BHIMAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kembhavi Police lodged a charge-sheet against the petitioner and another accused for the offences u/Secs.366, 376(A), 506, 507 R/w Sec.34, IPC on the complaint lodged by one Smt.Priyanka, aged 21 years of Kembavi, stating that her marriage took place with one Manjunath Mandewal on 8-5-2014. The Accused No.1 even earlier to the marriage and after the marriage had been threatening the complainant and later her husband stating that he would ravish the complainant at any time. In this background, it is alleged that on 10-12-2014 at about 2-00 p.m., when Priyanka had been to attend nature call near Shri. Muttappa Temple of Kembhavi, both the accused came in Car and forcibly took her and committed rape on her, one after the another in the Car itself. Thereafter threatened her with dire consequences of killing if she disclose the said fact to anybody and then dropped her at Bhagewadi Bus Stand. Thereafter, she came back to her house and informed the same to her husband. After some days, she lodged the complaint.

(2.) Of course, on looking to the averments of the complaint and charge-sheet, there is delay of 8-days in lodging the complaint. The medical certificate produced before the Court shows that she did not sustain any injuries. There were no signs suspecting recent sexual intercourse and final opinion was also kept pending. The petitioner was arrested long back and he is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest. Of course, the delay itself is not sufficient to discard the allegation of the complainant. However, the delay has to be explained in this particular case. The victim has experience of the sexual activity and she new what is meant by sexual activity and rape. Further, it is categorically stated that she went to the house after the incident and had detailed discussion with her husband and other members of the family. But, in spite of that, she did not choose to lodge any complaint. Therefore, the delay, in this particular case, with regard to the deliberations taken place immediately after the incident play a dominant role, which has to be explained during the course of full dressed trial as to why such delay has occurred. The petitioner is in judicial custody since long. Considering the nature of allegations and facts of the case, it has to be ascertained what was the relationship between the accused No.1 and the victim lady prior to her marriage and whether any relationship was there earlier and same is continued after the marriage is the prime question that play a dominanat role in this case. Under the above said circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail, with certain conditions. Hence, I pass the following :-