VINAYAK ASHOK HOSURE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 25/11/2014 passed in SC No.8/2013 by VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter for short 'Trial Court'). The appellant- accused is convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 366A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.10,000.00 in default to pay fine amount, simple imprisonment for 3 months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case are that on 28/3/2012 at about 11 p.m. appellant/ accused forcibly took victim- PW.8, aged about 16 years from the lawful guardian by giving false assurance of marring her. It is further case of the prosecution that accused/appellant wrongfully confined her in the house of CW.12 examined as PW.3 from 1/4/2012 to 13/4/2012 and thereby committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Hence, PW.1-father of the victim girl lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police on 4/4/2012 about missing of his daughter. FIR came to be registered to that effect in Crime No.39/2012 dtd. 4/4/2012. The respondent-Police investigated the matter and arrested the appellant/accused and nine others and registered further FIR in Crime No.39/2012 against nine accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 , 109 r/w 149 of IPC alleging that accused Nos.2 to 9 have instigated accused No.1 to kidnap the minor girl i.e. the daughter of PW.1-complainant. After registering of the said FIR, respondent-Police continued the investigation and charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Ss. 376 , 366A and 344 of IPC against the accused No.1 i.e. appellant herein. Accordingly, the case committed to the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 344 , 366A and 376 of IPC. However, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) Before the trial Court in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in totally examined 14 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and got marked 27 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.27 and produced 10 material objects as M.O.Nos.1 to 10. However, the accused neither examined any witness on his behalf nor produced any documents. After conclusion of trial, based on the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 344 and 376 of IPC. However, convicted him for the offence punishable under Sec. 366A of IPC as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant/accused preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and to acquit him from the charges leveled against him.