STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. N CHANDRASHEKHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 10/2009 dated 29th April 2011 is called in question by the State.

(2.) KUM . D. Sharada, prosecutrix/victim, aged about 14 years, lodged a complaint as per Ex. P8 at 1.15 P.M. on 16.8.2008, before the PSI of Hiriyur police station. The PSI -P.W. 12 registered the complaint in crime No. 440/2008, for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. In the complaint, it is alleged by the minor girl that she is the resident of Gudihalli village; she was pursuing her education in 8th standard by studying in Vedavathi High School, Hiriyur. She was staying in a Government General Hostel, situated at Vedavathinagar, Hiriyur, at that point of time; at 10. A.M., on 15.8.2008, i.e. on the Independence Day, while she was in hostel, the accused who is also a resident of Gudihalli village came to the hostel and informed the complainant -victim that her mother is not well and asked her to accompany him in a car to go to her native place Gudihalli. After obtaining permission from the hostel warden, he proceeded with the accused in a car for some distance; thereafter the accused instead of taking the victim to her village, took her in a different route and stopped the car near a Tamarind tree; despite victim's protest, she was sexually assaulted by the accused by gagging her mouth with a cloth; thereafter, the accused brought her back and left her in the hostel; the victim narrated the incident to hostel warden(P.W. 1) who in turn called the victim's father (P.W. 10) over phone; the father of the complainant came to the hostel and talked with the victim girl; thereafter, the complaint came to be lodged by the victim as per Ex. P8.

(3.) SRI Chetan Desai, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of State taking us through the material on record, submits that evidence of the victim coupled with the evidence of the doctor is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused. The victim was a minor aged 14 years at the time of incident and consequently, in law, she could not have given her consent. The evidence of victim is supported by the evidence of father of victim (P.W. 10). The accused has taken undue advantage of innocence of victim and took her by misguiding her and committed rape. On these grounds, he prays for reversal of the judgment of the Court below.