THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SRINIVASA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.11.2010 passed by the 45th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city in Sessions Case No. 823/2009 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that while prosecutrix Kum. Ramya (P.W. 6) was attending the computer classes situated about 4 -5 kms. from her residence, accused used to talk to her; at about 12.30 p.m. on 15.5.2008 when the prosecutrix was coming back to her house from her computer classes, the accused and his friends kidnapped Kum. Ramya in a maruti car and she was kept in the house of one of the friends of accused and thereafter, she was taken to Anjaneyaswamy temple situated at Savandurgabetta road, wherein accused married the victim forcibly on 18.5.2008 and committed sexual assault on her against her will. Thereafter, victim was taken to various places by the accused and of late, the accused and his parents started demanding dowry from the parents of the victim and were ill -treating the victim. Ultimately, the parents of the victim took the victim to their house. On these among other allegations, complaint came to be lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W. 6) as per Ex. P1 on 26.2.2009, which came to be registered in Peenya police station, Bangalore city, in Crime No. 145/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. While lodging the complaint, victim has stated her age as 16 years 9 months. However, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused -respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC. The trial Court has framed the charges against the respondent for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of P.W. 6, the prosecutrix. As aforementioned, complaint was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It seems, at the time of lodging the complaint victim was particular with regard to the harassment by the accused. We have already mentioned supra that the complainant herself has mentioned in her complaint that she was aged about 16 years 9 months at the time of lodging the complaint. Though the complaint reveals that the incident has taken place on 15.5.2008 and that the marriage has taken place on 18.5.2008, the complaint came to be lodged only on 26.2.2009 i.e., after lapse of about 9 months. Absolutely no reason, much less valid reason, is forthcoming as to why complaint came to be lodged with such a huge delay of about 9 months.