She kept raising however screams and cries all the same which attracted on the scene a grazier by the name of Muniswamappa, PW 2.
Narayanamma is the prosecutrix.
Both of them bodily lifted the prosecutrix by her hands and legs and took her a few feet away in the field of one Gopalappa known as the field of stones.
Accused 3, Somanna, aged about 20 years, who was already present there, lifted her clothes, forcibly inserted his organ in the private parts of the prosecutrix as also broke open the hooks of her blouse and squeezed her breasts, while the victim was immobilised by Muniyappa who held her by her hands closing her mouth and Venkataswamy catching her by the legs.
In the meantime Krishnappa PW 8, brother of the prosecutrix arrived and he too was told by the prosecutrix as to what had happened to her.
1 5 p.m. Beforehand the police had taken care to have the prosecutrix examined by Dr C.V Reeta, PW 3 immediately after the recording of the FIR within about six hours of the incident.
At that time, Somanna stood close by, and Muniyappa kept holding the hands of the prosecutrix for her resistance had somewhat waned away by that time.
Then came the sister of the prosecutrix by the name Nagrathna PW 5 and her mother, Venkatagiriamma, PW 6 to whom the prosecutrix narrated as to what had happened to her.
Then he taking his sister, the prosecutrix as also Muniswamappa PW 2 went to the Police Station, Bangarpet having travelled a distance of about 9 miles on foot where first information report was lodged on the statement of the prosecutrix much before midnight.
On companypletion of the investigation, the three accused respondents were put up for trial, Muniyappa companystructively with the aid of Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the other two accused directly for the offence of rape, besides all the three accused for peripheral offences.
Having laid up on the prosecutrix for sometime Somanna got up and immediately thereafter Venkataswamy indulged in the same act.
157 of 1986 decided on 20 11 1987 recording an order of acquittal in favour of the accused respondents.
The trial ended in companyviction of the respondents under all companynts for which they were awarded terms of imprisonment as disclosed in the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Kolar.
They then took her to the village.
When she got close to him, he caught her by the hands, speaking to her suggestively with an evil design.
There Sorghum jowar crop was standing and they dumped her on the standing jowar plants which matted.
On 3 10 1983 at about 3.30 p.m. she had gone towards the fields to cut some grass for her cattle, and while she was returning at about 5.00 p.m. with a basket full of grass, she found accused 1, Muniyappa, aged about 23 years standing close to a Honge tree on the footpath.
She is illiterate and used to eke out a living, as did her other family members, by working as an agricultural labourer in companymon parlance a companylie .
The police also took care of arresting the accused and in having them medically examined from Dr Basavaraju, PW 4 on the day following the day of the occurrence at about 1.
On seeing PW 2, the three accused ran away.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. These two appeals by special leave, one by the State of Kamataka and the other by the victim of the crime, are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.
In the meantime the nephew of the prosecutrix, a child about 9 years named Yellappa PW 7 helped her get up and made her wear her clothes.
The police then went into action by inspecting the spot wherefrom they companyld recover some pieces of broken bangles belonging to the prosecutrix.
He had seen Muniyappa having immobilised the prosecutrix, Somanna standing close by and Venkataswamy raping her.
She was about 14 years of age on the date of the companymission of the offence.
Accused 2 Venkataswamy aged about 17 years emerged from a close by fence and caught her by the legs.
