LAKSHMANA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant assailing the Judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 376,1. P. C. passed in S. C. No. 144/94 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, mangalore, O. K. sentencing him to undergo r. I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15. 000/-, in default, to under simple Imprisonment for a period of six months, has come up with this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: The accused-Lakshman Naik and the prosecutrix PW 11 Lakshmi, the daughter of PW 9-Venkatappa Naik are the residents of Manchi Village and are relatives. PW 11 lakshmi as well as PW 7 Smt. Rajivl are the anganwadi Workers. They were entrusted with the work of collection of funds for purchase of vessels and other utensils for the use of Anganwadi Center. On 17-3-1992, pw 11 and PW 7 collected contribution from the residents of the village till about 1. 00 or 1. 30 a. m. , and thereafter, PW 7 left to her house, whereas, PW 11 alone went to the house of the accused situated in the locality known as "kanchila Mane" for collection of contribution. The accused who was alone in the house, welcomed her to him house and while she was sitting inside the house, the accused induced her to have sex with him and also told her even if he use force, no body is there to question. Saying so, the accused closed the door and had sex with her in spite of her protest, by tightly holding her hands and closing her mouth. When the accused left her, she came out of the house shouting that she will inform the anganwadi people and also to her parents. The accused requested her not to inform about the incident and promised her to marry. As the accused made promise, she did not tell the incident of sexual intercourse to any body, muchless to her parents. Thereafter, both of them used to have frequent sex and have also visited Mangalore and virajpat to see moves and were freely moving as husband and wife. By that time, she was pregnant of six months. When the accused refused to marry, she informed her parents about their affair and that a panchayat was convened on 12-9-1992. In the panchayat, the accused promised to marry her, later he refused. The Prosecutrix pw 11 filed a complaint with Bantwal police on 26-11-1992 as per Ex. 'p7. The A. S. I. PW 6 K. S. Sattar Shah, registered a case in crime No. 280/92 for the offence under Section 376, I. P. C. against the accused and issued the F. I. R. as per Ex. P8 to the Court through PW 5 Ramakrishna. PW 13 H. S. Shetty, took over further investigation, recorded the further statement of PW 11 prosecutrix and other witnesses, visited the place of incident and prepared the spot mahazar Ex. P6. The Prosecutrix PW 11 was referred to Bantwal Hospital and was admitted on ?7-12-1992 and she delivered a female batty on 29-12-1992. The Doctor PW 2 examined the blood group of the accused, pw 11 and the child, and submitted the reports as per Exs. P2, and P3. The Circle Inspector of Policejpw 3 took over further investigation and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 376, LP. C.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused, framed charges for the offence under Section 376, i. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in all examined PW 1 to 13 and marked Exs. PI to P9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. The defence is one of total denial. The learned sessions Judge for the reasons set out in his judgment, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 376, I. P. C. and convicted by sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15. 000/- in default to pay fine,'to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence passed, which is questioned by the accused in this appeal.