Read Order: Chikkaiah & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka

Pankaj Bajpai

Bengaluru, February 16, 2022: Taking note of the heinous offence of rape against a deaf & dumb victim and considering the fact that the accused persons were identified through the photographs by the victim before the Magistrate, the Karnataka High Court has rejected their regular bail petitions and opined that prima facie case against the accused was established.

The Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh therefore directed the Investigating Officer to get the DNA report immediately following the procedure as contemplated under the CrPC, in case the blood samples were not drawn from the accused as well as the baby. 

Going by the background of the case, when the complainant visited the house of his niece (the victim who was deaf & dumb), she noticed the hospital card with the victim which showed that the victim was 34 weeks pregnant and also the victim appeared to be pregnant. When the complainant enquired by sign as to who was responsible for the same, the victim showed two houses situated in front of her house. 

Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint. Pursuant to investigation by police and identification of the photographs by the victim of two accused (Chikkaiah & Another – Petitioners) the accused persons were arrested and charge-sheet was filed. Hence, the present petition seeking regular bail. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that no doubt, there was an allegation against the petitioners that they were responsible for the act of making the victim pregnant. However, though statement u/s 164 CrPC was recorded, but DNA blood sample was not drawn from the petitioners and now the victim had given birth to a child also. The counsel therefore contended that when DNA test was not conducted, the petitioners were entitled for bail.

Opposing the same, the counsel for State argued that first of all, the victim is a deaf and dumb and she made the sign that these petitioners were responsible and apart from that, when the statement was recorded before the Magistrate, she identified the photographs of two petitioners and it the process of getting DNA test report was ongoing, since the victim gave birth to a child recently. 

After considering the submissions, Justice Sandesh found that the prosecution was mainly depending upon the statement of the victim who made the statement before the Magistrate u/s 164(5) of Cr.P.C. wherein she had identified two photographs of the petitioners – accused. 

Apart from that, victim’s statement was also recorded and the victim had given birth to a child consequent to the sexual act and no doubt, DNA report was not before the Court, added the Single Judge. 

Therefore, while observing that the petitioners could be given an opportunity to approach this Court after getting the DNA report, the High Court rejected the bail petitions. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment