RAJA . v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

[REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2011 RAJA AND OTHERS …APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT J U D G E M E N T AMITAVA ROY, J . Distressed by the reversal of their acquittal from the charge under Sections 366/376(g)/392 read with Section 34 IPC, as recorded by the trial court, the appellants have impeached the impugned judgement and order of their conviction rendered by the High Court in the State appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Joseph Aristotle S, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 3. The prosecution was set rolling by an oral report by the prosecutrix with the Sampangiramanagara Police Station between 2.00 A.M. and 3.00 A.M. of 11.10.1997, which was in Tamil language and was translated and recorded by S. 1

Shiva Lingaia, ASI, whereafter a case was registered under Sections 366, 376(g), 392 r/w 34 IPC. 4. The prosecutrix revealed that she was a resident of No.81, Jasari Kaleeli, Rustum ji Compound, Richmond Road, Bangalore and was earning her livelihood by rendering services as a maid in the house of Shilpa Shetty at Shanti Nagar, Bangalore. According to her, because of the ill-treatment of her husband, she shifted to Bangalore about 8 months prior to the incident by separating from him. She alleged that at about 7.30 P.M. in the previous evening, while she was coming back from work and was at the Richmond Park, an auto rickshaw ,with two persons in it including the driver stopped by her side and she was pulled inside. According to her, after travelling some distance, two other persons also got into the auto rickshaw. The miscreants then blindfolded her, by her chudidar cloth and took her to an auto garage where there was no light. The prosecutrix stated that the abductors lit a candle, spread 2 seats of the auto rickshaw on the ground, laid her forcibly thereon and in spite of her resistance and objections, forcibly undressed her and raped her by turn. She disclosed that 3 of the four persons ravished her. Out of them, two committed the act twice and the third only once. The prosecutrix further stated that one of the persons brought dosa and idli and also offered the same to her, whereafter they tried to repeat the same act, to which she protested for which she was kicked and fisted and further they snatched 2

her Tali (mangalsootre) gold ear-studs. They then made her to wear her clothes, brought her in the auto rickshaw to a vacant place and discarded her. According to her, these violators were addressing each other as Raju, Venu, Parkash and Francis and claimed that she could identify them, if produced. Investigation followed and in the course thereof, the appellants were apprehended. The fourth person Francis could not be nabbed as he absconded. As a matter of fact, after the submission of the charge-sheet against the appellants, the trial was conducted by segregating the absconding accused. They denied the charge under the above provisions of law. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also marked several documents and exhibited material objects seized during the investigation. The appellants rendered their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reiterating their innocence and also examined one witness in defence. The trial court, to reiterate, acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them. The High Court by the impugned decision has reversed the acquittal and the appellants thus stand convicted under Sections 376(g) and 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 6. The instant adjudication being one to examine the tenability of the conviction of the appellants on the reversal of their acquittal, an independent assessment of the evidence on record is indispensable in the interest of justice, two courts of facts having arrived at irreconcilable conclusions on the same materials on records. It would thus be expedient, to analyse the evidence, oral and documentary 3

before adverting to the rival arguments based thereon. 7. PW1, the prosecutrix on oath stated that she has a female child through her husband who lived separately with another lady and she and her daughter lived in the compound of PW2 Geeta. She deposed that she had been working in the house of Shilpa Shetty for the last three years and that even prior to the incident, the appellants used to tease her and pass remarks on the way. She stated that in the evening of the date of the incident along with the appellants, another person had boarded the auto and that the two persons sitting on her sides were appellants Venu Gopal and Parkash. She testified that she also did peep out of the auto thinking that someone would save her, for which the person with the beard in the auto slapped her and therefore she felt frightened and sat behind. She stated that the abductors then blindfolded her with her own dupatta, molested her inside the auto and ultimately took her to an auto garage and in spite of her objections, raped her one by one. According to her, she was raped by Venu Gopal, Parash and the bearded person in that order. In her deposition, however she stated that appellant Raja also assaulted her and had forcible intercourse with her. She reiterated that the violators then brought dosa and idlis and also offered some to her which she on being assaulted, did eat. In a departure from her FIR, the prosecutrix deposed that thereafter all the four performed one more round of intercourse by turn. Thereafter according to her, the bearded person snatched her Tali (mangalsootre) and the other, her ear studs. They did assault her by kicks and thereafter by making her wear her clothes, took her in the 4

same auto and left her near a bridge. She complained of having sustained injuries on her thighs. She stated that thereafter she took water from a person near the garage road and ascertained from him the area where she was situated. According to her, from the location of the place, she could understand the site of the garage and on reaching there, she saw broken pieces of her glass bangles and also the litter and left overs of the food taken in the garage and could convincingly identify the place. She deposed further that at that time, a man came in a bicycle to whom she narrated the entire incident, who asked her to wait and went to the Hoysala Police Station to report, whereafter the police did come, inspect the place as shown by her and took her to the Sampangiramanagara P.S. past midnight where she made her verbal complaint which was reduced into writing and she put her thumb impression thereon. The prosecutrix proved the complaint/FIR as Ex. P1. According to her, in the next morning at 6 A.M., the appellants were brought to the police station. She admitted to have been taken to the Vanivilas Hospital where she was medically examined. She also identified the ear studs, material Ex. 1 and also her inner-wear material Ex. 2 and broken pieces of glass bangles material Ex 3. She also stated to have identified the appellants in the test identification parade conducted in the central jail. She also identified the seats of the auto rickshaw as material Ex P4 and P5. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that she was not 5

married and that she had come to Bangalore with Saravana whom she had referred to in her examination-in-chief, as her husband. She stated that she lived with Saravana for three years in Bangalore and that they used to earn their living as labourers. She stated that Saravana deserted her, following frequent quarrels with her, whereafter PW2 Geeta gave her and her daughter, shelter. She testified that she used to earn Rs. 700 p.m. by working in the house of Shilpa Shetty and that there was none in the family or in her village to support her financially. She admitted that from one week prior to the incident, the appellants used to tease her and that from then she knew them. She admitted that the road from which she was abducted was a public thorough fare but asserted that she could not scream as she was gagged. She admitted that though the auto travelled for 10 minutes thereafter, she did not try to get down as she was scared of her abductors. She further disclosed that the appellants used to speak to her from 2/3 days prior to the incident. According to her, while she was near Fatima Bakery, which was opposite to Johnson market, she was taken inside the auto. She admitted to have known the accused Francis then. She claimed to have identified two persons in the auto rickshaw when she was first picked up from the road as appellants Parkash and Francis. She admitted that none of the abductors did speak to her while in the auto rickshaw. She also conceded that she did not scream for help from the passers-by on the road. She was confronted with her disclosure in the FIR that only three persons had committed rape on her though four had been named therein. She admitted that at 6

the time when she was offered two idlis and a glass of water, she did not cry for help and instead had made up her mind to teach the miscreants a lesson by informing the police. She also stated, by departing from the FIR that for the second time, three persons committed sexual intercourse with her. According to her, the ear studs had been given to her by her husband who got them made at Kaveripattinam in Tamil Nadu. She claimed that her FIR was written by one Anthony in the police station whom she came to know at that point of time. In her cross-examination, she further deviated by stating that apart from the 4 th person referred to by her, there was yet another person of short stature and that she had forgotten to refer to him in her FIR. She admitted that her mouth was never shut but her abductors did threaten and scold her. She admitted that after she was abandoned by the miscreants, she did alone return to the garage where the act was committed. She also stated to have narrated her incident to five more persons at different places before the police had intervened, who according to her, were watchmen. She stated that she wanted to see the place before informing the police and, therefore she went in search thereof. She deposed that she saw the jeep of the Hoysala police and called for help whereafter she was taken in the jeep. She took the jeep near the garage and from there, she was taken to two more police stations before lodging the FIR at Sampangiramanagara Police Station. She contradicted herself by stating that the complaint was not written by Anthony. She also stated that her report was typed, read out to her whereupon she put 7

her left thumb impression. When Ex. P1, FIR was shown to her, she admitted that it was not typed. She admitted as well that while narrating the incident and lodging the complaint, she did not disclose the names of the accused persons. She conceded as well that when she was taken to the hospital, there were no wounds. She admitted as well that PW 2 Geeta had advised her to take money and return to her native village and not to file a case as otherwise she would disclose that she was a prostitute. She denied the suggestion that she had requested for financial help from the appellants and when they expressed their inability, she lodged a false case against them to wreak vengeance. She also denied the suggestion that the material exhibits, more particularity ear studs and tali (mangalsootre) were not hers and that the police had procured the same from elsewhere, to frame the accused persons. In the context of her identification of the appellants in the TIP, she admitted in her cross-examination that even prior to the incident, she had seen the accused persons and that not only they used to talk to her, she knew them as well. 8. PW2 Geeta, on oath stated that she also did earn her living as a labourer. She admitted that she knew the prosecutrix who was deserted by her husband and that she had accommodated her and her daughter and had provided shelter to them about 7 years prior to the incident. She stated that about four years back (coinciding approximately with the date of the incident), the prosecutrix had disclosed to her that on her way back home, she had been teased, on which she advised her to be careful. The witness stated that in the evening of the date of the 8

incident, the prosecutirx did not return home and that at about mid-night, the police brought her back. She stated that she saw marks of assault on the body of prosecutrix and on being enquired, she stated that “they did not pay me any money but have snatched my ear studs. They have extracted all the work needed”. The witness volunteered to explain “work” meant prostitution. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined. In her cross-examination, she admitted that when the prosecutrix returned that night, she had suffered wounds and was limping. She denied to have stated before the police that the appellants had snatched her gold ornaments and had committed rape on her. She also denied to have identified the ear studs, as those of the prosecutrix and instead asserted that the same were not hers. She denied the suggestion that her retraction from the statement made before the police was with a view to help the accused persons. She volunteered to state that the reason for her husband to desert the prosecutrix was her activities of prostitution which had come to his knowledge. The witness further disclosed in her cross-examination by the defence that about a fortnight before the incident, the prosecutrix along with her had approached the accused persons for an amount of Rs. 10000 which she intended to invest for living in a separate house, which was however declined. PW2 testified that this was not to the liking of the prosecutrix, who was enraged by such refusal and left the place by intimidating them of adverse consequences. The witness on oath stated further that the prosecutrix after returning home in the evenings and after 9

completing the house hold work, used to go around in the night indulging in prostitution and when asked as to why she had lodged the complaint against the accused persons, she disclosed that this would compel them to part with the money that she wanted. 9. PW3 Dr. B.R.S. Kashyap had examined the appellants and opined that there was nothing to suggest that they were incapable of performing sexual intercourse. He also was of the view that the injury on the body of the appellant Raju could have been sustained also in the course of attending his auto rickshaw or could be self- inflicted as well. 10. PW4 Muthu produced as a seizure witness of the ear studs denied that same had been seized in his presence and instead testified that on the insistence of the police he put his signature on a paper. This witness was declared hostile but did not budge from his statement in his examination-in-chief. 11. PW5 M.K. Srirangaiah was the Tehsildar, Bangalore North Taluk at the relevant time and he proved the conduct of TIP, in which the prosecutrix identified the appellants. 12. PW8 K.M. Nandagopal was the Assistant Professor, OBG, Vanivilas Hospital on 11.10.1997 where at about 9 a.m. on that day, the prosecutrix was medically examined. He deposed that the prosecutrix was found to have sustained red colour injury on her left thigh. While stating that the vaginal swab of the 10

prosecutrix was sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, he was of the clear opinion that she was accustomed to the act of sexual intercourse. In his cross-examination, the doctor admitted that the prosecutrix did not reveal any evidence or sign of having sexual intercourse at the time of her examination. Vis-a-vis the injuries on her thigh, the witness stated that this could happen due to reasons other than sexual intercourse. 13. PW11 B.S. Mudumadeviah, the Investigating Officer affirmed that the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix at 2 a.m. on 11.10.1997 at the police station. He deposed that after the medical examination of the prosecutrix, he accompanied her to the place of occurrence and seized therefrom a red colour drawer, one box of Nirodh (contraceptive), two auto rickshaw seats, two broken pieces of black bangles and three black bangles found strewn around. He identified the seized articles in court. He referred to the disclosure statement of the appellant Parkash leading to the discovery of the ear studs of the prosecutrix from his house which he identified in the court as well. He also claimed to have seized the auto rickshaw identified by the same appellant used for abducting the prosecutrix. According to him, he had written down the complaint of the prosecutrix made verbally He conceded that the prosecutrix did not state that at that point of time, that she had been abducted by five persons and raped by four. She also did not disclose that there was another short person who had raped her as well. The witness admitted that she did not disclose that she was abducted while near the Fatima 11

Bakery but referred to the spot as Richmond Park. He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix at the time of lodging of the complaint did not name the miscreants. He denied the suggestion as well that the ear studs were bought from Man Pasand Jewellers, Shanti Nagar by taking Rakesh, a friend of accused No. 3- Parkash for the purpose. He denied the suggestion with regard to seizures from the spot and also the identification by the prosecutrix at the test identification parade. 14. The defence witness Rakesh deposed on oath that after the incident, while one day he was in the house of Parkash, the police visited the place and threatened the grand-father of the appellant Parkash alleging that he (Parkash) had snatched a pair of ear studs from the prosecutrix, to which his grand-father objected. The witness stated that then the police took him and the grand-father of the appellant Parkash to Man Pasand Jewellers, a local jewellery shop, where the police threatened the old man to pay the amount to purchase a pair of ear studs for Rs. 4000. The witness identified the ear studs through the emblem “M.P.” thereon. He denied that the material Ex. 1, the ear studs belonged to the prosecutrix and that the same had been seized from the appellant Parkash. 15. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the appellants has insistently argued that it being patent on a combined reading of the FIR and the testimony of the prosecutrix at the trial, that she is wholly untrustworthy and that the appellants have been falsely implicated, the impugned judgement and order is liable to be set aside lest it perpetuates gross injustice. The learned senior counsel has 12

urged that not only the prosecutrix's version of the incident as a whole is inherently improbable, she has been wholly discredited as well by the medical evidence belying the accusation of forcible sexual intercourse by the appellants in succession. Castigating the investigating agency for falsely foisting the articles claimed to have been seized on the appellants in its desperate attempt to establish their culpability, Mr. Patil has maintained that as the prosecutrix admittedly knew the appellants from before, their so called identification by her at the TIP is also of no consequence. The learned senior counsel asserted that PW2 Geeta, though having been declared hostile, her evidence at the trial otherwise consistent with the attendant facts and circumstances bearing on the conduct and activities of the prosecutrix ought not to have been discarded and this having vitiated the impugned decision as well, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants is liable to be interfered with. As the prosecution has failed to convincingly prove the charge levelled against the appellants, they are entitled to be acquitted, he urged. To buttress these pleas, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657, Shyamal Saha Vs. State of West Benga l (2014) 12 SCC 321. Himanshu alias Chintu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 2 SCC 36 and Raju and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133. 16. As against this, the learned state counsel wholly endorsed the impugned decision contending that not only the testimony of the prosecutrix is true, cogent and convincing, having regard to the charge levelled by her, the same is deserving of full 13

credence to base the conviction of the appellants thereon. According to the learned counsel, the minor inconsistencies in the FIR and the deposition of the prosecutrix, on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances, are acceptably reconcilable. As the identity of the appellants, as the perpetrators of the crime, is not in doubt, they having been identified by the prosecutrix in no uncertain terms, the prosecution case ought not to be jettisoned by relying on the evidence of PW2, a hostile witness, he urged. While contending that the medical evidence is not mutilative of the charge and that the seizures made in course of the investigation do undeniably establish the complicity of the appellants, their conviction is legally valid and does not merit any interference in the instant appeal, he maintained. 17. We have lent our anxious consideration to the materials on record as well as the competing arguments based thereon. Having regard to the charge levelled, the fulcrum of the prosecution case logically is the testimony of the prosecutrix. Undeniably therefore the credibility and trustworthiness of the victim’s version is the decisive factor to adjudge the culpability of the appellants. 18. Filtering the unnecessary factual details, suffice it is to recount that the incident allegedly had occurred at 7.30 p.m. on a public road while the prosecutrix was returning home after the day's work. Her version is that while she was on the way, an auto rickshaw with two persons therein pulled up by her side and she was dragged in forcibly. After moving for about 10 minutes, the abductors were joined by two more persons, whereafter she was taken to a garage and was molested against her will forcibly. 14

19. To start with, the prosecutrix has contradicted herself qua the place of alleged kidnapping. In the complaint, she mentioned the spot to be near Richmond park, whereas in her evidence she referred to the same as opposite Johnson market. It is more or less authenticated by the evidence on record that after her abduction and on the way to the garage as narrated by her, she did not scream or cry for help. This is of utmost significance as it is not alleged by her that the abductors had put her under fear on the point of any weapon threatening physical injury thereby. This is more so, as admittedly the prosecutrix at the relevant time was a major and could very well foresee the disastrous consequences to follow. She has admitted in her deposition as well that while she was ravished inside the garage and even during the intermittent breaks, she did not shout for any help. Her version in the complaint with regard to the offending act and the number of persons, who had committed the same, is inconsistent with her testimony on oath at the trial. Notably in the complaint she mentioned about four persons of whom three raped and out of them, two committed the act twice. She did not disclose in her complaint that the accused persons were known to her from before and disclosed that they during the time had been referring to themselves as Raju, Venu, Parkash and Francis. This, however has been denied by the investigation officer. On oath, she however introduced a fifth person as well. She accused all the four persons to have committed sexual intercourse with her for the second time. Though grudgingly, as admitted by her, she also consumed the food as offered to her by her molesters. In cross-examination, she admitted that she was not married to Sarvana 15

though she claimed him to be her husband in her examination-in-chief. She disclosed more than once that the accused persons used to tease her for about 5-6 months prior to the incident and that she used to talk to them as well. In view of this admission of hers , the identification by the prosecutrix of the accused persons in the TIP pales into insignificance. She contradicted herself in the cross-examination by stating that three of the four did rape her for the second time. She was also inconsistent with regard to the writer of her complaint. Her conduct during the alleged ordeal is also unlike a victim of forcible rape and betrays somewhat submissive and consensual disposition. From the nature of the exchanges between her and the accused persons as narrated by her, the same are not at all consistent with those of an unwilling, terrified and anguished victim of forcible intercourse, if judged by the normal human conduct. Her post incident conduct and movements are also noticeably unusual. Instead of hurrying back home in a distressed, humiliated and a devastated state, she stayed back in and around the place of occurrence, enquired about the same from persons whom she claims to have met in the late hours of night, returned to the spot to identify the garage and even look at the broken glass bangles, discarded litter etc. According to her, she wandered around the place and as disclosed by her in her evidence, to collect information so as to teach the accused persons a lesson. Her avengeful attitude in the facts and circumstances, as disclosed by her, if true, demonstrably evinces a conduct manifested by a feeling of frustration stoked by an intense feeling of deprivation of something expected, desired or promised. Her 16

confident movements alone past midnight, in that state are also out of the ordinary. Her testimony that she met a cyclist to whom she narrated her tale of woe and that on his information, the Hoysala police came to the spot and that thereafter she was taken to successive police stations before lodging the complaint at Sampangiramanagara police station as well has to be accepted with a grain of salt. 20. PW8, who medically examined her, opined in clear terms that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse and that no sign of forcible intercourse was discernible. This assumes great significance in view of the allegation of forcible rape by 3 to 4 adult persons more than once. The medical opinion that she was accustomed to sexual inter course when admittedly she was living separately from her husband for 1 and ½ years before the incident also has its own implication. The medical evidence as such in the attendant facts and circumstances in a way belies the allegation of gang rape. 21. The evidence of PW2 Geeta who admittedly had offered shelter to the prosecutrix and her minor daughter, though had been declared hostile, her testimony as a whole cannot be brushed aside. In her testimony, this witness indicated that the prosecutrix used to take financial help from the accused persons and that she used to indulge in dubious late night activities for which her husband had deserted her. The defence plea of false implication as the accused persons had declined to oblige the prosecutrix qua her demand for financial help therefore cannot be lightly discarded in the overall factual scenario. Her version therefore is a plausible one and thus fit in with the defence plea to demolish the prosecution case. 17

22. That the evidence of a hostile witness in all eventualities ought not stand effaced altogether and that the same can be accepted to the extent found dependable on a careful scrutiny was reiterated by this Court in Himanshu @ Chintu (supra) by drawing sustenance of the proposition amongst others from Khujii vs. State of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627 and Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624. It was enounced that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and is open for a Court to rely on the dependable part thereof as found acceptable and duly corroborated by other reliable evidence available on record. 23. The seizures said to have been effected by the investigating agency also do not inspire confidence. Not only PW 4 Muthu denied that the seizure of ear studs had been made in his presence, DW1 on oath had stated that this item of jewellery had in fact been purchased by the police from a local shop which he could identify on the basis of the symbol ‘MP’ inscribed thereon. In any view of the matter, the seized articles per se in absence of any evidence of corroboration of charge would not, irrefutably prove the involvement of the appellants in the offence alleged. 24. This Court in Raju (supra), while reiterating that the evidence of the prosecutrix in cases of rape, molestation and other physical outrages is to be construed to be that of an injured witness so much so that no corroboration is necessary, ruled that an accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. It was underlined that the testimony of the victim in such cases, though commands great weight but the same, cannot necessarily be universally and 18

mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment and exaggeration. It was ruled that the presumption of absence of consent of the victim, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved as contemplated in Section 114A of the Evidence Act, was extremely restricted in its application compared to the sweep and ambit of the presumption under Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. It was exposited that insofar as the allegation of rape is concerned, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be examined as that of a injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should always without exception, be taken as gospel truth. The essence of this verdict which has stood the test of time proclaims that though generally the testimony of a victim of rape or non-consensual physical assault ought to be accepted as true and unblemished, it would still be subject to judicial scrutiny lest a casual, routine and automatic acceptance thereof results in unwarranted conviction of the person charged. 25. Vis-a-vis the scope of interference with a judgment of acquittal, this Court in Sunil Kumar Shabukumar Gupta (Dr.) (supra) echoed the hallowed proposition that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not ordinarily interfere therewith though its view may appear to be the more probable one. While emphasizing that the trial court has the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses and is thus the best judge of their credibility, it was held that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved and that his presumption of innocence gets reinforced with his acquittal by the trial court's verdict. It was 19

reiterated that only in exceptionable cases and under compelling circumstances, where the judgement of acquittal is found to be perverse i.e. if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material and are against the weight of evidence or are so outrageously in defiance of logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, that interference by the appellate court would be called for. 26. That the appellate court is under an obligation to consider and identify the error in the decision of the trial court and then to decide whether the error is gross enough to warrant interference was underlined by this Court in Shyamal Saha (supra). It was emphasized that the appellate court is not expected to merely substitute its opinion for that of the trial court and that it has to exercise its discretion very cautiously to correct an error of law or fact, if any and significant enough to warrant reversal of the verdict of the trial court. 27. The prosecution case, when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against the appellants. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is not possible for this Court to unhesitatingly hold that the charge levelled against the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In our estimate, the view taken by the Trial Court is the overwhelmingly possible one. In contrast, the findings of the High Court are decipherably strained in favour of the prosecution by overlooking many irreconcilable inconsistencies, anomalies and omissions rendering the prosecution 20

case unworthy of credit. Noticeably, the High Court has exonerated the appellants of the charge of abduction under Section 366 IPC, which is an inseverable component of the string of offences alleged against them. Judged by the known parameters of law, the view adopted by the High Court is not a plausible one when juxtaposed to that of the Trial Court. We are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellants to the hilt as obligated in law and thus, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgement and order is set-aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. ) NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 4, 2016. …… .. ..……………………..….J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) …… .. ..……………………..….J. (AMITAVA ROY) 21

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION II C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) Date : 04/10/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Priya Aristotle, Adv. Ms. Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. ***** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and His Lordship. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bands are discharged in terms of the signed reportable judgment. (R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) 22

[REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2011 RAJA AND OTHERS …APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT J U D G E M E N T AMITAVA ROY, J . Distressed by the reversal of their acquittal from the charge under Sections 366/376(g)/392 read with Section 34 IPC, as recorded by the trial court, the appellants have impeached the impugned judgement and order of their conviction rendered by the High Court in the State appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Joseph Aristotle S, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 3. The prosecution was set rolling by an oral report by the prosecutrix with the Sampangiramanagara Police Station between 2.00 A.M. and 3.00 A.M. of 11.10.1997, which was in Tamil language and was translated and recorded by S. 1

Shiva Lingaia, ASI, whereafter a case was registered under Sections 366, 376(g), 392 r/w 34 IPC. 4. The prosecutrix revealed that she was a resident of No.81, Jasari Kaleeli, Rustum ji Compound, Richmond Road, Bangalore and was earning her livelihood by rendering services as a maid in the house of Shilpa Shetty at Shanti Nagar, Bangalore. According to her, because of the ill-treatment of her husband, she shifted to Bangalore about 8 months prior to the incident by separating from him. She alleged that at about 7.30 P.M. in the previous evening, while she was coming back from work and was at the Richmond Park, an auto rickshaw ,with two persons in it including the driver stopped by her side and she was pulled inside. According to her, after travelling some distance, two other persons also got into the auto rickshaw. The miscreants then blindfolded her, by her chudidar cloth and took her to an auto garage where there was no light. The prosecutrix stated that the abductors lit a candle, spread 2 seats of the auto rickshaw on the ground, laid her forcibly thereon and in spite of her resistance and objections, forcibly undressed her and raped her by turn. She disclosed that 3 of the four persons ravished her. Out of them, two committed the act twice and the third only once. The prosecutrix further stated that one of the persons brought dosa and idli and also offered the same to her, whereafter they tried to repeat the same act, to which she protested for which she was kicked and fisted and further they snatched 2

her Tali (mangalsootre) gold ear-studs. They then made her to wear her clothes, brought her in the auto rickshaw to a vacant place and discarded her. According to her, these violators were addressing each other as Raju, Venu, Parkash and Francis and claimed that she could identify them, if produced. Investigation followed and in the course thereof, the appellants were apprehended. The fourth person Francis could not be nabbed as he absconded. As a matter of fact, after the submission of the charge-sheet against the appellants, the trial was conducted by segregating the absconding accused. They denied the charge under the above provisions of law. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also marked several documents and exhibited material objects seized during the investigation. The appellants rendered their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reiterating their innocence and also examined one witness in defence. The trial court, to reiterate, acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them. The High Court by the impugned decision has reversed the acquittal and the appellants thus stand convicted under Sections 376(g) and 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 6. The instant adjudication being one to examine the tenability of the conviction of the appellants on the reversal of their acquittal, an independent assessment of the evidence on record is indispensable in the interest of justice, two courts of facts having arrived at irreconcilable conclusions on the same materials on records. It would thus be expedient, to analyse the evidence, oral and documentary 3

before adverting to the rival arguments based thereon. 7. PW1, the prosecutrix on oath stated that she has a female child through her husband who lived separately with another lady and she and her daughter lived in the compound of PW2 Geeta. She deposed that she had been working in the house of Shilpa Shetty for the last three years and that even prior to the incident, the appellants used to tease her and pass remarks on the way. She stated that in the evening of the date of the incident along with the appellants, another person had boarded the auto and that the two persons sitting on her sides were appellants Venu Gopal and Parkash. She testified that she also did peep out of the auto thinking that someone would save her, for which the person with the beard in the auto slapped her and therefore she felt frightened and sat behind. She stated that the abductors then blindfolded her with her own dupatta, molested her inside the auto and ultimately took her to an auto garage and in spite of her objections, raped her one by one. According to her, she was raped by Venu Gopal, Parash and the bearded person in that order. In her deposition, however she stated that appellant Raja also assaulted her and had forcible intercourse with her. She reiterated that the violators then brought dosa and idlis and also offered some to her which she on being assaulted, did eat. In a departure from her FIR, the prosecutrix deposed that thereafter all the four performed one more round of intercourse by turn. Thereafter according to her, the bearded person snatched her Tali (mangalsootre) and the other, her ear studs. They did assault her by kicks and thereafter by making her wear her clothes, took her in the 4

same auto and left her near a bridge. She complained of having sustained injuries on her thighs. She stated that thereafter she took water from a person near the garage road and ascertained from him the area where she was situated. According to her, from the location of the place, she could understand the site of the garage and on reaching there, she saw broken pieces of her glass bangles and also the litter and left overs of the food taken in the garage and could convincingly identify the place. She deposed further that at that time, a man came in a bicycle to whom she narrated the entire incident, who asked her to wait and went to the Hoysala Police Station to report, whereafter the police did come, inspect the place as shown by her and took her to the Sampangiramanagara P.S. past midnight where she made her verbal complaint which was reduced into writing and she put her thumb impression thereon. The prosecutrix proved the complaint/FIR as Ex. P1. According to her, in the next morning at 6 A.M., the appellants were brought to the police station. She admitted to have been taken to the Vanivilas Hospital where she was medically examined. She also identified the ear studs, material Ex. 1 and also her inner-wear material Ex. 2 and broken pieces of glass bangles material Ex 3. She also stated to have identified the appellants in the test identification parade conducted in the central jail. She also identified the seats of the auto rickshaw as material Ex P4 and P5. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that she was not 5

married and that she had come to Bangalore with Saravana whom she had referred to in her examination-in-chief, as her husband. She stated that she lived with Saravana for three years in Bangalore and that they used to earn their living as labourers. She stated that Saravana deserted her, following frequent quarrels with her, whereafter PW2 Geeta gave her and her daughter, shelter. She testified that she used to earn Rs. 700 p.m. by working in the house of Shilpa Shetty and that there was none in the family or in her village to support her financially. She admitted that from one week prior to the incident, the appellants used to tease her and that from then she knew them. She admitted that the road from which she was abducted was a public thorough fare but asserted that she could not scream as she was gagged. She admitted that though the auto travelled for 10 minutes thereafter, she did not try to get down as she was scared of her abductors. She further disclosed that the appellants used to speak to her from 2/3 days prior to the incident. According to her, while she was near Fatima Bakery, which was opposite to Johnson market, she was taken inside the auto. She admitted to have known the accused Francis then. She claimed to have identified two persons in the auto rickshaw when she was first picked up from the road as appellants Parkash and Francis. She admitted that none of the abductors did speak to her while in the auto rickshaw. She also conceded that she did not scream for help from the passers-by on the road. She was confronted with her disclosure in the FIR that only three persons had committed rape on her though four had been named therein. She admitted that at 6

the time when she was offered two idlis and a glass of water, she did not cry for help and instead had made up her mind to teach the miscreants a lesson by informing the police. She also stated, by departing from the FIR that for the second time, three persons committed sexual intercourse with her. According to her, the ear studs had been given to her by her husband who got them made at Kaveripattinam in Tamil Nadu. She claimed that her FIR was written by one Anthony in the police station whom she came to know at that point of time. In her cross-examination, she further deviated by stating that apart from the 4 th person referred to by her, there was yet another person of short stature and that she had forgotten to refer to him in her FIR. She admitted that her mouth was never shut but her abductors did threaten and scold her. She admitted that after she was abandoned by the miscreants, she did alone return to the garage where the act was committed. She also stated to have narrated her incident to five more persons at different places before the police had intervened, who according to her, were watchmen. She stated that she wanted to see the place before informing the police and, therefore she went in search thereof. She deposed that she saw the jeep of the Hoysala police and called for help whereafter she was taken in the jeep. She took the jeep near the garage and from there, she was taken to two more police stations before lodging the FIR at Sampangiramanagara Police Station. She contradicted herself by stating that the complaint was not written by Anthony. She also stated that her report was typed, read out to her whereupon she put 7

her left thumb impression. When Ex. P1, FIR was shown to her, she admitted that it was not typed. She admitted as well that while narrating the incident and lodging the complaint, she did not disclose the names of the accused persons. She conceded as well that when she was taken to the hospital, there were no wounds. She admitted as well that PW 2 Geeta had advised her to take money and return to her native village and not to file a case as otherwise she would disclose that she was a prostitute. She denied the suggestion that she had requested for financial help from the appellants and when they expressed their inability, she lodged a false case against them to wreak vengeance. She also denied the suggestion that the material exhibits, more particularity ear studs and tali (mangalsootre) were not hers and that the police had procured the same from elsewhere, to frame the accused persons. In the context of her identification of the appellants in the TIP, she admitted in her cross-examination that even prior to the incident, she had seen the accused persons and that not only they used to talk to her, she knew them as well. 8. PW2 Geeta, on oath stated that she also did earn her living as a labourer. She admitted that she knew the prosecutrix who was deserted by her husband and that she had accommodated her and her daughter and had provided shelter to them about 7 years prior to the incident. She stated that about four years back (coinciding approximately with the date of the incident), the prosecutrix had disclosed to her that on her way back home, she had been teased, on which she advised her to be careful. The witness stated that in the evening of the date of the 8

incident, the prosecutirx did not return home and that at about mid-night, the police brought her back. She stated that she saw marks of assault on the body of prosecutrix and on being enquired, she stated that “they did not pay me any money but have snatched my ear studs. They have extracted all the work needed”. The witness volunteered to explain “work” meant prostitution. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined. In her cross-examination, she admitted that when the prosecutrix returned that night, she had suffered wounds and was limping. She denied to have stated before the police that the appellants had snatched her gold ornaments and had committed rape on her. She also denied to have identified the ear studs, as those of the prosecutrix and instead asserted that the same were not hers. She denied the suggestion that her retraction from the statement made before the police was with a view to help the accused persons. She volunteered to state that the reason for her husband to desert the prosecutrix was her activities of prostitution which had come to his knowledge. The witness further disclosed in her cross-examination by the defence that about a fortnight before the incident, the prosecutrix along with her had approached the accused persons for an amount of Rs. 10000 which she intended to invest for living in a separate house, which was however declined. PW2 testified that this was not to the liking of the prosecutrix, who was enraged by such refusal and left the place by intimidating them of adverse consequences. The witness on oath stated further that the prosecutrix after returning home in the evenings and after 9

completing the house hold work, used to go around in the night indulging in prostitution and when asked as to why she had lodged the complaint against the accused persons, she disclosed that this would compel them to part with the money that she wanted. 9. PW3 Dr. B.R.S. Kashyap had examined the appellants and opined that there was nothing to suggest that they were incapable of performing sexual intercourse. He also was of the view that the injury on the body of the appellant Raju could have been sustained also in the course of attending his auto rickshaw or could be self- inflicted as well. 10. PW4 Muthu produced as a seizure witness of the ear studs denied that same had been seized in his presence and instead testified that on the insistence of the police he put his signature on a paper. This witness was declared hostile but did not budge from his statement in his examination-in-chief. 11. PW5 M.K. Srirangaiah was the Tehsildar, Bangalore North Taluk at the relevant time and he proved the conduct of TIP, in which the prosecutrix identified the appellants. 12. PW8 K.M. Nandagopal was the Assistant Professor, OBG, Vanivilas Hospital on 11.10.1997 where at about 9 a.m. on that day, the prosecutrix was medically examined. He deposed that the prosecutrix was found to have sustained red colour injury on her left thigh. While stating that the vaginal swab of the 10

prosecutrix was sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, he was of the clear opinion that she was accustomed to the act of sexual intercourse. In his cross-examination, the doctor admitted that the prosecutrix did not reveal any evidence or sign of having sexual intercourse at the time of her examination. Vis-a-vis the injuries on her thigh, the witness stated that this could happen due to reasons other than sexual intercourse. 13. PW11 B.S. Mudumadeviah, the Investigating Officer affirmed that the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix at 2 a.m. on 11.10.1997 at the police station. He deposed that after the medical examination of the prosecutrix, he accompanied her to the place of occurrence and seized therefrom a red colour drawer, one box of Nirodh (contraceptive), two auto rickshaw seats, two broken pieces of black bangles and three black bangles found strewn around. He identified the seized articles in court. He referred to the disclosure statement of the appellant Parkash leading to the discovery of the ear studs of the prosecutrix from his house which he identified in the court as well. He also claimed to have seized the auto rickshaw identified by the same appellant used for abducting the prosecutrix. According to him, he had written down the complaint of the prosecutrix made verbally He conceded that the prosecutrix did not state that at that point of time, that she had been abducted by five persons and raped by four. She also did not disclose that there was another short person who had raped her as well. The witness admitted that she did not disclose that she was abducted while near the Fatima 11

Bakery but referred to the spot as Richmond Park. He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix at the time of lodging of the complaint did not name the miscreants. He denied the suggestion as well that the ear studs were bought from Man Pasand Jewellers, Shanti Nagar by taking Rakesh, a friend of accused No. 3- Parkash for the purpose. He denied the suggestion with regard to seizures from the spot and also the identification by the prosecutrix at the test identification parade. 14. The defence witness Rakesh deposed on oath that after the incident, while one day he was in the house of Parkash, the police visited the place and threatened the grand-father of the appellant Parkash alleging that he (Parkash) had snatched a pair of ear studs from the prosecutrix, to which his grand-father objected. The witness stated that then the police took him and the grand-father of the appellant Parkash to Man Pasand Jewellers, a local jewellery shop, where the police threatened the old man to pay the amount to purchase a pair of ear studs for Rs. 4000. The witness identified the ear studs through the emblem “M.P.” thereon. He denied that the material Ex. 1, the ear studs belonged to the prosecutrix and that the same had been seized from the appellant Parkash. 15. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the appellants has insistently argued that it being patent on a combined reading of the FIR and the testimony of the prosecutrix at the trial, that she is wholly untrustworthy and that the appellants have been falsely implicated, the impugned judgement and order is liable to be set aside lest it perpetuates gross injustice. The learned senior counsel has 12

urged that not only the prosecutrix's version of the incident as a whole is inherently improbable, she has been wholly discredited as well by the medical evidence belying the accusation of forcible sexual intercourse by the appellants in succession. Castigating the investigating agency for falsely foisting the articles claimed to have been seized on the appellants in its desperate attempt to establish their culpability, Mr. Patil has maintained that as the prosecutrix admittedly knew the appellants from before, their so called identification by her at the TIP is also of no consequence. The learned senior counsel asserted that PW2 Geeta, though having been declared hostile, her evidence at the trial otherwise consistent with the attendant facts and circumstances bearing on the conduct and activities of the prosecutrix ought not to have been discarded and this having vitiated the impugned decision as well, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants is liable to be interfered with. As the prosecution has failed to convincingly prove the charge levelled against the appellants, they are entitled to be acquitted, he urged. To buttress these pleas, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657, Shyamal Saha Vs. State of West Benga l (2014) 12 SCC 321. Himanshu alias Chintu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 2 SCC 36 and Raju and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133. 16. As against this, the learned state counsel wholly endorsed the impugned decision contending that not only the testimony of the prosecutrix is true, cogent and convincing, having regard to the charge levelled by her, the same is deserving of full 13

credence to base the conviction of the appellants thereon. According to the learned counsel, the minor inconsistencies in the FIR and the deposition of the prosecutrix, on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances, are acceptably reconcilable. As the identity of the appellants, as the perpetrators of the crime, is not in doubt, they having been identified by the prosecutrix in no uncertain terms, the prosecution case ought not to be jettisoned by relying on the evidence of PW2, a hostile witness, he urged. While contending that the medical evidence is not mutilative of the charge and that the seizures made in course of the investigation do undeniably establish the complicity of the appellants, their conviction is legally valid and does not merit any interference in the instant appeal, he maintained. 17. We have lent our anxious consideration to the materials on record as well as the competing arguments based thereon. Having regard to the charge levelled, the fulcrum of the prosecution case logically is the testimony of the prosecutrix. Undeniably therefore the credibility and trustworthiness of the victim’s version is the decisive factor to adjudge the culpability of the appellants. 18. Filtering the unnecessary factual details, suffice it is to recount that the incident allegedly had occurred at 7.30 p.m. on a public road while the prosecutrix was returning home after the day's work. Her version is that while she was on the way, an auto rickshaw with two persons therein pulled up by her side and she was dragged in forcibly. After moving for about 10 minutes, the abductors were joined by two more persons, whereafter she was taken to a garage and was molested against her will forcibly. 14

19. To start with, the prosecutrix has contradicted herself qua the place of alleged kidnapping. In the complaint, she mentioned the spot to be near Richmond park, whereas in her evidence she referred to the same as opposite Johnson market. It is more or less authenticated by the evidence on record that after her abduction and on the way to the garage as narrated by her, she did not scream or cry for help. This is of utmost significance as it is not alleged by her that the abductors had put her under fear on the point of any weapon threatening physical injury thereby. This is more so, as admittedly the prosecutrix at the relevant time was a major and could very well foresee the disastrous consequences to follow. She has admitted in her deposition as well that while she was ravished inside the garage and even during the intermittent breaks, she did not shout for any help. Her version in the complaint with regard to the offending act and the number of persons, who had committed the same, is inconsistent with her testimony on oath at the trial. Notably in the complaint she mentioned about four persons of whom three raped and out of them, two committed the act twice. She did not disclose in her complaint that the accused persons were known to her from before and disclosed that they during the time had been referring to themselves as Raju, Venu, Parkash and Francis. This, however has been denied by the investigation officer. On oath, she however introduced a fifth person as well. She accused all the four persons to have committed sexual intercourse with her for the second time. Though grudgingly, as admitted by her, she also consumed the food as offered to her by her molesters. In cross-examination, she admitted that she was not married to Sarvana 15

though she claimed him to be her husband in her examination-in-chief. She disclosed more than once that the accused persons used to tease her for about 5-6 months prior to the incident and that she used to talk to them as well. In view of this admission of hers , the identification by the prosecutrix of the accused persons in the TIP pales into insignificance. She contradicted herself in the cross-examination by stating that three of the four did rape her for the second time. She was also inconsistent with regard to the writer of her complaint. Her conduct during the alleged ordeal is also unlike a victim of forcible rape and betrays somewhat submissive and consensual disposition. From the nature of the exchanges between her and the accused persons as narrated by her, the same are not at all consistent with those of an unwilling, terrified and anguished victim of forcible intercourse, if judged by the normal human conduct. Her post incident conduct and movements are also noticeably unusual. Instead of hurrying back home in a distressed, humiliated and a devastated state, she stayed back in and around the place of occurrence, enquired about the same from persons whom she claims to have met in the late hours of night, returned to the spot to identify the garage and even look at the broken glass bangles, discarded litter etc. According to her, she wandered around the place and as disclosed by her in her evidence, to collect information so as to teach the accused persons a lesson. Her avengeful attitude in the facts and circumstances, as disclosed by her, if true, demonstrably evinces a conduct manifested by a feeling of frustration stoked by an intense feeling of deprivation of something expected, desired or promised. Her 16

confident movements alone past midnight, in that state are also out of the ordinary. Her testimony that she met a cyclist to whom she narrated her tale of woe and that on his information, the Hoysala police came to the spot and that thereafter she was taken to successive police stations before lodging the complaint at Sampangiramanagara police station as well has to be accepted with a grain of salt. 20. PW8, who medically examined her, opined in clear terms that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse and that no sign of forcible intercourse was discernible. This assumes great significance in view of the allegation of forcible rape by 3 to 4 adult persons more than once. The medical opinion that she was accustomed to sexual inter course when admittedly she was living separately from her husband for 1 and ½ years before the incident also has its own implication. The medical evidence as such in the attendant facts and circumstances in a way belies the allegation of gang rape. 21. The evidence of PW2 Geeta who admittedly had offered shelter to the prosecutrix and her minor daughter, though had been declared hostile, her testimony as a whole cannot be brushed aside. In her testimony, this witness indicated that the prosecutrix used to take financial help from the accused persons and that she used to indulge in dubious late night activities for which her husband had deserted her. The defence plea of false implication as the accused persons had declined to oblige the prosecutrix qua her demand for financial help therefore cannot be lightly discarded in the overall factual scenario. Her version therefore is a plausible one and thus fit in with the defence plea to demolish the prosecution case. 17

22. That the evidence of a hostile witness in all eventualities ought not stand effaced altogether and that the same can be accepted to the extent found dependable on a careful scrutiny was reiterated by this Court in Himanshu @ Chintu (supra) by drawing sustenance of the proposition amongst others from Khujii vs. State of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627 and Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624. It was enounced that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and is open for a Court to rely on the dependable part thereof as found acceptable and duly corroborated by other reliable evidence available on record. 23. The seizures said to have been effected by the investigating agency also do not inspire confidence. Not only PW 4 Muthu denied that the seizure of ear studs had been made in his presence, DW1 on oath had stated that this item of jewellery had in fact been purchased by the police from a local shop which he could identify on the basis of the symbol ‘MP’ inscribed thereon. In any view of the matter, the seized articles per se in absence of any evidence of corroboration of charge would not, irrefutably prove the involvement of the appellants in the offence alleged. 24. This Court in Raju (supra), while reiterating that the evidence of the prosecutrix in cases of rape, molestation and other physical outrages is to be construed to be that of an injured witness so much so that no corroboration is necessary, ruled that an accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. It was underlined that the testimony of the victim in such cases, though commands great weight but the same, cannot necessarily be universally and 18

mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment and exaggeration. It was ruled that the presumption of absence of consent of the victim, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved as contemplated in Section 114A of the Evidence Act, was extremely restricted in its application compared to the sweep and ambit of the presumption under Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. It was exposited that insofar as the allegation of rape is concerned, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be examined as that of a injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should always without exception, be taken as gospel truth. The essence of this verdict which has stood the test of time proclaims that though generally the testimony of a victim of rape or non-consensual physical assault ought to be accepted as true and unblemished, it would still be subject to judicial scrutiny lest a casual, routine and automatic acceptance thereof results in unwarranted conviction of the person charged. 25. Vis-a-vis the scope of interference with a judgment of acquittal, this Court in Sunil Kumar Shabukumar Gupta (Dr.) (supra) echoed the hallowed proposition that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not ordinarily interfere therewith though its view may appear to be the more probable one. While emphasizing that the trial court has the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses and is thus the best judge of their credibility, it was held that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved and that his presumption of innocence gets reinforced with his acquittal by the trial court's verdict. It was 19

reiterated that only in exceptionable cases and under compelling circumstances, where the judgement of acquittal is found to be perverse i.e. if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material and are against the weight of evidence or are so outrageously in defiance of logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, that interference by the appellate court would be called for. 26. That the appellate court is under an obligation to consider and identify the error in the decision of the trial court and then to decide whether the error is gross enough to warrant interference was underlined by this Court in Shyamal Saha (supra). It was emphasized that the appellate court is not expected to merely substitute its opinion for that of the trial court and that it has to exercise its discretion very cautiously to correct an error of law or fact, if any and significant enough to warrant reversal of the verdict of the trial court. 27. The prosecution case, when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against the appellants. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is not possible for this Court to unhesitatingly hold that the charge levelled against the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In our estimate, the view taken by the Trial Court is the overwhelmingly possible one. In contrast, the findings of the High Court are decipherably strained in favour of the prosecution by overlooking many irreconcilable inconsistencies, anomalies and omissions rendering the prosecution 20

case unworthy of credit. Noticeably, the High Court has exonerated the appellants of the charge of abduction under Section 366 IPC, which is an inseverable component of the string of offences alleged against them. Judged by the known parameters of law, the view adopted by the High Court is not a plausible one when juxtaposed to that of the Trial Court. We are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellants to the hilt as obligated in law and thus, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgement and order is set-aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. ) NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 4, 2016. …… .. ..……………………..….J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) …… .. ..……………………..….J. (AMITAVA ROY) 21

Z2[REPORTABLE]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2011RAJA AND OTHERS ⬠¦APPELLANTSVERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA ⬠¦RESPONDENTJ U D G E M E N TAMITAVA ROY, J .Distressed by the reversal of their acquittal from the charge underSections 366/376(g)/392 read with Section 34 IPC, as recorded by the trial court, theappellants have impeached the impugned judgement and order of their convictionrendered by the High Court in the State appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for theappellants and Mr. Joseph Aristotle S, learned counsel for the respondent-State.3. The prosecution was set rolling by an oral report by the prosecutrix withthe Sampangiramanagara Police Station between 2.00 A.M. and 3.00 A.M. of11.10.1997, which was in Tamil language and was translated and recorded by S.1Shiva Lingaia, ASI, whereafter a case was registered under Sections 366, 376(g), 392r/w 34 IPC. 4. The prosecutrix revealed that she was a resident of No.81, Jasari Kaleeli,Rustum ji Compound, Richmond Road, Bangalore and was earning her livelihood byrendering services as a maid in the house of Shilpa Shetty at Shanti Nagar,Bangalore. According to her, because of the ill-treatment of her husband, she shiftedto Bangalore about 8 months prior to the incident by separating from him. She alleged that at about 7.30 P.M. in the previous evening, while shewas coming back from work and was at the Richmond Park, an auto rickshaw ,withtwo persons in it including the driver stopped by her side and she was pulled inside.According to her, after travelling some distance, two other persons also got into theauto rickshaw. The miscreants then blindfolded her, by her chudidar cloth and tookher to an auto garage where there was no light. The prosecutrix stated that theabductors lit a candle, spread 2 seats of the auto rickshaw on the ground, laid herforcibly thereon and in spite of her resistance and objections, forcibly undressed herand raped her by turn. She disclosed that 3 of the four persons ravished her. Out ofthem, two committed the act twice and the third only once. The prosecutrix further stated that one of the persons brought dosa andidli and also offered the same to her, whereafter they tried to repeat the same act, towhich she protested for which she was kicked and fisted and further they snatched2her Tali (mangalsootre) gold ear-studs. They then made her to wear her clothes,brought her in the auto rickshaw to a vacant place and discarded her. According toher, these violators were addressing each other as Raju, Venu, Parkash and Francisand claimed that she could identify them, if produced. Investigation followed and inthe course thereof, the appellants were apprehended. The fourth person Francis couldnot be nabbed as he absconded. As a matter of fact, after the submission of thecharge-sheet against the appellants, the trial was conducted by segregating theabsconding accused. They denied the charge under the above provisions of law. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also markedseveral documents and exhibited material objects seized during the investigation. Theappellants rendered their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reiterating theirinnocence and also examined one witness in defence. The trial court, to reiterate,acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them. The High Court by theimpugned decision has reversed the acquittal and the appellants thus stand convictedunder Sections 376(g) and 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC and have been sentenced

to sufferrigorous imprisonment for 10 years.6. The instant adjudication being one to examine the tenability of theconviction of the appellants on the reversal of their acquittal, an independentassessment of the evidence on record is indispensable in the interest of justice, twocourts of facts having arrived at irreconcilable conclusions on the same materials onrecords. It would thus be expedient, to analyse the evidence, oral and documentary3before adverting to the rival arguments based thereon.7. PW1, the prosecutrix on oath stated that she has a female child throughher husband who lived separately with another lady and she and her daughter lived inthe compound of PW2 Geeta. She deposed that she had been working in the house ofShilpa Shetty for the last three years and that even prior to the incident, the appellantsused to tease her and pass remarks on the way. She stated that in the evening of thedate of the incident along with the appellants, another person had boarded the autoand that the two persons sitting on her sides were appellants Venu Gopal and Parkash.She testified that she also did peep out of the auto thinking that someone would saveher, for which the person with the beard in the auto slapped her and therefore she feltfrightened and sat behind. She stated that the abductors then blindfolded her with herown dupatta, molested her inside the auto and ultimately took her to an auto garageand in spite of her objections, raped her one by one. According to her, she was rapedby Venu Gopal, Parash and the bearded person in that order.In her deposition, however she stated that appellant Raja also assaultedher and had forcible intercourse with her. She reiterated that the violators thenbrought dosa and idlis and also offered some to her which she on being assaulted, dideat. In a departure from her FIR, the prosecutrix deposed that thereafter all the fourperformed one more round of intercourse by turn. Thereafter according to her, thebearded person snatched her Tali (mangalsootre) and the other, her ear studs. Theydid assault her by kicks and thereafter by making her wear her clothes, took her in the4same auto and left her near a bridge. She complained of having sustained injuries onher thighs. She stated that thereafter she took water from a person near the garageroad and ascertained from him the area where she was situated. According to her,from the location of the place, she could understand the site of the garage and onreaching there, she saw broken pieces of her glass bangles and also the litter and leftovers of the food taken in the garage and could convincingly identify the place. Shedeposed further that at that time, a man came in a bicycle to whom she narrated theentire incident, who asked her to wait and went to the Hoysala Police Station toreport, whereafter the police did come, inspect the place as shown by her and took herto the Sampangiramanagara P.S. past midnight where she made her verbal complaintwhich was reduced into writing and she put her thumb impression thereon.The prosecutrix proved the complaint/FIR as Ex. P1. According to her,in the next morning at 6 A.M., the appellants were brought to the police station. Sheadmitted to have been taken to the Vanivilas Hospital where she was medicallyexamined. She also identified the ear studs, material Ex. 1 and also her inner-wearmaterial Ex. 2 and broken pieces of glass bangles material Ex 3. She also stated tohave identified the appellants in the test identification parade conducted in the centraljail. She also identified the seats of the auto rickshaw as material Ex P4 and P5. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that she was not5married and that she had come to Bangalore with Saravana whom she had referred toin her examination-in-chief, as her husband. She stated that she lived with Saravanafor three years in Bangalore and that they used to earn their living as labourers. Shestated that Saravana deserted her, following frequent quarrels with her, whereafterPW2 Geeta gave her and her daughter, shelter. She testified that she used to earn Rs.700 p.m. by working in the house of Shilpa Shetty and that there was none

in thefamily or in her village to support her financially. She admitted that from one weekprior to the incident, the appellants used to tease her and that from then she knewthem. She admitted that the road from which she was abducted was a publicthorough fare but asserted that she could not scream as she was gagged. Sheadmitted that though the auto travelled for 10 minutes thereafter, she did not try toget down as she was scared of her abductors. She further disclosed that theappellants used to speak to her from 2/3 days prior to the incident.According to her, while she was near Fatima Bakery, which was oppositeto Johnson market, she was taken inside the auto. She admitted to have known theaccused Francis then. She claimed to have identified two persons in the autorickshaw when she was first picked up from the road as appellants Parkash andFrancis. She admitted that none of the abductors did speak to her while in the autorickshaw. She also conceded that she did not scream for help from the passers-by onthe road. She was confronted with her disclosure in the FIR that only three personshad committed rape on her though four had been named therein. She admitted that at6the time when she was offered two idlis and a glass of water, she did not cry for helpand instead had made up her mind to teach the miscreants a lesson by informing thepolice. She also stated, by departing from the FIR that for the second time, threepersons committed sexual intercourse with her. According to her, the ear studs hadbeen given to her by her husband who got them made at Kaveripattinam in TamilNadu. She claimed that her FIR was written by one Anthony in the police stationwhom she came to know at that point of time. In her cross-examination, she further deviated by stating that apart fromthe 4 th person referred to by her, there was yet another person of short stature and thatshe had forgotten to refer to him in her FIR. She admitted that her mouth was nevershut but her abductors did threaten and scold her. She admitted that after she wasabandoned by the miscreants, she did alone return to the garage where the act wascommitted. She also stated to have narrated her incident to five more persons atdifferent places before the police had intervened, who according to her, werewatchmen. She stated that she wanted to see the place before informing the policeand, therefore she went in search thereof. She deposed that she saw the jeep of theHoysala police and called for help whereafter she was taken in the jeep. She tookthe jeep near the garage and from there, she was taken to two more police stationsbefore lodging the FIR at Sampangiramanagara Police Station. She contradicted herself by stating that the complaint was not written byAnthony. She also stated that her report was typed, read out to her whereupon she put7her left thumb impression. When Ex. P1, FIR was shown to her, she admitted that itwas not typed. She admitted as well that while narrating the incident and lodging thecomplaint, she did not disclose the names of the accused persons. She conceded aswell that when she was taken to the hospital, there were no wounds.She admitted as well that PW 2 Geeta had advised her to take moneyand return to her native village and not to file a case as otherwise she would disclosethat she was a prostitute. She denied the suggestion that she had requested forfinancial help from the appellants and when they expressed their inability, she lodgeda false case against them to wreak vengeance. She also denied the suggestion thatthe material exhibits, more particularity ear studs and tali (mangalsootre) were nothers and that the police had procured the same from elsewhere, to frame the accusedpersons. In the context of her identification of the appellants in the TIP, sheadmitted in her cross-examination that even prior to the incident, she had seen theaccused persons and that not only they used to talk to her, she knew them as well.

8. PW2 Geeta, on oath stated that she also did earn her living as alabourer. She admitted that she knew the prosecutrix who was deserted by herhusband and that she had accommodated her and her daughter and had providedshelter to them about 7 years prior to the incident. She stated that about four yearsback (coinciding approximately with the date of the incident), the prosecutrix haddisclosed to her that on her way back home, she had been teased, on which sheadvised her to be careful. The witness stated that in the evening of the date of the8incident, the prosecutirx did not return home and that at about mid-night, the policebrought her back. She stated that she saw marks of assault on the body ofprosecutrix and on being enquired, she stated that ⬠Sthey did not pay me any moneybut have snatched my ear studs. They have extracted all the work needed⬠\235. Thewitness volunteered to explain ⬠Swork⬠\235 meant prostitution.At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined.In her cross-examination, she admitted that when the prosecutrix returned that night,she had suffered wounds and was limping. She denied to have stated before thepolice that the appellants had snatched her gold ornaments and had committed rapeon her. She also denied to have identified the ear studs, as those of the prosecutrixand instead asserted that the same were not hers. She denied the suggestion that herretraction from the statement made before the police was with a view to help theaccused persons. She volunteered to state that the reason for her husband to desertthe prosecutrix was her activities of prostitution which had come to his knowledge. The witness further disclosed in her cross-examination by the defencethat about a fortnight before the incident, the prosecutrix along with her hadapproached the accused persons for an amount of Rs. 10000 which she intended toinvest for living in a separate house, which was however declined. PW2 testified thatthis was not to the liking of the prosecutrix, who was enraged by such refusal and leftthe place by intimidating them of adverse consequences. The witness on oath statedfurther that the prosecutrix after returning home in the evenings and after9completing the house hold work, used to go around in the night indulging inprostitution and when asked as to why she had lodged the complaint against theaccused persons, she disclosed that this would compel them to part with the moneythat she wanted.9. PW3 Dr. B.R.S. Kashyap had examined the appellants and opined thatthere was nothing to suggest that they were incapable of performing sexualintercourse. He also was of the view that the injury on the body of the appellant Rajucould have been sustained also in the course of attending his auto rickshaw or couldbe self- inflicted as well.10. PW4 Muthu produced as a seizure witness of the ear studs denied that samehad been seized in his presence and instead testified that on the insistence of thepolice he put his signature on a paper. This witness was declared hostile but did notbudge from his statement in his examination-in-chief.11. PW5 M.K. Srirangaiah was the Tehsildar, Bangalore North Taluk at therelevant time and he proved the conduct of TIP, in which the prosecutrix identifiedthe appellants.12. PW8 K.M. Nandagopal was the Assistant Professor, OBG, VanivilasHospital on 11.10.1997 where at about 9 a.m. on that day, the prosecutrix wasmedically examined. He deposed that the prosecutrix was found to have sustained

red colour injury on her left thigh. While stating that the vaginal swab of the10prosecutrix was sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, he was of theclear opinion that she was accustomed to the act of sexual intercourse. In hiscross-examination, the doctor admitted that the prosecutrix did not reveal anyevidence or sign of having sexual intercourse at the time of her examination.Vis-a-vis the injuries on her thigh, the witness stated that this could happen due toreasons other than sexual intercourse.13. PW11 B.S. Mudumadeviah, the Investigating Officer affirmed that theFIR was lodged by the prosecutrix at 2 a.m. on 11.10.1997 at the police station. Hedeposed that after the medical examination of the prosecutrix, he accompanied her tothe place of occurrence and seized therefrom a red colour drawer, one box of Nirodh(contraceptive), two auto rickshaw seats, two broken pieces of black bangles andthree black bangles found strewn around. He identified the seized articles in court.He referred to the disclosure statement of the appellant Parkash leading to thediscovery of the ear studs of the prosecutrix from his house which he identified inthe court as well. He also claimed to have seized the auto rickshaw identified by thesame appellant used for abducting the prosecutrix. According to him, he had writtendown the complaint of the prosecutrix made verballyHe conceded that the prosecutrix did not state that at that point of time,that she had been abducted by five persons and raped by four. She also did notdisclose that there was another short person who had raped her as well. The witnessadmitted that she did not disclose that she was abducted while near the Fatima11Bakery but referred to the spot as Richmond Park. He denied the suggestion that theprosecutrix at the time of lodging of the complaint did not name the miscreants. Hedenied the suggestion as well that the ear studs were bought from Man PasandJewellers, Shanti Nagar by taking Rakesh, a friend of accused No. 3- Parkash for thepurpose. He denied the suggestion with regard to seizures from the spot and also theidentification by the prosecutrix at the test identification parade.14. The defence witness Rakesh deposed on oath that after the incident,while one day he was in the house of Parkash, the police visited the place andthreatened the grand-father of the appellant Parkash alleging that he (Parkash) hadsnatched a pair of ear studs from the prosecutrix, to which his grand-father objected.The witness stated that then the police took him and the grand-father of the appellantParkash to Man Pasand Jewellers, a local jewellery shop, where the police threatenedthe old man to pay the amount to purchase a pair of ear studs for Rs. 4000. Thewitness identified the ear studs through the emblem ⬠SM.P.⬠\235 thereon. He denied thatthe material Ex. 1, the ear studs belonged to the prosecutrix and that the same hadbeen seized from the appellant Parkash.15. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the appellants hasinsistently argued that it being patent on a combined reading of the FIR and thetestimony of the prosecutrix at the trial, that she is wholly untrustworthy and that theappellants have been falsely implicated, the impugned judgement and order is liableto be set aside lest it perpetuates gross injustice. The learned senior counsel has12urged that not only the prosecutrix's version of the incident as a whole is inherentlyimprobable, she has been wholly discredited as well by the medical evidence belying

the accusation of forcible sexual intercourse by the appellants in succession.Castigating the investigating agency for falsely foisting the articles claimed to havebeen seized on the appellants in its desperate attempt to establish their culpability, Mr.Patil has maintained that as the prosecutrix admittedly knew the appellants frombefore, their so called identification by her at the TIP is also of no consequence. Thelearned senior counsel asserted that PW2 Geeta, though having been declared hostile,her evidence at the trial otherwise consistent with the attendant facts andcircumstances bearing on the conduct and activities of the prosecutrix ought not tohave been discarded and this having vitiated the impugned decision as well, theconviction and sentence recorded against the appellants is liable to be interfered with.As the prosecution has failed to convincingly prove the charge levelled against theappellants, they are entitled to be acquitted, he urged. To buttress these pleas,reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Sunil Kumar SambhudayalGupta (Dr.) and others. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657, ShyamalSaha Vs. State of West Benga l (2014) 12 SCC 321. Himanshu alias Chintu Vs.State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 2 SCC 36 and Raju and Others Vs. State of MadhyaPradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133. 16. As against this, the learned state counsel wholly endorsed the impugneddecision contending that not only the testimony of the prosecutrix is true, cogent andconvincing, having regard to the charge levelled by her, the same is deserving of full13credence to base the conviction of the appellants thereon. According to the learnedcounsel, the minor inconsistencies in the FIR and the deposition of the prosecutrix, ona consideration of the totality of the circumstances, are acceptably reconcilable. Asthe identity of the appellants, as the perpetrators of the crime, is not in doubt, theyhaving been identified by the prosecutrix in no uncertain terms, the prosecution caseought not to be jettisoned by relying on the evidence of PW2, a hostile witness, heurged. While contending that the medical evidence is not mutilative of the chargeand that the seizures made in course of the investigation do undeniably establish thecomplicity of the appellants, their conviction is legally valid and does not merit anyinterference in the instant appeal, he maintained.17. We have lent our anxious consideration to the materials on record as well as thecompeting arguments based thereon. Having regard to the charge levelled, thefulcrum of the prosecution case logically is the testimony of the prosecutrix.Undeniably therefore the credibility and trustworthiness of the victim⬠"!s version is thedecisive factor to adjudge the culpability of the appellants. 18. Filtering the unnecessary factual details, suffice it is to recount that the incidentallegedly had occurred at 7.30 p.m. on a public road while the prosecutrix wasreturning home after the day's work. Her version is that while she was on the way, anauto rickshaw with two persons therein pulled up by her side and she was dragged inforcibly. After moving for about 10 minutes, the abductors were joined by two morepersons, whereafter she was taken to a garage and was molested against her willforcibly. 1419. To start with, the prosecutrix has contradicted herself qua the place ofalleged kidnapping. In the complaint, she mentioned the spot to be near Richmondpark, whereas in her evidence she referred to the same as opposite Johnson market. Itis more or less authenticated by the evidence on record that after her abduction andon the way to the garage as narrated by her, she did not scream or cry for help. Thisis of utmost significance as it is not alleged by her that the abduc

tors had put herunder fear on the point of any weapon threatening physical injury thereby. This ismore so, as admittedly the prosecutrix at the relevant time was a major and couldvery well foresee the disastrous consequences to follow. She has admitted in herdeposition as well that while she was ravished inside the garage and even during theintermittent breaks, she did not shout for any help. Her version in the complaint withregard to the offending act and the number of persons, who had committed the same,is inconsistent with her testimony on oath at the trial. Notably in the complaint shementioned about four persons of whom three raped and out of them, two committedthe act twice. She did not disclose in her complaint that the accused persons wereknown to her from before and disclosed that they during the time had been referringto themselves as Raju, Venu, Parkash and Francis. This, however has been denied bythe investigation officer. On oath, she however introduced a fifth person as well.She accused all the four persons to have committed sexual intercourse with her forthe second time. Though grudgingly, as admitted by her, she also consumed thefood as offered to her by her molesters. In cross-examination, she admitted that she was not married to Sarvana15though she claimed him to be her husband in her examination-in-chief. She disclosedmore than once that the accused persons used to tease her for about 5-6 months priorto the incident and that she used to talk to them as well. In view of this admission ofhers , the identification by the prosecutrix of the accused persons in the TIP palesinto insignificance. She contradicted herself in the cross-examination by stating thatthree of the four did rape her for the second time. She was also inconsistent withregard to the writer of her complaint. Her conduct during the alleged ordeal is also unlike a victim of forciblerape and betrays somewhat submissive and consensual disposition. From the natureof the exchanges between her and the accused persons as narrated by her, the sameare not at all consistent with those of an unwilling, terrified and anguished victim offorcible intercourse, if judged by the normal human conduct. Her post incident conduct and movements are also noticeably unusual.Instead of hurrying back home in a distressed, humiliated and a devastated state, shestayed back in and around the place of occurrence, enquired about the same frompersons whom she claims to have met in the late hours of night, returned to the spotto identify the garage and even look at the broken glass bangles, discarded litter etc.According to her, she wandered around the place and as disclosed by her in herevidence, to collect information so as to teach the accused persons a lesson. Heravengeful attitude in the facts and circumstances, as disclosed by her, if true,demonstrably evinces a conduct manifested by a feeling of frustration stoked by anintense feeling of deprivation of something expected, desired or promised. Her16confident movements alone past midnight, in that state are also out of the ordinary.Her testimony that she met a cyclist to whom she narrated her tale of woe and thaton his information, the Hoysala police came to the spot and that thereafter she wastaken to successive police stations before lodging the complaint atSampangiramanagara police station as well has to be accepted with a grain of salt. 20. PW8, who medically examined her, opined in clear terms that she wasaccustomed to sexual intercourse and that no sign of forcible intercourse wasdiscernible. This assumes great significance in view of the allegation of forciblerape by 3 to 4 adult persons more than once. The medical opinion that she was

accustomed to sexual inter course when admittedly she was living separately fromher husband for 1 and ½ years before the incident also has its own implication. Themedical evidence as such in the attendant facts and circumstances in a way belies theallegation of gang rape.21. The evidence of PW2 Geeta who admittedly had offered shelter to theprosecutrix and her minor daughter, though had been declared hostile, her testimonyas a whole cannot be brushed aside. In her testimony, this witness indicated that theprosecutrix used to take financial help from the accused persons and that she used toindulge in dubious late night activities for which her husband had deserted her. Thedefence plea of false implication as the accused persons had declined to oblige theprosecutrix qua her demand for financial help therefore cannot be lightly discardedin the overall factual scenario. Her version therefore is a plausible one and thus fit inwith the defence plea to demolish the prosecution case. 1722. That the evidence of a hostile witness in all eventualities ought not standeffaced altogether and that the same can be accepted to the extent found dependableon a careful scrutiny was reiterated by this Court in Himanshu @ Chintu (supra) bydrawing sustenance of the proposition amongst others from Khujii vs. State of M.P.(1991) 3 SCC 627 and Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 8SCC 624. It was enounced that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissibleand is open for a Court to rely on the dependable part thereof as found acceptable andduly corroborated by other reliable evidence available on record. 23. The seizures said to have been effected by the investigating agency alsodo not inspire confidence. Not only PW 4 Muthu denied that the seizure of ear studshad been made in his presence, DW1 on oath had stated that this item of jewelleryhad in fact been purchased by the police from a local shop which he could identify onthe basis of the symbol ⬠ÜMP⬠"! inscribed thereon. In any view of the matter, theseized articles per se in absence of any evidence of corroboration of charge wouldnot, irrefutably prove the involvement of the appellants in the offence alleged.24. This Court in Raju (supra), while reiterating that the evidence of theprosecutrix in cases of rape, molestation and other physical outrages is to beconstrued to be that of an injured witness so much so that no corroboration isnecessary, ruled that an accused must also be protected against the possibility of falseimplication. It was underlined that the testimony of the victim in such cases, thoughcommands great weight but the same, cannot necessarily be universally and18mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment andexaggeration. It was ruled that the presumption of absence of consent of the victim,where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved as contemplated in Section 114Aof the Evidence Act, was extremely restricted in its application compared to thesweep and ambit of the presumption under Sections 113A and 113B of the IndianEvidence Act. It was exposited that insofar as the allegation of rape is concerned, theevidence of the prosecutrix must be examined as that of a injured witness whosepresence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statementshould always without exception, be taken as gospel truth. The essence of this verdict which has stood the test of time proclaimsthat though generally the testimony of a victim of rape or non-consensual physicalassault ought to be accepted as true and unblemished, it would still be subject tojudicial scrutiny lest a casual, routine and automatic acceptance thereof results inunwarranted conviction of the person charged.25. Vis-a-vis the scope of interference with a judgment of acquittal, this

Court in Sunil Kumar Shabukumar Gupta (Dr.) (supra) echoed the hallowedproposition that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not ordinarilyinterfere therewith though its view may appear to be the more probable one. Whileemphasizing that the trial court has the benefit of watching the demeanour of thewitnesses and is thus the best judge of their credibility, it was held that every accusedis presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved and that his presumption ofinnocence gets reinforced with his acquittal by the trial court's verdict. It was19reiterated that only in exceptionable cases and under compelling circumstances,where the judgement of acquittal is found to be perverse i.e. if the findings have beenarrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or by taking into considerationirrelevant/inadmissible material and are against the weight of evidence or are sooutrageously in defiance of logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, thatinterference by the appellate court would be called for.26. That the appellate court is under an obligation to consider and identify theerror in the decision of the trial court and then to decide whether the error is grossenough to warrant interference was underlined by this Court in Shyamal Saha(supra). It was emphasized that the appellate court is not expected to merelysubstitute its opinion for that of the trial court and that it has to exercise itsdiscretion very cautiously to correct an error of law or fact, if any and significantenough to warrant reversal of the verdict of the trial court.27. The prosecution case, when judged on the touchstone of totality of thefacts and circumstances, does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfactionindispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against the appellants. Havingregard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is not possible for this Court tounhesitatingly hold that the charge levelled against the appellants has been provedbeyond reasonable doubt. In our estimate, the view taken by the Trial Court is theoverwhelmingly possible one. In contrast, the findings of the High Court aredecipherably strained in favour of the prosecution by overlooking manyirreconcilable inconsistencies, anomalies and omissions rendering the prosecution20case unworthy of credit. Noticeably, the High Court has exonerated the appellants ofthe charge of abduction under Section 366 IPC, which is an inseverable component ofthe string of offences alleged against them. Judged by the known parameters of law,the view adopted by the High Court is not a plausible one when juxtaposed to that ofthe Trial Court. We are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed toprove the charge against the appellants to the hilt as obligated in law and thus, theyare entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. Theimpugned judgement and order is set-aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bailbonds are discharged.)NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 4, 2016. ⬠¦â¬ ¦ .. ..⬠¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦..⬠¦.J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)⬠¦â¬ ¦ .. ..⬠¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦..⬠¦.J. (AMITAVA ROY) 21ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION II C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)Date : 04/10/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., AORMs. Priya Aristotle, Adv.Ms. Priyadarshini, Adv.Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. ***** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy pronounced the reportablejudgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice PinakiChandra Ghose and His Lordship. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is setaside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bands aredischarged in terms of the signed reportable judgment. (R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)22

ITEM NO.101(PH) COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 07/09/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.(N.P.) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants – accused started his arguments at 11.00 a.m. and concluded at 11.40 a.m. Thereafter, Mr. Joseph Aristotle, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State of Karnataka started his arguments at 11.41 a.m. and concluded at 12.49 p.m. Hearing is concluded. The Judgment is reserved. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State of Karnataka is directed to file a brief written note and the relevant case law relied upon by him in support of his submissions. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants – accused is also directed to file a brief written note in the matter. Both the learned counsel are directed to file their respective brief written notes within a period of one week from today. (VISHAL ANAND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Case law cited:- (2006) 10 SCC 595 at Page 599

>ITEM NO.101(PH) COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(With office report)Date : 07/09/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROYFor Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.(N.P.) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RMr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior counsel appearingfor the appellants ⬠accused started his arguments at 11.00 a.m.and concluded at 11.40 a.m. Thereafter, Mr. Joseph Aristotle,learned counsel appearing for the respondent ⬠State of Karnatakastarted his arguments at 11.41 a.m. and concluded at 12.49 p.m.Hearing is concluded.The Judgment is reserved.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent ⬠State ofKarnataka is directed to file a brief written note and the relevantcase law relied upon by him in support of his submissions.Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants ⬠accusedis also directed to file a brief written note in the matter.Both the learned counsel are directed to file their respectivebrief written notes within a period of one week from today.(VISHAL ANAND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERCase law cited:- (2006) 10 SCC 595 at Page 599

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB (Part-heard) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant (s), list this Criminal Appeal next week. (R. NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB(Part-heard) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for bail and office report)Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROYFor Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv.Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv.Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Adv.Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant (s), list this Criminal Appeal next week. (R. NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for bail and office report) Date : 11/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, learned counsel appearing for the appellants – accused started his arguments at 3.35 p.m. and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day, leaving the matter part-heard. As prayed, list the Criminal Appeal on Wednesday, the 31 st August, 2016 as Part-Heard for further hearing. (VISHAL ANAND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Ø ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for bail and office report) Date : 11/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, learned counsel appearing for the appellants - accused started his arguments at 3.35 p.m. and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day, leaving the matter part-heard. As prayed, list the Criminal Appeal on Wednesday, the 31st August, 2016 as Part-Heard for further hearing. (VISHAL ANAND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)Signature Not Verified COURT MASTER COURT MASTERDigitally signed byVISHAL ANANDDate: 2016.08.1116:59:06 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 28/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. For Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. Ms. Surabhi Aggarwal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed by learned counsel for the appellants, list this matter next week. Liberty to inspect the original records lying in the Registry. If the learned counsel for the appellants wishes to have copies of the documents, he may do so on payment of usual charges and in accordance with Rules. [SNEH LATA SHARMA] [ SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.

üITEM NO.103 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for bail and office report)Date : 28/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROYFor Appellant(s) Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. For Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. Ms. Surabhi Aggarwal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RAs prayed by learned counsel for the appellants, listthis matter next week.Liberty to inspect the original records lying in theRegistry. If the learned counsel for the appellants wishes tohave copies of the documents, he may do so on payment of usualcharges and in accordance with Rules. [SNEH LATA SHARMA] [ SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.

ITEM NO.118 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 20/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S.Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. Mr. A. Maqbool, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, list the matter on Thursday, the 28 th July, 2016. (VISHAL ANAND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for bail and office report) Date : 14/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Surabhi Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State of Karnataka, the matter is not taken up today. (VISHAL ANAND) (H.S. NEGI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

¸ ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for bail and office report) Date : 14/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Surabhi Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State of Karnataka, the matter is not taken up today. (VISHAL ANAND) (H.S. NEGI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVISHAL ANANDDate: 2016.07.1515:29:20 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.112 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 13/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeking accommodation for a day, list this Criminal Appeal tomorrow i.e. Thursday, the 14 th July, 2016. (R.NATARAJAN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) Court Master Court Master

\214ITEM NO.112 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for bail and office report)Date : 13/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROYFor Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for theappellants seeking accommodation for a day, list this CriminalAppeal tomorrow i.e. Thursday, the 14 th July, 2016.(R.NATARAJAN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) Court Master Court Master

¶ ITEM NO.112 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 13/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeking accommodation for a day, list this Criminal Appeal tomorrow i.e. Thursday, the 14th July, 2016. (R.NATARAJAN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byR.NATARAJANDate: 2016.07.1612:55:53 ISTReason:

¶ ITEM NO.112 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 13/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeking accommodation for a day, list this Criminal Appeal tomorrow i.e. Thursday, the 14th July, 2016. (R.NATARAJAN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byR.NATARAJANDate: 2016.07.1612:55:53 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.113 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 28/04/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, list the matter after Summer Vacation. (VISHAL ANAND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\216 ITEM NO.113 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 28/04/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, list the matter after Summer Vacation. (VISHAL ANAND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVISHAL ANANDDate: 2016.04.2817:53:06 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.109 IN COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date: 10/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeking two weeks adjournment on the ground that arguing counsel Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad is critically ill and learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka has no objection for the same, the Criminal Appeal is adjourned for two weeks. (VISHAL ANAND) (MADHU NARULA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.109 IN COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for bail and office report)Date: 10/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROYFor Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E ROn the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for theappellant seeking two weeks adjournment on the ground that arguingcounsel Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad is critically ill and learnedcounsel appearing for the State of Karnataka has no objection forthe same, the Criminal Appeal is adjourned for two weeks.(VISHAL ANAND) (MADHU NARULA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 07/01/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants seeking adjournment, as a last chance, list after two weeks. (R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master

z ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1767/2011 RAJA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 07/01/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants seeking adjournment, as a last chance, list after two weeks. (R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byR.NATARAJANDate: 2016.01.0912:57:38 ISTReason:

2ITEM NO.1 Court No.4 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP.NO. 24406/2013 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1767 OF 2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 24/03/2014 This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subrahmanya Prasad, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. Mr. R.D. Upadhyay,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appellants are enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the learned XXV Additional City Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, Karnataka in S.C. No. 118 of 1998. CrlMP No. 24406/2013 is allowed. | (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) |(M.S. NEGI) || Court Master | Assistant Registrar |

ÔITEM NO.1 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.MP.NO.24406/2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1767/2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 16/12/2013 This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Adv. Mr. Debjyoti Basu, Adv. Mr. R.D. Upadhyay,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We defer the application for bail for a period of three months. List after three months. (Deepak Mansukhani) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Assistant Registrar

ÈITEM NO.2 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. NO.6364 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 19/03/2012 This petition/appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAIFor Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr.Adv. Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. Mr. R.D. Upadhyay,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. However, the records of the case have been received and the case is otherwise ready for hearing. We, accordingly, direct this matter to be listed on October 10, 2012 at the top of the list. (Neetu Khajuria) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr.P.A. Court Master

ÈITEM NO.2 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. NO.6364 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 19/03/2012 This petition/appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAIFor Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr.Adv. Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Adv. Mr. R.D. Upadhyay,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. However, the records of the case have been received and the case is otherwise ready for hearing. We, accordingly, direct this matter to be listed on October 10, 2012 at the top of the list. (Neetu Khajuria) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr.P.A. Court Master

\206ITEM NO.MM-7E COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. NO.6364 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1767 OF 2011RAJA & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail)Date: 01/03/2012 This matter was called on for mentioning today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASADFor Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Adv. Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Anirudh S., Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on Board. Let the bail petition be listed on the notified date. (Neetu Khajuria) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr.P.A. Court Master