Dismissed

Sri Vipin Vijayan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2020CRL.RP/588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC rejected a criminal revision seeking discharge of the petitioner in a rape and assault case. The court held that at the charge framing stage, the trial court need not ascertain veracity of allegations, noting prima facie evidence under IPC Sections 376, 323, and 506 supported the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; petition ₣ devoid of any merits.

Sri Vipin Vijayan Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.588/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Vipin Vijayan, S/o. Sri. Vijayan, Aged about 30 years, R/at C/o. Venkat, Near HDFC Bank, Vinayakanagara, Bagalur Cross, Yelahanka, Bengaluru – 560 064.

¶9

Permanent Address Valsaliam House, Near Calicut Medical College, Calicut, Kerala – 673 008. …Petitioner (By Smt. V. Nagamani, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka, By Chikakajala P.S., Bengaluru Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001 ...Respondent (By Smt. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP)

¶12

¶13

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 03.06.2020 passed by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, and to discharge the petitioner in S.C.No.166/2019 pending before the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court through video conference made the following:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶17

HCGP for respondent.

¶18

Petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed by petitioner/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

The main contention urged by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the complaint lodged against the petitioner/accused is false and vexatious and there was delay of 8 months in initiating criminal action; no medical certificate was produced to corroborate the interested testimony of the complainant; the averments made in the

¶20

¶21

complaint on the face of it indicate that since petitioner/accused refused to marry the complainant, false charges have been foisted against the petitioner/accused.

¶22

The above contentions cannot militate against the orders passed by the trial Court. It is trite law, that, at the stage of framing charges, the trial Court, no doubt, is required to assess the material to arrive at a conclusion that the allegations made against the accused prima-facie make out the ingredients of the offences, but the court is not required to ascertain the correctness or the veracity of the said allegations. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint were false and that no corroborative evidence were produced in support thereof cannot be accepted.

¶23

A reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein prima-facie disclose ingredients of the offences under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC. That apart, the material collected by the Investigating Agency by way of statement of witnesses and statement of the prosecutrix

¶24

¶25

and the eye witness clearly point out the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. In the wake of these allegations and the material produced before the Court, there was absolutely no ground to discharge the petitioner.

¶26

For the said reason, petition being devoid of any merits, is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected .

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

Sri Vipin Vijayan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vipin Vijayan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri D C Gowri Shankar Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Rakesh @ Roshan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Ramesh Bettaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

B S Panduranga Singh Vs State of Karnataka

B S Panduranga Singh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Raj Kumar Dhupar Vs State of Karnataka