RUDRA NAIKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in S. C. No. 129/05 on the file of the prl. Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, who has been by judgment dated 28-4-2006, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I. P. C. , and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. , for 10 years and to pay a fine of rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo S. I. for 3 years, has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE complaint was lodged by the victim's mother (PW-1 ). The victim is stated to be not fully mentally sound. On 9-8-2005 in the afternoon at about 4 p. m. , victim's sister PW-3 Smt. Sahara was in the house, the victim, who had gone out of the house returned. Her clothes were found soiled and there were scratch marks on her person. On enquiry, the victim told her that the accused had taken her to an old building where Anganawadi was being run earlier and had committed rape on her. At 5. 30 p. m. , their mother returned from work and learnt about the incident. She waited for her husband and the next day they went to the police station and lodged a complaint against the accused. The victim was examined by Dr. Bhagya bai (PW-14), Lady Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tarikere, who found the evidence of sexual intercourse on the victim. The accused was arrested and he was examined by Dr. A. M. Thippeswamy (PW-10), who found certain nail marks on his chest and abdomen. After investigation, a case was registered against the accused for an offence punishable under the Section 376 of the I. P. C.

(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. PW-2 is the victim who only speaks about the incident. PWs' 1, 3 and 8 learnt about the incident from pw-2. PWs; 4 and 7 are examined to show that the accused had taken pw-2 with him to the building in which earlier Anganawadi was being run. Both of them have turned hostile. PWs' 5 and 6 have not supported the prosecution. PWs' 12 and 13 are the Police Officers. After the case of the prosecution was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. , to explain the circumstances arising out of the evidence. The accused denied the allegations of the prosecution witnesses. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused. After hearing the learned Public prosecutor and the learned Advocate for the accused, the learned trial judge accepted the evidence of PW-2 and consequently convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I. P. C. After hearing the learned prosecutor and the accused he imposed punishment as stated above. It is that judgment of conviction and sentence that the has been challenged by the accused in this appeal.