Appeal against conviction and seven years' sentence for rape. High Court acquitted the appellant, finding prosecution failed to prove commission of rape beyond reasonable doubt due to medical evidence of sexual incapacity and unexplained delay in lodging complaint.
Judgment of conviction set aside; accused acquitted; fine refunded
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2577 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
Shri Maruti Gangappa Metagud, Aged 56 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Belgundi, Taluk: Chikkodi, District: Belgaum.
…APPELLANT
(By Shri A.G. Mulawadmath, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka, By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Chikkodi Police, District: Belgaum. …RESPONDENT
(By Shri V.M. Banakar, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Judge, Fast
2
Track Court First (District Judge), Chikkodi passed in Sessions Case No.269/2007, dated 23/08/2008 may be set aside and the accused may be acquitted.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
3
and disrobed her and started raping her. She had raised a hue and cry, at which he had tied up her hand and gagged her and continued to rape her, by which time her sister-in-law who had possibly heard her cries had come there and on seeking the sister-in-law, the appellant had immediately run away from there. Before the complainant and her sister-in-law could gather themselves to go out and complain, the brother of the accused is said to have come there and abused them of seducing his brother. Then the complainant and her sister-in-law had come to her house and complained about the incident to the husband of the complainant and in turn they had gone to the Police Station to lodge a complaint, at which time the police had obtained signatures of the complainant on blank papers, in spite of which no further action had been taken by the police. It is seven days later that the complainant is again said to have visited the police station and a complaint said to have been lodged. The complainant was sent for medical examination and on the basis of a report, a case has been registered against the
4
appellant and he was taken into custody. After further proceedings, he was charge-sheeted and charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exhibits P1 to P-10. The appellant in turn marked Exhibits D1 to D3. On the basis of the said material and on the statement of the accused being recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC and after hearing both sides, the court below had framed the following points for consideration:
“1) Whether the prosecution proves that the accused committed rape on the complainant on 27.4.07 at 8.aa AM in his farmhouse in R.S.No.19 at Belkud village while she has gone for collecting some thur sticks from the house of the complainant?
The court below had answered the points in the
affirmative and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to
5
punishment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity) It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.
that there is no substance in the case of the prosecution, having regard to several glaring infirmities. Firstly, the land belonging to the complainant’s family and that of the appellant are adjacent to each other and this is an admitted fact. There is a long-standing dispute between the two families in respect of their boundaries and it is this which was the reason for bringing a false complaint against the appellant. The falsity of the complaint is evident from the fact that the incident is said to have taken place on 27.04.2007, but the complaint is actually lodged on 1.5.2007. The case is sought to be made out by the prosecution that though a complaint was lodged on 27.04.2007 itself, the police had failed to register the case and it is only
6
after the complainant had filed a private complaint in view of the inaction on the part of the police that a complaint was eventually registered on 1.5.2007, is a circumstance which is not demonstrated from any material on record. It is thereafter that the complainant is said to have been sent for medical examination and there are no signs of any sexual activity or rape, even as per the report. The report indicating that there were some scratch marks or bruises which may be several days old, is only the ground on which the court below has proceeded to hold that the commission of the offence would not be ruled out. The further circumstance that the appellant was a handicapped person and he has been certified by the competent authority as a handicapped person and he also receives the benefit as a handicapped person from the State Government has been ignored. Further, in the face of medical evidence produced at the trial to the effect that the appellant suffers from erectile dysfunction and repeated attempts on the part of the Medical Practitioner to induce an erection failed, and when he
7
is incapable of sexual activity, has been trashed by the Trial Court on the presumption that if circumstances were different, it was quite possible for the appellant to have committed a sexual act and has proceeded to hold that notwithstanding the delay in lodging the complaint and the circumstance that the appellant was aged 56 and was even declared by a Doctor as being incapable of performing the sexual act, the evidence of the complainant supported by the evidence of her sister-in-law has been sufficient to bring home the serious charge, inviting a punishment of imprisonment for seven long years, which the learned counsel for the appellant would submit, is not justified, having regard to the admitted circumstances of the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the lack of evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. The motive that was present for the complainant to have initiated the proceedings at the behest of her family members only in order to implicate the appellant in a false case.
8
The learned counsel would seek to take this court through the record to demonstrate that the court below was not justified in arriving at a finding of guilt, in the face of glaring infirmities.
9
injuries found on other parts of her body, which the Doctor has certified. Therefore, there was ample evidence of the victim herself apart from her sister-in-law to establish that the offence had been committed. The claim that the appellant was incapable of committing the sexual act gives the idea as found that he was incapable of producing an erection when he was examined by a Doctor and his repeated attempts to induce an erection in the appellant had failed, is not a circumstance which can be taken into account. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that a rapist is driven by different inclinations and the act of rape itself is committed only because he is induced to commit rape and that is the reason why he commits rape and therefore, to proceed on the assumption that only a man who normally develops an erection can commit rape, is a short sighted view of the entire episode and hence, he would submit that the evidence on record was sufficient to bring home the charge. That the innocence and illiteracy of the victim, ought not to be held against her in holding that there is
10
delay which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The fact that the appellant is 56, need not lead to the presumption that he was incapable of sexual act or committing the offence of rape and hence, would submit that the appeal be dismissed.
11
doubt. On the face of the record, it is seen that the alleged act is said to have been committed on 27.04.2007. The claim that there was a complaint lodged which was recorded as one being an offence under Section 110(e) of the Cr.P.C and not for the offence as alleged by the complainant, is a circumstance which again cannot be accepted. Therefore, the delay in lodging the complaint would lead to a presumption that the veracity of the complaint that is subsequently lodged on 1.5.2007, was in order to implicate the accused appellant. Further, apart from the sister-in-law of the complainant, there are no other witnesses to the incident and there is no other material evidence even if rape was committed and the act having been committed by the appellant in the absence of other incriminating evidence on record. Therefore, to proceed on the basis of certain bruises and scratches present on the body of the complainant, it cannot be conclusively established that the injuries found on her body were as a result of the commission of rape by the appellant. That has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The
12
mere oral testimony of the complainant and her sister-in-law PW-4, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge of rape.
���� �����
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution could establish the commission of rape by the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt given the medical evidence suggesting sexual incapacity and the delay in lodging the complai
Whether the acquittal of the appellant was legally sustainable on the merits in view of the infirmities in the prosecution case?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Maruti Gangappa Metagud
The State of Karnataka
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
