Allowed

Ramesha v. the State by Tumkur Rural Police

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2015CRL.A/660/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for rape and criminal intimidation, the High Court affirmed the conviction for rape but reduced the sentence to the period of judicial custody, excluding the fine. The Court quashed the conviction for criminal intimidation due to delay in filing the complaint.

What did the court decide?

Conviction for Section 376 IPC affirmed; sentence reduced to 26 months custodial period. Conviction for Section 506 IPC set aside. Application for document production rejected.

Ramesha Vs the State by Tumkur Rural Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

1 Crl.A 660/2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.660 OF 2013

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAMESHA S/O MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS MECHANIC RESIDING AT GULUR VILLAGE TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN – 571 202.

¶7

... APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI: R SRINIVAS, ADV) AND:

¶9

THE STATE BY TUMKUR RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶10

... RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI: K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶12

Crl.A 660/2013

¶13

¶14

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 24.06.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR IN SC NO.34/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 AND 506B OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI FOR 7 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.30,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO AN ADDITIONAL SI FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI FOR 3 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.2,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO AN ADDL. SI FOR 2 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506B OF IPC. ALL THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.

¶15

THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The appellant has challenged his conviction

¶18

and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506B IPC on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur.

¶19

The facts reveal that the prosecutrix (PW1) was the student of 1^st year BA and on the

¶20

date of incident, she returned from the college

¶21

Crl.A 660/2013

¶22

¶23

and at about 6.15 p.m., she was returning to her house with the cattle and near the stream of said village, it is alleged that the appellant dragged her and committed forcible sexual intercourse, despite her resistance. He threatened her not to disclose this incident to anybody. Because of the fear created by the accused, she was under the depression and ultimately on 21.04.2012, after a lapse of 38 days, she filed a complaint with the police at the instance of her parents. Crime No.125/2011 was registered, investigation was taken up. The spot mahazar was held as per Ex.P2 in the presence of attesting witness. The victim was examined by the doctor and the report (Ex.P3) was obtained. After collecting all the other relevant documents, the chargesheet was laid against the appellant for the aforesaid charges.

¶24

In the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12, got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P8. After recording the statement under Section 313

¶25

4 Crl.A 660/2013

¶26

Cr.P.C., no defence evidence was led, anyhow, Exs.D1 to D3 were got marked in the evidence. The Trial Court heard the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant for both the charges and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 376 IPC and three years for the offence under Section 506B IPC in addition to fine. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

¶27

An application has been filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to produce certain documents.

¶28

Heard the learned Counsel for appellant

¶29

and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶30

It is the contention of learned Counsel

¶31

for the appellant that there was consent on the part of victim for the sexual intercourse and there is no rape committed on the victim. It is

¶32

5 Crl.A 660/2013

¶33

also his submission that victim has married another person and she is now leading happy life. Anyhow, though the appellant has got many documents to prove that there was love affair between himself and the victim, he submits that in case if the matter is remitted, the victim has to be kept present before the Court again and if these documents are contradicted in the course of her evidence, her life may spoil. It is also his submission that there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence to minimum, therefore, he submits that instead of remitting the matter back to the Trial Court, a lenient view may be taken by reducing the sentence to the minimum.

¶34

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the judgment and order submits that the material placed on record is sufficient to sustain the conviction ordered by the Trial Court and also the sentence.

¶35

Crl.A 660/2013

¶36

¶37

From the evidence that has been led by the prosecution, it is clear that the incident of rape was committed 38 days prior to the complaint filed by the victim. She was a student of 1^st year B.A., and used to attend the classes everyday. On the date of incident, after she returned to home, she went outside the village with the cattle and she was returning at 6.15 p.m., at that time, she states that the accused, a resident of same village intercepted her and had forcible sexual intercourse.

¶38

6. Though this incident was against her

¶39

will, she did not file the complaint to the police for a period of about 38 days. At least she could have immediately informed this incident to her parents, she did not do so. Though it is stated by her that she was under depression for a long time, at least the parents could have noticed this and had questioned her the reason for depression, so that she could have disclosed the fact. So

¶40

Crl.A 660/2013

¶41

¶42

this conduct of keeping silence for about 38 days in the circumstances may lead to an inference that there was consent on the part of the victim in the act.

¶43

That apart, it is relevant to note that the prosecution has examined the doctor PW5 and she has submitted the report (Ex.P3). There is no medical evidence to support the version of the prosecution. It is also not possible to get the medical evidence for the reason that the complaint is registered after 38 days of the incident. Taking into consideration these circumstances though the victim is said to have been raped by the appellant, a doubt regarding the possibility of consent on the part of victim could be drawn from the facts stated above.

¶44

Though the application has been filed by

¶45

the appellant under the provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C., learned Counsel for the appellant has

¶46

8 Crl.A 660/2013

¶47

placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 898 (State of Rajasthan Vs N K, the accused). In the aforesaid case as well, the accused was chargesheeted for the offence under Section 376 IPC. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. The High Court had granted an order of acquittal and the matter was taken up to the Apex Court against the order of acquittal. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Apex Court has held as under:

¶48

“The incident is of the year 1993. The accused was taken into custody by the police on 03.11.1993. He was not allowed bail. During the trial as also during the hearing of the appeal by the High Court, he remained in jail. It is only on 11.10.1995 when the High Court acquitted him of the charge that he was released from jail. Thus he had remained in jail for a little less than two years. Taking into consideration the period of remission

¶49

Crl.A 660/2013

¶50

¶51

for which he would have been entitled and the time which has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence, we are of the opinion that the accused-respondent need not now be sent to jail. It would meet the ends of justice, if he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and to a fine of Rs.2,000/- with further simple imprisonment of one year and nine months in default of payment of fine as passed by the trial Court. The accused-respondent is allowed time till 01.05.2000 for payment of fine. The accused-respondent is on bail. The bail bonds shall stand discharged on payment of fine as directed.”

¶52

Perusal of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid circumstances reveals that the sentence of imprisonment for seven years was reduced to one year 11 months. Though the exact circumstances are not available in the facts

¶53

Crl.A 660/2013

¶54

¶55

on hand, there are two reasons to have recourse to

¶56

a lenient view in the sentence and to reduce the

¶57

same. The first is as regards the delay in lodging the complaint and secondly, though the application has been filed and the photographs produced by the appellant would clearly reveal that even prior to the incident, they were known to each other, there was love affair, their statement recorded by the investigating officer during the investigation, these documents have not been exhibited.

¶58

In the interest of justice, these

¶59

documents have been looked into at least to consider the extension of leniency, in view of the love affair and when the victim is married and now leading a happy life, if she is ordered to again appear before the Court to contradict the photographs produced, there is likelihood of spoil her married life. So, instead of remitting the matter, it would be proper in the interest of both

¶60

Crl.A 660/2013

¶61

¶62

the parties if the conviction is affirmed by reducing the sentence.

¶63

Looking to the delay that has occurred in filing the complaint, even the submission that there was threat of danger to her life not to disclose the incident, cannot be accepted. Hence, there is no acceptable material for the offence under Section 506B IPC. The appellant has been in judicial custody for a period of 26 months from the date of incident. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the custodial period would be appropriate sentence for the act done.

¶64

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part affirming the conviction of appellant for the charge under Section 376 IPC. The sentence is confined to the custodial period of 26 months. If the appellant has deposited the fine and has completed 26 months of imprisonment, he be released, forthwith.

¶65

12 Crl.A 660/2013

¶66

IA.I/2015 for suspension of sentence does not

¶67

survive for consideration, hence, disposed of.

¶68

IA.II/2015 for permission to produce the

¶69

documents is rejected.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

*bgn/-

Ramesha v. the State by Tumkur Rural Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesha v. the State by Tumkur Rural Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivamma Vs the Incharge Manager

M S Jayaram Vs the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sathish Vs Basavaraju

Mr T Hemanath Vs Sri Koosappa Gowda

Susheelamma Vs Venkatesha Reddy

Dugganna Gowda Vs Smt Annamma