MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mohammad was charged with having committed rape on a young girl Jayalaxmi aged about 15 years. He was tried by the Sessions Judge of South Kanara, Mangalore, in S.C.No.27 1976 and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

(2.) Jayalaxmi (P.W.10) is the daughter of Ishwar Bhat (P.W.12). Ishwar Bhat was residing in a locality called Mujur-katte, a part of Aithur village in Puttur taluk. P.W.10 was studying in 4th standard in the year 1975-76 in a school at Sunkadakatte, about 1 miles from Aithur village. On 22-5-1976, as usual, she went to the school in the morning and by about 12.30 p.m. as it was a Saturday, the school was closed. She was coming back to her house in a road, a part of which runs through Mujur forest. When she had covered a distance of about 6 furlongs, it is stated that a person came on a motor-cycle from behind and stopped the vehicle in front of P.W.10. That person asked her whether she would marry him and he would pay money to her. On her refusal, he dragged her into the forest for some distance and there committed rape on her. That person went away on the motor-cycle towarda place called Nettana. P.W.10 went to her house weeping and told Parameswari (P.W.11), her mother, who, in turn, told P.W.12 about what happened. P.W.12 took P.W.10 with him in a road going towards Nettana in order to find out who was the culprit. On the way he met his brother Rama Bhat (P.W.13) and Venkappa Gowda (P.W.15), a person who had lands close to the place of incident. They came near a Railway cross and stood there in order to find out whether the culprit would pass that way. Balakrishna (P.W.14), son of P.W.12, also joined them. They waited there for about 2 hours. At about 4 p.m. they saw the appellant coming on a motor-cycle bearing No.MEX.265 from the side of Otakaje quarters. They stopped the motor-cycle and the appellant got down. These persons asked the appellant whether he was the person who committed rape on P.W.10. He flatly denied. In the meanwhile, P.W.10 identified the appellant as the person who committed rape on her earlier. The appellant wanted to go away stating that he was innocent, but these persons caught him and a quarrel ensued. When the quarrel was in progress, three persons came running to the spot and intervened. According to the prosecution, the appellant ran away from the spot leaving the motor-cycle there. P.W.13 went to the police station at Kadaba and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P-14 at 4.45 p.m. Lakkappa Gowda (P.W.17), Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case against the accused and sent the First Information Report, which reached the court at Mangalore on the following day at 8.20 a.m. P.W.10 was taken to Mangalore on that night. She was examined by Dr.Kasturi (P.W.1) at about 4 a.m. on 23-5-1976. She found no external injuries on any part of her body. She found the hymen ruptured and irregular tears in the hymen. There was bleeding from the vagina and that was due to menses. The vaginal smear of P.W.10 was examined by Muktha Bai (P.W.2). She did not find any semen. 2. As regards the credibility of P.W.10, the learned trial judge, who recorded her evidence, has believed her. He held that her evidence found corroboration in the evidence of P.W. 15.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the story of P.W.10 is unworthy of credit. Her evidence finds no corroboration. Even assuming that P.W.10 was a victim of rape, there is no satisfactory evidence that it was the appellant that committed rape on P.W.10. I was taken through the evidence in the case. I am of opinion that the learned trial Judge was in error in his view.