Dismissed

Ramesh v. State by Women Police Station

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2021CRL.P/5994/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A high court judge dismissed a successive bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for rape trials. The court held that the absence of seminal stains in the FSL report and medical examination was not a ground to deny bail or suggest innocence, given corroborating evidence of assault and medical injury.

What did the court decide?

The successive bail petition was dismissed; the petitioner was not granted regular bail.

Ramesh Vs State by Women Police Station — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5994 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

RAMESH S/O. RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANAVASE VILLAGE, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK – 573 120.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI KRISHNEGOWDA B.D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, HASSAN – 573 201, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.78/2020 (S.C.NO.119/2021) REGISTERED BY HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION, HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 341, 376, 448 AND 323 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This successive bail petition is filed by the petitioneraccused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.78/2020 registered by Hassan Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’)

¶20

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the victim who is aged about 58 years herself has filed a complaint alleging that she is a widow and having a daughter, who is already married and staying in her in-laws house. The victim was staying alone in her house. That on 29.07.2020, at about 10.00 am., this petitioner being the son of one Rangegowda had broken the har-par sheet of the roof of the house of the complainant with stone and trespassed the house. Thereafter, the petitioner committed

¶22

¶23

forcible rape and he has also bitten on the chest and other parts of the body of the victim. He also assaulted her by threatening her to commit murder and after committing rape, he fled away from the spot. On the next morning, she informed the same to the elders of the village namely Sathish, Madhu, Mohan Kumar and thereafter, she went to the Police station and lodged a complaint. Subsequently on the next day i.e., on 30.07.2020, the Police arrested this petitioner. Both petitioner and the victim were subjected to the medical examination.

¶24

The petitioner approached this Court for granting bail in Crl.P.No.1570/2021, which came to be rejected on 25.03.2021. Now the Police have already filed the chargesheet and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended mainly on the ground that the Police took the victim for the medical examination and collected the vaginal smear and the other articles were sent to the FSL.

¶26

¶27

The FSL report issued by the FSL does not indicate any seminal stain of the victim in order to connect with the crime. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶28

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the same.

¶29

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, of course, this Court has already rejected the bail petition of this petitioner on merits. However, the FSL report was not received earlier while considering the bail petition. The material goes to show that the complainant has stated that the petitioner has trespassed the house of the victim by breaking the har-par sheet of the roof of the house with stone and has committed forcible rape on her. He has also bitten on the chest and other parts of the body of the victim and after assaulting her, he has committed rape. The FSL report of course reveals that there is no seminal stain found on article Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 9, 10 and 11 sent by the Police. The low vaginal smear and high vaginal

¶30

¶31

smear do not contain any seminal stain and even their clothes and pubic hair also do not contain any stains. But the medical report of the victim and the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., clearly go to show that the petitioner who is aged about 26 years committed sexual assault on the victim who is aged about 58 years. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is falsely implicated against the petitioneraccused by the Political motive, but no document is produced to show that he is politically influenced person. In order to hamper the image of the petitioner, the victim has filed a false complaint. On the other hand, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and the medical record especially physical examination report reveals that there was a bitten mark on her body. The hymen also reveals that there were multiple bruise on the left labia minora and there was a small tear in the fourchette. This suggests that there is a sexual assault on the victim. Therefore, I am of the view that merely the FSL report does not reveal any seminal stain, but that itself is

¶32

¶33

not a ground to say that there was no sexual assault on the victim. Hence, the successive bail petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed .

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

GBB

Ramesh v. State by Women Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. State by Women Police Station

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. M.P. Raghavendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh Kamath K Vs the State of Karnataka

R v Nathan Vs a P Mahesh

Karunakar K R Vs Jagadish K.J.

Syed Afroz @ Appu Vs the State of Karnataka by

Manjunatha J. M. @ Manju @ M.M.T. Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka