State of Karnataka vs Rudrappa Vithal Mushennavar

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

The present appeal is preferred against a judgment of acquittal by the Court below in the following circumstances:

"The complainant was one Kallappa Somaningappa Mayannavar, a resident of Kulamanatti village, Bailhongal taluk, Belgaum district. It was his case that he had a wife, two daughters and two sons. Of them Kumari Deepa was aged about 16 and she was his second daughter. She was a school student studying in the SMK High School of Sangolli village. She would go to school on her bicycle from her village to Sangolli."

It was alleged that on 24.09.2011 at about 8 a.m., Deepa, along with her friend, one Veereshwari, went to school on their bicycles.

At about 9 a.m., when the complainant was at home, he was informed by a teacher of Sangolli High School and the father of Veereshwari who had come to their house, that when Deepa was going towards school, near Kulamanatti cross, accused No. 1 Rudrappa Vithal Mushennavar along with Annappa Vithal Mushennavar had come together there in a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No. KA-26/6269 and had restrained Deepa and forcibly taken her in their vehicle and had driven away. On the basis of the information provided by father of Veereshwari, the complainant is said to have desperately searched for Deepa and when he could not trace her, he had lodged a complaint with the Bailhongal Police Station, on the same day, at 5 p.m. The Station House Officer had registered a case in Cr. No. 206/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 366-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC, for brevity) against both the accused, and had submitted a First Information Report to the competent Court.

Another complaint was lodged by the victim Deepa herself on 24.09.2011 stating that when she and Veereshwari were proceeding towards their school and when they had reached Kulamanatti cross, accused Nos. 1 and 2 came there in a car and blocked their path. They had restrained Deepa and forcibly taken her in the vehicle though she had put up a fight and started screaming. Accused No. 2 is said to have abused her in foul language and he had threatened her with danger to her life and therefore, she had to restrain herself. It is in this manner that she had been taken to Dodwad where they had stopped the vehicle at a pan beeda shop. Taking this opportunity, Deepa is said to have escaped from the vehicle and had run towards the bus stand. She had hidden herself in a haystack behind the bus stand. After some time, she had managed to come home.

On the basis of the said complaint, the Investigation Officer had added Sections 504, 506 and 114 read with Section 34 IPC, to the allegations against the accused. Then the accused were arrested. Accused No. 1 was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and accused No. 2 was produced before the Juvenile Court, as he was a minor. The Investigation Officer had conducted a spot mahazar and seized the vehicle belonging to the accused which was said to have been used for the commission of the offence and released the vehicle in favour of the registered owner at a later point of time. On further investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Magistrate and a separate charge-sheet against accused No. 2 was filed before the Juvenile Court. The Judicial Magistrate had then supplied the charge-sheet to accused No. 1 under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Cr.P.C. for brevity) and committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC, was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The charges having been framed by the Court below, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined 15 witnesses and marked several exhibits as Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.19 and material objects as exhibits M.O.1 and M.O.2. On the basis of the said evidence and having heard the arguments, the Court below had framed the following points for its consideration:

"1. Whether the prosecution proves that accused No. 1 Rudrappa Vithal Mushennavar along with his younger brother i.e., Juvinile offender by name Annappa Vithal Mushennavar together were teasing the victim Kumari Deepa D/o. Kallappa Mayannavar on the road from Kulumanatti to Sangolli village whenever she was going to her high school on her bicycle along with her friend Kumari Veereshwari further accused No. 1 and his brother Annappa on 24.09.2011 at 8.30 A.M. on Kulumanatti-Sangolli Road, at Kulumanatti Cross chased her with their TATA ACE No. KA-26/6269 four wheeler vehicle and by stopping their vehicle accused No. 1 and his brother Annappa went in front of Kumari Deepa and wrongfully restrained her to go in her direction and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 341 R/W Sec. 34 of IPC?

Whether the prosecution further proves that on the date, time and place mentioned above, the accused No. 1 and his younger brother juvenile offender Annappa having with their common intention wrongfully restrained victim Deepa and abused her in a filthy language like "Bhosadi" etc., and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 504 R/W Sec. 34 of IPC?

Whether the prosecution further proves that on the date, time and place mentioned above, the accused No. 1 and his younger brother i.e., juvenile offender by name Annappa having with their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Deepa and abused her in a filthy language and also gave threat to her life saying that they will throw acid on her face and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 506 R/W Sec. 34 of IPC?

Whether the prosecution further proves that on the date, time and place mentioned above, the accused No. 1 and his younger brother i.e., juvenile offender by name Annappa having with their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Deepa and abused her in a filthy language and also have threat to her life saying that they will throw acid on her face and when the complainant protested for the high handedness of these accused persons, the brother of accused No. 1 viz.. Annappa Mushennavar (juvenile offender) abetted the accused No. 1 to kidnap the complainant Deepa and to throw her in the vehicle and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 114 R/W Sec. 34 IPC?

Whether the prosecution further proves that on the date, time and place mentioned above, the accused No. 1 and his younger brother i.e.. juvenile offender by name Annappa having with their common intention wrongfully restrained complainant Deepa and abused her in a filthy language and also have threat to her life saying that they will throw acid on her face and accused No. 1 caught hold the body of complainant on his hands further his brother Annappa instigated to do the said act and both the accused forcibly took her in their Mahindra vehicle beg. No. KA-26/6269 and kidnapped her from the said place which wound likely that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 366A R/W Sec. 34 of IPC?

What order?"

The court below answered the above points in the negative, acquitting the accused. It is that, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The court below on a scrutiny of the evidence of witnesses namely PWs-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10, who were said to be the crucial witnesses in the case, has found that there was no consistency or corroboration of the evidence of the said witnesses. Because, as per the allegations made in the complaint, when both the accused got off the vehicle and went towards the pan beeda shop, Deepa had managed to get out of the vehicle and had hidden in a haystack and when the accused returned to their vehicle and when they did not find her and when they went away towards Belawadi. Whereas in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. one Kareppa Kuri had stated that when he was searching for Deepa at Dodwad, he found Deepa at Dodwad. This did not indicate the spot where he had found Deepa. Whereas, in his evidence before the Court, he had stated that when he was standing at the Dodwad bus stand, he saw Deepa standing near the haystack. Therefore, these were inconsistencies noticed by the court below and the court has opined that the place where she was found was a crucial aspect, especially, when a case of kidnap is alleged and when it was not established in evidence that she had been rescued from the accused and whether they had in fact kidnapped her, was therefore left in doubt and the Court has also opined that the manner in which Deepa is said to have escaped from their custody is also doubtful. For if, the accused had really intended to kidnap her, they would have kept her under constant watch and they would not have allowed her to escape at the pan beeda shop as alleged, and it is on such further inconsistencies that were apparent from the statements of other witnesses which are discussed in detail by the court below, that the court has opined that the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the charges against the accused.

Further, when the alleged victim was not shown to have suffered any kind of injury or other harm. There was also no indication as to what happened to her bicycle. The allegations against the accused could not be readily accepted and it was quite possible that, she had willfully accompanied the accused and accordingly had acquitted the accused. We find no ground to interfere.

Though the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appeal lacks merit and is rejected.