Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs L. Sridhar on 4 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
-: PRESENT :-
S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI, B.A. LL.B.,
LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL C.C.No. 387/2018
COMPLAINANT :
The State of Karnataka
By Yelahanka Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
L. Sridhar
S/o. Lakshminarayana,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. No.84, 6th Cross,
Koorlappa Layout,
Maruthi Nagara, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Mr. G.R.C. - Advocate]
2
Spl.C C.387/2018
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1. Date of Commission : 03/11/2017
Of Offence
2. Date of Report :
Of Offence 03/11/2017
3. Date of arrest of :
Accused 04/11/2017
4. Date of release on Bail
Accused : 13/11/2017
5 Period undergone in 9 days
Judicial Custody by :
Accused
6 Name of the complainant : Kum. Suma
7. Date of Commencement :
of recording evidence 19/06/2019
8. Date of Closing of :
25/10/2019
Evidence
9. Charges framed : Sections 504 IPC and Section
11 R/w 12 of POCSO Act,
2012.
10. Opinion of the Judge : As per final Order
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI)
LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bangalore.
3
Spl.C C.387/2018
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Sub- Inspector of Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 509 of IPC and Section 11 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that the Accused on 3/11/2017 at about 3 P.M. went near the house of CW-4 Janardhana to receive the debt amount given to him, as he was not found in his house, the Accused has abused his minor daughter in filthy language and told that he will take her and keep with him. He had further caused Sexual Harassment with Sexual Intent uttered abusive words and made bad gesture against her. Therefore, the Victim CW-1 gave Complaint on 3/11/2017 to the Yelahanka Police Station 4 Spl.C C.387/2018 and case registered in Crime No. 317/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 509 IPC and Sec. 11 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. The Accused was arrested on 4/11/2017 and produced before the Court and remanded to Judicial Custody. Thereafter represented through Counsel and granted bail on 13/11/2017.
4. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation and filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 509 of IPC and Section 11 of POCSO Act, 2012. This Court has taken cognizance of the said offences and after hearing the arguments of both the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the Accused, framed the charge against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Section 11 R/w 12 of 5 Spl.C C.387/2018 POCSO Act, 2012. The Charges were read over and explained to the Accused, he has not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
5. The Prosecution has examined 5 witnesses out of 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 5. The documents are marked as Ex. P-1 to 7, P-1(a)(b)(c(d)), 2(a), 3(a)(b), 4(a), 7(a). The learned Public Prosecutor has given up CWs 6 and 7 and closed the evidence of Prosecution. This court has recorded the Statement of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the Incriminating Circumstances in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. The Accused has not admitted the said evidence and not chosen to lead any defence evidence in his behalf.
6. Heard, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the Accused on merits of the case.
6
Spl.C C.387/2018 7 . The points for my consideration are :
1. Whether the Prosecution proves that on 3/11/2017 at about 3 P.M. the Accused went near the house of CW-4 Janardhana to collect the debt, as he did not find him, abused his minor daughter CW-1 in filthy language and caused Sexual Harassment and committed the offences punishable under Section 504 IPC and Sections 11 R/w. 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 ?
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following
REASONS
9. Point No. 1 : The alleged Filthy language used and also Sexual Harassment caused by the Accused against the minor Victim, the daughter of CW-4 is not proved before the Court. Because the Victim aged about 16 7 Spl.C C.387/2018 years, who is studying in 10th standard is examined as PW-3. She has admitted that CW-4 is her father and know the Accused person before the Court. But she did not admit the Complaint given against him as per Ex.P-3, though identified her signature marked as Ex.P-3(a). She has shown ignorance about the contents of the Complaint and also Mahazar drawn at the spot by the Police as per Ex.P-1 though her signature is marked in the Mahazar as Ex.P-1(c). She is also identified her signature in the Statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. marked as Ex.P-4 and P-4(a) respectively. She has denied the contents of the said documents and also denied the Further Statement given before the Police. Therefore, she has treated hostile and cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the cross-examination she has denied further Statement given against the Accused as per Ex.P-5.
10. The Mother of the Victim Rehana is examined as PW-4. She has admitted that the Victim is her daughter 8 Spl.C C.387/2018 and CW-4 is her husband. She has also denied the Statement given against the Accused as per Ex.P-6 stating that the Accused abused her minor daughter near her house and also caused Sexual Harassment by way of gesture.
11. The witness for Spot Mahazar Syed Ghouse is examined as PW-1. He has identified the Spot Mahazar Ex. P-1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-1(a). He has not supported the Mahazar conducted by the police at the spot and stated as signature put to the Mahazar by him in the Police Station. He has also treated hostile and cross-examined on behalf of Prosecution, but not admitted the contents of Mahazar drawn near the building belonging to C. Muniswamy and Venkataswamy.
9
Spl.C C.387/2018
12. Another witness Sri. Harish Kumar is examined as PW-2. His signature in the Spot Mahazar is marked as Ex.P-1(b). He has also treated hostile and not admitted the Mahazar conducted by the police at the spot.
13. The Police Inspector Mr. H. Manjegowda is examined as PW-5. He has identified his signature in the Complaint received from the Complainant on 3/11/2017 as per Ex.P-3 is marked as Ex.P-3(b). The FIR registered by him is marked as Ex.P-7, his signature is marked as Ex.P-7(a). He has further stated about the Mahazar conducted on the spot as per Ex.P-1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-1(d). Further the Date of Birth Certificate of the Victim identified under Ex.P-2 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-2(a). However though he has stated that mother of the Victim gave Statement as per Ex.P-6, she has denied the contents of the same in the evidence deposed before the Court. 10
Spl.C C.387/2018
14. The Prosecution has proved the age of the minor Victim as 15 years as on the date of the incident, by producing Ex.P-2 shows her Date of Birth as 9/12/2002, the date of incident is 3/11/2017. Therefore, it is accepted that the age of Victim was 15 years as on the alleged date of incident. But, the Prosecution has not produced any proof relating to the allegations made against the Accused in respect of the filthy language used by him against the Victim and also Sexual Harassment caused with Sexual intention by way of gesture against her. Therefore, after taking into consideration the evidence of Victim, her mother and witnesses for Spot Mahazar who have deposed inconsistently to their Statements given before the Police, I come to the conclusion that Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offences committed by the Accused punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Section 11 R/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative .
11
Spl.C C.387/2018
15. Point No. 2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused L. Sridhar S/o. Lakshmi Narayana is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Section 11 R/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The bail bonds executed by the Accused and surety under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. shall be in force till the completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgement writer, transcript and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court today on 4th day of December, 2019.) (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.12
Spl.C C.387/2018 ANNEXURE
1) List of witnesses examined for the Prosecution PW.1 Syed Ghouse PW.2 Harish Kumar PW.3 Victim PW.4 Rehana PW.5 H. Manjegowda
2) List of documents marked for the Prosecution Ex.P1 Mahazar Ex.P-1(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P-1(b) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P-1(c) Signature of PW-3 Ex.P-1(d) Signature of PW-5 Ex.P2 Study Certificate Ex.P-2(a) Signature of PW-5 Ex.P3 Complaint Ex.P3(a) Signature of Pw-3 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW-5 Ex.P4 Statement U/Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW-3
Ex.P5 Statement of PW-3
13
Spl.C C.387/2018
Ex.P6 Statement of PW-4
Ex.P7 FIR
Ex.P-7(a) Signature of PW-5
3) List of Material Objects marked for the Prosecution Nil
4) List of witnesses examined for the Accused Nil
5) List of documents marked for the Accused Nil
6) List of Material Objects marked for the Accused Nil (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
14 Spl.C C.387/2018