Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan: While considering the instant case under Sections 506, 376, 366[A] and 114 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 which commenced in 2011, K. C. Sadanandswamy, Special Judge*, 12 years later, acquitted the accused persons as the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case for rape beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecutrix/victim’s behaviour in not disclosing the incident and not raising any hue and cry, was unnatural and against normal human conduct, thereby casting serious doubts on her version of the events.
The prosecutrix studying at a government pre-university college, Holenarasipura used to travel to school through bus from her village and knew all the accused persons. It was alleged that some of the accused persons had been consistently telling her to start loving accused 1 and even enquired her about the gold ornaments and cash that her parents had stored in the house. The prosecutrix had alleged that she did not want any relations with accused 1 but the other accused persons threatened her with consequences if she did not start loving accused 1.
On 25-02-2011, when the prosecutrix’s parents were not in the house, the accused persons including accused 1 came to her house. Other accused persons then sent the prosecutrix and accused 1 inside one of the rooms wherein accused 1 removed her clothes against her will and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She did not try to escape as she was threatened with dire consequences.
Furthermore, it was alleged that the accused persons compelled the prosecutrix to steal the cash and ornaments from her parents’ almirah and then take some of her clothes and take the bus to her school and from there to the house of accused 1. It was also alleged that mother of accused 1 had hurled casteist abuses at the prosecutrix.
After moving from place to place, when it came to the notice of the accused persons that relatives of the prosecutrix have filed a police case, then the prosecutrix went to the police, but it was alleged that the accused persons had pressurised her to state before the police that her mother was forcing her to marry her maternal uncle.
The prosecutrix was sent to Balakiyara Bala Bavana, Hassan. On 09-05-2011, she narrated the incident to her mother, her grandfather and PSI and lodged complaint.
As a result, the investigations began and the prosecutrix was taken for medical examination and charges were drawn against the accused persons and they pleaded not guilty.
Court’s Assessment: Perusing the facts of the case, the Court had to consider that whether the prosecution was able to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt or not.
The Court noted that the events began on 25-02-1011 and complaint is lodged on 09-05-2011, after lapse of 2 months and 9 days from date and time of first offence. The prosecutrix did not stay in her parents’ house after return from Bengaluru to Holenarasipura with accused. She stayed in Balakiyara Bala Bhavana. The prosecution offered no explanation why she did not stay in house of her parents and why she did not explain or informed serious offences of rape and kidnap to her own parents, brother, and grandfather. It gives room for suspicion about the prosecution case.
The Court further pointed out that the prosecutrix made minimum effort to raise hue and cry in any of public place, where, she has boarded bus among public, passengers, friends, teaches and others. The Court termed this behaviour to be an unnatural circumstance on part of the prosecutrix.
The Court noted that no external injuries were found on the prosecutrix’s body due to alleged forcible sexual intercourse and no spermatozoa was found. The Court further noted that there was no recovery of the ornaments and cash that the prosecutrix was compelled to steal from her parents, from the accused persons. The Court pointed out that the prosecutrix stayed in the house of many persons in the duration of the incident but did not give any evident that she was kept in confinement.
The Court stated that- “Victim never disclosed about incident to anybody nor sought for anybody’s help during relevant period. PW-1 is well built girl would not raise any resistance to forceful sexual intercourse. If really resistance is there, there would have been injury marks. The offence of rape has not been proved. No injuries were found on the body of victim. There were no signs of forcible sexual intercourse on her. The complaint lodged after two months and fifteen days of alleged incident. The prosecution has tried to improve its case from time to time and it has not come before court with true facts”.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that it cannot raise presumption available under provisions of SC/ST (Preventions of Atrocities) Act, when prosecution has failed to prove guilt against accused persons.
With the afore-stated assessment, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and decided to acquit the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 376, 114, 366, 506 and 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by acting under Section 235(1) of CrPC.
[State of Karnataka v. Santhosha, 2023 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Kar) 2, decided on 10-11-2023]
*Judgment by Special Judge, K. C. Sadanandswamy
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For complainant- Special Public Prosecutor, Hassan
For accused persons- A1 to A6 by A.H.B., advocate A9 by K.N.P., Advocate
