State of Karnataka vs S.S. Raghu

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 17th November 2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Tumkur in S.C. No. 108/2010 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

The accused was tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that PW.6 - Kum. Suma @ Sumalatha is the prosecutrix; she was working in the house of PW.7 Smt. Shobha Shivalingaiah as a maid servant; PW.6 has passed SSLC examination and she was aged in between 16 and 18 years at the time of the incident; the house of PW.7 in which PW.6 was residing is situated at R. Byadarahalli; the parents of prosecutrix were residing at Srikantaiahnapalya; accused is also from Srikantaiahnapalya; PW.6 knew very well about the accused; the accused and PW.6 used to contact each other over telephone.

On 13.3.2009, PW.7 and her husband went to Shiradi for pilgrimage; on 20.3.2009 the accused telephoned PW.6 and enquired her as to what she was doing; PW.6 told him that PW.7 and her husband have gone to Shiradi and she was alone in the house; at 10.30 p.m. on 20.3.2009, the accused came alongwith one Mr. Raju in a motorcycle to the house of PW.7 situated at R. Byadarahalli wherein PW.6 was staying and knocked the door; PW.6 opened the door; PW.15 is another inmate of the said house and he was also working in the said house; PW.6 introduced the accused and another person to PW.15 and told him that the accused is a resident of her native place; the accused told PW.6 that already it was late and therefore requested for accommodation in the house during night; PW.6 consented for the same and the bed was arranged for the accused in the hall; the accused and the friend of the accused viz., Raju slept in the hall; PW.6 went inside the room and slept by bolting door from inside; at about 11.30 p.m. the accused knocked the door of the room of PW.6 wherein she was sleeping; she got up and enquired with the accused as to why he was knocking the door; accused told her that he wanted to talk with her; however PW.6 did not open the door; accused forcibly opened the door and thereafter committed rape on her for about 2 to 3 times from 11.30 p.m. to 5 a.m. of next day; the accused also threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses about the incident to any third party; on 1.4.2009 PW.7 and her husband came to R. Byadarahalli from Shiradi and at that time PW.6 was sleeping with ill-health; on an enquiry, PW.6 disclosed about the incident to PW.7. Thereafter complaint came to be lodged by PW.6 as per Ex. P2 at 10.30 a.m. on 1.4.2009 which came to be registered in Crime No. 51/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. FIR was prepared as per Ex. P3 and was sent to the learned JMFC. PW.14, the Inspector of Police completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses and got marked 9 Exhibits and 8 Material Objects. The trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record acquitted the accused.

The important witnesses in the matter on hand are PW.6 - prosecutrix and PW.15, the eye witness to the incident and also the inmate of the house wherein the incident had taken place. The evidence of the doctor is also equally important.

It is not in dispute that PW.6 was staying in the house of PW.7. It is also not in dispute that PW.6 was educated and has completed her SSLC examination. So also it is not in dispute that the prosecutrix knew very well the accused and both were talking each other frequently over telephone. Ex. P2, the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix clearly reveals that the accused and PW.6 knew very well each other and they were talking frequently over phone.

PW.6 has deposed on par with the contents of Ex. P2, the complaint lodged by her. She has reiterated in her evidence before the Court that the accused came at 10.30 p.m. on 20.3.2009 and requested for accommodation during night. PW.6 permitted the accused and his friend Raju to sleep and accordingly, accused and Raju slept in the house. However in the night, the accused forcibly opened the door of the room wherein the victim was sleeping and committed rape on her. Though the incident had taken place during the night of 20.3.2009, the victim did not lodge complaint till 1.4.2009. Thus the complaint is lodged with the delay of more than 10 days. Absolutely no valid reasons are forthcoming as to why the complaint is not lodged immediately after the incident. Only reason assigned by the victim - PW.6 was that PW.7 came to the house only on 1.4.2009 and after informing PW.7 about the incident and on being told by PW.7, she lodged the complaint. It is not in dispute that the victim was an educated girl inasmuch as she has completed her SSLC examination. It is also not in dispute that the house in which PW.6 is residing is in R. Byadarahalli village and number of houses are adjoining the said house.

Prosecution further relies upon the evidence of PW.15 who was another inmate of the house. He has deposed on par with the evidence of PW.6. However he has deposed that in the night of 20.3.2009, he got up and peeped through the window after hearing the noise from inside the room; he saw the accused and prosecutrix sleeping together in the room.

Even believing the versions of PWs.6 and 15, it is clear that PW.15 was awake and he had peeped through the window and saw the accused sleeping with the victim. It is the evidence of PW.6 that she did not raise hue and cry and inform PW.15 immediately since she thought PW.15 would be fast asleep. The victim kept quite throughout the night though Raju (friend of the accused) and PW.15 were sleeping in the same house. Even assuming that the accused had threatened the victim with dire consequences during night, there was no hurdle for her to lodge the complaint on the next day i.e., after the accused left the house. She did not tell about the incident to anybody including her own parents till lodging of the complaint. It is not as if she is an illiterate and innocent. She has come to R. Byadarahalli village from Srikantaiahnapalya for the job. She could have atleast approached the Police or could have informed about the incident to her parents. She was possessing the cell phone and with the help of such phone, she was conversing with the accused also. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the trial Court is justified in concluding that the victim was a consenting party.

If the victim was not a consenting party to the incident, she would not have kept quite without protesting on the spot or immediately thereafter. She would have raised hue and cry. There is no evidence to show that the door of the room of PW.7 was broke open by the accused. Added to it, the evidence of the prosecution is not supported by the medical evidence. PW.9 is the lady Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix on 1.4.2009. She has deposed that PW.6 has not sustained any visible injuries over her body and her hymen was not intact. PW.9 has further deposed that she was informed by PW.6 that she had sexual intercourse about one year prior to her examination. The doctor collected dress worn by PW.6 alongwith vaginal swab, cervical swab and pubic hairs for sending the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory. However PW.9 has admitted that she does not know as to whether Mos. 1 to 5 were worn by PW.6 at the time of incident or not. Thus doubt arises in the mind of the Court, as to whether the clothes collected by PW.9 were the clothes worn by the victim at the time of examination i.e., 1.4.2009 and not on the date of the alleged incident. Doctor has further admitted that on examination of PW.6, she did not find any signs of sexual intercourse on PW.6. The Forensic Science Laboratory report clearly discloses that there were no signs of sexual intercourse on the victim as on the alleged date.

Since the age of the victim was about 17 years and as the records reveal that she has consented for the incident in question, the trial Court is justified in concluding that the accused has not committed the offence of rape.

The trial Court has assigned valid reasons for coming to the conclusion. The reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Court below are just and reasonable. The trial Court has appreciated the entire material on record in proper perspective. Hence no interference is called for in the judgment and order of acquittal since the view taken by the trial Court is one of the plausible views under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed at the stage of admission.