STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DURGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the prosecution as brought on record through the witnesses before trial Court in brief is as under : the respondent/accused by name durgappa of Gajaldinni village, Deodurga taluk, Raichur District, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 323, I. P. C. Consequently, he was acquitted of the charges by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same the state has come up in this appeal questioning the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused. The complainant-victim in this case is from gajaldinni village and her husband is Mr. Shivanna P. W. 2. Accused is also from the same village. Victim and accused knew each other. The families of both the victim and the accused have landed property at Gajaldinni village situate within the vicinity of each other. On 1-2-1999 victim was working alone in her lands as it was post-harvest season and her husband had gone to Jalahalli Shandy for purchasing provisions. At about 4 p. m. while she was picking groundnuts, the accused said to have approached her from behind and suddenly caught hold of her hands asking her to go with him. He also pulled her when she tried to wriggle out of his grip. He further said to have forcibly taken her to the adjoining field of jowar crop and felled her to the ground. Thereafter the accused, in spite of the resistance by the victim, after slapping her and gagging her mouth with cloth, committed rape on her. When the accused was about to run away from the spot, victim tried to stop him by catching hold of his dhoti. At that point of time due to her hue and cry her husband came to the spot and on seeing him. accused said to have sped away from the spot. On account of physical pain and shock, she was not in a position to walk, therefore, her husband went back to the village and brought a bullock cart accompanied by C. W. 5 Ramanagouda. On reaching the village, they tried to bring the incident to the notice of the elders of the accused, but the response from accused was much more insulting than the commission of rape. Therefore, P. Ws. 1 and 2 along with P. W. 5 and others went to Jalahalli P. S. by about 11. 45 p. m. and lodged the complaint as per ex. P-l. On the basis of the complaint of the victim, Cr. No. 11/99 came to be registered. P. W. 7 P. S. I. of the Jalahalli police station after registering the case sends FIR through p, W. 6 constable and the FIR reached the magistrate by 4 a. m. (early hours of the next day), on 2-2-1999. Meanwhile, the victim was sent by the jalahalli police to P. W. 3 Dr. Mulla Basheer ahmed who was the casualty Medical Officer from the Primary Health Centre of Jalahalli at about 12. 30 a. m. (midnight i. e. intervening night of 1st and 2nd February ). After examining the victim who was sent for examination with the history of assault and rape, he found external injuries. She was sent for further medical examination to a female doctor. On 2-2-1999 at about 12. 30 p. m. , the victim was examined by P. W. 4 Dr. Shashikala at district Hospital, Raichur. After examining her, she found certain external injuries and one smt. Dr. Shivagangamma a Gynaecologist assisted P. W. 4 dr. Shashikala to examine P. W. 1 because P. W. 4 was a Paediatrician by profession. She furnishes her opinion as per Ex. P-6 in the MLC register. The case sheet is at ex. P-7. The final report of the lady doctor after perusal of FSL report is at Ex. P-8. During the course of investigation, the police inspector arrested the accused on 2-2-1999 and he was also sent to P. W. 3 the Medical Officer at Primary health Centre for examination at about 12. 30 p. m. He furnished his opinion after the report of FSL as per Ex. P-3. FSL report is at Exhibits P-2. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency recorded the statements of husband of the victim and other villagers. P. W. 5 is the distant relative of the husband of the victim who supported the case of the prosecution before the trial Court and he was present in the company of the victim and her husband throughout. P. W. 9 Bassanna is a panch witness to the spot mahazar at Ex. P. 10 but has turned hostile.

(2.) THE above material was brought on record through 9 witnesses before the trial court and through those witnesses Exs. P-1 to P-10 were marked apart from material objects m. Os. 1 to 5. No evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The learned trial Judge mainly accepting the defence raised by the accused rejected the case of the prosecution and held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the respondent-accused.

(3.) WE have heard Sri. Nawaz learned Government advocate representing the State and sri. Dinesh Kumar K, Rao and Sri. R. B. Deshpande learned counsel for the accused/respondent, we have gone through the entire evidence, oral and documentary, relied upon by the prosecution very carefully.