K. Muniraju vs State of Karnataka represented by its Public Prosecutor

N. Ananda, J.—The appeal is pending for admission since seven years. The lower court records are received. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. The appellant (accused No. 1) and accused No. 2 and 3 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 406, 420 read with Section- 34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused no 2 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 402, 420 r/w 34 IPC and acquitted accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC. Therefore, accused No. 1 has filed this appeal.

I have heard Shri. K. Hanumantharayappa, learned counsel appearing for accused and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

In view of the acquittal of accused No. 2 to 3 for aforesaid offences and conviction of accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC, the following points would arise for determination:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved that during the period between April 2004 to July 2004 accused No. 1 induced PW-1 that he would marry her and brought her to Bangalore and committed rape on her in the house of PW-5 Billappa and caused her pregnancy and ultimately broke his promise to marry her. Thereby accused No. 1 committed an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC?

(ii) Whether the learned Trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record?

(iii) To what order?

PW-1 is the victim of offence she is a native of Salinger, Vellore district, Tamil Nadu. It appears the accused was working in TVS Factory at Vellore. The accused was a distant relative of PW-1, the accused induced PW-1 that he would marry her and brought her to Bangalore and took a house on lease from PW-5, Billappa. PW-2, Sathish Kumar, a friend of accused assisted the accused in taking the house on lease from PW-5, Billappa, The accused and victim were living in the said house.

On 12.04.2004, the accused committed rape on the victim. When the victim resisted, the accused told her that he would marry her and she should not worry. The accused continued his activities of sexually exploiting P.W. 1 (victim), all along he was assuring P.W. 1 that he would marry her. P.W. 1 conceived. When she demanded the accused to marry him, the accused brought her to the house at Nagenahalli wherein, his brother and father (accused No. 2) were staying. The accused successfully dodged P.W. 1 for some time and thereafter he wanted to marry a girl by name Sridevi. P.W. 1 (victim) secured her parents and went to the parental house of accused at Kurubarahalli. The accused and his parents flatly refused the proposal of parents of victim. By then, victim was carrying six months pregnancy. She lodged the first information and she was subjected to medical examination, which confirmed that she was carrying six months pregnancy.

From the tenor of cross-examination of P.W. 1, we find that accused has denied that he had sexual intercourse with P.W. 1 (victim). On the other hand, accused No. 1 had made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that P.W. 1 had illicit intimacy with P.W. 2 and she was living with P.W. 2.

From the evidence of victim, we find that accused has made a farce marriage by tying a turmeric piece around her neck however, during trial, accused has denied any type of relationship with the victim. On the other hand, he had made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that P.W. 1 was a woman of lose character and she had conceived through somebody.

At this juncture, it is necessary to state that victim is a native of Solinger village in Vellore District (Tamilnadu State). She would not have come alone to occupy a house in Nagenahalli at Bangalore. The evidence on record does not indicate that the victim had any grudge or ill-will against accused No. 1 to falsely implicate him. The suggestions put to P.W. 1 that she was a woman of lose character and she had illicit intimacy with P.W. 2 would clearly demonstrate that accused knew the victim. The accused has not denied that he wanted to marry a girl by name Sridevi. Therefore, there are no reasons to suspect the evidence of victim. The evidence of victim also finds corroboration from the medical evidence which proves that she had conceived and had given birth to a female child.

P.W. 2-Sathish Kumar has deposed; that he knows accuse No. 1 and the victim (P.W. 1). P.W. 2 has deposed; that on 30.03.2004, accused No. 1 brought the victim to his house and told P.W. 2 that he had married the victim and he was searching for a house on lease. The adjacent house of P.W. 2 was vacant P.W. 2 showed the house to accused No. 1. The accused took that house on lease. Accused No. 1 and victim were living in that house for a period of 8 months.

During cross-examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that accused No. 1 is his friend and the victim is from Solinger village (Tamil Nadu). The distance between native place of P.W. 2 and native place of victim is 10 or 15 kms. P.W. 2 has admitted that victim is related to the father of accused No. 1 (second accused). He has denied the suggestion that he had illicit intimacy with the victim and he had caused pregnancy of victim. He has denied the suggestion that he had thrown the blame on the accused to falsely implicate him. Thus, we find that accused has made an unsuccessful attempt to shift the blame on P.W. 2 to portray P.W. 2 as a villain of troy.

P.W. 3-Subramanyaswamy is the father of one Sridevi. He had arranged the marriage of his daughter with the first accused. He learnt from victim that accused had already married the victim. Therefore, he cancelled the marriage of his daughter with first accused. The evidence of P.W. 3 would lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of victim. The evidence of P.W. 3 has not been seriously controverted.

P.W. 5-Pillappa is the owner of house in which accused and victim were residing. P.W. 5 has deposed; that on 09.08.2004, he had let out his house to accused No. 1 through P.W. 2. P.W. 5 has deposed; that P.W. 2-Sathish had brought accused No. 1 and victim stating that he has married the victim and they wanted a house on lease. As demanded by P.W. 5, accused and P.W. 2 gave a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance and agree to pay a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month. Accused No. 1 and victim were living in that house. They were living as husband and wife and they were cordial for a period of six months.

During cross-examination, P.W. 5 has denied the suggestion that he had not let out the house to accused. He has admitted that he did not enquire with the accused when and where he had married the victim. He has denied the suggestion that there was cordiality between P.W. 2 and the victim.

P.W. 6-Vasantha is the mother of victim (P.W. 1). P.W. 6 has deposed; that first accused had fallen in love with victim, therefore, they had met accused No. 2 and requested him to perform the marriage of the victim but he did not agree. The accused had taken the victim to Bangalore and had set up a house where accused and victim were living together. After a period of six months, the victim returned to her native place and informed her parents that accused with the help of his parents is getting ready to marry another girl. This witness has been declared as hostile witness for resiling from part of her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

During cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, P.W. 6 has admitted that she had not visited the house of accused and victim.

During cross-examination, she has admitted that accused had induced belief in the victim that he would many her and brought the victim to Bangalore. In the circumstances, P.W. 6-Vasantha (mother of victim) had not visited the house of accused at Bangalore. Therefore, her conduct is not inconsistent with her evidence.

P.W. 7-Dr. Trishula Joshi had examined the victim in Bowring Hospital on 07.09.2004. On examination, she found that victim was carrying 8 months pregnancy. The evidence of P.W. 7 has not been controverted.

P.W. 8-Rajanna is a resident of Nagenahalli. He has deposed; that accused and victim were living together in one of the tenements of P.W. 5.

P.W. 10-Jayakumar is the father of victim. P.W. 10 has deposed; that the accused No. 1 had fallen in love with the victim and he had brought the victim to Bangalore. P.W. 10 learnt that victim was comfortable with the accused however, the trouble started when the accused wanted to marry another girl.

During cross-examination, P.W. 10 has asserted that victim gave birth to a child and that accused had caused pregnancy of victim.

P.W. 11-Mylamma is the mother of Sridevi whom the accused No. 1 wanted to marry. P.W. 11 has deposed; that they had arranged the marriage of their daughter with accused No. 1. Later, they came to know that parents of victim had lodged a complaint against the accused stating that accused No. 1 is already married. Therefore, the marriage was cancelled. P.W. 11 is an independent witness. She had no grudge or ill will against the accused, she was not related or friendly with the victim. There are no reasons to suspect the evidence of P.W. 1.

Thus, on over all appreciation of evidence, we find that the accused by inducing belief in victim that he would marry her had brought the victim to Bangalore from her parental house without the knowledge and consent of her parents. The accused committed rape on the victim by holding our promise to marry her. The conduct of accused would reveal that he had dishonest intention to cheat the victim from the inception. This is evident from the fact that he had brought the victim to Bangalore without the knowledge and consent of her parents. If the accused had genuine intention to lead marital life with the victim, there was no reason for him to bring the victim by inducing belief that he would marry her without the knowledge and consent of her parents and set up a separate house. The accused after causing pregnancy of the victim has tried to shift the blame on P.W. 2.

The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence and totality of circumstances and also following the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, has held that, though the offence does not fall under the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC has held that accused had made a false promise to victim and he had taken advantage of the situation. The learned sessions Judge had held that the offence falls within the definition of 415 IPC and convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC.

The accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Considering the nature of offences, facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that sentence imposed by the trial court is severe.

There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.