LexSHEKARA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 2 S.C.R. 744
A
SHE KARA
y-"'
V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Criminal Appeal No. 4 79 of 2002
B
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'
c -below 16 years of age - 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
D 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
E 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
~
F conviction.
Dismissing the appeal of the accused, the Court
HELD:
After a careful consideration of the evidence, the trial
G 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
SHEKARA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
745
··-y
State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63 - referred A
to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1967 SC 63
- referred to
para 7
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal B
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.
c
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.
D
>.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
E
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,
F
~
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 G
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 H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B
thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 448,
506 read with Section 34 IPC.
All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
...
~
c
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
D 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
E
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'\<
certificate (Ex. P9) and has stated that it pertains to the victim
...,....
F
and her name has been entered in the certificate. Nothing has
been elicited in her cross examination to discard her evidence
that Ex.P9 pertains tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.