SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellant was the accused before the Trial Court who stood trial for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity), and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act', for brevity).

(3.) The facts as stated by the prosecution are as follows: The complainant was a resident of Harijankeri, Amminabhavi village, Dharwad Taluk and District and she had a daughter Kalpana aged about 9 and when Kalpana was alone at home as the complainant and her husband had gone out to Kanchanalli in Haliyal Taluk to work, as they were employed as coolies, the accused is said to have entered the house from the back door and had enquired with Kalpana as to the whereabouts of her parents and thereafter had asked for a glass of water and when Kalpana went into the kitchen to fetch water, he had closed the front door and thereafter had caught hold of Kalpana and tied her hands with a dupatta and undressed her and is said to have gagged her with her own garment and thereafter had proceeded to rape her. It transpires that Saraswathi, aged about 13 had come there and had called out to Kalpana as they were usually in the habit of going together to watch television and as there was a power shut down and the power had been restored, she apparently had come to call Kalpana to come and watch television. It transpires that since Kalpana had not answered, Saraswathi is said to have gained entry through the back door and came upon the accused committing rape on Kalpana. She had immediately rushed away and brought her mother Paravva. When they both reached the home of Kalpana, it transpires that the accused had already left. Paravva had come into the house and thereafter had released Kalpana by untying her hands which were tied up and she had then telephoned one Ambavva, who in turn had handed over the phone to the father of Kalpana, and Paravva is said to have narrated the incident to the father of Kalpana who on receiving such information, had rushed back to the village. In the meantime, the grandmother of the victim was also intimated of the incident, who had come to the house and had provided first aid to the child by applying turmeric power and coconut oil on her private parts. It transpires that the neighbourers had also gathered and after the parents of the victim came, they had shifted the victim to the District Hospital, Dharwad in an ambulance. The medico legal case intimation was said to have been communicated to the police. The Police Sub-Inspector in turn, had visited the hospital and obtained a complaint from the mother of the victim and had then registered a case in Crime No.5/2013 and after investigation, the accused who was seen to be proceeding towards the village on a motor cycle, was arrested and the accused as well as the victim were said to have been subjected to medical examination and after recording the statements of witnesses and after further proceedings, the accused was charge-sheeted and the matter was committed to the designated Special Court and thereafter the appellant had stood trial and ultimately was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.