T.E. Raghu vs The State of Karnataka

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—Accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 110/2008 pending on the file of Sessions Court, Chikkballapura has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid proceedings initiated for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.

The sum and substance of prosecution case is that the petitioner herein who is resident of Chikalanerpu Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkballapura district, said to have committed the act of rape against a minor girl by name Sumitra aged about 14 years and a person belonging to scheduled caste on 7.11.2007 at 4.00 p.m. According to the prosecution on 7.11.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. when the victim was attending to house hold work in front of her house, the accused forcibly dragged her to the agricultural field in the backyard of her house and committed the act of rape on her. On the basis of the complaint which was filed by her on 8.11.2007, complaint was lodged in Crime No. 77/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC by Kencharlahalli Police within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Chikkballapura and the matter was referred to investigation. It is stated that thereafter, charge sheet is also filed against the petitioner herein for the same offences for which the complaint is registered. Subsequently the learned Magistrate has committed the case to Sessions for trial after taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up in this proceedings seeking quashing of the aforesaid proceedings on the ground that FSL report which is secured is based on the material collected from the victim on the next day. Further it is stated that the report which is given by the Forensic Science Lab would indicate that no seminal stains are found on the articles seized which were sent across to forensic laboratory for investigation. It is also stated that seminal test report and other reports have indicated that there is no presence of seminal discharge of the petitioner indicating that he was involved in committing the act of rape on the victim and by citing these documents, he is seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in S.C. No. 110/08.

However, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent - State would bring to the notice of this court that the medical report is given by the lady doctor who conducted the physical test of the victim immediately after the alleged act of forcible sexual intercourse by the petitioner herein. The observations of the medical doctor in her report dated 11.3.2008 is as under:

"I am of the opinion that there is evidence of an act like that of sexual intercourse which is recent, however, spermatozoa have not been detected in the vaginal secretions"

With these, the learned Addl. SPP tried to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner contending that though the act is not complete, the attempt is there. He further contends if there is no material to convict the petitioner under Section 376 of Code of Criminal Procedure, there is enough material to try the accused for Section 354 of Cr.P.C. and related offence. Therefore the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise.

After considering the arguments of both the parties and on re-appreciation of the materials available on record, this Court feel that in the light of the materials available on record, it is difficult for this court to come to a conclusion that no prima facie case is made out with reference to the alleged act of forcible sexual intercourse on the victim. In any event, if the report of the doctor dated 11.3.2008 is coming to the aid of the petitioner, it may help him to seek for modification of the charges before learned Sessions Judge, however, definitely it would not entitle him to seek his discharge at this stage without even going through the ordeal of trial.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, this court find it difficult to accept the proposition put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings in S.C. No. 110/2008. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. While doing so, liberty is reserved to him either to seek modification of the charge or discharge subject to sufficient material being available on record for such relief. Learned Sessions court shall not be influenced by any of the observations in this order while considering his prayer either for modification of the charge or for discharge.