SRINIVASA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is brought from the judgment of the Sessions Judge. Shimoga, in a case under Ss. 376, 366A and 363 of the IPC, convicting the two appellants Srinivasa Murthy(A1) and Lakshmanappa (A2) under S.363 read with S.34 of the IPC and sentencing them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that A1 and A2 were acquainted with Pramila, a minor girl aged 13 or 14 years, of Shimoga. They resided in her neighbourhood and being acquainted with her, intended to entice or take her away from the lawful guardianship of her mother with the intention of illicit intercourse. Accordingly on 13th March 1976 at about 5-30 or 6 p.m. while Pramila (PW.2) had gone with Sowbhagya(PW.3) to a flour mill with wheat and ragi for milling, A1 approached her and asked her to carry back some lemons to his father which he had purchased. Accordingly the two girls accompanied him upto a place known as Jail Circle in that town. A1 went back and brought an autorickshaw driven by Basavaraj,(PW.5) A2 was standing with a bicycle at the Jail Circle and the two girls were entrusted to him. When the auto-rickshaw arrived, A1 compelled Pramila to occupy the rickshaw and A2 sat with her. It was stated that Pramila attempted to cry out, but her mouth was shut by A2. Thereafter the basket containing flour was given to Sowbhagya (PW.3) and she was threatened to tell that Pramila had gone to Bhadravathi to her aunt's house. Thereafttr PW.3 returned back to her house and Al left on the bicycle to join A2 who brought the auto-rickshaw to Javali village. Both Al and A2 brought Pramila in that village and according to the prosecution case, they detained the girl at Javali, thereafter at Sagar and then again came back to Jayali to the house of one Channabasappa the Police Patel (PW. 7). Meanwhile, Shanthamma (PW.4) the mother of Pramila waited for a day or two as Pramila was expected to return from her aunt's house. When she did not return, suspicion arose and PW.3 was asked to give the correct information. On the next day that is on 14-3-1976 the FIR was written and according to the information received from PW.3, the two accused were named in it and the matter was reported to the police. However, the FIR was received at the police sation at 6 p.m. on 16-3-1976. The oral statement of PW.4 who instituted the FIR was written. Thereafter another supplementary statement of PW.4 was written. On the basis of the two statements, the police registered a case under Ss.376, 366A and 363 of the IPC against the two accused. The usual investigation followed and the girl was searched and ultimately on 21-3-1976 she was brought from the house of PW.7 along with the two accused. Thereafter, the case was sent up against the two accused for the offences under Secs.376, 366A ant 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution produced 11 witnesses of whom PWs.1 and 6 were the Doctors who had examined Pramila and found her to be 13 or 14 years in age. She had signs of recent sexual intercourse. Besides the two Doctors, the girl Pramila, PW.2 and her mother Shanthamma PW.4 were also examined. However, both of them turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Sowbhagya PW.3 was also examined and she adhered to the prosecution case. Besides her, Basavaraj PW.5 the autorickshaw driver and Channabasappa, the police patel PW-7 were also produced. PW.5 however partially supported the prosecution case. Kalligudi the Head Constable PW.10 who made the recovery of the girl along with the two accused was also examined. PW.11 was the investigating officer. The other witnesses are not material to make any reference.