Vittala vs The State of Karnataka

Ashok B. Hinchigeri

The respondent registered Crime No. 31/2010 for the offences punishable u/s 376 and 420 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner was compelling the minor girl ''D'' (15 1/2 years) to love him. He threatened her that he would commit suicide, if she fails to love him. He held out the assurance to marry her only, come what may. He made her believe him, he took her to his place and held an intercourse with her a number of times despite her resistance. She became pregnant by him. On being informed of the same, the petitioner asked her not to worry, as he is going to marry her in any case. Thereafter he absconded. His whereabouts are not known.

The minor gin ''D'' belongs to Budabudike community, one of the enumerated Scheduled Castes/Tribes. The petitioner belongs to Vokkaliga community. The minor girl ''D'' has also because she belongs to the low caste.

Sri Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no medical certificate whatsoever is produced to show that ''D'' is a minor girl. He submits that she has attained the age of majority and that she has given her consent for the intercourse. He also complains of inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The complaint is filed after 5 months of the alleged incident. He submits that even if all the averments of the complaint are taken to be true on their face value, the offence can only be brought within the ambit of Section 420 and not 376 of the I.P.C. Death or life imprisonment is not the punishment u/s 420 of the I.P.C. Therefore he prays for the granting of anticipatory bail.

Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat, the (earned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent submits that as per the radiological examination report, ''D'' is a minor girl aged about 15 1/2 years. As ''D'' is a minor, the question of her giving a valid consent for holding the intercourse would not arise at all, so submits Sri Bhat. Considering the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner, this is not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary power, which is to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. Not finding any good ground for granting anticipatory bail, this petition is rejected.