State of Karnataka vs Devappa @ Devegowda

N. Ananda, J.—The respondent (accused) was tried and convicted for an offence punishable u/s 354/IPC. Therefore, he was before the I-appellate court. The learned judge of the I-appellate court has reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused. Therefore, the State is before this court. I have heard learned Government Advocate for the State. The respondent though served is not represented.

It is the case of prosecution that on 18.04.2004 at about 5.30 a.m., on 18.04.2004 in Uppara Colony, Gowribidanur Taluk, the accused used criminal force by dragging the victim namely Shyamala (P.W. 1) and outraged her modesty, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 354 IPC.

The evidence of victim reveals that there was civil dispute between the victim and accused. The victim (P.W. 1) has deposed; on the date of incident, at about 5.30 a.m., her mother had carried the milk to Gowribidanur town. When the victim was tying buffaloes, accused came and outraged her modesty by using criminal force and in the incident her bangles were broken. The witness namely Shivamma (P.W. 3) came and rescued the victim.

During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that at the time of incident, there was civil dispute between P.W. 1 and the accused. P.W. 3-Shivamma had come in search of her buffalo. P.W. 1 was not aware if accused had filed a criminal case against her father.

The police had visited the place of incident at about 1.30 p.m., on 18.04.2004.

The victim has admitted that there was pre-existing enmity between the parties and civil litigations are pending. The evidence of victim that accused used criminal force and dragged her does not inspire confidence. The victim had not suffered any injuries. If the accused had used criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty, it looks improbable that victim had escaped unhurt.

P.W. 2-Jayamma is the mother of victim. She is a post-occurrence witness. P.W. 2 has deposed; that after she returned home, she learnt from the victim that accused tried to outrage modesty of victim.

P.W. 3-Shivamma is stated to have witnessed the incident. P.W. 3 has deposed; that on the date of incident, at about 5.00 a.m., (early morning) she came near the house of victim in search of her missing buffalo; the accused was dragging the victim; the bangles of victim were broken. During cross-examination, she has admitted that the incident took place in between 6.00 to 6.30 a.m., and there was dawn. She was not aware whether accused ran away from that place. She was not aware of reasons for quarrel between the victim and accused.

The evidence of P.W. 3 does not inspire confidence. P.W. 3 had deposed that she had seen the accused dragging the victim. In the next breath, she has deposed that she does not know the reasons for quarrel between P.W. 1 and the accused.

P.W. 1 has deposed that accused ran away after the incident. During cross-examination, she has deposed that she was not aware if accused ran away from that place.

At this stage, it is relevant to state that the house of accused is at a distance of 200 feet from the house of victim. The alleged incident had taken place at about 5.30 a.m., on 18.04.2004 in Uppara Colony of Gowribidanur Taluk. The place of incident is at a distance of 1 kilometer from the police station. The first information was lodged at about 1.30 p.m., on 18.04.2004. The victim (P.W. 1) has not given the reasons for delay in lodging the first information.

The learned judge of the I-appellate court considering previous enmity between the victim and accused, conduct of the victim subsequent to offence, absence of medical evidence and corroborative evidence, has acquitted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.