KUMARESH CHIKKAPPA BAGODI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 3-4-1997 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Sessions case No. 65 of 1993 convicting the appellant for the offences under sections 451 and 375 read with 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (for the offence under Section 451 of the Indian Penal code) and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ).

(2.) THE brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are as follows. The accused and the victim Smt. Gangawa, P. W. 5 are the residents of Bagadgeri Village in Kalghatigi Taluk. As per the first information ex. P. 6 lodged by the victim in the year 1991 (one year prior to filing of the complaint Ex. P. 6) taking advantage of the fact of insanity of her mother and absence of her father, P. W. 6, the accused who is her neighbour forcibly entered the house and committed rape on her. According to the complainant, even thereafter on number of occasions, the accused used to visit the house and on the promise of getting married with her he had sexual intercourse with her. Ultimately, she conceived from this illicit relationship and gave birth to a child. According to her, out of fear of the society, she delivered herself secretly and left the newborn child on the pial of the house of one Siddaramappa Saunshi. According to the victim, thereafter, she narrated all these events to her father and then lodged the present complaint as per Ex. P. 6 with the jurisdictional police. On receipt of the complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No. 75 of 1992 for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. During the investigation, the Investigation Officer, P. W. 7 recorded the statement of the witnesses including father of the victim, further statement of the victim herself and the accused was also arrested. The victim and the accused were medically examined. The victim P. W. 5, the accused, and the child were also subjected to DNA Typing test. On receipt of all the necessary reports and on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet came to be filed.

(3.) AFTER committal, as the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, he was tried in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1993. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, out of whom P. Ws. 1 to 4 are the doctors, P. W. 5 is the victim, P. W. 6 is the father and P. Ws. 7 and 8 are the investigating officers. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty on both the counts and as such convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. Hence, the present appeal.