caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
K. Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2021Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy
Crl.A@SLP(Crl.)No.610 of 2021
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2021
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.610 of 2021)
K.Prakash & Anr. …Appellants
vs.
The State of Karnataka …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R.Subhash Reddy,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred, aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in Criminal Appeal
No.100201 of 2016. By the aforesaid order, the High
Court has confirmed conviction/sentence of the
appellants herein for offences under Sections 344 and
366, IPC.
3. The appellants herein, along with other accused,
were charge-sheeted in Crime No.115/2014 on the file of
Sub-Urban PS, Dharwad, for offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 366, 344, 376, 506 read with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2021.03.19
Section 149, IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of
16:17:10 IST
Reason:
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short
1
Crl.A@SLP(Crl.)No.610 of 2021
‘POCSO’ Act). The Sessions Court has convicted accused
no.1 for offences punishable under Sections 344, 366,
IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. So far as the
appellants are concerned, they were convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 344, 366 read with
Section 34, IPC and were sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 344,
IPC and a fine of Rs.2000/- and S.I. for two years for
the offence under Section 366, IPC and a fine of
Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and
sentence imposed, they preferred appeal to High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. Same is dismissed by the
impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019. Hence, this appeal
by accused nos.4 and 5.
4. PW-2 is the daughter of complainant PW-1, who
lodged a complaint on 08.05.2014 before the Police. In
the complaint, it is alleged that her daughter had gone
to bring chips and milk from a nearby shop but she did
not return home for about half an hour. Thereafter the
complainant searched for her and had come to know that
her daughter went in an Auto Rickshaw. According to the
complainant/PW-1, prior to the said incident, accused
No.1, who was residing near the house of the
complainant, was having love affair with PW-2- victim
girl and he was insisting to perform her marriage with
2
Crl.A@SLP(Crl.)No.610 of 2021
him. The complainant explained to him that she is not of
marriageable age and his request will be considered
after the victim attains the marriageable age.
Therefore, the complainant/PW-1, suspected the role of
accused No.1 and complaint was lodged before the police.
5. Pursuant to registration of crime, the
investigation was taken up. After investigation, it was
revealed that accused No.1, with the help of other
accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9, conspired together and
kidnapped the minor girl PW-2, in a car provided by the
appellants/accused Nos. 4 and 5. All of them were
prosecuted for offences, referred above.
6. To prove the offence alleged against the accused,
prosecution has examined, in all, 16 witnesses. The
mother of the victim girl is the complainant and she is
examined as PW-1; PW-2 is victim girl; PW-3 and PW-4 are
Medical Officers; PW-5 is the owner of house at
Vishwanathhalli, where victim girl and accused No.1 have
stayed for sometime; PW-6 is the driver of the car;
PW-7 to PW-13 are panch witnesses for different
panchanamas; PW-14 and 15 are Investigation Officers.
7. So far as the appellants are concerned, after
completion of trial, the Trial Court has come to a
conclusion that prosecution has proved the guilt of
accused nos. 4 and 5 only for offences punishable under
3
Crl.A@SLP(Crl.)No.610 of 2021
Sections 344 and 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Accused No. 1 was, in addition, found guilty of offence
punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. All the accused
were convicted accordingly. The conviction recorded and
Sentence imposed on the above accused, is confirmed by
the High Court, by dismissing the criminal appeal filed
by them, by impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019.
8. As this Court has issued notice limited to the
quantum of Sentence only, it is not necessary to delve
in detail on the merits of the matter, so far as
conviction is concerned.
9. We have heard Sri Anand Sanjay M.Nuli, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Shubhranshu
Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State of Karnataka.
10. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for
the appellants that the High Court has committed error
in confirming the judgment of conviction and Order of
Sentence, though the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted
that the appellants/accused Nos.4 and 5 are the tenants
of accused Nos. 6 and 7 and are no way connected with
the crime but have been falsely implicated at the
instance of PW-1 and PW-2. It is submitted that the only
allegation as against the appellants/accused Nos. 4 and
4
Crl.A@SLP(Crl.)No.610 of 2021
5 is that, they have helped accused No.1 in taking the
victim-PW-2 from the petrol pump near Nuggikeri to
Vishwanathhalli in a car, driven by PW-6. It is
submitted that there are various inconsistencies and
contradictions in the prosecution evidence and in spite
of the same, the Trial Court has erroneously convicted
the appellants and the same is confirmed by the High
Court. It is submitted that in any event, the Trial
Court has committed error in sentencing the
appellants/accused Nos. 4 and 5, to undergo S.I. for one
year for offence punishable under Section 344 of IPC and
S.I. for two years for offence punishable under Section
366 of IPC. Further, having regard to allegations made
against the appellants, the sentence imposed is
excessive and illegal. Further it is submitted that, as
they are having minor child and aged parents, there is
no one to take care of them. With the aforesaid pleas,
learned counsel has made a request to modify the
sentence.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the State of Karnataka, has submitted that the
appellants are convicted for offence punishable under
Sections 344, 366 read with Section 34 of IPC and that
PW-2-minor girl was kidnapped at the instance of accused
No.1, as such there is no illegality in the conviction
5
Crl.A@SLP(Crl.)No.610 of 2021
recorded and Sentence imposed on the appellants. It is
submitted that, there are no grounds to interfere with
the impugned judgment.
12. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we
have perused the impugned judgment and other material
placed on record.
13. Though learned counsel for the appellants has
argued, questioning the conviction itself but we are
satisfied with the reasoning assigned by the High Court
for confirming the conviction recorded, as such we need
not elaborate further. Further, this Court has issued
notice, limited to the quantum of sentence only.
Learned counsel for the appellants made a request to
modify the sentence.
14. Many factors which may not be relevant to determine
the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the
stage of sentencing. While imposing the sentence, all
relevant factors are to be considered, keeping in mind
the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present
case, the main accusation was against accused no.1, who
is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 344,
366, IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years. Even in
the complaint, it was mentioned that accused no.1 was in
love with the victim girl PW-2. It is also the case of
6
Crl.A@SLP(Crl.)No.610 of 2021
the appellants that PW-1 was not a direct witness to the
incident and PW-2 has been tutored by PW-1. The alleged
incident is of the year 2014 and we are informed that
appellants have already served sentence of about three
months and paid fine amount. They specifically pleaded
that there is no one to take care of their minor son and
old age parents.
15. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, while confirming the conviction recorded and
fine imposed, we modify the sentence on the appellants
for the period already undergone. The appellants be
released forthwith unless otherwise their custody is
required in connection with any other case. This appeal
is partly allowed to the extent, indicated above.
………………..J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
………………..J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi,
March 19, 2021.
7
Comments