STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KRISHNA ALIAS KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 22nd June, 2007, rendered in S.C. NO.238/05 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ramanagaram. The accused was charged and tried for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.9.03 at 11.30 a.m. when the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was carrying tiffin for her parents, the accused caught hold of her and committed rape. After the rape, the prosecutrix went to the garden land where her mother was working and informed her about the occurrence. The prosecutrix and her mother P.W.2 waited till evening for her father to return. In the evening they informed about the alleged occurrence to her father P.W.4. Her father took her to the house of one Shivanna, the brother-in-law of the accused and informed him about the sexual assault committed on his daughter. Shivanna told him that he would advise the accused. He then returned home at 6.30 p.m. Next day her father went to the garden land as usual and informed about the incident to P.W.3. Thereafter, the father and P.W.3 went to the police station and lodged complaint at 7.00 p.m. on 26.9.2003. It is on the basis of this complaint investigation was carried out, the accused was arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded including PWs.1 to 12, medical certificate and other documents were collected during investigation and 3 material objects langa viz.MO1, blouse MO2 and under garment MO3 were seized. The Sessions Court after having recorded the evidence and taking all the materials placed on record in support of the prosecution case into consideration acquitted the accused of the offence under section 376 IPC, mainly relying upon the medical evidence. The learned Judge in the course of Judgment has also discussed in depth the evidence of prosecutrix and noticed several discrepancies / inconsistencies, which made, her evidence untrustworthy.

(3.) We have gone through the entire evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The prosecutrix P.W.1 in her evidence has given detailed version as to how the incident occurred. We have also perused the evidence of P.W.2 the mother of the prosecutrix. She, in her evidence, apart from what was informed to her by her daughter (prosecutrix), also states that since the clothes of her daughter had become dirty they were washed before handing over to the police. The father of the prosecutrix (P.W.4) has not offered any explanation as to why he did not approach the police on 25.9.2003 in the evening when he was informed about the occurrence by his wife and the prosecutrix. Even on the next day, he did not approach the police till 7.00 p.m. He went to police only after having discussed the matter with P.W.3. P.W.3 was his master and the defence has suggested that he had some grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him in the alleged occurrence.