Annappa Mariyappa Hiremani vs State of Karnataka

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. The appellant is before this Court, questioning the conviction and punishment imposed on him for the offences punishable under Sections-506, 324, 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as "the IPC'', for brevity) and having been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for an offence under Section 376, IPC, to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for an offence under Section 307, IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence under Section 324 and to undergo imprisonment for one year for an offence under Section 506 of IPC. 3. It was the case of the prosecution that on 26.06.2011 at about 5.30 p.m when the victim Bheemawwa (PW.2) a six years old girl and her brother Manjappa (PW.4) were going to their field at the Neljeri-Kudarimoti road cross near Government Primary School, the accused took the victim girl on his bicycle on the pretext of giving biscuits to her and took her to a ditch situated in the land of Sannabasanagouda Police Patel, threatened her, assaulted her on the nose and neck with a stone and committed rape on her. The Investigation Officer, after completion of the investigation had filed a charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is in this background, the accused stood trial on the charges framed against him. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses, as PW. 1 to PW.22 and got marked the documents as at Ex.P.1 to P.15 and the material objects MOs. 1 to 6. The trial Court, on a close examination of the evidence that was tendered at the trial has found that the charges were established beyond reasonable doubt and has convicted the accused and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised several contentions. It is contended that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, which is not proved. That the victim (PW.2) had admitted in her cross examination that the accused has not done anything to her and she was not taken anywhere, nor was she or her brother threatened and hence, the impugned judgment is perverse. There is a contradiction in the testimony of the victim (PW.2) and her brother (PW.4). That PWs.3, 5, 18 & 20, the circumstantial witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and hence, the judgment of conviction, based on the said circumstantial evidence is incorrect. The trial Court has failed to consider the inconsistency in the medical evidence of PWs. 12, 13, 16 & 19 and that there was no evidence of semen found in the vagina of the victim. Viewed from these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the case against the appellant is clearly manipulated and he has been convicted without any basis or acceptable evidence which would support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the learned counsel seeks the acquittal of the appellant. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to justify the judgment of the trial Court and would contend that the trial Court, accepting the evidence of father of the victim PW.1, the victim PW.2, brother of the victim PW.4, the mother of the victim PW.6, and the other circumstantial witnesses, PWs. 13 & 20 and the evidence of the doctors PWs. 13, 19, 16 and medical certificate as per Ex.P.8, P.13 and P.10 respectively and the trial Court having assigned reasons and discussed the evidence at length, in arriving at its findings, cannot be found fault with on the pleas that are now raised in this appeal and would seek dismissal of the appeal. 7. In view of the above rival contentions, we have carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record. PW.2 is the victim girl. While identifying the accused, she has categorically stated that the accused took her on his bicycle on the pretext that he would provide her biscuits and thereafter took her to a bush and it is the accused who has indeed forcibly raped her and assaulted her. PW.4 is the brother of the victim who had accompanied the victim on the date of incident and he has deposed that the accused took his sister on the bicycle. The other circumstantial witnesses i.e., PWs. 3 & 20 who have noticed the victim, after the incident, coming crying with the bleeding injuries, with whom the victim has narrated the incident and they having taken the victim to her residence. Their evidence has been clearly corroborated by the father and mother of the victim namely, PWs.1 & 6. The panch witnesses for spot mahazar and the recovery mahazar have also supported the case of the prosecution. 8. PW.13, the Medical Officer of the public hospital at Kustagi has stated in his evidence that on 26.06.2011 at about 8.15 p.m., the victim girl was brought to the hospital by the parents of the victim accompanied by the police and on her examination, he found that the victim was semi conscious and that there was a scratch wounds were found around her neck, nose and heavy bleeding from her vagina and according to him, those injuries/wounds were caused just 1 to 2 hours prior to her examination. He has further stated that after giving proper medicine, the victim regained consciousness and thereafter, he referred the victim to a lady Medical Officer namely, Dr. Meenakumari (PW.19) for further examination and he had issued a wound certificate as at Ex.P.8. He has opined that the injuries/wounds found on the victim could have been caused by sharp finger nails and the same could be caused at the time when one attempts to try to escape from forcible sexual intercourse and that the bleeding found on the vagina of the victim could be caused only if the victim had been subjected to forcible intercourse. 9. PW.19 Dr. Meenakumari, the lady Medical Officer who examined the victim has stated in her evidence that on 26.06.2011 she has examined the victim at 9.00 p.m and found that there was heavy bleeding from her vagina and since the hospital was not fully equipped with the medical instruments, she has referred the victim to the KIMS hospital at Hubli for better treatment and she had issued certificate as at Ex.P.13. PW.16 is the another Medical Officer at KIMS hospital at Hubli who treated the victim. He has stated in his evidence that the victim has been referred to him for examination through a Woman Police Constable with the history of forcible sexual intercourse on her. He has deposed in his evidence that on examination of the victim he found the following injuries on her: 1. Abrasion over the right forearm size 4 Cms. 2. Abrasion over the left side of the neck-multiple, 3. Bite marks over the neck, three in numbers. 4. Petechial marks over the left forearm, 5. Bruise over the nose epistaxis present, 6. Abrasion over the abdomen size 3 Cms. On examination of Genital organ the following injuries had been noticed. 1. Hymen absent. 2. Irregular tags present, 3. Bleedings spot present, no active bleeding. 4. Posterior vaginal wall prolapsed present, 5. Introits gaping present. 6. Introits admit little finger easily. Accordingly, PW.16, the Medical Officer at KIMS hospital, Hubli had issued medical certificate as at Ex.P.10 and rendered his opinion to the effect that those injuries could be caused only when the victim tried to escape from forcible sexual intercourse. 10. Apart from the above medical evidence in respect of the victim, there is further medical evidence available on record in respect of the accused to indicate that he has indeed committed the rape. PW.12 is the another Medical Officer who has examined the accused and issued certificate as at Ex.P.7 has opined that the accused was capable of having sexual intercourse. The FSL report submitted in respect of the clothes seized on the person of the accused also clearly reveals that there were seminal stains detected on the clothes worn by the accused, at the time of the incident. 11. The above narrated circumstantial evidence in the form of the statement of the victim girl (PW.2), her parents (PWs. 1 & 6), her brother (PW.4), panch witnesses for spot and recovery mahazar (PWs.7, 8 & 9) and the independent circumstantial witnesses (PWs. 3, 19 & 20) who have indeed witnessed the victim coming crying towards them with the injuries on her body, coupled with the medical evidence clearly establishes the circumstances and chain of events that clearly and unerringly point towards the guilty of the accused who took the six years old minor to a secluded place where he had inhumanly committed rape on her and attempted to kill her by assaulting her with a stone. Keeping in view the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, it is relevant to state that PW.1 being the Investigation Officer who conducted spot panchanama as per Ex.P.3, in the presence of the panch witnesses. The scene of crime, as shown by PW.4, the brother of the victim. As the evidence of PWs. 2 & 4 are found to corroborate each other, the said evidence has been rightly analysed by the trial Court. The evidence put forth by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that he committed rape upon PW.2. Therefore, it can be said that the case against the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. All these material on record would convince us that the Court below has evaluated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and rightly arrived at its conclusion, on the basis of the material evidence on record and there is no reason to disbelieve or negate the case of the prosecution. The case against the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the sentences of imprisonment, imposed on the appellant, shall run concurrently. .