STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M BALAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, made a reference under Section 186 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1978, on the file of his Court, to this Court. In the said reference he has expressed a doubt whether the Court of Session at Chickmagalur has jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which is said to have been committed by the accused not within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, but committed it within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of Session at Shimoga. To resolve the said doubt, he made the above reference to this Court, which came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 5-2-1979, who after adverting to the decision of a Bench of this Court in State v. Tavara Naika (AIR 1959 Mys. 193 : (1959 Cri LJ 1004)) arrived at the conclusion that the said decision requires reconsideration in view of the fact that the ingredients of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code have to be taken into consideration before deciding which Court would have jurisdiction to try an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code where the offence of Kidnapping punishable under section 363 of the I.P.C. takes place within the jurisdiction of one Sessions Division and the offence of rape seduction etc. to achieve which object the offence of kidnapping punishable under section 363 of the I.P.C. takes place within the jurisdiction of another Sessions Division. It is in this view of the matter regarding the position in law, the learned single Judge thought it fit and proper to refer the matter to a Division Bench and that is how the said reference is before us.

(2.) Few facts for proper appreciation and decision of the points involved in the case are these. The Judicial Magistrate First Class; Chickmagalur, committed the accused in C.C. No. 954 of 1978 under Section 209(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take his trial before the Court of Session at Chickmagalur for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the I.P.C. as the offence under section 376 of the I.P.C. is triable exclusively by the Court of Session.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that one Jamila (C.W. 2), aged about 13 years - a minor girl was under the care and protection of her mother Salumamma (C.W. 1) and was residing at New Colony, Mudigere hand-post. On 2-1-1978 at about 10 p.m. the accused kidnapped Jamila from out of the lawful guardianship of her mother with intent to compel her to marry him. After the said Jamila was kidnapped by the accused from the lawful guardianship of her mother, it is the case of the prosecution, that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with said Jamila on the night of 3-1-1978 in Room No. 21 of Sudha Lodge in Shimoga Town. Thus, according to the prosecution the offence of kidnapping which is punishable under section 366 of the I.P.C. has been committed at Mudigere within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Chickmagalur and the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. has been committed at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Shimoga.