SURESHA, S/O NARASIMHAIAH @ KURAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RAMANAGARA (R) POLICE, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2010 and order of sentence dated 29.04.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ramanagara, in Sessions Case No.171/2006 convicting the accused-appellant herein for the offence punishable under Sections 419 of IPC. Under the said judgment the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. The accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under section 376 and 506 of IPC. The said judgment has been challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. The factual matrix of the case are as under: The victim - G.H.Sujatha lodged a complaint on 07.02.2004 at about 1.17 p.m. alleging that herself and the accused were loving each other, staying in her residential home at Gollaradoddi Village and inspite of her forcible protest without minding for her protest the accused closed her mouth with his hands and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her on assurance that he will marry her. Even subsequent to the incident, he had forcible sexual intercourse for about 5 to 6 times, as a result she became pregnant and when it was informed to the accused, he told not to inform the same to anybody as he will marry her and threatened that he will commit murder of her parents by destroying her family, if she reveals the same to anyone. Accordingly, it is her case that the accused has cheated her with a false assurance to marry her.

(2.) Io laid the charge sheet against the accused and subsequently, charges were framed against the accused for the alleged offences in respect of which he did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.16 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-10. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the incriminating statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded where accused had denied the truth of the prosecution adduced so far. Subsequently, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

(3.) Subsequently, the court below after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Spl.PP and the learned defence counsel for the accused, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.