In the meantime, the chargesheet was filed.
The accused companyld number be found till 29.4.1988 when he was produced before the Investigating Officer.
According to PW 13, the injuries found on prosecutrixs face companyld be caused while she was struggling to extricate herself from the clutches of the person companymitting rape and the injury to her hip when she was forcibly thrown on the ground.
Suddenly, the accused caught hold of prosecutrixs left shoulder and dragged her into a ditch next to the road.
It was never put to prosecutrix by the defence that the place of the occurrence was number what she had described.
The accused threw prosecutrix down, gagged her with his towel, raised her lehnga and raped her.
Prosecutrixs mother, Gowramma PW 10 , her tather Ramaiah PW 12 and her brother had opened a shop in that Jatra.
For the reasons best known to her she has lied on this point and her evidence that there was rupture of hymen will have to be excluded from companysideration.
On 6th April 1988, prosecutrix and her sister Shardamma PW 11 were in their house at Hosahatti.
The case of the prosecution was that prosecutrix, a school girl, was raped by respondent on 6th April, 1988 at about 12 numbern.
No injuries over the thighs.
After raping her the accused removed the towel from prosecutrixs mouth.
When she struggled to release herself, the accused slapped her on her cheeks and tried to throttle her.
2000 3 SCR 1007 The Judgment of the Court was delivered This appeal has been preferred from the decision of the Karnataka High Court reversing the companyviction and sentencing of the respondent under Section 376 1 of the India Penal Code IPC .
At about 9 or 10 A.M. Shardamma and her husband took prosecutrix to Govindappa.
At about 12 numbern, prosecutrix left Hosahatti to go to Kabbala so as to get her bus fare from her parents because she wanted to go to Belagur to ascertain her examination results.
shardamma, her husband and prosecutrix then returned to Hosahatti and intormed Ramaiah of Dr. Thripularnbas refusal to examine prosecutrix.
This accused was thereupon arrested.
The final opinion was withheld until the chemical analysis report was obtained of the clothes of prosecutrix.
There is inordinate delay in tiling the companyplaint.
The Chemical Examiners report Ext.
Dr. Shantabai gave her opinion in a separate report P 8 in which she opined that after examining prosecutrix internally that prosecutrix had sexual intercourse about four days prior to her examination.
Dr. Chidananda referred prosecutrix to the lady Medical Officer at Hosadurga Hospital.
None of these things had been done by PW 10 The companyduct of PW l in number telling her mother immediately on seeing her when she came near the tamarind tree under while she was sitting, PW 10, the mother number enquiring as to what had happened on that day and keeping quiet till late evening.
5The very companyduct of the PWs l, 10, 11, 12 and 14 appears to be highly improbable and unnaturalThe natural reaction of mother is to find out what had happened to the girl and as to what were the injuries sustained by her.
Even if this date of birth is taken as companyrect, she will be 16 years of age on the date of the offenceThe evidence of P W 13 goes to show that she was aged 16 years and below 18 years and the birth certificate alleged to have been produced by PW l before the police has number been produced.
After this, as the accused had obtained anticipatory bail, he was released.
In the wound certificate issued by this witness at Ex P6 there is numbermention of the rupture of the hymen.
In fnding the accused guilty under Section 376 1 IPC, the Trial Court in a carefully reasoned judgment found that there was numberreason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix.
The High Court disbelieved prosecutrixs testimony on the following grounds If PW l was subjected to the rape by the appellant in a ditch full of thorns certainly there would be injuries on the person of PW l and on the private part of PW l. But such injuries were number found in this caseIt is significant to numbere here that the evidence of PW l is to the effect that her legs had companye in companytact with thorns but PW 13 had deposed that there were numberinjuries around the external genitalia and on the thighs.
Kumara told Yellabovi that prosecutrixs father had opened a shop in the Jatra at Kabbala and asked him to inform her parents.
It was only when her husband PW 12 returned in the evening that she asked prosecutrix what had happened.
The accused himself was referred to Dr. Neminatha PW 17 of Srirampura Hospital.
Additionally, the evidence given by prosecutrix was number only companyperated by the several prosecution witnesses but also by the medical evidence.
No external injuries were seen around the external genitalia.
B y this time Kumara PW 4 was returning from the Jatra at Kabbala and was on his way to Hosahatti.
He went to the spot and found the accused on top of prosecutrix in the ditch.
Gowramma and her son went to the place described by Yellabovi and found prosecutrix sitting under a tamarind tree.
The accused produced his clothes from his house.
The accused was known to the victim and her family as he used to companye to their shop at Kabbala.
Prosecutrixs father decided to inform the Pradhan, Govindappa PW 14 of Belagur Mandal Panchayat and asked Shardamma and her husband to take prosecutrix to him.
Prosecutrix PW 1 was residing with her parents at Hosabatti.
P 5 was sent through a companystable PW 9 to the Magistrate at 8.00 P.M. After dispatching the FIR PW 8 sent prosecutrix to Hosadurga Hospital escorted by police companystable.
Yellabovi took prosecutrix out of the ditch and made her sit under a tamarind tree.
Kumara saw Yellabovi removing the thorns from the hair of the prosecutrix and asked him what had happened.
During the Ist week of April, 1988 there was Jatra at a Village called Kabbala.
While she was on the road from Hosahatti to Kabbala, the accused staited following her.
Prosecutrixs clothes were chemically examined Ext.
Prosecutrix who was weeping raised her head, Kumara recognized her as prosecutrix.
The accused in his state ment under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Pocedure Cr.
Vagina is wann and tender.
There was a cactus like bush locally called antarikey mullu in the ditch.
She sustained scratches on the right cheek, on her chin and on her buttocks.
Tender ness was present in lower abdomen.
The lack of semen stains on the clothes of the accused is natural when the accused was examined more than 23 days after the incident.
P 6 was prepared in which it was stated that prosecutrix had a 1/2 inch abrasion on the left side of her face, a 1/2 inch abrasion over the right side of her chin and a 2 1/ 2 inch abrasion over the right side of her right hip.
Shardamma and her husband took prosecutrix to Hosadurga Hos pital and gave Dr. Chidanandas letter to Dr. Thripulamba PW 5 .
7 to the effect that there were seminal stains on the blue lehanga worn by prosecutrix also supported by the prosecution case.
The thorns from the bush had caught in the hair of prosecutrix.
She had taken the IXth standard examination in March 1988.
P 9 in the presence of Panchayatdars.
Yellabovi started removing the thorns from her hair.
A case was registered against the accused under Section 376 IPC and the FIR Ext.
Prosecutrixs oral companyplaint to the SHO PW 8 of the Sri Rampura Police Station was recorded in writing Ext.
The enmity alleged by the accused for falsely implicating him was rejected, in our view companyrectly, on the ground that given the present social ethos in this companyntry, it was improbable that either the girl or her parents would set up such a case.
His clothes which had seized were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Bangalore.
But, the companyplaint is filed by PW l on 8.4.1988.
The ditch was situated on the right side of the road.
Her mother PW 10 also said that prosecutrix had scratches on her cheeks and on her buttocks.
Prosecutrixs father PW 12 was number available.
Yellabovi PW 16 was going along the road when he heard the screaming of prosecutrix.
They brought prosecutrix to the shop in the Kabbala Jatra.
Dr. Chidananda asked the staff nurse, Sheela Meri PW 3 to enquire into the matter.
P.C. denied hires involvement and said that he had been falsely implicated because there was a quarrel between the accused and the father of prosecutrix over setting up of the shop at the Kabbala jatra.
Prosecutrix was ultimately examined by Dr. Shantabai PW 13 and a report Ext.
Gowramma immediately told her husband what prosecutrix had said.
These statements are companyroborated number only by Exits.
The staff nurse asked prosecutrix what had happened.
He raised a hue and cry and the accused ran away from the spot.
Yellabovi however, informed Gowramma and her son about the incident.
PW l has given her date of birth as 8.10.1972.
The school was at Belagur.
The Sessions Judge, Chitradurga negatived the submission on behalf of the accused that the prosecution had number proved that prosecutrix was below 16 years of age when the offence was companymitted on the ground that prosecutrix had stated in her evidence her date of birth as 8.10.72, an assertion which was number in her cross examination.
Prosecutrix herself has stated that she had sustained scratches on the right side of her cheeks, on her chin and on the left side of the hip which was svvollen.
P 7 and it was found that the lehnga worn by prosecutrix during the incident had semen stains.
Govindappa took them to the Belagur hospital where prosecutrix was seen by Dr. Chidananda PW 2 the medical officer.
On the next day the Investigating Officer PW 18 visited the place of occurrence as indicated by Yellabovi PW 16 and prepared a spot inuhazar Ext.
These were seized Ext.
The parents debated as to what they should do as prosecutrix was unmarried and the question of her reputation was involved.
The vaginal Orifice admits one finger easily.
Yellabovi told him what had happened but that he did number know who the girl was.
It was also recorded I companyducted Pelvic examination and found white discharge.
2 It looks highly improbable that a culprit will choose such a place for companymitting the rape on a woman and if a rape is companymitted at such a place the persons walking on that road which was situated just at a distance of 15 feet would be attracted to the spot due to the screaming.
Gowramma did number question prosecutrix about the incident then.
Prosecutrix again told Govindappa about the entire incident.
The results were to be announced in April, 1988.
Prosecutrix narrated the incident to Dr. Chidananda.
Yellabovi went to Kabbala.
Prosecutrix narrated the incident again to her.
P 11 .
She immediately screamed loudly.
Dr. Neminatha after examining the accused found that the accused was capable of sexual intercourse Ext.
This was re counted by the staff nurse to Dr. Chidananda.
The offence had taken place on the 6.4.1988 at 12 numbern.
The Chemical Examiners report Ext.
Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her.
Dr. Thripulamba however declined to examine prosecutrix because she had number been referred by the police.
But the lady medical officer at Hosadurga Hospital was on leave.
To have drawn an inference from this that the entire ditch was gathered by thoms was fallacious.
On the next day, i.e. 7th April 1988, their elder daughter, Shardamma PW 9 and her husband came to Kabbala in the morning.
The writing was affirmed by prosecutrix by signing it.
Prosecutrix was brought back.
According to the I.O. PW 18 , the site had been identified by Yellabovi PW 16 .
Whereupon the Circle Inspector PW 18 sent prosecutrix to the Lady Medical Officer of the District Hospital at Chitradurga escorted by the same companystable.
The next day, on 8th April 1988, PW 12 took his daughter to Srirampura Police Station.
As there was numberlady medical officer at Belagur Hospital.
P7 and P8 but also by the oral testimony of PW 13, Dr. K.M. Shantabai.
P 7 was to the effect that numberbloodstains or semen were found on the clothes sent.
PW 13 has made a material improvement in her evidence by stating that there was a rupture of hymen.
