Lakkappa Manguli vs The State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar

Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused in Crime No. 24/2012 registered by Kolhar Police station for the offence punishable under sections 447, 323, 376(f) of IPC is seeking for being enlarged on bail Heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned HCGP appearing for the State. Perused the records made available.

Gist of the prosecution case is that a complaint came to be lodged by Sri. Yallappa, S/o Laxman Beerkatti alleging that he along with wife and daughter went to their land for grazing of the cow accompanied by his brother to graze his sheep and it was stated in the complaint that complainant''s daughter aged about 11 years was grazing cattles near ''Banari'' and suddenly they heard hue and cry of their daughter and when they rushed towards the said place they found Sri. Lakkappa, accused had committed rape on their daughter by closing her mouth by ''shoving a towel''. It is stated that on seeing them accused ran away from the said place and thereafter they took her to the hospital and filed a complaint against accused. The investigation was taken up and accused was arrested on next day i.e., 05.03.2012 and was remanded to judicial custody.

It is the contention of Sri. Shivanand, Learned Counsel that petitioner is not guilty of the offence and with a political motive and to wreck vengence and to harass the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the said case and in view of the charge sheet having been filed and petitioner being a permanent resident of the village he would not abscond from the village and he would abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court for being enlarged on bail and as such he prays for petitioner being enlarged on bail.

Per contra learned HCGP would oppose the prayer sought for by the petitioner and prays for rejection of the same on the ground that there is overwhelming evidence against petitioner and contends that a minor girl has been raped who was less than 12 years and as such ingredients of section 376(f) of IPC is attracted to the facts on hand to which the punishment imposed on being found guilty would be 10 years rigorous imprisonment and as such he prays for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard the learned advocates and on perusal of the records it would disclose that victim girl was aged as per the complaint 9 years and as per the report of the doctor more than 12 years less than 13 years. The doctor has also opined as under:

Reasons assigned of penetration present in the form of genital wounds.

Jyothi Yellappa is used to act that of sexual intercourse.

Pending for forensic laboratory report.

It would emerge from the said report that victim girl was aged around 12 years and doctor has categorically opined that there was recent sexual intercourse and the medical examination report of the accused would also corroborate this fact and thus it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused during the course of the trial and scrutiny of rival contentions with regard to age of victim girl at this stage would prejudice the case of prosecution as also the case of accused. In that view of the matter I do not find any good ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail and also in view of the fact that victim herself has also given a statement supporting the contents of the complaint. In the event of petitioner being found guilty, punishment would be 10 years rigorous imprisonment and merely because investigation is concluded and charge sheet filed would not be a good ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail there is likelihood of petitioner absconding from the jurisdiction of the court. As such I do not find any good ground to entertain the petition, same is hereby rejected.