Rajshekhar vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the records.

A lady by name V. Nagamma W/o. Ravi, who is a widow has lodged a complaint on 02.08.2013 alleging that petitioner is her son-in-law and on 01.08.2013 in the evening petitioner had come to her house with hot drinks and non-vegetarian food. It is alleged that, at about 11 p.m. petitioner went out from the house of complainant and complainant was searching for key of a lock, which was used by her to lock the gate of the house. At that time 4-5 persons have trespassed into the house of complainant by covering their face with black cloth and caught hold her and committed rape on her and snatched a golden chain from her neck. Out of them, one person has shown knife to her and threatened her with dire consequences of killing her and etc. On these allegations, police have investigated the matter and during the course of investigation police have seized golden chain, belonging to the complainant, at the instance of the petitioner, by recording his voluntary statement. At this stage, the statement of complainant, which was recorded u/s 164A(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.'' for brevity) is available and in that statement complainant has clearly stated that petitioner has committed rape on her and snatched a golden chain. This fact has been disclosed in the voluntary statement of accused also.

The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the investigation record discloses that the police have seized the clothes of petitioner and have sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory.

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the report is not yet been submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to the presence of seminal stains of petition in seized clothes. The said report is awaited.

Under the above said circumstances, though the other materials show the involvement of accused-petitioner in the commission of offence, the F.S.L. report also plays a dominant role. Therefore, I am of the opinion that on the basis of the above said materials the petition filed by petitioner deserves to be dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Sessions Court after receipt of said F.S.L. report. With these observations, petition stands dismissed.