M P PONNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Coorg, Mercara, dated 10th of March 1.977, by which he convicted A-1 to A-4 under S.366 of IPC. A-l and A-4 have filed these two appeals. A-2 and A-3 have not filed any appeal and they are undergoing the sentence.

(2.) The facts are these : On 16-12-1974 Ponnamma (PW-1) aged about 20 years a resident of Boikeri village near Mercara, met A-l (Ponnamma) at the bus stand in Mercarg. While they were talking A-l came to know that PW-1 was in search of a job. A-l mentioned to PW-1 that she would get her a job in a factory in Bangalore. PW-1 requested A-l to meet her near the bus stand the next day So saying she went away. On the next day PW -1 came to the bus stand along with her father and met A-1. The father of PW-1 on being satisfied that A-l was taking his daughter to secure her a job, he permitted PW-1 to go along with A-l. A-l and PW-1 went to Virajpet and there they met M. Subbaiah @ Katti (A-2) said to be the brother of A-1. A-6 (P.M.Vittala) was then in the company of A-2. A-1 informed PW-1 that A-2 would secure her a job at Bangalore and having said so, left PW-1 in the company of A-2 and A-6 and went away. A-2 and A-6 took PW-1 to Bangalore, where they met A-3 (Mallengada Somaiah @ Raja) . Then A-3 took PW-1 to Madras promising to get her a job there. At Madras PW-1 was taken to the house of A-4 (P.K.Rajan) where A-4 induced her to practice prostitution. She was in Madras for about 45 days during which period, at the instance of A-4, she went with a number of persons to give them company in hotels and other places. Thereafter, PW-1 persuaded A-3 to take her back to her place. Accordingly, A-3 brought PW-1 to Bangalore, where she stayed in the house of Laxmamma (A-5) for some days. Ultimately,, she went back to her native place in the month of March 1975. Few days later, at the instance of her uncle, she filed a complaint (Ext.P-1) in the police station of Virajpet on 8-3-75 alleging that she was abducted by A-l, A-2, A-3 and A-6 from Mercara to Madras and there A-4 ' forced her to have illicit intercourse with number of persons. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered against all the six accused persons under S.366 IPC.

(3.) After rejecting major part of the evidence as untrustworthy, the learned Judge has relied on the evidence of PW-1 and to some extent on the evidence of U.Rani (PW-6). PW-1 was moving freely with a number of persons. She was visiting hotels and other places of recreation and at no point of time she made any complaint to the police or any one. She wrote two letters addressed to her parents-Exts D-1 and D-2-which clearly indicate that she was happy at Madras. In a case of this nature, she has to be materially corroborated regarding the allegations made by her in court against the accused. It is not possible to assess this sort of evidence at its true worth unless there is some corroboration. The nature of the corroboration should necessarily vary according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. It would be dangerous to attempt to formulate the kind of evidence which would be regarded as corroboration, except to say that corroborative evidence is evidence which shows or tends to show that the story of the girl that the accused committed the crime is true, not merely that the crime has been committed, but that it has been committed by the accused. The corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime, it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates the accused, that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed, but also that the accused committed it.