PRAKASH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction dated 01.06.2012 passed by the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum in S.C. No. 56/2010 is challenged in this appeal. By the said judgment the appellant -accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the said judgment of the trial Court on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant -accused and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent -State.

(3.) PER contra, learned HCGP during the course of his arguments has submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are to be appreciated in the background of the witnesses hails from rustic village and they are villagers. He has submitted that there may be some minor inconsistencies, contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but so far as the main event of offence of rape is concerned, there is evidence on the side of the prosecution. He has also submitted that the FSL report and the oral evidence of the doctors are also supporting the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that prosecutrix P.W. 8 has clearly deposed in her evidence about the accused going at the said place, lifting her and taking her into the maize crop of Sri. Uppar and there he committed rape on her. He has submitted that the evidence is to be weighed and not to be counted by the Court, the question is what is the quality of the prosecution witness deposed before the trial Court. He has submitted that no grounds are made out in the cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses that there is a false implication of the appellant -accused. He has also submitted that P.W. 3 is the eye -witnesses, who accompanied the victim girl (P.W. 8), to the land and she has seen personally accused going at the said place, lifting P.W. 8 and taking her inside the maize crop. Hence, he has submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and rightly convicted the appellant -accused and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. Hence, he has submitted to dismiss the appeal. In support of his arguments, learned HCGP has relied upon the following decisions: