HONAYYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 448, 376, 417 and 506 of the IPC. The accused was charged and tried for these offences. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was running a tailoring shop at a distance of about 300 steps away from the house of the prosecutrix P. W. 3. She was getting her clothes stitched from the accused. They belonged to the same community. They were unmarried. She attained puberty at the age of 15 years. Her parents used to go to the work of rolling beedies. During their absence, the accused used to visit her. This was after one year after she attained the puberty. He developed friendship with her, started touching her and promised to marry her and thereafter took liberty to have sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her whenever her family members were out of the house which continued for about 6 months. But she did not disclose it to her parents and when she became pregnant also she did not reveal it to her parents. It is only after six months that the parents came to know of her affair with the accused. Thereafter the girl was taken to the police station where a complaint was lodged. She was referred to P. W. 1-Dr. Vathsala Mallya on 3-11-1991 for the first time with the history of sexual contact with the accused. She was produced before P. W. 8-Dr. H. S. Adyanthaya for furnishing his opinion regarding the age of the prosecutrix. The complaint which was registered against the accused was thoroughly investigated and the accused was charge-sheeted for those offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried. In proof of the offence, the prosecution relied on the evidence of 10 witnesses and 7 documents. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. Except mere denial of the truth of the prosecution evidence, no additional statement had been made by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the cr. P. C. The Trial Judge, after hearing the Counsels on both sides and on perusal of the evidence on record found that the evidence was sufficient to convict the accused for the offences with which he was charged. Hence, he passed the impugned judgment.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant-accused has taken me through the evidence of P. W. 3 herself and takes pain to point out that the accused and prosecutrix were in love as they were young in age and though there was some promise of marriage, the consent was due to misconception and the consent was free as she was aged more than 17 years as opined by P. W. 8 and the offence of rape under the circumstances is not proved. He has also contended that so far as the other offences under Sections 417 and 448 of the IPC are concerned, there is absolutely no evidence worth the name.

(3.) SRI G. M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned High Court Government pleader however justified the order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Trial Judge.