SANGANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant while taking this Court through the record to reiterate the sequence of events, would point out that the conduct of the complainant would not indicate that she was the victim of any crime. She was more than 18 years old. There was no dispute on this and she was a college going girl and therefore, was fully aware of the circumstances. The allegation that the appellant had kidnapped her from the college premises on the pretext that he wanted to marry her and that her father was all for such marriage and that he was in fact waiting in the bus for them to come and to join, is a preposterous suggestion. In any event, the further allegation that she had followed him without demur to the bus station and had boarded the bus and even after she found that her father was not there in the bus, to have accompanied him to Yadgir and thereafter to Shahapur, from Shahapur to Bangalore and from Bangalore to Badanwal village and having stayed with the appellant for 68 days in a rented house, without any kind of objection or complaint of her predicament, to any person, when she had ample opportunity to do so, will indeed indicate that there was a consensual relationship between the appellant and the complainant and the kidnapping and forcible sexual relationship on the footing that the appellant had put her in fear of her life and limb and therefore she had succumbed to the dictates of the appellant is opposed to common sense and logic. It would not be accepted of a fully grown woman who was worldly wise, to meekly succumb to the dictates of the appellant. It was not a situation where the appellant had forced himself on her and had confined her for a few hours or a few days in a secluded place. Admittedly, it was a village and they had stayed in a rented house and they had stayed there for not less than 68 days. Hence, it could not be said that the complainant was helpless in seeking the assistance of other persons to gain her freedom, if she was confined and to complain about her being forcibly detained by the appellant. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that it would be impossible for the appellant to have kept her in such confinement continuously, without the assistance of others, when he was also required to attend to his own personal needs, day-in and day-out, and therefore, every possibility of the complainant gaining her freedom and raising a voice against the torment, if any, caused by the appellant, was available to her. Therefore, the Court below proceeding on the footing that there was no consent to sexual intercourse by the complainant, even though she had remained in the company of the appellant for over 68 days, is beyond logic and is a negation of the apparent circumstance, which would clearly indicate that these cannot be a presumption of the continued influence or the power allegedly wielded by the appellant over the complainant being present throughout the said period of confinement. The learned counsel would point out that the evidence is misconstrued and could hardly be cited in support of the case of the prosecution. It is pointed out that the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW-1 the father of the complainant and PW-2 the complainant herself and PWs-4, 7, 10, 12 and 13 other than the panch and police witnesses. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 is mainly on the aspect of the complainant being a student of a particular college from where she disappeared. PW-4 is the younger brother of the complainant's father, who had dropped her at college on the day that she went missing. In so far as the aspect of kidnapping the complainant from the premises of the college is concerned, PW-16 and PW-17 are examined. However, they did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated as hostile witnesses. The further allegation that the appellant had enticed the complainant to accompany him to the bus station on the pretext that her father was waiting there and when it was found that her father was indeed not present, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the first reaction would be that the complainant to have raised an objection and to have immediately withdrawn, when there was no possibility of the appellant using physical force in the presence of members of the public, who would be present at the bus station. That was not the conduct of the complainant and she had meekly gone along with the appellant as if she was a child who was helpless and was in terror of the appellant. The appellant was also a young man and was not capable of putting her in such a fear of death, as is sought to be made out, even if there were alleged threats by the appellant as claimed by the prosecution. The prosecution has gone to the extent of alleging that the appellant was carrying a knife with which he threatened her in the bus not to raise an alarm. This, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that, is highly improbable and it would not be expected of the appellant to brandish a knife and threaten her openly in the bus in the presence of several passengers and the conductor. Therefore, the only presumption would be to hold that the complainant had willfully accompanied the appellant to the bus and had boarded the bus along with him with an intention to go along with him and the fact that they had traveled not to one place but 3 places namely Yadgir, Shahapur, Bangalore and then finally landing up at Badanwal village where they had rented a house, would require them to change several buses moving about in several public places and ultimately to reach a village where they have negotiated a house for rent, would leave several opportunities for the complainant to have raised an alarm at every single point of time, which she has not chosen to do. Therefore, the Court has been extremely naive in accepting the story of the prosecution as to the complainant having been forced to succumb herself to the dictates of the appellant.