State vs Madhusudhan Alias Madhu

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The State has challenged the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charge u/s 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on a trial held by Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. The facts reveal that on 9-12-2007 in the morning at about 10.30 a.m., accused (respondent herein) visited the house of victim and took the victim-P.W. 3, a minor girl aged about 10 years to his new building situated at Vinayakanagar saying that he would give the key of his house and said to have tried to commit rape on the victim girl. On a complaint, investigation was held and charge-sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC.

During the trial, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 11 and M.Os. 1 to 7. After recording the statement of respondent u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, D.Ws. 1 and 2 the defence witnesses were examined and Ex. D. 1 was got marked. The Trial Court after hearing the Counsel for parties and on appreciation the material on record, convicted the respondent for the charge u/s 354 of IPC and acquitted for the charge u/s 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal has been filed.

I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant.

P.W. 3 is the victim minor girl. She was a student of 5th standard aged in between 10 to 11 years. Her evidence discloses that she was taken by the respondent (accused) to his new house and he opened her kacha and pant, she made hue and cry and she tried to escape from the hands of respondent (accused). The respondent caught hold and removed her clothes, at that time, she escaped and ran away from the spot. This is what all have been stated by P.W. 3-the victim in her evidence as regard to the act of respondent. Apart from the evidence of P.W. 3-the victim, it is P.W. 2 her mother who has deposed before the Court that she has stated what all has been stated by the victim to her. The evidence of P.W. 5-Dr. H.S. Sandhya discloses that there were no injuries on the body of victim. There were no sperm stains on the articles. Ex. P. 3 is the certificate issued by the expert. So from this evidence on record, the Trial Court was of the view that prosecution has not proved the act of attempting rape on the victim to find him guilty for the offence u/s 376(2)(f) of IPC. Taking into consideration the evidence of victim and also the report of expert, I do not think there are any grounds to admit the appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. I of 2013 filed for condonation of delay does not survive for consideration and hence, it is accordingly rejected.