STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VEERESH CHENNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent.

(2.) The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC' for brevity). It was the case of the prosecution that the complainant Shyameed Bee, a widow, was a resident of Krishnadevaraya Nagar in Gangavathi taluka, and she had two children, namely, one Shyameed, aged about 18 years and a daughter Bannima, aged about 12 years. The son was said to be working at Bengaluru and Bannima was studying in the 6th standard in Ayodhya. It is alleged that on 18.09.2011 at about 06.00 p.m. when Bannima complained about pain in her sexual parts and on checking she found that there was some discharge and therefore she was taking Bannima towards hospital, it transpires that on the way they met Ananthalaxmi, a teacher of Bannima, who stopped them and asked them as to where they were proceeding and when she was informed that Bannima was being taken to hospital, it is then Ananthalaxmi had revealed to Shyameed Bee that on the previous day Bannima had complained that she had been raped by the respondent-accused and that she had brought back Bannima to their home and since she found that the complainant was not available, she had left the child there and gone away. Therefore, she is said to have suggested that the complainant should go to their employer Ramu for advise as to what to do next. At which, the complainant is said to have questioned Bannima about the previous day's incident and it was then revealed that the accused had committed rape on her on the previous evening and on hearing this, the complainant decided to consult her employer Ramu, who in turn had adviced them to complain to the police. Therefore, it was only on 18.09.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. that a case was registered in Crime No.251 of 2011 against the accused for the offences aforesaid. It is pursuant to this, that further proceedings were taken and the victim was sent for medical examination on 18.09.2011 and the accused was arrested, and his voluntary statement was recorded and after further proceedings, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the accused had appeared and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution then tendered the evidence of PW.1 to PW.16 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.1 The defence in the course of cross-examination of PW.11 had marked one document Ex.D.1. After recording the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration: