STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. H G MADHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction passed by the Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur, in S.C.No.102/2011 dated 18.12.2012 is called in question in this appeal by the State. The respondent was tried for and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 & 506 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that accused Madhu and prosecutrix -PW2 are from the same village; prosecutrix -PW2 was living with her father -PW1; the prosecutrix and her sister were indulged in coolie work in the lands of the accused; one year prior to the date of the complaint, the accused told PW2 that he wanted to marry her and thereafter, they started loving each other; they went to various places including Nirvanaswamy Mutt etc; about 2 months prior to lodging of the complaint, when PW2 was alone in the house, accused went to her house and offered her a cake; she ate the cake offered by the accused and became semi -unconscious; at that time, the accused forcibly committed rape on her; on regaining consciousness the victim protested for the action of the accused; however, she was pacified by the accused that he would be marrying her and requested her not to inform about the incident to anybody. Immediately thereafter, the victim was given three tablets by the accused, which were consumed by her; about 15 days prior to lodging of the complaint, at about 8.00 p.m. the accused once again went near the back door of the house of PW2 and called her; PW2 went along with the accused through the back door; the accused forced her to lay down on the ground and she was raped; the accused took the victim to various places like Kemmannugundi, Kallathigiri etc., on the motor cycle; During this interregnum, they got their photographs printed in the photo studio of PW7; off late the accused started neglecting PW2 by telling her that he would not marry her; the accused threatened PW2 with dire consequences. Subsequently, on 23.02.2001, a complaint came to be lodged by PW1 -father of PW2 who came to know about the aforementioned incident on being told by PW2. During the course of investigation, the victim was medically examined and after completion of investigation, PW15 -the Inspector of Police laid the charge sheet.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses and got marked 20 exhibits and 1 material object. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.