SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The State By Puttur Town vs Thaniyappa Purusha on 22 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

The State By Puttur Town vs Thaniyappa Purusha on 22 February, 2024

Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

1 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

AND

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1064 OF 2017
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1066 OF 2017

In Criminal Appeal No.1064 of 2017:

BETWEEN:

The State by Puttur Town
Police Station,
Represented by State
Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001. …Appellant

(By Shri B.N.Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

AND:

Thaniyappa Purusha
Son of late Annappa Purusha,
Aged about 53 years,
Coolie by work,
Residing at Thirthara Kadu Site Mane,
Mudipu, Kairangala Village and Post
Bantwal Taluk – 574 211 …Respondent

(Shri Suyog Herele.E., Advocate)
2 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of
Cr.P.C praying to appeal against the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal dated 28.09.2016 passed by the VI Additional
District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in S.C.No.50/2016
– acquitting the Respondent for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.

In Criminal Appeal No.1066 OF 2017:

BETWEEN:

The State of Karnataka
by Puttur Town Police Station,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001. …Appellant

(By Shri B.N.Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

AND:

Thaniyappa Purusha
Son of late Annappa Purusha,
Aged about 53 years,
Coolie by work,
Residing at Thirthara Kadu Site Mane,
Mudipu, Kairangala Village and Post
Bantwal Taluk – 574 211 …Respondent

(Shri Suyog Herele E., Advocate)

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 377 OF Cr.P.C.
praying to modify the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2016
passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangaluru in S.C.NO.50/2016 in passing inadequate sentence
for the offence punishable under
Section 417 of IPC and impose
proper adequate sentence for the offence punishable under
Section 417 of IPC.
3 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

These Criminal appeals coming on for further arguments,
having been heard through physical hearing/video conferencing
and reserved for judgment on 06.12.2023, coming on for
pronouncement this day, UMESH M ADIGA J., delivered the
following :
JUDGMENT

Both these appeals are filed by the State under

Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’),

challenging impugned judgment passed in S.C.50 of 2015

dated 28.09.2016 by the VI Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred

as ‘Trial Court’ for short) wherein the accused was

acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as ‘IPC’) and convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 417 of IPC.

Crl.A.1064 of 2017 is filed challenging the acquittal of

the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376

and 506 of IPC and Crl.A.No.1066 of 2017 is filed for

enhancement of sentence imposed against accused for the

offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC.
4 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

Hence both the appeals are taken up together for

disposal.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are

that, PW-1 victim girl is daughter of PW-2/Smt.Devaki and

CW-2/Ganesha Purusha. Accused is a distant relative of

PWs-2. Prior to the incident, he was oftenly visiting the

house of PWs-1 to 3. He was assuring and promising PW-1

that he would marry her.

3. On the fateful day, when PW-1 was alone at

home, accused came to her house and persuaded her to

have sex with him and forcefully had sex with her, inspite

of her refusal. He also threatened her with dire

consequences, if she tells the said information to her

parents or others. The accused had committed similar acts

few more times against her wish and assured her that he

would marry her. She conceived and she informed the said

fact to the accused and requested him to marry her.

Accused initially postponed the marriage on one or other

pretext and later on refused to marry her and threatened
5 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

her of dire consequences, if she informs the same to

others.

4. On one day, while giving bath to PW-1, PW-2

came to know that PW-1 was pregnant and on enquiry,

PW-1 revealed above facts and also told her that due to

threat of the accused and also his promise to marry her,

she did not reveal these facts to anybody. On 21.11.2013

PW-1 delivered baby boy at Government Hospital, Puttur.

Medical officer enquired name of her husband. PW-1

revealed all the above facts to the doctor. Hence, the said

doctor informed to the Police. Police came to the hospital

and recorded statement of PW-1 as per Ex.P1 and on that

basis, registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2013 dated

21.11.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 417

and 506 of IPC.

5. The Complainant-Police investigated the case

and submitted charge-sheet against accused before the

jurisdictional Magistrate, for the offences punishable under

Sections 376, 417 and 506 of IPC. The learned Magistrate
6 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

took cognizance of the offence; secured presence of

accused; supplied copy of charge-sheet to the accused. The

offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC is triable by

the Court of Sessions and hence, learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

6. The learned Sessions Judge on receipt of charge

sheet from Committed Court, re-registered the case. Heard

both the accused and prosecution and framed charges for

the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506

of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

7. The prosecution in support of its case, has

examined PW-1 to PW-14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19

and closed its evidence. The learned Sessions Judge

examined the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his

answers were recorded. The accused did not lead defence

evidence.

7 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w

Crl.A.No.1066/2017

The defence of the accused is of total denial and in

the alternative, he had contended that it was a consensual

sex.

8. The learned Sessions Judge heard the

arguments on both sides and formulated following points

for his determination:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt that in the first week of February, 2013 he
had been to the house of PW-1 in Narimogaru
village, where he promised her that he would
marry her with an intention to have sexual
intercourse and had forcibly sexual intercourse on
her, without her consent. So he has committed
an offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt that in the first week of February, 2013 he
had been to the house of PW-1 in Narimogaru
village, where after the sexual intercourse on her,
he gave life threat to kill her, if she informed the
matter to others. So he has committed an offence
punishable under
Section 506 of IPC?

8 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

3. Whether the prosecution has proved
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt that in the first week of February, 2013 he
had been to the house of PW-1 in Narimogaru
village, where he had forcibly sexual intercourse
on her stating that he would marry her.

Thereafter, even she was pregnant he refused to
marry and cheated her. So he has committed an
offence punishable under
Section 417 of IPC?

4. What order?

9. The learned Sessions Judge appreciating

evidence on record, answered Point Nos.1 and 2 in the

negative and Point No.3 in the affirmative. The learned

Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment convicted the

accused of the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC

and acquitted him of the offence punishable under Sections

376 and 506 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge after

hearing the accused and the prosecution sentenced the

accused to undergo imprisonment for two months and pay

compensation of `20,000/- and in default of payment of the

same, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two

months. The benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. was also
9 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

given to the accused. The same is challenged in the present

appeals.

10. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

has vehemently contended that the Sessions Court has not

appreciated the evidence properly. PW-1 in her evidence

has repeatedly stated that inspite of her refusal, the

accused had forceful sex with her not only once, but thrice,

on different days. He assured her that he would marry her.

PW-1 is innocent, not having worldly knowledge, believed

the words of the accused and did not disclose these facts to

her parents. Due to the threat of accused, even she did not

inform to her parents about her pregnancy. When she was

about eight (8) months pregnant, her mother noticed and

during enquiry, PW-1 revealed her all these facts.

Thereafter also, PW-1 requested the accused to marry her;

However, the accused postponed to marry her on one or

the other pretext and also threatened her of dire

consequences, if she informs the same to others. In view

of these reasons and also due to fear of social stigma she

kept quiet. When she delivered a baby boy, on enquiry by
10 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

the concerned Doctor of the hospital, she informed the said

fact, who in turn informed the same to the police and a

case was registered against the accused. The facts and

circumstances of the present case clearly reveals that PW-1

is innocent and has no worldly knowledge. She did not take

action immediately against the accused. That cannot be

considered as consent for sexual acts by the accused.

11. The learned State Public Prosecutor further

submits that PW-1 in her evidence has stated in detail

about these facts. Her evidence is corroborated by PW-2.

PW-3 has stated about delivery of baby boy by PW-1. With

the permission of the Court, blood sample of the accused

was obtained in the open Court and sent for DNA test along

with blood sample of PW-1 and her baby boy. The DNA

Centre of Forensic Science laboratory (for short, FSL),

Bengaluru gave report as per Ex.P11, stating that accused

is the biological father of the said child of PW-1 by name

Sandeepa. These facts undoubtedly prove that the accused

is responsible for birth of the said child, through PW-1.
11 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

The learned Additional SPP would further submit that

in the cross-examination of PW-1, accused admitted of

having sex with PW-1. However he has stated that with the

consent and without any assurance, he had sex with PW-1.

The onus lies on the accused to prove that victim girl has

consented for sexual acts. Under Section 114-A of the

Indian Evidence Act, the Court shall presume, in such

cases, that the victim had not given consent, if she denied

such consent, during the course of the trial. Therefore,

Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act would help the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

12. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

has further submitted that in the cross-examination of PW-

1, by the accused, she has stated that she refused to have

sex with accused till he marries her. She stoutly refused for

the same, shouted for help and repeatedly begged accused

not to spoil her life but accused did not listen to her and

had sex with her. Her house is situated at isolated place

and her neighbours had no good relationship with them.

Therefore, nobody came to her rescue. She has also stated
12 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

in her cross-examination, that, at another time, even she

refused to open the door; thereafter, when the dogs

started barking, just to see the same, she opened the door

and by that time, accused gained entry in the house and

promised her that he would marry her and had sex with her

inspite of her refusal. These facts were not considered by

the Trial Court in the impugned judgment.

13. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

would further submit that the Sessions Judge in the

impugned judgment accepted that the accused had sex

with the victim girl and that was reason for her pregnancy.

However, the Sessions Judge accepted the defence of the

accused that, with false promise of marriage, PW-1 had

given consent for having sex with her. Hence, he convicted

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 417

of IPC. The accused did not challenge the said verdict of

the Sessions Court and therefore, he has accepted the

findings of the Sessions Court. PW-1 by her evidence

proved that she did not give consent for sexual act by the

accused. Under these circumstances, the essential
13 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

ingredients under Section 376 of IPC is clearly proved by

the prosecution.

14. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

has further submitted that PW-1 in her evidence has stated

that the accused had given threat to PW-1 and prevented

her from disclosing these facts as well as her pregnancy to

others, including her parents. It appears from the conduct

of the PW-1 and PW-2 that due to said threat, PW-1 did not

inform the fact of sexual assault on her by the accused and

her pregnancy to PW-2. These facts prove that the accused

had given serious threat to PW-1 and thereby, prosecution

proved that accused had committed an offence punishable

under Section 506 of IPC.

15. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

has further submitted that for the offence punishable under

Section 376 of IPC, the Court shall not expect corroboration

of the evidence of the victim and the evidence of victim has

to be considered. In this case, as per the case of the

prosecution, most of day time, PW-1 was living alone in her
14 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

house. Accused being a distant relative of PW-2 and

familiar with the affairs of house of victim by frequently

visiting to the said house, hatched a plan and committed

alleged offences on innocent girl. Considering these facts,

the Sessions Court ought to have convicted the accused for

the said offences. However, the Sessions Judge convicted

the accused for a minor offence of the Section 417 of IPC.

The Sessions Court even not sentenced the accused

adequately, on the contrary, sentenced the accused to

undergo imprisonment for a period of two months and to

pay compensation of `20,000/-, which is highly

disproportionate and inadequate to the offence committed

by the accused. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeals by

convicting the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 376 and 506 of IPC and enhance the sentence of

the accused under Section 417 of IPC.

16. The learned advocate appearing for the

respondent-accused has vehemently contended that

prosecution has not proved the alleged offence punishable

under Section 376 and 506 of IPC. The accused was not a
15 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

stranger and known person to the family of PWs-1 and 2.

The accused was aged about 54 years as on the date of the

alleged incident. The age of victim as per Ex.P7 was 22

years. It is admitted by PW-2 that they received marriage

invitation of daughter of accused. It is the case of accused

that he used to attend religious functions of the family

along with his wife and children and these facts were

known to both PW-1 and PW-2. Hence, it is difficult to

accept the contention of the accused that she accepted or

believed the alleged promise of the accused to marry her.

Therefore, the said contention is not acceptable.

17. The learned advocate for the respondent-

accused further submitted that if accused had committed

sexual offences on her, then, she should have intimated

this fact atleast to her mother and initiated action against

the accused. PW-1 was not at the mercy of the accused.

Under these circumstances, nothing was prevented her to

lodge the complaint against the accused. Legal action was

taken after about nine (9) months from the alleged incident

of rape. In Ex.P1 or Ex.P3, delay is not properly explained
16 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

by the prosecution to lodge the complaint. Even there is no

reference about alleged forceful sexual acts on PW-1 inspite

of her refusal or alleged threat said to be given by the

accused. These facts were stated in the evidence, that

indicates, the prosecution improved its version during

evidence. Hence, the said evidence is not acceptable.

18. The learned advocate for respondent would

further submit that the accused did not challenge the

impugned judgement of conviction against him for the

offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC, does not

mean that he had admitted of having committed an offence

punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Even if it is believed

that he had sexual acts with PW-1, then at the worst, it

might be with her consent. Facts and circumstances of the

present case indicates that she had consented for sexual

acts with the accused and hence, it does not attract the

provisions of Section 376 of IPC.

19. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the

prosecution and the accused and considering the mitigating
17 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

circumstances, sentenced the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 417 of IPC. The maximum

sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offence

punishable under Section 417 of IPC is for one (1) year.

Therefore, enhancement of the same do not arise.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss both the appeals.

20. The following points emerges for our

determination:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that during February,
2013, at Markaru Dasara Mane of Narimogaru
village, Puttur Taluk, the accused has repeatedly
committed rape on victim on different days, when
she was alone at her house, against her will and
wish and committed an offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that on the above place,
date and time mentioned at Point No.1, the
accused criminally intimidated the victim given
threat to her life if she informs the alleged act of
rape to anybody and thereby, accused had
committed an offence punishable under
Section
506 of IPC?

18 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

3. Whether the sentence imposed by the
learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable
under
Section 417 of IPC is inadequate and
interference in the said finding is required?

4. Whether findings of learned Trial Judge
is arbitrary, absurdity and perverse and
interference is required?

5. What Order?

The above points are taken up together for discussion

since Point Nos.1 to 4 are inter-connected.

21. Main and star witness of this case is PW-1. In

her evidence, she narrated facts of the case. According to

her, prior to the incident, the accused was frequently

visiting her house, who is a distant relative of her mother.

Accused told her that he would marry her. Thereafter, on

one day, when she was alone at home, the accused

forcefully and not heeding to her request, against her wish

had sexual intercourse with her. He also threatened her of

dire consequences, if she disclose the said facts to others.

Thereafter, on different dates, when she was alone in the
19 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

house, he gained entry to her house and forcefully had

sexual intercourse with her, inspite of her resistance. She

became pregnant and again requested the accused to

marry her as per his promise. However, he postponed on

one or the other pretext. When she was about eight (8)

months pregnant, her mother noticed that she was

pregnant and on enquiry by her mother, she told about the

incident of forceful sexual assault on her by the accused

and also his promise to marry her.

22. It is further evidence of PW-1 that she delivered

a baby boy in Government Hospital at Puttur and was

subsequently named as “Sandeep”. PW-3, Dr.Dinesh

Kamath, Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Puttur

informed the said fact to the police and police came to the

hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1 as per Ex.P1

and she signed Ex.P1(a). After discharge from the hospital,

she showed the police place of incident wherein the

accused committed rape on her and police drew mahazar

and obtained her signature. She also stated about taking

her blood sample as well as of her son, in the Court. She
20 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

also stated about recording of her statement by the learned

Magistrate as per Ex.P3 and her further statement by the

concerned police.

23. It is the further evidence of PW-1 that when

accused was visiting her house frequently, she had no

knowledge that he was married. She has not filed the

complaint immediately after the incident, due to threat of

the accused.

PW.1, in her cross-examination has elaborated about

incidence. The accused had sex with her three to four

times. When accused came to her house to have sex with

her, she refused to have physical relationship with him and

tried to prevent him. She had also shouted for help.

However, nobody were near her house to rescue her. Her

uncle’s house was situated nearby her house, but they

were not in good terms with them. She did not inform

about incident to the members of the family.

24. In the further cross-examination, PW-1 has

stated that four months after the first incident, when she
21 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

was alone at home, the accused came to her house.

Normally, she used to close the door of the house when she

was alone. On that day, she did not allow the accused to

gain entry to the house. After sometime, she heard dogs

barking and hence opened the door, by that time, accused

gained entry in the house and had forceful sex with her,

against her wish. When he came for the second time, she

conceived. She told to the accused that she was pregnant

and asked him to marry her. However, accused threatened

her. She has also stated that even though her parents

were trying to arrange her marriage, the accused did not

allow her to marry others. Due to threat of the accused, till

her mother noticed that she was pregnant, she did not

inform anybody.

25. There are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence

of PW-1. On plain reading of evidence of PW-1, one can

understand her innocence and helplessness. It clearly

indicates misuse of her innocence by the accused. Evidence

of PW-1 inspire confidence in the mind of prudent person.
22 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

The learned Trial Judge accepted and believed her

evidence, but erroneously held that it was consensual sex.

26. In Ex.P1, which is recorded by PSI on

21.11.2013, it is stated that the accused use to come to

her house when she was alone and promised her to marry

her and had physical relationship. Her statement was

recorded by learned Magistrate under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C., on 30.12.2015, wherein she has stated that the

accused had assured her that he would marry her and on

the said false assurance he had physical relationship with

her, inspite of her refusal. She had also stated before the

learned Magistrate that due to criminal intimidation of the

accused, she did not lodge the complaint to the police or

informed her parents, against accused.

27. The learned counsel for respondent-accused

contends that in Ex.P1, it is not stated that accused had

sex with her against her wish and in Ex.P3 as well as during

evidence, she had improved her case. Therefore, the said

evidence is not reliable.

23 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w

Crl.A.No.1066/2017

The said submission is not acceptable. It is pertinent

to note that on 21.11.2013, the said victim gave birth to a

baby boy and within a short time her statement was

recorded by the police. One has to evaluate the trauma she

had been suffering at that point of time. She was cheated

by accused; She had social stigma of having delivered a

baby without marriage and immediately thereafter, enquiry

by police. At that point of time, it cannot be expected that

she could give details of the incidents. It is not in serious

dispute that accused had sex with her. Hence, absence of

said facts in Ex.P1 do not injure credibility of her evidence

before Court which is subject to cross-examination.

28. PW-1 was a young lady aged about 20 years at

the time of incident, became pregnant and delivered a baby

without marriage. She was residing in a small village of

Puttur Taluk. She suppressed her pregnancy and even she

did not inform to her mother. She appears to be studied till

VII standard and thereafter she remained at house doing

house hold work and rolling beedis. She had no social or

public interactions. It appears that she had no worldly
24 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

knowledge. The accused was aged about 54 years. He

promised to marry her and misused her innocence. She

innocently believed it. Even she did not inform her

pregnancy to her mother or complained to police. She

might be having a ray of hope in her mind that the accused

would give life to her and the child born out of the said

physical relationship. But inspite of lodging a complaint, the

accused did not agree to marry her and look after her and

her son. All these facts shows that evidence of PW-1 is

trust worthy.

29. The scientific evidence i.e., DNA report prove

that accused is genetic/biological father of the said child,

born to the victim. Hence, the contention of the accused

that PW1 had worldly knowledge and it was consensual

sex, is untenable. Accused could not get any admission of

the fact that PW-1 has knowledge that accused was

married and having children.

30. It is the contention of the accused that “he was

already married and having children and he is the distant
25 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

relative of PW-2. He had sent marriage invitation of his

daughter to PW-2, which was admitted by her in her cross-

examination. The accused used to attend the family

functions along with his wife and children, where PW-2, her

husband and children had also participated. PW-1 also

knew that accused was married. Therefore, allegation that

accused had sex with her by deceitful means is not

believable”.

Looking to the materials available on record, it

appears that there is communication gap between PWs-1

and 2 as well as father of PW-1. There is no evidence on

record to show that PW-2 had informed about marriage of

daughter of accused and receipt of marriage invitation to

PW-1. She has not stated in her evidence that she and PW-

1 attended the marriage ceremony of daughter of accused.

There is no legal presumption that if marriage invitation is

sent to the members of a family, then each member has

knowledge of the same. From the evidence of PWs-1 and 2,

it shows that there is a communication gap between them.

PW-2 did not notice that PW-1 was pregnant till the
26 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

completion of eight months of her pregnancy. All these

circumstances, indicate that what ever information got by

PW-2, were not conveyed to PW-1. Under such

circumstances, PW-2 received marriage invitation card of

daughter of accused, cannot be a ground to believe that

PW-1 had knowledge that accused is married having

children, prior to the incident.

For sake of discussion, even if it is accepted that

PW-1 had knowledge of marriage of accused it does not

make much difference. There are no reasons to PW-1, for

falsely implicate the accused. Even if accused was intended

to marry PW-1 it would not permit him to commit offence

of rape. PW-1 unequivocally deposed that she has not

consented for sexual intercourse and accused forcefully had

sex with her against her wish, under Section 114A of Indian

Evidence Act, the Court shall believe that she did not give

consent for sexual acts. By the evidence of PW-1,

prosecution is able to prove that accused had sexual

intercourse with PW-1, against her wish and due to threat

of accused, she did not tell the said facts to others.
27 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

31. Prosecution has examined PW-2, who is the

mother of PW-1. In her evidence, PW-2 has narrated about

her blood relationship with accused and PW-1. She has

stated that while giving bath to PW-1, she came to know

that PW-1 was pregnant and she took PW-1 to the hospital

and got confirmed it. On enquiry with PW-1, she told that

accused was responsible for her pregnancy and he

threatened her, therefore, she did not reveal the said facts

to others. In her detailed cross-examination, she has

elaborated the facts of the case and marital status of

accused. The said cross-examination is not helpful for the

accused to disbelieve her evidence. PW-2 fully corroborated

the evidence of PW-1. She is not an eye-witness.

Therefore, her evidence corroborate the prosecution to

prove that usually PW-1 will be alone at home from

morning till evening and her house is at an isolated place.

32. PW-3 is medical officer, who has stated about

delivery of baby boy by PW-1 on 21.11.2013. Accordingly,
28 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

he issued a certificate as per Ex.P6. The birth of a boy to

PW-1 on 21.11.2013 is not seriously disputed.

33. PW-4 is medical officer of Government Hospital,

Puttur. He has also stated about delivery of baby boy by

PW-1 on 21.11.2013 and on enquiry to PW-1 about name

of father of baby, PW-1 revealed the facts and acts of

accused. PW-4 got it confirmed from PW-2. Therefore, he

reported the said information to Puttur Police Station under

Ex.P7. He gave inpatient medical records as per Ex.P8 and

OPD chit as per Ex.P9 to police. He has also stated that on

23.11.2013, PW-1 was discharged from the hospital. The

said facts was not denied in his cross-examination. The

evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 corroborate the evidence of

PW-1 about the delivery of baby boy and the issue of birth

certificate of a baby.

34. PW-7/Rohini is witness to spot mahazar. She

has stated about visit of police to the house of PW-1,

drawing of Ex.P2 and obtaining her signature on Ex.P2.

She enquired with PW-1 and got information that accused
29 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

raped her, due to which, she became pregnant and

delivered the baby boy and she corroborated case of

prosecution about drawing of mahazar.

35. After arrest of the accused, he was produced

before the Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Puttur,

i.e., PW-5. She has examined the accused and given

certificate as per Ex.P10, opining that there were no

evidences to suggest that accused was incapable of

performing the sexual intercourse. Accused has not denied

evidence of PW-5 and Ex.P10. It is pertinent to note that

in the cross-examination of PWs-1 and 2, the accused had

suggested that he has wife and children indicating about

his potentiality to have sexual intercourse. Evidence of

PW-5 helped prosecution to prove the same.

36. PW-5 had also obtained the blood sample of the

accused in the open Court of JMFC, Puttur and sent through

police to DNA Centre. She has deposed the same before

the Court. In her cross- examination, nothing is brought

out to discard her evidence. The evidence of PW-5 proves
30 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

that blood samples of the accused, PW-1 and her baby boy

Sandeep was obtained in the open Court on 18.03.2014.

37. The prosecution examined PW-6, who was in-

charge Head Master of Karnataka Higher Primary School.

He has stated that he gave date of birth certificate of PW-1

on 15.12.2013 as per Ex.P12 and her date of birth was

03.01.1991 as per school register. It is not in dispute that

she was a major as on the date of the alleged incident.

Therefore, evidence of PW-6 is not of much importance and

the accused has not cross-examined PW-6.

38. PW-12/Dr.Vinod J Lakkappa is Assistant Director

of FSL. He has stated about examining the blood samples

of PW-1, her baby boy and accused and gave DNA report

stating that as per the said DNA report, “accused is

biological father of son of PW-1, by name, Sandeepa and

he gave certificate in this regard as per Ex.P13”. In his

cross-examination, some technical questions were asked

not pertaining to the DNA report, but regarding the other
31 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

procedures, but they do not help to demolish the evidence

of PW-12 or disbelieve DNA report – Ex.P13.

39. PW-8 is not so important witness. He received

DNA report from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of

Police as per Ex.P13(a).

40. PW-9 has drawn Ex.P2 in the house of PW-1 and

has stated about the same. His evidence corroborate case

of prosecution and evidence of PW-7.

41. PW-10 is Police Constable who handed over

blood samples of PW-1, her son and accused to the FSL

and is not material witness.

42. PW-13 is Assistant Police Inspector and Station

House Officer of Puttur Town Police Station has stated that

on 21.11.2013, he received memo from the Government

Hospital, Puttur and thereafter, he went to Government

Hospital, recorded statement of PW-1 and on that basis

registered FIR as per Ex.P19 and handed over file to his

superior officer.

32 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w

Crl.A.No.1066/2017

43. PW-11 is Investigating Officer who has partly

investigated the case. He has also stated that he submitted

Ex.P17 to the Court and added Section 376 of IPC in the

FIR. On 14.09.2015, he arrested the accused and produced

before the Court. He recorded further statement of PW-1

and other witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet to the

Court. In his cross-examination, nothing is brought out to

discredit his evidence.

44. PW-14 is Sub-Inspector of Police who had partly

investigated the case. She has narrated about part of

investigation done by her, i.e., taking up blood sample of

the accused with the permission of the Court, drawing up of

the mahazar, securing the date of birth certificate from

school records of PW-1, producing the accused before the

medical officer for clinical test. In her cross-examination,

nothing is brought out, that favours accused.

45. By the evidence of PW-1, prosecution proved

that accused has made false promise of marriage to PW-1,

had close intimacy with her and had forceful sex with her,

misusing her innocence and threatened her with dire
33 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

consequences, if she reveal the said fact to others. The

accused had sexual intercourse with her three to four

times. When she conceived, he went on dodging his

marriage with PW-1. She delivered baby boy in

Government Hospital, Puttur by name Sandeepa. The blood

sample of PW-1, her son and accused were taken for

securing expert opinion, i.e., DNA report. The DNA report

also proved that the accused is biological father of the said

boy. In the defence, accused accepted that he had sex

with PW-1. But his contention is that, it was consensual

sex. The said contention was denied by PW-1. Evidence on

record also prove that she did not give consent for sexual

intercourse with her. All these circumstances prove beyond

all reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an

offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

46. It is the evidence of PW-1 that accused has

given threat to her/criminally intimidated her of dire

consequences if she disclosed the incident to others.

Therefore, she did not inform anybody including her mother

or she has not filed any complaint against accused. In the
34 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

cross-examination, there is no specific denial about

evidence given by PW-1. Even in her cross-examination by

the accused, she has stated that accused has given threat

to her, not to disclose the fact of sexual assault on her to

others, including her mother. In the cross-examination, she

has stated that due to threat of the accused, she has not

informed about the incident to police or her mother. There

are no reasons to disbelieve the said fact.

47. It is pertinent to note that accused is none

other than distant relative of PW-2 and most of the time

PW-1 alone was at home during day time. Therefore, she

might have feared that accused may materialise threat

given to her and hence, she did not inform the incident to

the police or her parents.

48. PW-2 also in her evidence has stated that due to

threat of accused, PW-2 did not inform her. The evidence of

PW-1 is corroborated by PW-2. In the cross-examination of

PW-2, said fact was not denied by accused. From the said

facts and circumstances of this case, it is proved that due
35 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

to threat of accused, PW-1 did not inform the illegal acts of

accused either to police or to her mother. PW-1 had right to

lodge complaint to police regarding offence committed by

the accused. Due to his threat she was prevented from

exercising said right. Hence prosecution is able to prove

that accused has committed an offence punishable under

section 506 of IPC.

49. The learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor has relied on a judgment in the case of Phool

Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that “there can be conviction on the sole

testimony of the victim/prosecutrix, when the deposition of

the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished,

credible and her evidence is of sterling quality as a general

rule, if credible, conviction of an accused can be based on

the sole testimony, without corroboration. Sole testimony

of the prosecutrix should not be doubted by the Court

necessarily on the basis of assumption and surmises.

1
2022 (2) SCC 74
36 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

Testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are

compelling reasons, which necessitate looking for

corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no

difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual

assault alone, to convict the accused where her testimony

inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Further,

seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon

the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult

to the injury.”

50. The law laid down in the above said case is

applicable to facts of the present case. In the present case,

though there is a sole witness of victim PW-1, in the

detailed cross-examination, nothing is brought out to

disbelieve or discard evidence of PW-1 and her evidence is

trustworthy. Therefore, her evidence is sufficient to prove

guilt of accused.

51. The learned advocate for respondent/accused

has relied on a judgment in the case of Naim Ahamed Vs.
37 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

State (NCT of Delhi)2. In the said case also, accused

promised to marry the victim lady who was already married

and accused enticed the said lady and made separate

house in different area and continued to have illicit

relationship with said lady. He assured to marry her,

however, he did not marry her. She lived with him for

some years and had illicit relationship with accused.

Thereafter, when he refused to marry her and she came to

know that accused was already married person having

children, she lodged the complaint alleging that he had

committed rape against her. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

considering the facts and circumstances of that case held

that it does not amount to rape, but at the most, it may

amount offence Punishable under section 417 of IPC.

In this case, facts are totally different. The accused

was distant relative of PW-2. He was frequently visiting

house of PWs-1 and 2. When PW-1 was alone at the house,

he persuaded her to marry him. Thereafter, against her

wish, he raped her on three to four occasion and he also

2
2023 SCC online SC 89
38 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

assured to marry her. When she conceived , he refused to

marry her. Materials on record clearly indicates that there

was no consensual sex in the present case. It is more or

less with the forceful and deceitful. Therefore, the principle

of law laid down in the above said judgment is not

applicable to the facts of the present case.

52. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. The evidence

of PW-1 proves that he had committed the said offence. He

induced and persuaded the innocent girl though he was

aged about 54 years that he would marry her and

thereafter, inspite of her refusal, forcefully had sex with her

three to four times. He committed the said acts under the

false promise of marriage and threatened her that she

should not inform said facts to anybody. Due to the threat,

PW-1 did not inform these facts even to her mother.

Accused is married person having children and out of them,

he arranged marriage of his daughter, few years prior to

the incident. PW-1 has stated that accused promised her

that he would marry her and had sex with her against her
39 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

wish. Accused knew that he is married and he cannot

marry again during life time of his wife. Knowing fully well

he promised and made PW-1 to believe that he would

marry her and had sex with her with force. The conduct of

accused clearly shows that by forcefully and deceitfully he

had sex with victim with false promise of marrying the

victim. Considering these facts, the learned Sessions Judge

rightly convicted the accused of the offence punishable

under Section 417 of IPC.

53 . The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the

accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

two months for the offence punishable under Section 417

of IPC and directed to pay compensation of `20,000/- to

the child of PW-1/victim, within two months, in default of

payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two months. The sentence

imposed by the trial Court is inadequate.

54. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned

judgment has stated that accused had promised PW-1 that
40 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

he would marry her and had sexual intercourse on her.

Therefore, her evidence proves that the accused had

committed an offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC

and not under Section 376 of the IPC. The learned Sessions

Judge held that it was a consensual sex. Said finding is

erroneous. The evidence of PW-1 is discussed in detail in

the above paragraphs. She has repeatedly stated that

accused had sex with her three to four times against her

wish and consent. She has resisted the said act of the

accused. However, the accused forcefully had sex with her

and thereafter, promised her that he would marry her. The

learned Sessions Judge without considering the evidence of

PW-1 properly, held that it was consensual sex on the

deceitful promise of accused that he would marry her.

Therefore, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge is

perverse and interference by this Court is required.

55. The Appellate Court should be slow while

reversing a judgment of acquittal. However, after

reassessment of the evidence, if it is found that the

findings of the Trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and illegal
41 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

and against the settled principles of law, then only the

Appellate Court has to reverse the said judgment. In the

present case, Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of

PW-1 properly. Therefore, the said finding is perverse. The

learned Sessions Judge has not considered Section 90 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 114-A of the Indian

Evidence Act. PW-1 either in the examination-in-chief or in

the cross-examination has stated that she had consented

for sexual intercourse with the accused. When that

evidence is not available on record, the findings of the

learned Sessions Judge that it was a consensual sex is not

acceptable.

56. It is settled law that while reversing acquittal

judgment, the Appellate Court should think twice and be

cautious. The Appellate Court must keep in mind that there

is double presumption in favour of accused. One is general

principle that accused shall be presumed to be innocent ill

guilt is proved. And second presumption is that the Trial

Court after appreciating evidence, decided that guilt is not

proved and his innocence is approved by the Court. But
42 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

that does not mean that the Appellate Court has no

jurisdiction or authority to reverse the judgment of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

57. In the following cases, the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to

interfere in the findings of the Trial Court if the said

findings are arbitrary, perverse and illegal.

57A. In the recent judgments; in the case of Siju

Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka3, the Hon’ble Apex Court

relying on the previous judgments and also relying on the

land-mark judgment of the Privy Council in the case of

Sheo Swarup Vs. King Emperor4, held as under:

“19. This Court has time and again
reiterated the powers of the Appellate Court while
dealing with the appeal against an order of
acquittal”.

3

2023 SCC OnLine SC 429
4
AIR 1934 PC 227
43 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

The Hon’ble Apex Court quoted the principle of law

laid down in the matter of Chandrappa Vs. State of

Karnataka5, where it is held as under:

“42. … (1) An appellate court has full power
to review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
puts no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate court on
the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial
and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient
grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted
conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not
intended to curtail extensive powers of an
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.

Such phraseologies are more in the nature of
“flourishes of language” to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.

5
(2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] ,
44 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear
in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him
under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on record,
the appellate court should not disturb the finding
of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’

58. In this case also, after re-appreciating the

evidence, this Court is of firm opinion that the accused has

committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence

and it erred in disbelieving the evidence of PW-1 on flimsy

reasons. There are no two views possible in this case. Only

one view is available that the accused has committed rape

on PW-1. That was not considered by the Trial Court.
45 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

Therefore, to that extent, the findings of the Trial Court

needs to be interfered.

59. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the

absence of word ‘rape’ in Ex.P1 to hold that it was the

consensual sex. The learned Sessions Judge totally ignored

oral evidence given by her before the Court on oath. Even

under Ex.P3, she had stated before the learned JMFC that

accused had sex with her, with a false promise of marriage,

against her wish. Therefore, the said finding of the learned

Sessions Judge is perverse. The learned Sessions Judge, on

the basis of conduct of PW-1, held that she had consented

for sexual intercourse, due to false promise of marrying her

said finding is contrary to evidence of PW-1.

60. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the

evidence of PW-1 regarding the fact of rape, on the ground

that she knew that the accused was married and having

children. Infact, PW-1 unequivocally, in her evidence, has

stated that she never met the wife and children of the

accused and his wife and children never attended family

function of PW-1. There were no reasons to disbelieve her
46 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

evidence. As already stated, there was communication gap

between PWs-1 and 2. Merely, PW-2 knew about invitation

of marriage of daughter of accused cannot be a ground to

hold that PW-1 had also knowledge of marriage of daughter

of accused. There is no such presumption under law.

Therefore, discarding of evidence of PW-1 on this ground,

by the Sessions Court, is erroneous.

61. In view of the said law laid down in the above

said judgment, it is proper and fit case to interfere in the

findings of the learned Trial Judge.

62. The learned Sessions Judge BY appreciating

the evidence, held that accused by giving a false promise

had sexual intercourse with PW-1 and on the basis of

materials available on record, convicted the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. That is

not challenged by accused. Even on re-appreciation of

evidence of PW-1 as discussed in the above paras, we also

find that there are sufficient evidence to accept the case of
47 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

the prosecution that accused has committed offence under

Section 417 of IPC.

63. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge rightly

convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 417 of IPC and there is no need to interfere in the

said findings.

64. The contention of the learned additional state

public prosecutor that sentence imposed against the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 417 of

IPC is very disproportionate and inadequate. The said

offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend

to one year or with fine or with both. In this case, the

learned Sessions Judge imposed the sentence of

imprisonment for a period of two months. However, no fine

was imposed. Therefore, the punishment imposed against

the accused is highly disproportionate and inadequate.

The said submission is acceptable. The learned

Sessions Judge has not assigned reasons regarding

punishment imposed against the accused. Victim is aged
48 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

20 years at the time of incident. Her future life has been

spoiled by accused who is aged about 54 years. She gave

birth to a child, it also has to suffer by social stigma.

Considering all these facts, the punishment imposed by the

learned trial Judge needs enhancement. Therefore, there is

need to interfere in the findings of the Trial Court regarding

the imposition of the sentence against accused for the

offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC.

65. For above said discussions, we answer points

No.1 to 4 in the affirmative.

66. For the above said reasons, we pass the

following:

ORDER

i) Appeal in 1064 of 2017 and 1066 of 2017 are
allowed.

ii) Impugned judgment passed in Sessions Case
No.50/2016 dated 28.09.2016 by the learned VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru, acquitting accused of the
offence punishable under
Section 376 and 506
of IPC is set aside. And convicting the accused of
49 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC
is confirmed.

iii) Accused, namely, Thaniyappa Purusha, Son
of late Annappa Purusha, Aged about 53 years,
Coolie by work, Residing at Thirthara Kadu Site
Mane, Mudipu, Kairangala Village and Post,
Bantwal Taluk – 574 211, is found guilty for the
offences punishable under section 376 and
Section 506 of the IPC.

iv) The sentence imposed against accused for
the offence punishable under
Section 417 of IPC
shall be modified.

To hear on Sentence.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

DH
50 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

Dr.HBPSJ UMBAJ: Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
22.02.2024 Crl.A.No.1066/2017

Hearing on Sentence

Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

for the Appellant/State and the learned advocate for

respondent/accused on sentence.

2. The learned advocate for accused submits

that accused is aged about 60 years having wife and

children. They are depending upon earnings of the accused.

He has social and family responsibilities. If he is punished

with maximum imprisonment as provided under the law,

then he and members of his family would be put to

irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, prayed to take

lenient view while imposing the sentence.

3. The learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor would submit that accused at the age of 55

years having wife and children has committed heinous

crime of rape on innocent victim, who was resident of a

village and spoiled her name, fame and career. Due to the
51 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

illegal act of the accused, she became pregnant and

delivered a baby boy. Even the accused is not looking after

the said baby. On the contrary, he denied entire allegations

against him and he contends that he was not father of the

said baby of the victim. Therefore, maximum permissible

sentence shall be imposed against him.

4. Looking to the facts and circumstances, we

are not inclined to extend benefit of Probation of Offenders

Act to the accused.

5. The accused is found guilty of the offences

punishable under Section 376, 506 and 417 of IPC. The

accused has committed repeated sexual acts with victim

girl three to four times on different dates.

6. There are no criminal antecedents against the

accused. Admittedly, accused is married and having wife

and children. He appears to be aged, around 60 years as

per materials on record. Considering his social, educational

and economical backwardness as well as his age and social

responsibility, lenient view needs to be taken while
52 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

imposing the sentence. However, leniency does not mean

of imposing inadequate or meagre sentence. It shall be

proper justifiable and adequate to the offence committed

by the accused. To strike the balance between them both,

adequate and proportionate/sentence to be imposed.

7. Accordingly, we sentence the accused as

under:

ORDER

i) The accused, namely, Thaniyappa Purusha,

Son of late Annappa Purusha, Aged about 53

years, Coolie by work, Residing at Thirthara Kadu

Site Mane, Mudipu, Kairangala Village and Post,

Bantwal Taluk – 574 211, is sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10)

years and shall pay fine of `50,000 (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he

shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one (1) year, for the offence punishable

under Section 376 of IPC.

53 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

ii) The accused is sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year

and shall pay fine of `5,000 (Rupees Five

Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he

shall undergo imprisonment for a period of two (2)

months for the offence punishable under Section

506 of the IPC.

iii) The accused is sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and

shall pay fine of `5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand

only), in default of payment of fine, he shall

undergo imprisonment for a period of two (2)

months for the offence punishable under Section

417 of IPC. Accordingly, the sentence passed by

the Sessions Court under Section 417 of IPC

stands modified.

iv) The substantive sentence of

imprisonment shall run concurrently.

v) Accused is entitled for set-off as provided

under Section 428 of CR.P.C.
54 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w
Crl.A.No.1066/2017

vi) On deposit of the fine of `60,000 (Rupees

Sixty Thousand only) by the accused `50,000/- is

ordered to be paid to the PW-1 victim lady as

compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

vii) The Member Secretary, Legal Service

Authority of the concerned District is directed to

consider awarding the compensation to the victim

under the Victim Compensation Scheme as

provided under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., and the

Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment

to District Legal Services Authority of the

concerned District, for considering payment of

compensation within period of three (3) months

from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

viii) Since sentence imposed against accused

under Section 417 of IPC is modified, the order of

the Trial Court awarding compensation to the

victim does not survive.

55 Crl.A.No.1064/2017 a/w

Crl.A.No.1066/2017

ix) Accused shall surrender before the

concerned Court within a period of forty five (45)

days from the date of this order to undergo

sentence.

x) The Registry is directed to send back Trial

Court records along with a copy of this judgment.

xi) Free copy of the judgment shall be

furnished to the accused.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

DH

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation