Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Ramesh Kumar S on 29 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
-: PRESENT :-
S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI, B.A. LL.B.,
LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL C.C.No. 596/2019
COMPLAINANT :
The State of Karnataka
By Puttenahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Ramesh Kumar S.
S/o Yerraiah,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at. Vijayakumar's house,
2nd Cross, J.P.Nagar 7th Phase,
Bengaluru -85.
[Rep. by Mr. MDR - Advocate]
2
Spl.C C.596/2019
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1. Date of Commission : 16/4/2019
Of Offence
2. Date of Report :
Of Offence 19/4/2019
3. Date of Arrest of
Accused
: 21/4/2019
4. Date of Release on Bail
Accused : Accused is in Judicial Custody
5 Period undergone in
Judicial Custody by : -
Accused
6 Name of the Complainant : Smt. Sudha
7. Date of Commencement :
of recording evidence 10/12/2019
8. Date of Closing of :
24/12/2019
Evidence
9. Charges framed : Sections 366, 376 IPC and 3
R/w 4 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.596/2019
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Inspector of Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 3 R/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that the Accused knowing fully well that CW-2 is the minor, the daughter of CW-1, forcing her to love him and induced her. Thereafter on assurance of marry, called her to his house on 15/4/2019 at about 7 PM, after she came to his house, he had forcibly committed Rape on her. Subsequently, on 16/4/2019 at about 8 AM, he has induced the minor, Kidnapped and taken her to Madhanapalli at Andhra Pradesh from the lawful custody of her parents. 4
Spl.C C.596/2019
3. The Mother of the Victim Smt. Sudha gave the Complaint to the Puttenahalli Police Station on 19/4/2019 informing about missing of her minor daughter from the house on 16/4/2019 and case registered in Crime No. 91/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.
4. The Accused was arrested on 22/4/2019 and remanded to Judicial Custody. He was represented through the counsel.
5. The Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and filed Chargesheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. This court has taken Cognizance of the said Offences and after hearing the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the Accused, proceeded with the case and framed the Charges 5 Spl.C C.596/2019 against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 IPC and 3 R/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. The Charges were read over and explained to the Accused, he has not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
6. The Prosecution has examined 4 witnesses out of 19 witnesses as PWs 1 to 4. The documents are marked as Ex.P-1 to 9, P-2(a)(b), 4(a), 5(a)(b). The CWs 9, 16 and 19 remained absent after service of summons. However the Victim and her parents turned hostile and they were not supported the case of Prosecution. Hence the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor to reissue summons to other witnesses is rejected as their examination will not serve any purpose and closed the evidence of Prosecution.
6
Spl.C C.596/2019
7. The Incriminating Circumstances in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses has been read over to the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the entire evidence and not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the Accused on merits.
9. The points for my consideration are :
1. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused with an intention to marry the minor Victim daughter of the Complainant, Kidnapped her and forcibly committed Rape and Penetrative Sexual Assault in his house on 15/4/2019 and committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 IPC and 3 R/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012?
2. What Order?7
Spl.C C.596/2019
10. 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
11. Point No. 1: The Prosecution has alleged
offences against the Accused punishable under Sections 366, 376 IPC and 4 R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. But this Court has framed charge for the offences 366, 376 IPC and 3 R/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. on the basis of the allegations made in the Complainant given by the mother of the Victim.
12. In order to come to the proper conclusion the evidence of the minor Victim and her mother Complainant requires to be discussed with other witnesses.
8
Spl.C C.596/2019
13. The Complainant, Smt. Sudha is examined as PW-1. She has stated that the Victim is her daughter and Accused was residing in the rented house of her brother. She has admitted the Complaint given to the Police informing about missing of her minor daughter as per Ex.P-1 and her signature is marked as Ex.P-1(a). She has identified the Mahazar conducted by the Police at the spot as per Ex.P-2 and her signature is marked as Ex.P-2(a). She has stated that she has not given any further Statement against the Accused. Therefore, she has treated hostile and Cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
14. In the Cross-examination she has denied the Complaint given against the Accused on the suspicion that he has Kidnapped her minor daughter and the Mahazar conducted by the Police stating that Accused after Kidnapping her daughter forcibly committed Rape on her. She has inconsistently 9 Spl.C C.596/2019 deposed when compared to the contents of the Exs. P1- to 3.
15. The Victim is examined as PW-2. She is aged about 17 years and studying in II PUC and has identified the Accused before Court. According to her, she knew the Accused and not given any Statement against him. Her signature in the Mahazar is identified and marked as Ex.P-2(b). She has given the Statement before the concerned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P-4 and her signature is marked as Ex.P-4(a). The Medical Report given by the Doctor is marked as Ex.P-5 and her signature is marked as Ex.P-5(a). She has shown ignorance about the contents of both her Statement Ex.P-4 and the Medical Report, which she put signature in presence of Doctor.
16. She has treated hostile and Cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the Cross- 10
Spl.C C.596/2019 examination she has denied the Statement given against the Accused stating that after inducing her and on the promise to marry, the Accused Kidnapped and committed Rape on her as per Ex.P-6. She has also denied the Mahazar conducted by the Police at the spot as per Ex.P-2 and Statement given before the concerned Magistrate narrating about the Kidnap and Rape is denied. She has also denied the signature put to the Medical Report after her examination by the Doctor. She has shown ignorance about the contents of Ex.P-2, 4 to 6. Therefore her evidence is also not supported the case of Prosecution.
17. The witness Sri. Sundarappa is the brother of the Complainant examined as PW-3. He has identified both the Complainant and the Victim, but shown ignorance about the Accused when he was shown before the Court and denied the Statement given against him. Therefore, treated hostile and in 11 Spl.C C.596/2019 the Cross-examination has denied the Statement given to the Police alleging about Accused after kidnapping the Victim committed Rape on her as per Ex.P-7.
18. The Medical Officer Dr. Smitha is examined as PW-4. She has conducted Medical examination of the Victim on 20/4/2019, when she was brought by the Woman Police Constable and her mother. After examining her, she has issued Medical Certificate as per Ex.P-5 and her signature is marked as Ex.P-5(b).
19. According to the evidence of Doctor, during examination of the Victim, she has stated that she has passed 9th Standard and written the Examination of 10th standard and the Accused was studying MBA came to know her prior to one month. Thereafter, they used to talk over phone. Afterwards he assured her to marry, but she did not agree for that. However, on 16/4/2019 she met the Accused at 12 Spl.C C.596/2019 Banashankari and both of them went to Madanapalli of Andhra Pradesh and married in presence of his Sister and Brother in law. She has clearly stated that though, they were stayed together for 2 days after the marriage, no physical relationship took between them.
20. However, after knowing about the Complaint given by her mother, she was returned to Bengaluru. According to the opinion given by Doctor, she has found signs of Victim involving in the recent Sexual Intercourse and the same has been shown in the Medical Report. In the Cross- examination, she has admitted about the requisition letter sent by the Police Inspector and on the basis of it, she has examined the Victim. She has denied that the name of the person who took the Victim has not been stated by her as Ramesh.
13
Spl.C C.596/2019
21. However, after going through the above discussed evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, I do not find any Corroboration in the evidence of Complainant and the Victim. Because, the allegations made in the Complaint, the mother of the Victim is with respect to Kidnap and Rape committed by the Accused on her minor daughter has denied the Statement given against the Accused and not admitted that she was kidnapped by him and forcibly committed Rape on her in the house of his sister at Madanapalli of Andhra Pradesh.
22. Further the independent witness, brother of the Complainant also denied the Statement given to the Police with respect to Kidnap and alleged Rape by the Accused.
23. It is true the evidence of Doctor PW-4 discloses the Victim was involved in the Sexual Intercourse, when she was examined her on 14 Spl.C C.596/2019 20/4/2019. But, her evidence goes against the Statement of the Victim given before the Doctor that though she got married with the Accused and stayed together for 2 days, there was no physical relationship between them.
24. Therefore, taking into consideration the inconsistent evidence placed by the Prosecution, doubt will certainly arose with regard to the alleged Kidnap, Rape and Penetrative Sexual Assault committed by the Accused on the minor Victim. Further the age of the Victim as she was minor as on the date of the alleged incident is also not proved by producing the Date of Birth Certificate with Oral evidence of the concerned witness to establish that she was a minor as on the alleged date of incident. Even if it is considered, the available Oral and documentary evidence, her age shown as 17 years and she was studying in II PUC. Therefore, there cannot be any force or compulsion on the minor at 15 Spl.C C.596/2019 the age of 17 years. On the other hand, it will amounts consent given by her to go with Accused and Sexual intercourse between them.
25. Considering all the above discussed aspects, I am of the opinion that the Prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the Accused on 15/4/2019 induced the minor Victim and on the promise to marry her, Kidnapped and taken her to Madanapalli of Andhra Pradesh and forcibly committed Rape and Penetrative Sexual Assault on 16/4/2019 punishable under Sections 366, 376 IPC and 3 R/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative .
26. Point No. 2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
16
Spl.C C.596/2019 ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused Ramesh Kumar S. S/o Yarraiah is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 3 R/w 4 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.
The properties if any, seized by the Investigating Officer in this case are ordered to be destroyed as worthless and useless after 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 29th day of January, 2020.) (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.17
Spl.C C.596/2019 ANNEXURE
1) List of witnesses examined for the Prosecution PW.1 Sudha PW.2 Victim PW.3 Sundarappa PW.4 Dr. Smitha K.
2) List of documents marked for the Prosecution;
Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P3 Further Statement of PW-1 Ex.P4 Statement of Victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P5 Medical Certificate of the Victim Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW-4 Ex.P6 Statement of PW-2 Ex.P7 Statement of PW-3. Ex.P8 Date of Birth Certificate of Victim (marked with consent) Ex.P9 Medical Certificate of Accused. 18 Spl.C C.596/2019
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.
*** 19 Spl.C C.596/2019 Judgment pronounced in the open court, (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused Ramesh Kumar S. S/o Yarraiah is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 3 R/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The bail bonds executed by the Accused and Surety stands canceled.
The properties if any, seized by the Investigating Officer in this case are ordered to be destroyed as worthless and useless after the completion of Appeal period.
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.