Suresha vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 504 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 97/2013.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, compliant, and other materials placed in the case.

One Savitramma she went to hospital at Periyapama as one Seethamma wife of Sannaiah poured kerosene and lit herself and she was taken to the hospital for treatment. In the Ambulance, the complainant, CW-8 Puttalakshmamma, Sannaiah, Sons of Sannaiah when they reached K.R. Hospital Suresha and his sister Sarojamma, one Shivanna husband of Sarojamma also came to the hospital. At about 7.00 p.m. said Suresha, the present petitioner told to the complainant as well as to Puttalakshmamma that he will take them to the village and asked them to board his car and on the way he took both of them to the lonely place and when the complainant asked why he has brought to the said place, the petitioner said to the complainant that he was waiting for the opportunity since 20 years and he also threatened her if she screamed he will commit her murder. Thereafter CW-8 Puttalakshmamma was made to alight from the car and he committed forcible sexual intercourse on the complainant in the car itself and the time was about 1.00 a.m. After that he also gave life threat to both of them that if they informed about the incident to anybody then he will not leave them and he will finish of them, so because of this fear they kept mum. On the basis of the said complaint, family of the complainant filed the complaint on 10.06.2013 i.e. after the lapse of 5 days and the case has been registered against the present petitioner for the alleged offence.

Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments made submission that there is delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that FSL report finding are negative and further made submission that the medical evidence is also against the prosecution and there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence he submitted to admit the petitioner on bail by imposing reasonable condition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2010(2) SCC Criminal 695.

As against this the High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the averments made in the complaint and as well as of CW-8 Puttalakshmamma in this case, they prima facie goes to show the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner. He submitted so far as the delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint and so also as stated by CW-8 Puttalakshmamma they made it clear that after the incident present petitioner forced life threat that if they disclose the said fact to any persons then he will not leave them, he will finish of them. He further submitted that looking to the medical evidence the doctor has given the opinion that complainant was used to the act of sexual intercourse which supported the case of the prosecution. Hence he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

Looking to the materials placed on record it is not only the version of the complainant at this stage but her contention is supported by witness puttalakshmamma who said to have travelled with her in the said car. It is also submitted that petitioner made CW-8 puttalakshmamma alight from the car and there afterwards in the car itself he committed sexual intercourse on the complainant. As submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader regarding the delay in the complaint itself it is stated by the complainant and CW-8 Puttalakshmamma that petitioner gave life threat to them so they kept mum. Thereafter wards matter was reported to the family members and family members of the complainant filed a complaint. It is no doubt true as per FSL report on the items sent for examination it is negative findings but so far as the report of the doctor who conducted examination of the victim savitramma he stated the sign of sexual intercourse but it is also reported that no recent sexual intercourse have been committed on the complainant. The complaint was lodged after 5 days after the alleged incident and also materials refers to the medical opinion given by the doctor in this case. I have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner which is referred above and also gone through the facts and circumstances in the said reported decision so also the facts and circumstances in the present case which is not one and the same. Therefore the said decision will not come into the aid and assistance of the petitioner at this stage. So it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Hence the petition is rejected.