Appeal by the State against an order of acquittal in a rape case. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in the prosecutrix’ testimony and lack of medical corroboration, dismissing the appeal.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; bail bond, if any, cancelled.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRL.A. NO.100270/2015
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, KUMARAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
…..APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADV.)
AND:
RAJU, S/O BASAVARAJAPPA BAKKAJJI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O: KARUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR.
…..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULAMANI, ADV.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.08.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN S.C. NO.90/2012 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.08.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING
2
AT RANEBENNUR) IN S.C. NO.90/2012 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE CHARGED AGAINST HIM.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, V. SRISHANANDA, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the State questioning the validity of the judgment dated 13.08.2015 passed in S.C. No.90/2012 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur.
A complaint came to be lodged by one Rudrappa stating that on 07.06.2012 he had left his daughter (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim girl’) and the elder sister Siddamma in the house and he had been to work; on his return about 5.00 p.m., he found that the victim girl was missing and enquired his elder sister; she replied that the victim girl was in the house up to 2.00 p.m. thereafter she does not know whereabouts of victim girl. They searched for victim girl up to 9.00 p.m.,
3
enquired with kith and kin, but their efforts went in vein. The complaint was received by the Kumarapattanam Police and they registered a case in crime No.58/2012. Thereafter, the victim girl returned to the house on 08.06.2012 at about 8.00 p.m. and on 09.06.2012 at about 12.30 p.m., the victim girl along with her parents and others visited Kumarapattanam Police Station and another complaint was lodged by the victim girl stating that the accused and herself got acquainted with each other about 2 months earlier to the complaint and they had exchanged their mobile number; and accused had told her that he is in love with her and he would marry her. Further on 07.06.2012 she received a call stating that accused is alone in the house and victim girl should visit him. Accused repeatedly called her at about 2.30 p.m. and she left the house and reached the house of the accused. It is further stated in the complaint that with a promise to marry her, the accused had a forcible intercourse at about 10.30 p.m.
4
5
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur for disposal.
6
7
8
that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9
REASONS
10
is all alone in the house and she should visit him. As such, she proceeded alone to the house of accused around 3.00 p.m.
11
threat, if the incident is revealed to anybody. As such she did not reveal anything to her parents. Since her mother started beating her, she had intimated the incident around 10.30 p.m. It is her specific case that the accused had forcible intercourse with a promise that he would marry her.
12
the friendship with the accused. She also admits that her parents had decided to marry her to one Hanumantha and she had no intention to marry him, which was also known to her parents. It is further elicited that she had intended to marry the accused and accused never told her that he would not marry her.
13
girl; But the victim girl was not traced. As such, PW4 lodged missing complaint in Kumarapattanam Police Station vide Ex.P11.
14
15
16
17
she would have been confined in Almirah till 8.00 p.m. on 08.06.2012. Moreover, fact of accused confining the victim girl in the Almirah for about 20 hours is not even mentioned in Ex.P1. If confinement theory is true, how the victim girl came to know about lodging of the missing complaint by her father remains unanswered. What efforts were made by the parents of the victim girl to contact the victim girl on her mobile telephone is not forthcoming in the complaint-Ex.P11. Nor her parents have deposed before the court.
18
19
reveals that seminal stains were not detected in the Public hairs, Anterior Vaginal wall swab, Posterior vaginal swab, Nails of both hands and foots and the cloths worn by the victim girl on the day of incident. So also the clothes worn by the accused, the presence of seminal stains were not detected. Vaginal smear by the doctor did not contain spermatozoa. Whereas, the doctor who examined the victim girl has specifically stated that she has collected the spermatozoa present in and around the private part of the victim girl. How could spermatozoa be present till 09.06.2012, especially when victim girl taken bath is a fact which remains unanswered by the prosecution.
20
telephone is also a significant fact while appreciating the theory of the prosecution.
21
the victim girl with a promise to marry her, appears to be doubtful. The same is the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment.
“13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that may be’ proved, and something that will be proved’. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental
22
distance between may be’ and must be’ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between may be’ true and must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between may be’ true and must be’ true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017;
23
and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979).”
“8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of
24
the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka1, laid down the following principles: (2007) 4 SCC 415
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
25
review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
26
this court that the finding recorded by the trial court needs interference by this court.
ORDER
The appeal sans merit. Hence dismissed.
The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused stands cancelled.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
MNS/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution establishes that the accused had forcible intercourse with the victim girl?
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal calls for interference by the High Court?
Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence in the court and merits corroboration?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sujit Biswas V/s. State of AssamRelied on¶113
Sujit Biswas V/s. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SC+C 406
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P.Referred¶115
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 · Who else cites this
State through CBI v. Mahender Singh DahiyaReferred¶115
State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.Referred¶115
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979 · Who else cites this
Sampat Babso Kale and another V/s. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶119
Sampat Babso Kale and another V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (4) SCC 739 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶120
Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2007(4) SCC 415 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, KUMARAPATTANAM POLICE STATION THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
RAJU S/O BASAVARAJAPPA BAKKAJJI
B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
V. SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
