Accordingly, on 17.9.1989 they both went to the tailoring shop to take delivery of the clothes when A 2 informed them that the stitching was number over, upon which both of them asked him to return the blouses given for measurement.
W.26 went to the scene of occurrence which is the house of A 2 where the alleged rape was companymitted on PWs.
Thereafter, further investigation was taken up by P.W.24, the Circle Inspector of Police.
On the next day he sent them for medical examination to the District Hospital, Madikeri.
1 2 also produced clothes which they were wearing at the time of incident which were seized.
At that time they gave two blouses of theirs for the purpose of measurement along with new clothes.
1 to 24.
On 13 11 1989 A 2 appeared before him with order of anticipatory bail.
376 IPC, and both the appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
His statement was recorded after arresting him.
As soon as they entered the house, A 2 bolted the door and held P.W.2 and A 1 also held PW l. They were taken to separate rooms and A 1 companymitted rape on W.1 and A 2 companymitted rape on PW2, Thereafter, they threatened both of them that they would be murdered if the incident was revealed to anyone, Therefore, they kept quiet, On18 9 1989 they went to Madikeri to the house of Chandrakala P.W.14 .
After receipt of the FSL report, he filed a charge sheet.
On 23 9 1989 A 1 was arrested.
Accordingly, he went to the house at Sulia and found both of them and brought them back to Madenadu, Thereafter, they went to Madikeri Rural Police Station on 21 9 1989 and presented a written companyplaint Ex P l signed by W.1 which was received by P.W.26 at 6.45 p.m. On that day, PW 26 registered a case in Madikeri Rural Police Station in Cr, No.233/89 and submitted FIR as per Ex P.33.
The trial Court found with reference to the evidence on record, more particularly the documents exhibited by the teacher of the school PW 16 that the age of the victims in each case was less than 16 years.
1 2, He drew up mahazar Ex P4 in the house of PW2 in the presence of panchas and seized broken bangles MOs.
He also produced clothes that he was wearing at the time of incident from his house which were seized as per Ex P.29.
Accordingly, both of them accompanied by A 1 A 2 went to the house which was nearby.
On receipt of this companymittal order, the Court of Sessions, Kodagu District, registered a case S.C. No.45/90 and framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.
Therefore the trial Court held that the question of companysent was irrelevant and immaterial.
1 2 sent Seshappa PW17 who is the elder brother of PW 2 to his maternal uncles house at Sulia.
In appeal, the High Court held that the age was more than 16 years and there was companysent and accordingly directed acquittal.
1 2 who were waiting outside entered the house.
PW 26 recorded the statement of A 1 who led them to his house where he drew a mahazar as per Ex P.33.
A 1 A 2 went inside the house and as they did number companye out of the house for about 15 minutes, both PWs.
8 9, He also drew mahazar in the shop of A 2 as per Ex P3 and seized the clothes given for stitching by PWs.
In response to that, A 2 asked them to go to his house as the blouses were left in his house.
Both A 1 A 2 were subjected to medical examination, Dr. G. Marulasiddappa P.W 25 issued certificate of A 1 as per Ex P.27 and Dr. Suryakumar PW 3 issued certificate of A 2 as per Ex P.6.
Thereafter, the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions, as the offence alleged against these accused persons is in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
Background facts as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are as follows W.1 and PW2 were residing alongwith their respective parents at Madenadu and they were working as companylies in the companyfee estate of Pudiyenda Palangappa, Appellant No.2 accused number 2 is a tailor by profession having his tailoring shop at Aatekere, On 16 9 1989 at about 9.00 a.m., PWs, 1 2 went to the tailoring shop of A 2 and requested him to stitch their blouses.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. State of Karnataka is in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who were charged for companymission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in short the IPC .
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it examined 27 witnesses and got marked Exs P1 to P.34 and also MOs.
