Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2012 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: ANIL @ SURESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT HANDHI VATARA 1ST MAIN ROAD NEAR KADAPPA SWAMI TEMPLE K.P. AGRAHAR, BANGALORE. (BY SRI: J.I. KITTUR, ADVOCATE APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE V/O DATED 18/07/2016) …APPELLANT AND: THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE J.J. NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE (BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 26.07.2011 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-V, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.430/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 323, 506, 376 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 366 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF RS.500/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 8 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 1 YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF SECTION UNDER IPC; 323 OF Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 10 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC; ALL THE SENTENCES ARE ORDERED TO BE RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The accused in SC No.430 of 2010 on the file of the learned Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bengaluru city, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2011, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 366, 376 and 504 of IPC and sentencing to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, with default sentences. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, on 30.11.2009 at about 12.30 p.m., when the victim girl was standing near Government Model Primary School, the accused came in an autorickshaw and kidnapped her with an intention to have illicit intercourse and committed the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, when the act of the accused was questioned by PW6, he had slapped on her cheek, voluntarily caused hurt and criminally intimidated the victim - PW5 to take away her life and committed rape and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376 and 506 of IPC. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, has filed the charge sheet. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19, got marked Exs.P1 to P26 and identified MOs.1 to 7. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above offences and accordingly sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri J I Kittur, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit him for the charges leveled against him?" My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR 6. Serious allegations are made against the accused REASONS that he had kidnapped PW5 with an intention to commit sexual assault and in the meantime, he also caused hurt to the victim as well as PW6 and criminally intimidated PW5 and committed rape against her wishes. To prove this contention, the prosecution examined the witnesses including the victim PW5 and the eye witness - PW6. PW5 has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The other witness has also supported the case and corroborated the contention taken by the prosecution. 7. Ex.P1 is the medical investigation report issued by PW1 - Dr.Ravindra S Pukale who examined the victim girl with a history of accused kidnapping and assaulting her. It was found that the victim girl was aged 14 years. Even though there was no external injuries, hymen was absent. From the materials on record, it is found that the accused taking advantage of the minority of the victim girl, kidnapped her and committed sexual assault. The accused has not taken any specific defence. He has only denied the incriminating materials available on record. Under such circumstances, it is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR to be held that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 8. At this stage, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the accused was apprehended immediately after the incident on 04.12.2009 and since then he is in judicial custody. He was produced before the Court once in 2016 and till today, he remained in custody. Even though the Trial Court imposed maximum imprisonment of 10 years for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, he has already served sentence. Under such circumstances, he prays for setting aside the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court and to order release of the accused in the interest of justice. 9. The impugned judgment discloses that the accused was apprehended on 04.12.2009 and he was in custody till the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Even after preferring this appeal, it is found that the accused was in custody. 10. Learned Additional SPP submits that the accused has not served the substantive sentence imposed by the Trial Court as contended by the learned Amicus Curiae. He has served sentence for 7 years and 8 months and he was released - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR from custody on 31.08.2017. She submitted that since the accused has done coolie work in the jail, as per the jail manual, he was given remission for the remaining sentence of 2 years, 3 months and 24 days. However, no materials are produced in that regard. 11. Even though the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 506 of IPC, the Trial Court ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. That being the case, the accused appears to have already served sentence imposed by the Trial Court. However it is to be verified by the superintendent of prison and be satisfied before releasing the accused. 12. The Trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC; Rs.2,000/;- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC; and Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of payment of fine by the accused. Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR
Decision
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2011 passed in SC No.430 of 2010 by the learned Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bengaluru City, is hereby confirmed. (iii) However, the order to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC; Rs.2,000/;- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC; and Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, is hereby set aside. (iv) The Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, is directed to verify the length of imprisonment suffered by the accused and if in case, he has already served the sentence (including the period of remission if any), to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in judicial custody in any other case. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and needful action. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22292 CRL.A No. 416 of 2012 HC-KAR The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Since the main appeal is disposed off, IA.I of 2013 filed for suspension of sentence and bail stands disposed off. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16