Raghavendra vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 342, 376 and 504 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 23/2015.

Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that the victim herself is the complainant in this case which was lodged on 12.04.2015. The allegations are that on 10.04.2015 she went to the roof of her house to close the apertures at which time the petitioner came to the roof and attacked her holding tightly and took her to the roof of her brother-Chatrappa''s house gagging her mouth with towel and committed rape on her. The incident occurred at around 9.00 p.m. When the accused was committing rape on her forcibly she was resisting and due to her resistance mud of the roof of the house of her brother Chatrappa was falling Hence, her brother came to the rooftop. On seeing him the petitioner ran away. She came down with her brother and informed about the things to her parents who in turn took the matter to the elders which was settled. It is also alleged that on 11.04.2015 around 7 p.m. the petitioner came in front of their house and abused her parents and brother stating that he spoiled her and what they do, etc. She informed the same to the elders and then she lodged complaint on 12.04.2015. On the basis of the said complaint a case has been registered for the alleged offence.

I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and also the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even looking to the entire charge sheet material no case is made out by the prosecution that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence u/S 376 of IPC. Hence, he submitted that, by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra learned Govt. Pleader made submission that, looking to the averments in the complaint and also the statement of the victim girl they go to show that the present petitioner came on the roof of the house and there he committed sexual intercourse forcibly. She also submitted that the offences alleged are also under the provisions of POCSO Act and the girl was 16 years age as on the date of the alleged incident. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and all the materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition.

The alleged incident said to have been taken place on 10.04.2015 and the complaint was lodged on 12.04.2015 and there is a delay of two days. It is also mentioned that when the matter was taken before the elders of the village they advised the present petitioner and the issue was closed but when on 11.04.2015, i.e., on the next day of the incident again the petitioner came to the house of the petitioner and abused the victim girl and her family members. Then they took decision to lodge complaint. Here statement of the victim girl was also recorded before the Magistrate Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On perusing the said statement recorded on 14.04.2015 in C.R. No. 23/2015 in the last line of the said statement on page No. 2 it clearly goes to show that on the date of the incident the present petitioner has not done sexual intercourse on her and on the next day, i.e., on Saturday he again called her and abused that he wanted to do sexual intercourse on her. This statement of the victim girl given on oath before the Magistrate itself prima facie goes to show that on the alleged date 10.04.2015 no such incident of forcible sexual intercourse was done on her by the present petitioner.

I have also perused the medical report and the FSL Report. Looking to the FSL Report totally 10 articles were sent for their examination. Looking to the result of the analysis and opinion presence of seminal stains were not detected in item Nos. 3 to 5, 6 and 9 and 10. Presence of spermatozoa was not detected in item Nos. 1 and 2. Content in item No. 7 was disintegrated. So also I have gone through the final opinion given by the Medical Officer, P.H.C., Gunnal. In the Medical opinion the Doctor has mentioned that as per the FSL Report and medical examination at item No. 1 it is mentioned by the Doctor on 08.08.2015 that there are no signs of suggestive of recent sexual intercourse.

Looking to the material on record so also the medical evidence I am of the opinion the petitioner has made out a case for his release on bail. Investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet is filed. With regard to the apprehension of the prosecution stringent conditions can be imposed which will safeguard interest of the prosecution. Accordingly, the following order is passed.

Petition is allowed. Petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail of the alleged offences subject to the following conditions.

"1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

2) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly and indirectly.

3) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly."