Title: Dr. Shivmurthy Murugha Sharanaru v State of Karnataka
Citation: CP No. 5031 of 2023
Dated on: 8.11.2023
Corum: Justice Srinivas Harish Kumar
Facts of the case
In this present case 2 girl – A & B were rescinding at a hostel run by Sri. Jagadguru Murugarajendra Bruhan Mutta accused Dr. Shivmurty Murugha Sharanaru, the plaintiff and the chief of the mutt of sexually abusing them both. the girls left hostel and went to Bangalore police Station and were later sent to Chitradurga to stay with a couple who took them to an organization. The accused was charged with various offences under different acts including the atrocities act for allegedly assaulting a girl belonging to the scheduled cast community. The accused was arrested and charged with various offences and under different Acts.
Legal Provision
The accused was charged under the following sections of different Acts:
– Section 3 (penetrative sexual assault) and Section 5 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
– Section 376 (rape), Section 376-A (punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim), Section 376-AB (punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age), Section 376-DA (gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age), Section 376-DB (gang rape on woman under twelve years of age), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
– Section 3 (punishment for offences of atrocities) and Section 4 (punishment for neglect of duties) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
– Section 7 (offences and penalties) and Section 8 (cancellation or suspension of registration of religious institutions) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (Religious Institutions Act).
– Section 75 (punishment for cruelty to child) and Section 82 (liability of manager in certain circumstances) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Juvenile Justice Act).
Issues
The main issues before the court were:
– Whether there was prima facie evidence to show that the accused committed the offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault as alleged by the girls?
– Whether the medical reports corroborated the allegations of sexual abuse and rape made by the girls?
– Whether the statements of the girls recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) were reliable and consistent, and whether they were influenced by any external factors?
– Whether the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the Religious Institutions Act were applicable to the case, considering the caste of one of the girls and the position of the accused as a religious leader?
– Whether the accused was entitled to bail, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offences, the possibility of tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses, and the duration of his custody and filing of charge sheet?
Court Analysis and Judgement
The High Court of Karnataka Granted Bail to the Mutt Seer after finding that:
The statements of the girls under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not indicate aggravated penetrative sexual assault, as they did not mention any specific act of the accused that would amount to such an offence under Section 5 of the POCSO Act.
– The statements of other girls who were allegedly abused by the accused were contrary to the allegations, as they denied any sexual abuse by the accused and stated that they were happy and satisfied with the hostel facilities and the Mutt activities.
– The medical reports showed that the hymen of the girls were intact, which contradicted the allegations of rape and sexual abuse by the accused. The court also observed that there was no evidence of any injury or infection in the private parts of the girls.
– The conduct of the girls in going to Bengaluru and staying with a couple who took them to an organization was mysterious, as they did not inform their parents or the hostel authorities about their whereabouts. The court also noted that the couple who hosted the girls had links with the organization that filed the complaint, and that there was a possibility of coaching and tutoring of the girls by them.
– The provisions of the SC/ST Act and the Religious Institutions Act were wrongly invoked, as there was no evidence to show that the accused had knowledge of the caste of one of the girls, or that he misused his religious authority to commit the offences. The court also held that the cancellation or suspension of the registration of the Mutt under the Religious Institutions Act was not within the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the POCSO Act.
– The accused had been in custody for more than a year and the charge sheet had been filed. The court also considered the age, health condition, and social status of the accused, and the fact that he was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
– The court imposed various conditions on the accused, such as not entering Chitradurga district, not influencing witnesses, appearing before the court through video conferencing, surrendering his passport, and executing bonds with sureties. The court also stated that violation of any of the conditions would be viewed seriously for cancellation of bail.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Namitha Ramesh
