RAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.2.2006 passed in SC No. 8/2003 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTC -IV, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a further period of six months.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 10.8.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. at Byadarahalli village, when the victim went to the back yard of the house to attend nature's call, the accused caught hold of her and took her forcibly to a Eucalyptus grove, thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the same day, time and place, the accused committed rape on the victim, thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. It is also the further case of the prosecution that on the aforesaid day, time and place, the accused after commission of the offence of rape, threatened the victim that if she were to inform anybody, she would be killed, thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the case against the appellant, has examined in all 13 witnesses and got marked Exhibits P -1 to P -12 and marked MOs. 1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. He has examined his father as DW1. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and the defence held that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence, which is challenged in this case.

(3.) DURING the trial, the complainant is examined as PW -1. She has deposed to the facts as stated in the complaint while deposing before the Court. She has also stated that she saw the accused while running away from the scene of occurrence. Her daughter was lying on the ground at that place. PW -1 has also stated in the evidence that accused was visible to her in the street light and that the pijama of the chudidar worn by her daughter was stained with blood. She also stated that when enquired, her daughter informed that when she went to nature's call to the backyard of the house, the accused Ravi came from behind, caught hold of her and closed her mouth and carried her to eucalyptus grove which is situated nearby and after removing her pajama, he fell on her and had intercourse with her. It is also stated that since there was no bus facility in the night to go to Anekal from their village, she went to the Police Station on the next day morning along with her daughter and her husband. She has identified the complaint as per Ex.P -1. In the cross examination, she has admitted that there are other houses around their house and that Anekal Town is situated at a distance of 11/2 kms from her village. It is also elicited in the cross examination that PW -1 observed carrying Ambika on his shoulder at a distance of 20 -25 feet. The accused was bringing Ambika on his shoulder towards their house from the Nilgiri grove side. It is suggested to PW -1 that there was ill will between the accused and the complainant and that there was a proposal of giving her in marriage to the accused and that since the said proposal was not accepted by the accused, a false case is filed by PW -1. However, the said suggestion has been denied by PW -1.