Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 242
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J
G.K.LOKESH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.84/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri B.Lethif
For the Respondents: Smt.Leena C.Shivapurmath
A conviction for sexual offenses requires credible evidence and corroboration, especially when the victim's testimony is uncertain or lacks support.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 506 and 376 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3 read with Section 25(1B) - Appeal against conviction - Conviction set aside due to lack of reliable evidence - Evidence of the prosecutrix deemed untrustworthy; medical evidence does not support the charge of rape; the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 31, 32)
(B) Conviction - Standard of proof - Requires corroboration in cases of doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecutrix's testimony. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for the offences of criminal intimidation and rape based on the testimony of the victim and her son who were not credible witnesses. The crime involved sending obscene messages and later entering the victim's home with a gun before committing the alleged act.
Findings of Court:
The evidence provided by the victim and other witnesses was insufficient to uphold the conviction; inconsistencies were noted between the statements made by the victim and the FIR.
Issues: Whether the testimony of the victim can stand alone; whether the prosecution established the timeline and credibility of the evidence sufficiently.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a victim, it must inspire confidence and appear truthful. The lack of corroborative evidence leads to doubt and therefore acquittal.
Result: Appeal is allowed; conviction set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed against conviction based on insufficient evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution presented a weak case with unreliable witnesses. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 3. credibility of the victim's testimony is essential for conviction. (Para 19 , 28 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
Assailing the judgment and order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, at Madikeri, in S.C.No.37/2014 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 376 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act, 1959 , the accused has preferred this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the material on record.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
The victim/first informant (PW-1) is a resident of Garwale village in Somwarpet taluk, Kodagu district. Accused was sending messages from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the victim. Initially, he used to send decent messages to her. Thereafter, he started sending vulgar messages. He got deleted the messages sent by him and preserved the messages received from the victim and started threatening her saying that if she did not listen to him, he will inform the matter to her husband and also kill her. On 30.07.2013 at about 9.30 p.m., when the victim was in her house along with her son (PW-8), accused entered her house from the back door, holding a gun. He threatened her showing the gun and dragged her to the front room of the house and pushed her on the cot and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.
4. Complaint was lodged by the victim as per Ex.P.1. The PSI of Somwarpet police station, (PW- 13) registered the case and issued FIR/Ex.P.13 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Accused was arrested and produced before the CPI/PW-14. The voluntary statement of the accused was recorded as per Ex.P.15. Spot mahazar and rough sketch were prepared as per Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.16. The gun (M.O.2) was seized at the instance of the accused under Ex.P.3. The mobile phone (M.O.1) belonging to the victim/PW-1 to which the accused was sending messages was seized under Ex.P. 5. The victim was referred for medical examination and she was examined by PW-11, who collected the specimens which were sent for chemical analysis. After receipt of the RFSL report marked as Ex.P.11, PW-11 gave opinion as per Ex.P.12. Further investigation was taken over by CPI/PW-15. After receipt of the report/Ex.P.11 and opinion from the doctor marked as Ex.P.12, he filed charge-sheet.
5. Charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 376 of IPC and Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act.
6. To establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 15 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and M.Os.1 and 2.
7. The accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him, while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, he did not lead any evidence on his behalf.
8. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 376 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act. The accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 .
9. Amongst the prosecution witnesses, PWs- 3, 4 and 9 have completely turned hostile and PWs-2 and 5 are treated partly hostile. The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW-1 (victim), PWs-7, 8 and 10 to prove the charges leveled against the accused.
10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused was sending messages to PW-1 from his mobile phone to her mobile phone and initially, he was sending decent messages and thereafter, started sending vulgar messages. He retained the messages sent by the victim and started threatening her saying that he will inform the matter to her husband, if she did not listen to him. On 30.07.2013
