Gavisiddappa vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 506, 376, 109, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC and also Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 39/2015.

Brief facts of the prosecution case that one Yankappa filed the complaint stating that he was residing with his wife and two children namely Praveen and Gangamma. Gangamma is the victim in this case, she was pursuing her SSLC examination. Petitioner, was the relative of the complainant, he used to visit the house of the complainant and he was very close and having cordial with the family members, particularly with Gangamma. On 13.04.2015, when the victim did not returned home after attending her exam, at 4.00 p.m., the complainant went to her school and enquired and thereafter, he went to Durgamma''s house, who is the friend of victim, and enquired, she revealed that at 1.00 p.m. the victim attended her SSLC examination and she was waiting for a bus for returning to home in a bus stand, at that time it is alleged that the petitioner came to the bus stop and offered a drop to the victim and even after her protest, she was made to board the motorcycle and thus the petitioner, victim and accused No. 2 left the place. Thereafter, complainant made efforts to search his daughter and thereafter, he lodged the complaint on the basis of which, case has been registered.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the averments in the complaint, so also the other materials collected by the prosecution, no prima-facie case has been made out against the petitioner that he has committed the alleged offence of rape on the victim girl. Learned counsel has also submitted that even looking to the medical opinion, the doctor has not noticed any external injuries on the body of the victim girl. He has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution that victim girl was taken to different places by the petitioner namely Haveri, Hangal and Balehalli, if she was taken forcibly, she could have protested. Hence, submitted that even if the allegations are accepted, it shows that victim herself went along with the petitioner. Hence, he has submitted that when the case of the prosecution is not supported by the medical evidence and accused No. 2 has already been granted bail by the order of this Court, petitioner may been enlarged on bail by imposing reasonable conditions.

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has submitted that the statement of the victim girl itself is sufficient to show prima-facie case as against the petitioner. He has submitted that in her statement she has clearly stated that when she was asked to board the vehicle brought by accused Nos. 1 and 2 she asked where they are taking her, at that time petitioner threatened her if she did not accompany them and made any hue and cry, then they will finish off her. This itself is sufficient to show to the query raised by the other side that she could have raised hue and cry. He has further submitted that the medical report is also supporting the case of the prosecution, there is signs of sexual intercourse, it is mentioned by the doctor that hymen was ruptured. The age of the girl was shown as 16 years, even the offence under the provisions of POSCO Act is also registered against the petitioner. Hence, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

Perused the averments made in the bail petition and the grounds urged in the bail petition, complaint, FIR and other materials produced along with the petition and the order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.

Perusing the statement of the victim girl, it is clearly stated that the petitioner along with accused No. 2 came on the motorcycle when she was waiting for the bus at 1.00 p.m. after attending her SSLC examination and forcibly she was taken on the motorcycle. Thereafter accused No. 2 was sent back along with the vehicle and accused No. 1-petitioner took her to various places i.e., Haveri, Hangal and Balehalli. She has also stated that at Balehalli the petitioner took one room on rental basis and kept her in the said room and he committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. He used to go outside by closing the window and locking the door from outside.

I have also perused the medical opinion wherein the doctor, who examined the victim girl, has opined that hymen is ruptured and there are signs of sexual intercourse. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No. 2 is already granted bail by the order of this Court, there is no allegation as against accused No. 2 that he has committed rape on the victim girl, the only allegation as against accused No. 2 is that he instigated and aided accused No. 1 in kidnapping the victim girl. Therefore, the ground of parity is not made applicable to the petitioner. The statement of Durgavva, the friend of the victim girl, shows that when both of them were waiting in the bus stand, the petitioner along with accused No. 2 came there with the vehicle and took the victim girl on the vehicle, she has also stated that as the petitioner is the relative of the victim girl, she kept mum.

Perusing all these materials produced by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Hence, petition stands rejected.