ARUNKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Advocate Shri C.H. Jadhav appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) THE petitioner is accused No. 1 and is alleged of offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged by the complainant one Sahira Sheikh that she was a sales girl and after her work, she was waiting for an auto rickshaw near Shanthala Silk House, when a car came by with two persons in it and they had asked her, if she wanted a lift in the car and she readily agreed to be dropped of at Vijayanagar and had got into the car. It transpires that she realized that she was being taken elsewhere and when she questioned the men in the car as to where they were going, the man in the passenger seat is said to have struck her and asked her to keep quite and that he would harm her if she raised an alarm or create any kind of trouble and thereafter they are said to have driven towards Thippagondanahalli. She is said to have been taken to a farm house and there was a third person present. All of them committed rape on her inspite of her protests and the persons who had brought her in the car had left and the person who was in the farm house had momentarily left her alone and she had managed to escape and came to Tavarekere and took treatment at a hospital known as "Amma Hospital". She had then informed the jurisdictional police and lodged a complaint.

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate would submit that the fact that the petitioner was allegedly in the company of the complainant for several hours and had committed rape at the farm house, therefore it is odd that he was not recognized in the test identification parade. There is yet another aspect namely, that the present petitioner, Arunkumar, and the owner of the farm house where the offence is said to have been committed is also Arunkumar, and it is sought to be alleged that petitioner's father his a highly placed official who belonged to a particular political party and the owner of the farm house belonged to another political party and taking advantage of the similarity in the name of these persons, the present petitioner is sought to be implicated.