

contemplated under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C.

8.

Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the

parties in detail and after considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, passed an order of

conviction, convicting the accused and sentenced him as

referred to supra. Being aggrieved by the same, accused

has preferred this appeal.

5

9.

In the appeal, following grounds have been

raised.

That, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the learned judge is contrary to

the facts of the case, evidence on record & against

the settled principles of law.

That, the Learned Sessions Judge has committed a

serious error in convicting the appellant without

properly appreciating the evidence in its right

prospective manner.

That, complainant (PW-3/CW-1) has not mentioned

in her complaint Ex.P-1 about forcible sexual

intercourse, alleged incident was taken place on 01-

04-2014 at about 2:45 p.m. and complaint was

given on 03-04-2014, alleged further statement was

recorded by the PW-9/CW-13 Head Constable of the

said police station on 06-04-2014 at 2:00 p.m. in the

police station as per the direction from Dy.S.P.

Lingasugur included Sec 376 of IPC. So, further

statement of the victim was recorded and Sec 376 of

IPC

was

included

at

the

behest

of

Dy.S.P.

Lingasugur. Hence, the prosecution suppressed the

real genesis of the case and falsely involved Section

6

376 of IPC. This fact is not been properly

appreciated by the trial Court.

That, as per law in case of rape, the prosecution

ought to have recorded the 164 statements of the

victim girl before the learned Magistrate. This kind of

lacuna seriously affects the case of the prosecution.

So, trial court ought to have given benefit of doubt

to the appellant with respect of serious laps on the

part of the I.0. That, medical evidence of the victim

girl and app