GAVISIDDAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 506, 376, 109, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC and also Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 39/2015.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case that one Yankappa filed the complaint stating that he was residing with his wife and two children namely Praveen and Gangamma. Gangamma is the victim in this case, she was pursuing her SSLC examination. Petitioner, was the relative of the complainant, he used to visit the house of the complainant and he was very close and having cordial with the family members, particularly with Gangamma. On 13.04.2015, when the victim did not returned home after attending her exam, at 4.00 p.m., the complainant went to her school and enquired and thereafter, he went to Durgamma's house, who is the friend of victim, and enquired, she revealed that at 1.00 p.m. the victim attended her SSLC examination and she was waiting for a bus for returning to home in a bus stand, at that time it is alleged that the petitioner came to the bus stop and offered a drop to the victim and even after her protest, she was made to board the motorcycle and thus the petitioner, victim and accused No. 2 left the place. Thereafter, complainant made efforts to search his daughter and thereafter, he lodged the complaint on the basis of which, case has been registered.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the averments in the complaint, so also the other materials collected by the prosecution, no prima -facie case has been made out against the petitioner that he has committed the alleged offence of rape on the victim girl. Learned counsel has also submitted that even looking to the medical opinion, the doctor has not noticed any external injuries on the body of the victim girl. He has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution that victim girl was taken to different places by the petitioner namely Haveri, Hangal and Balehalli, if she was taken forcibly, she could have protested. Hence, submitted that even if the allegations are accepted, it shows that victim herself went along with the petitioner. Hence, he has submitted that when the case of the prosecution is not supported by the medical evidence and accused No. 2 has already been granted bail by the order of this Court, petitioner may been enlarged on bail by imposing reasonable conditions.