PARAMASHIVAIAH A J Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by accused No.3 praying to set-aside the order dtd. 6/12/2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1179/2022 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder the bail petition of the appellant - accused No.3 sought in respect of Crime No.387/2022 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station for the offences under Ss. 5(l), 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'), Ss. 376(2)(n), 376(3), 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Ss. 3(1)(i) and (ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"), came to be rejected.

(2.) Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant - accused No.3 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that; on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, F.I.R was registered by Nazarabad Police Station, Mysuru in Crime No.155/2022. In the said complaint, it is alleged that the victims are aged 16 and 15 years respectively; they are the inmates of Akkamahadevi Hostel run by Murugha Mutt, Chitradurga; accused No.1 who is the Chief Pontiff had sexually abused the two victims from 3 1/2 and 1 1/2 years respectively. The present appellant (accused No.4 in the F.I.R and accused No.3 in the charge sheet), Warden (accused No.2), Junior Pontiff (accused No.3 in the F.I.R), Lawyer Sri.Gangadharaiah (accused No.5 in the F.I.R) have supported accused No.1 to commit the offences. It is further stated in the complaint that both the victims were produced before the Child Welfare Committee by the office bearers of 'Odanadi', an N.G.O in Mysuru. The complaint and F.I.R are sequel of counseling of both the victims conducted by the Child Welfare Committee, Mysuru. It was further stated that as it was late night, the victims were handed over to the custody of 'Odanadi' temporarily. On such other facts, the F.I.R was registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 17, 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Ss. 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, wherein the appellant was arraigned as accused No.4. Pursuant to registration of the said F.I.R, case was transferred to Chitradurga Rural Police on the point of territorial jurisdiction and F.I.R was registered afresh on the basis of the letter dtd. 27/8/2022, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga District. Pursuant to the receipt of the said letter, Chitradurga Rural Police registered F.I.R in Crime No.387/2022. The appellant - accused No.3 was produced before the Special Judge and he was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, final report has been laid for the offences under Ss. 376(2)(n), 376DA, 376(3), 201, 202 506 r/w Ss. 34 and 37 of IPC and Ss. 17, 5(l), 6 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) and (ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Ss. 3(f) and 7 of the Religious Institution (Prevention Of Misuse) Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Religious Institution Act') and Sec. 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the JJ Act'). The appellant has been arraigned as accused No.3 in the charge sheet. The charge sheet was not laid against the Junior Pontiff (accused No.3 in the F.I.R) and lawyer Sri.Gangadharaiah (accused No.5 in the F.I.R). Based on two charge sheets filed in the same crime, two cases came to be registered in Special Case Nos.181/2022 and 182/2022. The said two special cases are pending on the file of Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. Since, two cases are registered in the same crime, learned counsel for the appellant filed I.A.No.1/2023 seeking amendment to insert the special case numbers in the prayer portion. Since, those two special cases registered are arising out of two charge sheets filed in the same crime, the application seeking amendment deserves to be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed.