Bangalore District Court
The State vs Iyer Ramanathan K on 12 January, 2022
1 C.C.24888/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
PRESENT: SRI.PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE
B.A. LL.B.,
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
C.C. NO.24888/2019
Complainant The State, by Police Sub
Inspector, Malleshwaram
Police station
(By Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
Accused Iyer Ramanathan K.
S/o B. Krishnamurthy,
Age:34 years,
R/o:No.14/60, 48th Street,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu.
(By Sri. K. Stalin Adv)
The date of 22/06/2019
commission of the
offence :
Name of the Kavitha
informant of crime :
The offences U/sec.354-A, 509 and
complained of: 417 of IPC
Commencement of 05-04-2021
recording prosecution
evidence:
Closure of recording 23-11-2021
2 C.C.24888/2019
evidence:
Plea of the accused
and his examination : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
(U/S 355 Cr.P.C) Police Sub Inspector of Malleshwaram police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 509 and 417 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is as under:
It is alleged that the father of the accused had contacted the complainant over the phone and spoke regarding the marriage of his son. Thereafter, 22-06-2019 at 12.15 p.m., the accused met the complainant at Kaadumalleshwara temple and said that he would marry the complainant. Thereafter, at 04:30 P.M. the accused took the complainant to Mantri Mall for watching a movie. While watching the movie the accused has forcibly touched the private parts of the complainant, hugged and kissed her. The accused has promised to marry the complainant. But 3 C.C.24888/2019 thereafter on 01-7-2019 he has sent a message stating "we cannot proceed" and denied to marry the complainant. The accused has sexually harassed the complainant by promising to marry her and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.354-A, 509 and 417 of I.P.C. On the basis of the First Information Statement, the police have registered the case in Crime No. 80/2019, for the offences punishable U/Sec. 354-A, 509 and 417 of IPC. The C.W.9 has conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 354-A, 509 and 417 of IPC.
3. The accused has appeared through Learned Counsel and got released on bail. The charge for the offences punishable U/Sec. 354-A, 509 and 417 of I.P.C has been framed against the accused. He has not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined C.W. 5, 1, 8 and 3 as P.W.1 to 4 respectively and got exhibited 04 documents at Ex.P.1 to 4. 4 C.C.24888/2019
5. The statement of accused as contemplated under section 313 of Cr.P.C is recorded. He has denied all the incriminatory evidence appearing against him. He has not chosen to lead any evidence on his behalf.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the accused has produced certified copies of order sheet and documents in Crime No.222/2020, charge sheet in S.C No.145/2021, order sheet and documents in Cr.No.234/2019 and charge sheet in Spl.C No. 742/2020. I have perused the materials placed on record.
7. Points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 22-6-2019 at about 4-30 p.m., at Inox theater, Mantri Mall, Bengaluru, the accused has sexually harassed the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 354-A of the IPC?5 C.C.24888/2019
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 22-6-2019 at about 4-30 p.m., at Inox theater, Mantri Mall, Bengaluru, the accused intending to insult the modesty of the complainant, intruded upon her privacy by causing sexual harassment and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 509 of the IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 22-6-2019 at about 12-15 p.m. and 4-30 p.m., at Kaadumalleshwara Temple and at Mantri Mall, Bengaluru, the accused has, by making false promise to marry, cheated the complainant, by inducing her to consent for physical contact and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 417 of the IPC?
8. My findings on the above points are in the Negative for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3 : Since these points are interlinked to each other, they are taken together for common consideration.
6 C.C.24888/2019
10. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had promised to marry the complainant. On 22-06-2019 he took the complainant to Mantri Mall for watching movie, sexually harassed her and thereby insulted her modesty and committed the alleged offence.
11. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution in toto. Denial of the case of prosecution is his defence.
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as P.W.1 to 4 and got exhibited 04 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.
13. P.W.1 is the employee working in Mantri Mall where the offence alleged has occurred. P.W.2 is the complainant. P.W.3 is the Police official who has registered the complaint and conducted spot panchanama and P.W.4 is the witness to the spot panchanama.
14. P.W.1 and 4 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Nothing worth has been elicited in their cross examination to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, the 7 C.C.24888/2019 evidence of P.W.1 and 4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
15. P.W.3 has deposed that on 02-07-2019, on the basis of First Information Statement lodged by P.W.2, he has registered the F.I.R. On 03-07-2019 he has conducted spot panchanama and handed over the further investigation to C.W.9.
16. P.W.2 is the complainant of the case. She has deposed that she had given an advertisement in matrimonial column of English daily 'The Hindu'. The father of accused had contacted her and thereafter on 22-06-2019 accused met her at Kaadumalleshwara temple. She deposed that at about 4-30 p.m., they went to Inox theater at Mantri Mall to watch movie, wherein the accused has forcibly kissed her, pressed private parts of her body and caused hurt. Thereafter, they went out of the theater for shopping. The accused told that he would marry the complainant. But thereafter on 01/07/2019 the accused has sent a message stating that "sorry we cannot proceed further".
8 C.C.24888/2019
17. Learned senior assistant public prosecutor has argued that the complainant being the material witness has fully supported the case. The testimony of victim is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence.
18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has argued that, the oral and documentary evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 417, 354-A and 509 of the IPC. There is nothing on record to show that the accused has made sexual harassment and cheated the complainant. The complainant is in habit of filing false complaints alleging similar offences. In the absence of independent witness the sole testimony of P.W.2 is not trustworthy and hence, prayed to acquit the accused.
19. It is alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under sections 417, 354-A and 509 of the I.P.C. To constitute an offence of cheating punishable under section 417 of the IPC, there must be (i) deception of a person, (ii) whereby, fraudulently or dishonestly, 9 C.C.24888/2019 inducing the person, so deceived, to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything, which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person.
20. To constitute an offence of sexual harassment punishable under section 354-A of the I.P.C, it must be proved that the accused has committed the act of i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or iii) making sexually coloured remarks.
21. To constitute an offence punishable under section 509 of IPC, it must be proved that, i) a person intends to insult the modesty of any woman. ii) He utters any words, makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman , or iii) Intrudes upon the privacy of such woman. 10 C.C.24888/2019
22. Now, I have to see whether the evidence of P.W.2 is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. P.W.2 is the material witness of the prosecution case, as she is the victim of the offence and the case rests upon her testimony. She has deposed she had given an advertisement in matrimonial column of English daily 'The Hindu'. The father of accused had contacted her and thereafter on 22-06-2019 accused met her at Kaadumalleshwara temple. At about 4-30 p.m., they went to Inox theater at Mantri Mall to watch movie, wherein the accused has forcibly kissed her, pressed private parts of her body and caused hurt. Thereafter, they went out of the theater for shopping. The accused told that he would marry the complainant. But thereafter on 01/07/2019 the accused has sent a message stating that "sorry we cannot proceed further".
23. It is a case of the prosecution that the offence alleged has been occurred in Inox theater, at Mantri Mall. During the cross-examination P.W.2 has stated that she does not know as to how many people were there in the theater. Except P.W.1, no independent public witness has 11 C.C.24888/2019 been examined in support of the prosecution version as admittedly the theater is crowded spot and it can be easily presumed that number of public persons might have been available over there at the time of alleged offence. P.W.1 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Non examination of such independent witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution.
24. The investigating officer has not produced any material like move ticket etc., to show that the complainant and accused had been to theater where the offence is alleged is occurred. The news paper, in which an advertisement in matrimonial column was published and by seeing which the father of accused contacted the complainant, is not produced before the Court. The prosecution has not examined the father of accused to show that he and his son had contacted the complainant making proposal of marriage.
25. It is alleged in Ex.P-2 and the P.W-2 has deposed that the accused has forcibly touched private parts of her body, hugged and kissed her in a theater on 22/06/2019. 12 C.C.24888/2019 She has lodged the complaint on 02/07/2019. Under such circumstances delay in lodging the complaint creates a serious doubt on the case of prosecution.
26. A careful perusal of the oral evidence shows that the complainant has nowhere deposed that the accused has deceived and cheated her. It is only alleged that the accused said that he would marry the complainant and thereafter sent a message stating that "sorry we cannot proceed further". A perusal of entire oral evidence of P.W.2 and first information statement at Ex.P-2 does not show any allegation of cheating. It is not her case that the the accused has deceived her and in view of such deception the complainant allowed him to act in a way alleged, which she would not do if she were not deceived.
27. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant is in habit giving false complaints to extract money from innocent people. He has argued that several F.I.Rs have been registered against the complainant herself for extortion and she was lodged in judicial custody in said cases. During the cross 13 C.C.24888/2019 examination, P.W-2 has also admitted that one Prem Daniyal has lodged a complaint against her alleging the offence punishable U/s.384 and 420 of IPC.
28. During the cross examination the complainant has admitted that she had lodged complaints against one Sharath Kumar before Yashwanthpura Police Station on 10-09-2014 alleging the offence punishable U/s.420, 376 and 417 of IPC and against one Ram Babu in Cr.No.320/2020 alleging the offence punishable U/s.376 and 417 of IPC. She has admitted that she has lodged said complaint alleging the act of sexual harassment. During the cross-examination Learned counsel for accused has put a specific question to P.W.2 that, how many complaints has she lodged alleging the offence of sexual harassment? She has answered that she has lodged four other complaints.
29. It is no doubt true that in a cases of sexual harassment, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to hold the accused person guilty provided the Court finds it reliable, trustworthy and beyond suspicion. In this case 14 C.C.24888/2019 the the complainant has not deposed regarding the offence of cheating. It is not a case of the complainant that the accused has intruded upon her privacy and subjected her to sexual harassment by making false promise to marry her.
30. Through cross examination of P.W-2 and by producing documents the accused has successfully established that the complainant is in habit of filing similar complaints and the fact that she has made four other complaints making the allegation regarding outrage of modesty, sexual harassment, cheating and rape. A perusal of evidence shows that the complainant is an educated lady and completed M.Sc., B.Ed. Filing of multiple complaints by same party alleging the commission of similar offences, appears that this is not a just co incidence. Taking in to account of the fact of lodging so many complaints by the complainant, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused cannot be ignored.
15 C.C.24888/2019
31. The investigating officer is reported to be dead. His evidence is not available to the case of prosecution. P.W.3 has only deposed regarding registration of case and spot panchanama. P.W.1 and 4 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Therefore in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the testimony of the complainant is unworthy of credit and is not beyond pale of doubt. The sole testimony of the complainant is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence without any corroboration. There arises a doubt in the case of complainant. It is settled principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and if there arises any doubt, the benefit of such doubt should always to be given to the accused. Here, in this case the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, I proceed to answer points no.1 to 3 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
16 C.C.24888/2019
32. ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable U/secs. 354-A, 509 and 417 of IPC.
Accused is set at liberty forthwith.
Bail bonds of accused and that of surety, stands cancelled.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 12th day of January, 2022) (PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Smt. Sarumathi P.W.2: Kavitha P.W.3: Narasimhaiah P.W.4: Iranna.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-17 C.C.24888/2019
Ex.P.1 Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.2(a) Signature Ex.P.3 Panchanama Ex.P.3(a) Signature Ex.P.4 F.I.R.
3:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: Nil 4:- List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: Nil (PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.