Bangalore District Court
State By K.G.Halli Police Station vs Vignesh on 10 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK COURT -X AT BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2014
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
PRESIDING OFFICER,
FTC-X, BANGALORE CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1210/2013
COMPLAINANT:- State by K.G.Halli Police Station,
Bangalore.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: Vignesh,
S/o. Singaravelu,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at.No.53, 4th Cross,
Opp.Petrol Bunk,
Shampura Main Road,
Gandinagar, Bangalore.
1. Date of commission of offence : 21.1.2012
2. Date of report of offence : 21.1.2012
3. Date of arrest of the Accused :
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Shashikala
5. Date of recording evidence : 8.5.2014
6. Date of closing evidence : 6.6.2014
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec. 363,366(A) of IPC.
2 S.C.1210/2013
8. Opinion of the Judge : The accused is
Acquitted U/s. 235(1)
of Cr.P.C.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri.G.Nagaraja Gowda
JUDGMENT
This is charge sheet filed by the police inspector, K.G.Halli Police Station alleging that, the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s. 363 and 366(A) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the complainant is the mother of the victim. On 21.1.2012 the victim Jyothi Lakshmi had been to high school. Thereafter, she did not return to home. On enquiry by the complainant mother of the victim she did not found. Thereafter, the mother of the complainant filed missing complaint before the K.G.Halli Police Station. Thereafter, the victim Jyothi Lakshmi and accused surrendered before the police and the K.G.Halli police have registered a case against the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 363, 366(A) and 376 of I.P.C.
3. Thereafter investigation, the K.G.Halli police have filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 363 2 3 S.C.1210/2013 and 366(A) of I.P.C. before XI - A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bangalore. Thereafter, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences against the accused and registered a criminal case in C.C.No.51227/2013. All the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Since the alleged offences are exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial U/s. 209 of Cr.P.C.
4. After receipt of the records from the committal court, the Hon'ble Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge has registered a session case in S.C.No.1210/2013 against the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 363 and 366(A) of IPC. Thereafter, this case is made over to this court for trial. Thereafter, the presence of the accused is secured. After hearing the prosecution and defence, charge has been framed against the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 363 and 366(A) of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by this court.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 4 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
6. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution the accused statement U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded by giving an opportunity to the 3 4 S.C.1210/2013 accused explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution.
7. The accused has denied the evidence of the prosecution.
8. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.
9. I have heard the arguments on the prosecution side and defence side.
10. The following points that have arisen for my consideration :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.1.2012 at morning 8.00 hours accused kidnapped the Cw.2 Jyothi Lakshmi aged of 15 years daughter of Cw.1 Shashikala W/o. P.Basavaraj from lawful guardianship of her mother Cw.1 without her consent with an intention to marry with Cw.2 from the house bearing No.1 situated at 1st Cross, Gandhinagar and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 363 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused took the Cw.2 Jyothi Lakshmi to Urpakam Taluk, Changalpet district, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu and on 22.1.2012 accused married with Cw.2 at Kolakshama Devathanam retained Cw.2 till in the house of Cw.3 Nandini and Cw.4 B.Rajendran with an intention to force her and seduce her for illicit intercourse and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 366(A) of I.P.C.?
3. To what Order ?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
4
5 S.C.1210/2013
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
12. POINT NO.1 & No.2 :- As these two points are interlinked in order to possibility of repetition of evidence and facts, I took these points together for discussion.
13. It is alleged that, victim Jyothi Lakshmi aged of 15 years daughter of complainant Smt. Shashikala W/o. P.Basavaraj was studying in 10th standard. On 21.1.2012 the victim Jyothi Lakshmi had been to high school and did not return back to home. On enquiry by the complainant Smt. Shashikala i.e. mother of the victim Jyothi Lakshmi did not found. Accordingly, complainant filed a missing complaint before K.G.Halli Police station. Thereafter, the accused and victim Jyothi Lakshmi surrendered before the police and the police registered a case against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.363, 366(A) and 376 of I.P.C. Thereafter investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable U/s. 363 and 366(A) of I.P.C.
14. Pw.1 Shashikala, who is mother of the complainant in her evidence has stated that, Cw.2/Jyothi Lakshmi is her daughter. She knows 5 6 S.C.1210/2013 the accused. She has seen him near by her house. About 2 years back her daughter was studying at Alamina High School on 21.1.2012 her daughter did not return back from high school. On enquiry to her friends where about her daughter was not known. For that reason she has filed a complaint as per Ex.P.1 about missing of her daughter. Thereafter she came to know that, her daughter is kidnapped by the accused. After 15 days to the date of the complaint, police have brought her daughter and she took her back and she is residing with her.
15. Pw.2/Jyothi Lakshmi, the victim in her evidence has stated that, herself has taken the accused with her and accused had not kidnapped her. The accused has not given any kind of trouble to her. The police have subjected her for medical examination.
16. As this witness is not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Public Prosecutor has treated this witness as hostile and cross examined at great length. However, nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of Pw.2 to show that, the accused has committed the alleged offence in the alleged manner.
6 7 S.C.1210/2013
17. Pw.3/Dharmavathi, P.C. 3344 in his evidence has stated that, on 28.1.2012 he took Kumari Jyothi Lakshmi for medical examination to Dr.Ambedkar Hospital as per the direction of his station police inspector and produced before the medical officer. After medical examination of victim Jyothi Lakshmi, he produced before the police inspector of his station.
18. The version of Pw.3 is not helpful to the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused in the alleged manner except showing that, the Pw.3 took the victim to Dr.Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital and produced before the medical officer for medical examination.
19. Pw.4/Krishnamurthy in his evidence has stated that, on 28.1.2012 he took the accused for medical examination to Ambedkar Hospital and produced before the medical officer at 3.15 p.m., and thereafter completion of medical examination, he took back the accused and produced before his station P.S.I.
20. The version of Pw.4 is not helpful to the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused in the alleged manner except showing that, the Pw.4 produced the accused before the medical officer, Dr.Ambedkar Hospital for medical examination.
7 8 S.C.1210/2013
21. The version of the Pw.1 mother of the complainant does not come to the help of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused in the alleged manner i.e. to show that, the accused has kidnapped the Pw.2 Jyothi Lakshmi from her lawful guardianship, as the victim herself in her evidence has stated that, she herself took the accused along with her and accused has not done anything or misbehave with her. While during investigation also the Investigating Officer after medical examination of accused and victim Pw.2 came to know that, no intercourse has committed on victim Pw.2. The prosecution papers i.e. medical examination of Pw.2 and accused also disclosed that, no intercourse has committed on the Pw.2 by the accused. Therefore, no ingredients of offences punishable U/s. 363 and 366(A) of I.P.C., has been made out. No documentary evidence are produced about the age of the victim/Pw.2 to show that, victim was minor on the alleged date and time of incident. During the course of cross-examination Pw.1 mother of the victim and Pw.2 victim have specifically admits that, she is residing with Pw.1 and separate from Pw.2. Therefore, their marriage has not been consumed and no marriage has been taken place in between the accused and victim. Pw.2 not accept that, a marriage has taken place in between herself and accused. Pw.1 complainant also no where whispered about the marriage taken place in 8 9 S.C.1210/2013 between the accused and victim. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever to come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove that, a marriage has been taken place in between the accused and victim Pw.2 Jyothi Lakshmi. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever to come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer these points No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
22. POINT NO.3: In view of my findings on the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER In view of power conferred U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the offences punishable U/s. 363 and 366(A) of I.P.C.
His bail bond and surety bonds shall stand cancelled. (Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of July, 2014.) (PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN) PRESIDING OFFICER, F.T.C -X, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
PW-1 Shashikala PW-2 Jyothi Lakshmi 9 10 S.C.1210/2013 PW-3 Dharmavathi PW-4 Krishnamurthy II. For Defence:- - Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 to 7 Photos
Ex.P.8 Statement of Pw.2
Ex.P.9 Re-Statement of Pw.2
IV. For Defence side:-
-Nil-
V. List of material objects marked:-
-Nil-
(PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN)
PRESIDING OFFICER,
F.T.C -X, BANGALORE CITY.
10
11 S.C.1210/2013
Judgment pronounced in the open Court. The operative portion of the judgment is extracted below:-
ORDER In view of power conferred U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the offence punishable U/s. 363 and 366(A) of I.P.C.
His bail bond and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-X. BANGALORE.11 12 S.C.1210/2013 12 13 S.C.1210/2013 13