STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Was the High Court justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to reduce the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial Court on the respondent for an offence under S. 376, I.P.C. to 4 years R.I., while maintaining his conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Ss. 254, 323, 341, 363, 448 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, is the only question involved in his appeal by special leave A brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary to answer the question.

(2.) The victim of rape is a little gir, who was about 8 years of age at the relevant time. She appeared as P.W. 1 at the trial. She was living with her parents, Honnaiah, P.W. 4 (father) and Parvathi, P.W. 5 (mother) in village Kenjige. Both the accused and the prosecutrix belong to Scheduled Caste. On 5th of May, 1991, between 8.00 and 9.00 p.m. while the prosecutrix and her brother, Ramesh were playing in the Chavani of their house, the respondent went there and called out for Honnaiah, P.W. 4, father of the prosecutrix. Parvathi, P.W. 5 were at that time preparing chapatees in the kitchen. She answered back to say that her husband was not in the house. On hearing this, the respondent went inside the house and asked Parvathi, P.W. 5 to sleep with him, since her husband was not present in the house. She protested. The respondent made obscene gestures and pulled her breasts and on her further protest, the respondent beat her up. Parvathi, P.W. 5 managed to somehow escape and ran out of the house and went towards the house of her mother-in-law, Ramajji. Both the prosecutrix and her brother, after observing the incident also made an attempt to run away. The respondent, however, caught hold of the prosecutrix by her right hand and draged her to room No. 3 of houses in coolie line. The respondent closed the door and forcibly made prosecutrix to lie on the floor. The protest of the prosecutrix and her effort to free herself from the hold of the respondent led to the respondent bitting her on her upper lip which started bleeding. The prosecutrix fell on the ground. The respondent had forcible sexual intercourse with her. She sustained bleeding injuries on her private parts also and was exhausted. The respondent then left the room and locked it from outside. P.W. 4, father of the prosecutrix, had in the meanwhile returned alone. He learnt that the respondent had taken the prosecutrix towards the coolie line. He went to the house of P.W. 12, but was assaulted and threatened with dire consequences in case he disclosed about the occurrence to anyone. In the early hours of the morning, P.Ws. 4 and 5 went to room No. 3 in the coolie line and rescued the prosecutrix. The matter was thereafter reported to the police. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to the hospital where she was treated. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and the respondent prosecuted for various offences.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge after a critical examination of evidence on the record found that the respondent himself, a married man with children, at the relevant time aged about 49 years, had in the first place mishebaved with the mother of the prosecutrix in the manner deposed to by her and had also committed rape on the prosecutrix, a little child of 7/8 years of age. The trial Court also observed on the basis of evidence on the record, that the respondent used to misbehave and create galata, under the influence of liquor, quite often in the village. The trial Court found that the prosecution had successfully established that respondent had committed various offences alleged against him and convicted him accordingly. On the question of sentence for the offence under S. 376, I.P.C. (with which alone we are concerned in this appeal), the trial Court observed: