STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VITHAL RAMANAGOUDA SHINIKHED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Spl. Case No. 40/2001. The respondent herein is the accused in the Special case and he has been acquitted of the charge of having committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also under Section 3(i), (xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (P.A) Act, 1989.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading upto the filing of this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows: It is the case of the prosecution that PW.l-the prosecutrix the complainant is married to one Srishail Bajentri of Kannoor and has a daughter by name Renuka out of the said wedlock, who as on the date of incident was about three years old. After the birth of Renuka the complainant suffered from a deformity in vison which led to a decrease in the long sight and because of this there were strained relations between her and her husband. Since he had deserted her, she had stayed with her parents at Halagunaki village. THE victim's parents were residing on their land which is about half a kilometer from N.H. 30 and PW. 1 resided with her parents along with her sister Yamunamma.

(3.) LEARNED State Public Prosecutor has taken us through depositions of PWs 1 to 10 and the contents of documents as per Exs. PI to P10 got marked by the prosecution and submitted that the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is erroneous. She submits that the reasons given by the Trial, Court for acquittal are not in accordance with law in as much as the Trial Court has held that since there was no injury on PW. 1, therefore, it could he assumed that there was no resistance from her and hence would amount to consent. The Trial Court has further recorded that there was no medical evidence to support the offence under Section 376, which is contrary to material on record. The Trial Court further reasoned that since the clothes of the accused and the victims were not seized under panch, the guilt of the accused was not proved. She submits that the aforesaid reasoning is contrary to the evidence on record and therefore requests this Court to reverse the finding, as according to her the evidence of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court in the proper perspective and hence the Judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside and the accused is liable to be convicted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 3(i), (xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (P.A) Act, 1989.