Stat. of K unatak’i b v. The Sub Inspector of Polite. Lokap’ ir Pt.licu Station.

• t, .‘) •1 £ ; I! • ‘.: i p a . ) (By Sri. K.LPatil, Advocate) This Criminal Appeal is filed ti/s 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. by the State P.P. for the State praying that this Hon ble Court ma5 be pleased to grant leave to file an Appeal against the judgment and Order of Acquittal dt. 30.10.2007 passed by the District Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi S.C.No.48/2007 acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable tinder Sections 504. 506. 376 and 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC. This appeal coming on for this day, Arali Nagaraj, J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is filed 1w the complainant-State in S.C.No.48/2007 against Judgment 30/06/2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi(hereinafter referred to as trial Court’ for short). Both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 therein(who are respectively respondent Nos. I and 2) were tried in the said case, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504. 376, 506 and 109 r/v Section 34 oflPC. 3

The Trial Court. on appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs. I to 11, the documents Ex.P1 to P11 and MV 1 to 6. b its impugned Judgment and Order. acquitted both the respondents-accused, of all the said offences. The defence of the accused is one of total denial. Therefore, they have not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf. The State has preferred the present appeal.

\Ve have heard the arguments of Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned AddI. SPP representing the appellant-State, and Sri. ICL.Patil, learned counsel for respondents-accused. Perused impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal and entire material found in the original records, obtained from the Trial Court.

At the out

set. Sri.V.M.Banakar. learned Addi. SPP submits that the impugned Judgment challenged in tow and conviction of the accused for all the said offences is sought for in the present appeal, in -1 view of the evidence on record. the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the respondents— accused for the offences under Sections 323. 504 and 109 r/w. 34 of IPC, but the Trial Court ought to have convicted accused No.1 the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC. He further submits that having regard to the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, there is no case against accused No.2.

Per contra, learned counsel respondents-accused strongly contends that the cvidcnce of PW3 i 1w victim girl is full of exaggerations and improvements and 11w evidence of PW6, the 1ad Medical Officer who examined the victim girl on the very next clii of the incident. shows that she could not find on her person signs of recent sexwil intercourse and therefore, having regard to the entire evidence on record. the Trial Court has rightly aequiticci the accused No. I of all the said offenees, hence, the impugned .Juclgnient and Order of acquittal does not call for any interference in this appeal, tie further contends that since there is no evidence to convict the accused for the ‘fience 7 H ) / C 9 H 7 ” H — . ’ 0 H , . H ‘ * ’ C : 2 ) C H 2 : 2 7 : , 9 H ( j ) — - 9 : ” C C 7 H H 7 H ( : 2 ) 1 . . H 1 l ) H , C C / H H C - I ’ H ) H , . ) C — ‘ - H j - H . 16 H ) I I — ) C C ’ H H , C C H : ) C H . H ” i c 7 1 ’ 7 H ” C 3 : “ - ) ’ H 1 C C 3 H - 2 H — C ’ H 3 2 E H — ) C ) ) - C ) ) C C l C ) I _ ‘ ) ’ C . — “ 9 H H ( H H — ’ 7 — ) C : 2 - 9 ) C < < . * 2 ’ H , c ) C 9 . ’ : 2 ‘ - 9 - H H 9 C c n : 2 : 2 H ) C H . — 7 3 0 3 1 - j C - 7 7 , 7 : ‘ H ‘ D C - ‘ E ’ C 9 O C — ” k ” 9 C c ’ C - D C C 0 - 9 H : H H 7 : H C C H 9 — ’ 2 3 7 ’ 0 - H 1 C C / ) C 1 2 : 2 . C C ‘ : 2 ’ : 2 ) C ‘ H — l C i - - 2 ) C — - C - ) H C ) E - 3 7 — l C 3 ’ H - 9 . H - 9 ’ 9 H H ‘ H 1 H 2 - ‘ “ 1 C C C $ - 9 H C C C ‘ - 9 - — 2 7 2 H H - 9 - H : 2 H H — 2 2 C C - 9 H - - 6 < 7 : l C 2 — C C 7 ) C C - H H H ’ 0 ‘ * 3 1 1 - I L C 7 : 1 * * 0 9 H - 1 9 9 - : 2 C C ) C o H : 2 ’ - 9 : 2 : 2 : 2 6 “ - l C 3 7 ‘ . 7 7 : i - H H H 0 — ’ 9 l C - H * — 7 7 H C T C H H H ’ H H ) C 2 7 — . 9 9 7 — . 6 7 1 7 H H C ) 7 3 ) C ‘ 0 7 3 H H l C H ) C H ’ . 2 : H ; : 9 . : H 3 H i — : H H . ) C o c H : 2 . 7 ) 7 C 7 o ) C H . ) C 2 H 3 3 2 l C ‘ 9 : 2 2 1 . 7 l C < “ H 7 7 : ’ 0 — 2 ‘ 7 9 — l 1 3 ) H - : ) C ’ , H , H 9 ) C ) / ) . 7 : ) 7 7 , H 9 o — 7 : H 9 ‘ . ‘ — : 9 H 1 . 7 C C - — 1 ) H ’ L j ‘ 9 0 5 9 2 ) C a - H H . H 9 N E C ” H ) C ) I o 7 3 9 7 : . 9 O C . 7 ) C H ) I L — — . , . $ H ) C 7 — 1 ) 1 / * - 7 — H . 7 3 . : 2 — j - l C 7 7 l C 7 ) I L C C H 3 : 2 : ; : C 3 H ) C — 3 H ) C H 7 . 9 7 7 ) C H (1 subjected to forcible sexual intercourse 1w accused No.

PW4 Basappa. the younger brother of the girl. has stated in his evidence that on the said date and time he and PW3 both were in the said land and at time. accused No.1 came there, abused him and sent him to his 1w Ith ic ‘,icl I td ii a’’Ccl P& ii c Si C I I ‘ii ‘1 • I , *t I 11 k ill I LI - t t ii’ d t0 hit 1 C fl 1 n ‘II I is sjx It iii it %lI CL’ I t clot I ) 1101 ftc) I i i CI ti’’_. IL )t plaint I. ) iph I 1W I t L;kc)1)t’ c’f )IL it t c’ltitt adci c il P’W tilt ii PW.1 tlit ‘01 not’ in jii i of I t on tid PUt hia 1 a I’ 9vjIj. ii Of’ I’, ‘‘I I I ‘ii I ‘lit I IL )I C’ 11:0 1 ‘ a Ic t “.1 % 1 1’ C I ci’, ) )st ci I t ‘C’ I t “its Ihc pi 1 • lxIk I IL Y ( C ‘C ) IC ‘‘1 I LI I - ‘ i 1 I Ii ,i1c C) I ‘I C c I S • . I.rr ) ! K t’j’ •t I’. ,t.)t:U’t! iiIi ‘ Ii.tt’ .1st :l( •t

II. ‘.ic ol Wi ii’ ;r ar.n ‘! ‘ tilt :i• P’S .:. .:.. )\l :. !.‘L:.t (1:,.r: • :.‘ .a’. ‘. ,,; f_s z fS x •t nid iko ii’ I ‘I that tict tin. In t stis’ .1111 t” t ii tumor Ii ijurws ‘1 sflhc’ Si 1t ii • ‘siz.ie ‘ji ‘ ‘ • cain Ii.ii Iue .ts iihtdr ‘e IP’ ‘‘fl ‘ht’ gIo’urs’! ••, •i p it1i •ii p1 oat oi Iicr p’rsn ‘ic ii:thUls tit’ ‘ininI\ sitli 11w P4 C. t%t’ marc of the OP it’ ib ii iLt 1 t i€d C •ur is justified in •a” ltflttiflQ the eli UUSrd . lit oil nc a i’kt Sc’ tt)t1 3 1) 1)1 IPC . Ho ( t r 1 ‘.f n ,i luc •‘ i a’ i. Lc I it’ ilec.’ icleint ol PW3 L e •thi a en ‘‘ untt: r,zj.ihrr. :1. 1 aec.isrct N’• I l:ai_t.’1 tI:t 1 c) ‘it._’d. .fl • C. I(fl) )t S aid datc ,:i ai.cI • W i 1 In ii iciF’I 1’ Ic kl I •‘i :t; iii:. a’ j,I t’’uIs’ .1 I.,Is’ I •tnij, Iatrit ig.iii4i’ i • t,st•il •r’ ‘iii. .‘.ig.c, * i.’cI ;ic nrn’ ii I . ‘1 1 • Ii •i.. • .:‘ ,..: N,.. • ,1:j ..I • ‘ii.’;:t •: •:.. • : • ‘. •: )( •• • c I — C) • li,t % ‘) an.sricil, Ic ‘ailti S ‘ tRill ia 1 01 tIN.’ 1 R 1 iv. • \. . . hi’.’’ :. l. ‘ •,, ‘I’ i..’ Ilk’ .,f.’’

•1it€•’h “‘s 1 an —. :.‘. rt. rze•i :: : ‘t’i. !.. e u: ,rh r ‘ec ‘ ‘1 L 1’ •.‘ Si” ‘Ii’ ‘ii .31 ‘;‘ I I’t , I’ I’ •‘ tVi’•i” • Itit’ I Sll.J! ,... i” . t 13. s,ij, jxt iu; ,tii.d ti’r ..( L 1% pic (I ILL I tO ii stiflt.dtt hR SclIflC 13t’sidi tilcit P 4 hcas statt’tl ;ii his evut” IIL c thnt hr was hi’ I !, ‘U, Ii tin’ I aCC’. ‘‘i Ni’ Iurti.c’t stated that Ic’ suffered from an ml in cn iiiIL’ u’i(t pliji’, iii’’ cairl ‘ii’ I. s 1,’)i ‘.ii. ocIiI in 11 t’ief’nt , ti to tic t Iii ci ii ‘Lcl%Ofl to jOlt’!. ‘ ‘i.’ .::)pLlp:a”! .J’vlornc’i:i aitil C )rIc’r insolar uS n’.. •‘s •i’’,fl,’I i ‘i II ‘‘ i’’ L5’” ‘‘1 tat’ ,)11tit ii’. .. : ,(. Ct ol t . sM

1. 1 )I ) 11’t. 1) 1 r the t “iso s afottaid ie r j% ‘1 t full’ ifl’. ORDER liii 11’CSi’)1 .ippc a1 fi.ed b the rompla n:. C \c M .00 c tk ii ‘1-c I ancd c fur. 1 i r 1’ I .. a c 1 )ff It) ii) The first respondent. who is accused No. 1 the said case is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Records disclose thait accused was detained in prison as an under trial prisoner for a period of 23 days i.e. from 06.12.2006 to

29.12.2006. having regard to the circumstances tinder which accused No.1 committed the said offence, we feel the sentence of further imprisonment is not required to be passed against him. However, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- within 8 weeks from today. In case of default on his part in making payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment für a period of 3 months. If the said amount of fine is deposited in the Trial Court. a sum of Rs.5,000/’ be paid to the victim girl (PW3) as compensation. Except this, the other portion of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is left undisturbed. iii. If the accused No.1 fails to pay the fine amount as aforesaid, the Trial Court shall secure his iLUWO)UBLlOSOId 01{1iiilJOj[flSJOJUOSTJdOL{BLUILI DU1Ujfl1.p Al I1:U1aui(;UiPflfSIL[1JOAdOOBpUoc 1)U1?OUiOUJ)4LT1!\\i1JO11iTC) /ps aEKtflI /ps SDaflf