SHARAN BASAVARAJ SHARANE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the sole accused against the Judgment of conviction dtd. 30/7/2014 and order of sentence dtd. 31/7/2014 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar (for short 'Sessions Judge'), in Sessions Case No.43/2009 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000.00.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant/victim i.e. P.W.13 aged about 29 years and her husband i.e. P.W.14 are from Brisbrain, Australia and the couple were on tour to India and they had come to Gokarna and staying in a cottage at Paradise Beach, belonging to P.W.9 Muralidhar Kamat. It is the further case of prosecution that, on 7/3/2009 in the midnight while the victim was asleep in the cottage, the accused entered into the cottage and removed her panty and committed rape on her. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the Gokarna Police on 7/3/2009 at about 10.30 p.m. Based on the said complaint, Gokarna Police registered a case in Crime No.10/2009 dtd. 7/3/2009 as per Ex.P.19 and investigated the case by conducting spot panchanama and arresting the accused on the same day i.e. on 7/3/2009. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC. On committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.19 and reliance placed documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. Apart from denying all the incriminating circumstances appeared against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused by way of defence got marked two documents i.e. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.1(a). The defence of the accused was one of the total denial and that of false implication in the case.