PRAKASH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the petition filed by petitioner -Accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(I), 420 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012, registered in respondent police station Crime No. 191/2014.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that on 05.02.2014 one Smt. Pushpa w/o. Venkatareddy Totad filed a complaint before Guttal Police alleging among other things that her husband's place is Ningarhatti of Chitradurgha Taluk and since about seven years back her husband has expired, she came along with her daughters and started staying along with her brother in her matrimonial place at Kerekoppa Village, Tq: Haveri. Her elder daughter is already got married. Her younger daughter by name Roopa is about 16 years. On 24.11.2014 during night hours her daughter Roopa by saying she is going for answering nature call went outside the house but did not turn up. The complainant and others search for Roopa and enquired about her to several persons including her relatives. On such enquiries she came to know through one Narayanappa Dunnur and another by name Siddappa Malladad that the petitioner herein took her towards Gudasalakoppa Village. It is alleged that the petitioner, his father and his younger brother abducted a complainant's daughter Roopa, who is minor. On the basis of said complaint, earlier a case has been registered under Section 363 of IPC and later police filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(2)(I), 420 of IPC and Sections, 2, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 made the submission that the petitioner has not at all committed the offence of rape and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also his submission that even according to the victim girl also no such offence has been committed. He also made the submission that the statement of victim girl has been recorded before the Magistrate Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein also she has not stated about commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Hence, he submitted that subsequently i.e. after six days the investigating officer said to have recorded the statement of victim girl, wherein it is said that the victim girl also stated that she has been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the present petitioner. Hence, he submitted that this is after thought and after having deliberations by the prosecution to suit its case. Hence, he submitted, by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.