SHASHIDHARA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Hassan in S.C. No. 61/2008 by which the accused (appellant herein) is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 324 of IPC, is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that the victim Kumari Gowri, aged about 12 years was proceeding along with her friend Kumari Mamatha towards Railway Station in Arasikere Town during mid -night of 3.1.2008 in order to catch the train to go to Bangalore; at that point of time, the accused (Police Constable) came from behind and told both the girls to stop; on seeing the accused, the victim and Kumari Mamatha were frightened and started running away from that place; however the accused ran towards the victim and held her with tuft and dragged her to a dilapidated house of one Mr. K. Vijayakumar situated next to Vakkaligara Sangha Rangamandira at Rangegowda Street, Arasikere; he made her to fall on the ground in the said dilapidated house and had forcible sexual intercourse with her though she was shouting; PWs.13, 14 and 17 after hearing the cries of the victim, rushed to the spot and tried to nab the accused; in the meanwhile, Kum. Mamatha (friend of the victim) fled away from the scene; Kum. Mamatha met the police personnel P.Ws.6 and 18 who were on guard duty; she narrated about the incident and immediately, the police went to the spot; they apprehended the accused with the help of P.Ws.13, 14 and 17.

(3.) SRI . C.H. Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant taking us through the material on record submits that the entire evidence on record needs to be considered homogenously; the medical evidence does not support the theory of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence under Section 376 of IPC. At the most it can be said that the victim has committed the offence under Section 511 of IPC in as much as, it is a case of attempt to commit rape and not the case of rape; Ex. P2 -the wound certificate does not disclose any injury on the private part of the victim; not even tenderness is found on the vagina of the victim; the hymen was in tact; there is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory to support the case of the prosecution; evidence of the police officers i.e., P.Ws.6 and 18 appears to be exaggerated, in as much as, they have falsely deposed that the accused was naked when he was apprehended; the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 18 contradicts the version of P.Ws.13, 14 and 17, in as much as, these witnesses have deposed that the accused was wearing clothes. According to him, the reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the Court below is not proper and correct.