Case Note & Summary
The matter comprised two connected criminal appeals arising from the judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, in S.C. No. 87/2010. In the trial court, the accused Dayananda Kumar @ Dayananda faced charges under Sections 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), 417 (cheating), and originally 312 (causing miscarriage), later altered to 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that prior to 13.1.2009, the complainant Sumithra, an orphan, was working in the house of the accused assisting his mother. On 13.1.2009 and subsequently once a week or fortnight, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without consent. He threatened to kill her if she disclosed the acts. He also had sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage. She believed him and did not report earlier. When she became pregnant and informed the accused, he gave her two pills on 2.9.2009; she consumed one on 2.9.2009 and the other on 3.9.2009, causing bleeding and abdominal pain. The accused and his mother took her to Surya Nursing Home, Mysore, where abortion was performed. After her discharge, her grandmother and others asked the accused to marry her, but he refused. A panchayat was held on 7.9.2009 where he admitted the forcible intercourse and causing miscarriage but refused to marry. A police complaint was lodged on 9.9.2009 leading to registration of Crime No. 124/2009. The trial court, after recording evidence of 22 prosecution witnesses and 30 exhibits, and marking 6 defence exhibits, acquitted the accused of rape, criminal intimidation, and causing miscarriage, holding that the prosecution failed to prove these charges beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court held that the sexual intercourse was with consent, not against will. However, it convicted the accused under Section 417 IPC for cheating, holding that he had sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage but failed to marry her, and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000, in default further three months imprisonment. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 405/2014 challenging the acquittal for the serious offences, while the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 786/2013 against his conviction for cheating. The High Court heard both appeals together. The Additional State Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused of rape, criminal intimidation, and causing miscarriage, contending that the evidence of the victim and medical evidence, along with other witnesses, proved the offences. He supported the conviction under Section 417. The defence counsel argued that the finding of consent was correct, that the complaint was delayed, that the promise to marry was not mentioned before the act, and therefore cheating was not made out. He highlighted that the victim’s age at the time was about 17½ or 18 years, making the sixth clause of Section 375 inapplicable. The High Court recorded the arguments and framed points for consideration, but the available judgment text does not include the final adjudication, reasoning, or operative order. Thus, the outcome of the appeals remains unknown from the text provided.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 81
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.405/2014 c/w CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.786/2013
B. Veerappa, K. Natarajan
Vijayakumar Majage, A.H. Bhagavan
State by Bannur Police Station / Dayananda Kumar @ Dayananda
Dayananda Kumar @ Dayananda / State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals arising from trial court judgment acquitting accused of rape, criminal intimidation, and causing miscarriage, but convicting for cheating.
Remedy Sought
State sought to set aside acquittal and convict under Sections 376, 506, 313 IPC; accused sought to set aside conviction under Section 417 IPC.
Filing Reason
State dissatisfied with acquittal for serious offences; accused aggrieved by cheating conviction.
Previous Decisions
Trial court in S.C. No.87/2010 acquitted accused of offences under Sections 376, 506, 313 IPC and convicted under Section 417 IPC, sentencing to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.15,000.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused under Sections 376, 506, and 313 IPC?
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused under Section 417 IPC?
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that trial court ignored evidence of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence proving sexual intercourse against will, threat to kill, and causing miscarriage, and that conviction under Section 417 was correct.
Accused argued that intercourse was consensual, complaint was delayed, promise to marry was not stated in complaint before the act, thus cheating not made out, and victim’s age being about 18 made Section 375 sixth clause inapplicable; trial court erred in convicting under Section 417.
Judgment Excerpts
the complainant – Sumithra at Hanumanahalli, Bannur Hobli, T. Narasipura taluk, was working in the house of the accused by assisting his mother – Smt. Yashoda in household work
the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. When she tried to raise alarm, the accused threatened to kill her
She believed the words of the accused and also he threatened to kill her if she discloses the act to anybody
he gave two pills to her ... she took one on 2.9.2009 and another on 3.9.2009 ... blood discharged from her vagina
panchayath was convened on 7.9.2009 and in the panchayath though the accused agreed regarding forcible sexual intercourse
the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 13.1.2009 ... the accused had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent
the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual intercourse with complainant ... on a promise of marriage, but failed to marry her and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC
the evidence of the doctor – PW.5 clearly depicts that the complainant has stated before her that she is the wife of one Srinivas and she has not disclosed the fact about pregnancy from the accused
the abortion was with the consent of the complainant
the victim was aged about 17 ½ or 18 years
Procedural History
The trial court framed charges under Sections 376, 506, 417, 312 IPC on 29.7.2010; charge under Section 312 was later altered to 313 on 16.3.2013. Prosecution examined 22 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to P30; defence marked Ex.D1 to D6. Trial court acquitted accused of offences under Sections 376, 506, 313 IPC and convicted under Section 417 IPC on 22/24.7.2013. State filed appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC; accused filed appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC. High Court heard both appeals together on 22.9.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 506, 313, 417, 312, 315, 415, 375
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378(1), 378(3), 374(2), 313
