SHEKARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 744

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, A.K. GANGULY

Case summary

SHEKARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA.pdf

Judgment text

[2009) 2 S. C. R. 744 SHEKARA y-"' V. STATE OF KARNATAKA Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2002 FEBRUARY 18, 2009 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ) Penal Code, 1860 : ).. - ~ ss. 354 and 376 - Accused stated to have ravished a girl 1' -below 16 years ofage - Nine months thereafter, alongwith three others entered the house of complainant and threatened the prosecutrix and her mother with their lives - Conviction by trial court u/s 376, 448, 506 rlw s. 34 and sentence of 5 years RI - Affirmed by High Court - HELD: Trial court and High Court rightly found accused guilty, but offence committed is x punishable uls 354 - Conviction altered from s. 376 to s. 354. . ,4.

The accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court and sentenced 5 years RI ulss 376, 448, 506134 IPC on the charges that he ravished a girl below 16 years of age giving a false promise of marrying her, and nine months thereafter alongwith three others entered the house of the complainant and committed criminal intimidation by threatening the prosecutrix and her ~ mother with their lives. The High Court affirmed the ~ conviction. Dismissing the appeal of the accused, the Court HELD: After a careful consideration of the evidence, the trial court and the High Court have found the accused guilty. But the offence is covered u/s 354 IPC. Therefore, the ~ conviction of the accused is altered from s. 376 to s. 354 IPC. [para 8-9] [ 749-A-B] . H 744 ··-y State ofPunjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63 - referred to. Case Law Reference AIR 1967 SC 63 - referred to para 7 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2002 i From the Judgement and Order dated 10. 10.

2001 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 1996. G. V. Chandrashekhar, N. K. Verma, P. P. Singh for the Appellant. Anil Kr, Mishra, A Rohan Singh, Sanjay R. Hedge, Anil Kr. 1( Chawla, for the Respondent. >. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kar·nataka High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ('IPC') and ~ ,,, sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by learned llnd Additional Sessions Judge Dakshina Kannada, • ~ Mangalore in SC No. 41 of 1993. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The appellant with three other accused stood tried before the llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore in S. C. No. 41 of 1- 1993 on the accusation that the accused No. 1 about nine ~ months earlier to 16. 10. 1992 at House No.

2/92, Vishnunagar of Kelarkalabettu, Udupi Taluk committed. rape of PW8, daughter of the complainant Kalyani Bai (PW1) by inducing her to have sexual intercourse on the false promise of marrying her and committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and yl. · accused nos. 1 to 4 on 16. 10. 1992 at about 10 pm entered into the house of complainant and committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW1 and her daughter (PW8) with dire consequences and threatened to do away with their lives and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. ... All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ~ The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P14. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr. P. C. ') was recorded. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. 3.

Primary stand before the High Court was that the victim was more than 16 years of age and she had consented to the 'I act. The High Court did not accept the plea and upheld the A. conviction as recorded. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions made before the trial court and the High Court. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court. 5. It is to be noted that PW1 had produced the transfer j- j'\ - • 8. Intention is not the sole criterion ofthe offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to pe affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various -1....

, circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. In the instant case [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ] after careful consideration of the evidence, the trial court and A the High Court have found the accused guilty. But the offence is Section 354 IPC. 9. In the instant case we alter the conviction of the accused from Section 376 IPC to Section 354 IPC. B 10. Considering the background facts and the position in law as indicated above, the inevitable conclusion is that the appeal is without merit deserves dismissal which we direct. R. P. Appeal dismissed. >-. ..