Case Note & Summary
The case originates from the trial court's conviction of the appellant Omkarmurthy @ Murthy for offences under Sections 376, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, involving the rape, murder, and causing disappearance of evidence of an 8-year-old girl, Sahana. The appellant and the deceased were related as their mothers were sisters. Approximately 20 days before the incident, the appellant had come to stay at the deceased's house in Oorukere village, Tumkur district. On 18 November 2007, the parents left the village to attend a marriage and a temple, leaving the deceased and her 12-year-old elder sister Keerthana under the appellant's care. Around 11:00 a.m., the appellant took Sahana on a bicycle, bought chocolate from a shop owned by PW-24 Rathnaiah Shetty, and then went to the garden land of the deceased's father. There, according to the prosecution, he forcibly raped Sahana, murdered her by suffocation, and buried her body to destroy the evidence. Upon returning home alone, he misled the elder sister and later the father about Sahana's whereabouts. The father filed a missing complaint the same day, registered as Crime No.331/2007. After the appellant also went missing, the father lodged another complaint on 22 November 2007. On that day, the police apprehended the appellant, who gave a voluntary statement leading to the exhumation of the body from the garden land in the presence of the Tahsildar and panch witnesses. The investigating agency filed a charge sheet, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court in S.C. No.52/2008. The trial court framed charges under Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC, recorded evidence, and the appellant denied guilt in his Section 313 statement without leading defence evidence. The trial court found him guilty, sentencing him to life imprisonment and fines for murder, seven years for rape, and two years for destroying evidence. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.184/2020 before the High Court of Karnataka. In the appeal, the appellant's senior counsel raised several contentions: the conviction for rape was baseless because the prosecution failed to get the accused medically examined under Section 53-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires such examination when rape is alleged. It was argued that no question regarding the commission of rape was put to the accused during the Section 313 examination, denying a fair chance to defend. Medical evidence from PW-23, the doctor who conducted post-mortem, indicated death by asphyxia and did not conclusively prove rape; the FSL report (Ex.P13) showed no seminal stains on the victim's clothing, underwear, and vaginal swabs. The recovery of two silver ankle chains from the accused's underwear five days after the incident was attacked as doubtful. Regarding the murder and destruction of evidence, it was urged that the conviction rested solely on the recovery at the instance of the accused without corroborating material and that the Section 313 examination omitted to put all incriminating circumstances, making the sentence excessive. Reliance was placed on State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Others, (1999)7 SCC 280, on the limited value of expert evidence. The State, represented by the Additional State Public Prosecutor, countered that the last-seen theory was firmly established through multiple witnesses (PWs 6, 14, 24, 3, 7, 15-20, and others) who saw the accused with the deceased, that the purchase of chocolate was confirmed by the shopkeeper (PW-24), and that the voluntary statement led to the discovery of the body and the weapons (guddali and pikasi) under mahazar (Ex.P4) witnessed by panchas (PWs 2 and 5). The exhumation and inquest were conducted in the presence of the Tahsildar and supported by mahazar witnesses (PWs 1 and 4). The State argued that the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence to convict. Before the High Court, the division bench framed the following point for consideration: 'Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC?' The judgment text provided ends there, without recording the court's analysis, findings, or final order. Therefore, the outcome of the appeal remains unknown from the given excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC?
