Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Manjunatha.J on 18 March, 2020
Spl.C.C.75/2016
0
Spl.C.C.75/2016
1
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 18 th Day of March, 2020
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No. 75/2016
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka
By Peenya Police Station,
Bangalore. [Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Manjunatha.J,
S/o. Jayanna, 21 years,
R/at. No.223, 1st Cross,
Near Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple,
Ramakrishnappa Layout, Shetty Halli,
Bangalore-15 [By Sri.K.N.-Advocate]
1 Date of commission of offence 30-12-2015
2 Date of report of occurrence 30-12-2015
Spl.C.C.75/2016
2
3 Date of arrest of Accused 31-12-2015
Date of release of Accused 18-02-2016
Period undergone in custody 17 days, 1 months
by Accused
4 Date of commencement of evidence 20-12-2018
5 Date of closing of evidence 20-02-2020
6 Name of the complainant Manjula
7 Offences complained of Sec.363, 506-IPC &
Sec. 8, 12-POCSO
Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
J UD GM EN T
This charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector of Peenya
Police Station-Bangalore, against the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 363, 506 of I.P.C., and section 8, 12
of POSCO Act, 2012.
2. Since it is a case of kidnap and criminal intimidation
of minor girl, as such the name of the victim girl is no where
shown in the course of judgment as mandated under Section
227(A) of Cr.P.C. However her name is referred to as 'victim girl'
wherever her name is necessary.
Spl.C.C.75/2016
3
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the
prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused induced the victim girl-daughter of
complainant, resident of Shetty Halli, knowing fully well that she
was minor aged about 15 years to have love affair with him and
threaten her with dire consequences that if she not loved him,
he is going to kill her parents and her sister, as a result the
parents of victim girl viz., Cw.1 and Cw.2 changed their
residence from Shetty Halli to Geleyara Balaga. But the accused
after ascertaining the new address of the victim girl, there also
he started to induce her that she has to love him, otherwise he
is going to take away her life and her family members. On 30-
12-2015, when the victim girl was proceeding towards her home
from Gurukula Tuition at Hessaraghatta Main road at about
08.00a.m., the accused kidnapped her in a car driven by him
bearing registration No. KA-02-AA-9583 and at that time the
parents of victim girl and her brother-in-law viz., Cw.1 to Cw.2
and Cw.7 saw the accused kidnapping the victim girl and they
Spl.C.C.75/2016
4
followed his car in an auto and on seeing the same he drove the
said car in speed manner at 10th Cross and due to end of the
road near Soundarya Apartment, he fled away the car and the
victim girl and made the kidnap and criminal intimidate against
victim girl and her parents and her younger sister with sexual
intention and to have love affair with her and committed sexual
assault/sexual harassment on the victim girl. On the basis of
complaint lodged by the complainant, the police registered the
case against accused in Crime No.1283/2015 for the offences
punishable under Section 363, 506 of I.P.C., and section 8, 12 of
POSCO Act, 2012.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable under Section 363, 506 of I.P.C., and section 8, 12
of POSCO Act, 2012. Thereafter, after filing charge sheet as
usual the accused was produced before the Court from judicial
custody. The copy of charge sheet furnished to him as
Spl.C.C.75/2016
5
contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the
accused was released on bail by executing bail bond and
producing surety. The learned advocate for the accused
submitted no arguments before framing charge. On perusal of
charge sheet there is prima-facie materials available on record
to frame charge. Hence, the charges were framed under Section
363, 506 of I.P.C., and section 8, 12 of POSCO Act, 2012. The
contents of the charge read over and explained to the accused
in Kannada. He pleaded not guilty and submits crime to be
tried. Thereafter the case against accused was set down for
prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused has examined in all 13 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.13, got
marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and closed its side
evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the
accused, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by
recording his statement. He denied the alleged incriminating
Spl.C.C.75/2016
6
evidence appeared against him as false. Thereafter arguments
heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for
judgment.
6. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and
arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that
arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the
accused induced Cw.3/victim girl, aged about 15 years
to have love affairs with him and threatened that he
will kill her parents and her sister, if she refused to
have love affair with him, as a result of which the
victim girl parents changed their house from Shetty
Halli and went to Geleyara Balaga, there also the
accused used to follow her on the pretext of having
love affairs with him and on 30-12-2015 when she was
proceeding towards Gurukula for Tuition situated at
Hessaraghatta Main Road at 05.00 p.m., and was
coming back to home at 08.00 p.m., the accused
kidnapped her in a car driven by him bearing
registration No.KA-02-AA-9583 and at that time Cws.1
2 and 7 saw the accused kidnapping the victim girl
and they followed his car, at that time the accused left
the car along with victim girl in 10 th Cross, Soundarya
Apartment and fled away and on questioning, the
victim girl disclosed that she had kidnapped her on
the pretext of having love affairs with her and thereby
he has committed the offence punishable under
section 363 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that
the accused with criminal intimidation, threatened the
victim girl to have love affair with him knowing that
Spl.C.C.75/2016
7
she is minor and if she refuses, he would cause death
of her parents and her sister and thereby he has
committed the offence punishable under section 506
of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that
the accused with sexual intent induced the victim girl
to have love affairs with him and committed sexual
assault/ sexual harassment on her, knowing that she
is a minor and thereby the accused has committed the
offence punishable under section 8 and 12 of POCSO
Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?
4. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: As per final orders for the following:
RE AS ON S
8. Point No.1 to 3: As these points are inter-related,
hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to
avoid repetition of reasonings.
9. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence
Spl.C.C.75/2016
8
produced both at oral and documentary and coupled with
arguments canvassed from both the sides.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the
accused the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses as Pw.1 to
Pw.13, got marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. As per the
prosecution case, Pw.1 and Pw.2 are the parents of the victim,
Pw.3 is the victim girl, Pw.4 and Pw.5 are the uncle and aunt of
the victim girl, Pw.6 is the cousin brother of the victim girl, Pw.7
is the brother-in-law of the victim girl, Pw.8 is the eye witness,
Pw.10 is the owner of the seized car, Pw.9 is the Head Mistress,
Pw.11 to Pw.13 are the police personnels and Investigation
Officers. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the
available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing
the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against
accused, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused
Spl.C.C.75/2016
9
induced the victim girl-daughter of complainant, resident of
Shetty Halli, knowing fully well that, she was minor aged about
15 years, to have love affair with him and threaten her with dire
consequences that if she not loved him, he is going to kill her
parents and her sister, as a result the parents of victim girl viz.,
Cw.1 and Cw.2 changed their residence from Shetty Halli to
Geleyara Balaga. But the accused after ascertaining the new
address of the victim girl, there also he started to induce her
that she has to love him, otherwise he is going to take away her
life and her family members. On 30-12-2015, when the victim
girl was proceeding towards her home from Gurukula Tuition at
Hessaraghatta Main road at about 08.00a.m., the accused
kidnapped her in a car driven by him bearing registration No.
KA-02-AA-9583 and at that time the parents of victim girl and
her brother-in-law viz., Cw.1 to Cw.2 and Cw.7 saw the accused
kidnapping the victim girl and they followed his car in an auto
and on seeing the same he drove the said car in speed manner
at 10th Cross and due to end of the road near Soundarya
Spl.C.C.75/2016
10
Apartment, he fled away the car and the victim girl and made
the kidnap and criminal intimidate against victim girl and her
parents and her younger sister with sexual intention and to have
love affair with her and committed sexual assault/sexual
harassment on the victim girl and thereby committed offences
punishable under section 363, 506 of I.P.C., and section 8 and
12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see
whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the
aforesaid ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available materials
produced by the prosecution and the defense taken by the
accused, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences
under Section 363, 506 of I.P.C., and section 8, 12 of POSCO
Act, 2012.
Section 363 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for kidnapping-Whoever, kidnaps any
person from India or from lawful guardian ship shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
Spl.C.C.75/2016
11
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
Section 506 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for criminal intimidation-Whoever
commits the offence or criminal intimidation shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 defines that:
Punishment for sexual assault-Whoever, commits
sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than
three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Section 12 of POCSO Act defines that:
Punishment for Sexual harassment: Whoever,
commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
With these observations, now left with the available
material evidence produced by the prosecution to consider
whether the prosecution proved the alleged offences against
accused beyond all reasonable doubt or it probabalises the
defense of the accused.
13. In order to comply the provisions of section 34 of
Spl.C.C.75/2016
12
POCSO Act, 2012 the prosecution produced the evidence of
Pw.1 to Pw.7 and Pw.9, coupled with Ex.P6. By going through
the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2-the parents of victim girl, they
have deposed that during the year of 2015, the victim girl was
studying 9th standard, but they didn't whispered about the age
of the victim girl at that time. Pw.3-victim girl deposed that
during 2015, she was studying S.S.L.C., at Cluny Convent.
Pw.4 to Cw.6 not whispered the age and study of the victim girl.
Pw.7 also not stated about the age of victim girl. They are all
blood relatives to the victim girl.
14. On perusal of evidence of Pw.9-Sister.Vinutha-the
teacher, she has deposed that as per the request of Peenya
Police on 31-12-2015, she has given study and birth certificate
of victim girl as per Ex.P6 and also further deposed that the
date of birth of victim girl was 11-05-2000 and during 2015-16
she was studying 10th standard. The accused tested her veracity
and elicited that the victim girl studied in that school since from
1st standard. On perusal of recitals of contents of Ex.P6 it
Spl.C.C.75/2016
13
corroborates with the evidence of this witness. If the said oral
and documentary evidence in respect of date of birth of victim
girl is taken into consideration, it is very clear at the time of
alleged incident, the victim girl was aged 15 years and minor
and she comes under the provision of section 34 of POCSO Act,
2012 and herein afterwards while discussing the case on hand
it is taken minor victim girl, wherever it is necessary.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-the victim girl
she has deposed the admitted fact of relationship with Cw.1,
Cw.2, Cw.4 to Cw.11, who are parents, senior aunt and uncle,
cousin brother and brother-in-law. Further she has deposed
that she herself and her younger sister are the children to her
parents. During 2015 she was studying S.S.L.C. at Cluny
Convent. When she was student of S.S.L.C., she used to go to
tuition. Her school timings was 7.30a.m., to 03.30 p.m. Her
tuition timings was 05.00 p.m, to 08.00 p.m. She used to go to
school in a private van and to the tuition her parents used to
drop and pick up her and sometimes she used to go in bus and
Spl.C.C.75/2016
14
return to home. At that time of alleged incident she was
resident of Shetty Halli.
16. Further she has deposed that earlier she has seen the
accused since he was residing in the same area where she was
residing but he is not known by her family members. She
doesn't know the friends of the accused, no such cordiality
existed between herself and the accused. At no point of time he
followed her and demanded her to develop his friendship and
his love. He has also not made any attempt to take her along
with him forcibly, she doesn't know about lodging of complaint
by her mother to that effect. She has not given any statement
as per Ex.P1, but Ex.P1(a) is her signature. She can't remember
to say when she had signed the same. Once she went along with
her mother to the police station, at that time the police obtained
her signature, but for what purpose the said signature taken by
the police she doesn't know.
17. Further she has deposed that she has not given any
statement before police. Ex.P2(a) is her signature. Here Ex.P2
Spl.C.C.75/2016
15
is the statement given by the victim girl under section 164 of
Cr.P.C. She doesn't know what had written in Ex.P2. She
doesn't know what statement given by her parents and her
relatives before police. She doesn't know anything about the
seizing of car near the police station. Since this witness who is
victim girl and material witness not supported the case of
prosecution, the prosecution treated her as hostile to its case
and suggested each and every word of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, for that
she has denied the same. Her definite answer is that she has
not given such type of statement before police and Magistrate.
At this stage this Court opines the prosecution failed to prove
alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-the mother of
victim girl and complainant, she has deposed the admitted fact
of relationship with Cw.2 to Cw.5 and also she know the
accused and he was her neighbour at Shetty Halli. She has
also deposed that her daughter used to go to the school at
about 08.30 a.m., and returning to home at 03.30p.m. She
Spl.C.C.75/2016
16
went for her work at about 09.00a.m., and return to home at
04.00 p.m. Her husband doing his business, he went to his
work at 08.00a.m., and return to home at 10.00p.m., When her
husband went to work her daughters were alone in the house,
now the victim girl is studying 1st year BCA. During 2015 her
age was 14 years.
19. Further she has deposed that though the accused was
residing opposite to her house, but she doesn't know about his
personal matter and he is not her family friend. During 2015
one day her daughter-the victim girl not return to home in time,
as such with afraid she has lodged complaint as per Ex.P3,
stating that her daughter went for tuition not return to home,
nothing has been stated in that complaint. The said complaint
drafted and prepared by the police and she put her signature.
She doesn't know what had written in the complaint. She
doesn't know what statement given by her daughter before
police and before Magistrate. Ex.P4(a) is her signature.
20. Here Ex.P4 is spot mahazar, Ex.P5 is seizure
Spl.C.C.75/2016
17
mahazar and Ex.P4 (a) and Ex.P5(a) are her signatures. But
this witness doesn't know when the said mahazar was
conducted and when the police seized the vehicle. At no point
of time the accused along with his friends eve-teased her
daughter and also forced her daughter to have love affair with
him. She has not given such type of statement. She being
complainant and mother of victim girl, has not supported the
case of prosecution. Even though the prosecution suggested
each and every word of Ex.P3 to Ex.P5, her definite answer is
that she has not lodged any complaint as per Ex.P3 and the
police have not conducted any mahazar as per Ex.P4 and
Ex.P5. Through the evidence of Pw.1, the prosecution failed to
prove the alleged offences against accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-the father of
victim girl, he has deposed similar type of evidence as that of
complainant. Further his evidence is that during 2015, one day
the victim girl went to tuition, but didn't return to home. As
Spl.C.C.75/2016
18
such with afraid his wife lodged complaint. At no point of time
the accused followed his daughter-the victim girl and made
sexual assault with criminal intimidation and also demanded
her to love him. He has not made any attempt to kidnap her
with an intention to marry her, no such incident taken place as
per the case of prosecution and he has not given any statement
to that effect. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile
witness and suggested each and every word of Ex.P7, for that
he has denied the same. His definite answer is that he has not
given any statement as per Ex.P7 and no such incident taken
place as per the case of prosecution. Through the evidence of
father of victim girl, the prosecution failed to prove alleged
offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Rathna-Senior
aunt of the victim girl, she has also corroborated the evidence of
Pw.1 to Pw.3 in respect of their relationship. Further she has
deposed that she doesn't know the accused and case of
prosecution. She has not given any statement stating that she
Spl.C.C.75/2016
19
know the incident. Here the prosecution not treated her as
hostile witness and not cross-examined her which is absolutely
fatal to the case of prosecution.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Venkatesh-
Senior uncle of victim girl and husband of Pw.4, he has also
also corroborates the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 in respect of their
relationship and also deposed that he doesn't know the accused
and case of prosecution. He has not given any statement stating
that he know the incident. Here the prosecution not treated
him as hostile witness and not cross-examined him which is
absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution.
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Sharath Babu-
the cousin of victim girl, he has also corroborates the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.5 with regard to the relationship and also the
victim girl is his cousin sister. He doesn't know the accused, he
doesn't know the case of prosecution and he has not given any
statement before police in respect of alleged incident. The
prosecution treated him as hostile witness and suggested each
Spl.C.C.75/2016
20
and every word of Ex.P8, for that he has denied the same. His
definite answer he has not given any such type of statement
before police. Through the evidence of Pw.6 the prosecution
failed to prove the alleged offences against accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Amar
Narayana, he has deposed that he know the parents of victim
girl who are Cw.1 and Cw.2. He is an auto driver. He used to
lend his auto service to Cw.1 and Cw.2 often and often on hire
basis. About two years back Cw.1 and Cw.2 called him over
phone at about 05.00 p.m., to come near Sapathagiri College,
when he went there, by that time Cw.1 and Cw.2 have taken
their daughter to the police station. He went to the police
station. The police obtained his signature and he saw the
accused in lockup, except that he doesn't know anything about
the case and he has not given any statement before police.
26. In the cross-examination of the accused he has
deposed that he doesn't know about studies of the victim girl.
Spl.C.C.75/2016
21
Cw.1 and Cw.2 are not his relatives. He doesn't know anything
as to where the victim girl gone to tuition. He doesn't know
what had written in signed document. He came with the
complainant to give his evidence. Here as per the case of
prosecution, he is brother of complainant and in-law of the
victim girl. On the date of alleged incident he accompanied with
Cw.1 and Cw.2 in an auto to chase the accused and to rescue
victim girl, when the accused alleged to have kidnapped the
victim girl in his car. But the prosecution failed to corroborate
its case through the evidence of this witness, which is
absolutely fatal to its case and failed to prove the alleged
offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Raghu.S, an
alleged eye witness, he has deposed that Cw.9-Mukesh is his
friend, his house situated at Soundarya extension, 10 th Cross.
He was not present at the time of alleged incident. The said
incident taken place about four years back in the evening. The
police called him along with his friend-Cw.6 stating some
Spl.C.C.75/2016
22
problem happened to his sister, as such he went to the station
and came to know somebody has eve-teased his sister, the
police taken him to their custody and when he reached the
station, by that time they have taken the accused to the
hospital for treatment. Except that he doesn't know anything
about the case.
28. The prosecution treated him as hostile witness and
suggested each and every word of his statement and he has
accepted the same. The accused tested his veracity and elicited
that he doesn't know where the Indica car parked, since he was
not present at that place. Further he has deposed that he being
the friend of Cw.6, went to the police station and not more than
that. He doesn't know for what purpose the police had taken
his signature of the document, on the say of Cw.1 and Cw.6 he
came to depose before Court. If this piece of evidence is taken
into consideration, there is a doubt of participation of this
witness as per the admission to the statement alleged to given
by the witness as suggested by the prosecution at his hostile
Spl.C.C.75/2016
23
witness cross-examination and it creates doubt of commission
of offence by the accused.
29. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-Neeladevi-
WPC, she has deposed about counseling of victim girl and
recording her statement as per Ex.P1 by the victim girl and her
signature is Ex.P1(b). Here the accused tested her veracity
about counselling and the victim girl has not given any
statement as per Ex.P1, for that she denied the same. At the
same time this Court feels to observe that the victim girl and
her parents as Pw.1 to Pw.3 denied the alleged incident and
giving statement as per Ex.P1 by the victim girl before this
witness. When such being the case, it is not safe to believe the
alleged offences against accused even though she has
corroborated the case of prosecution in her evidence. At this
stage, this Court opines she is an interested official witness, it
is quite natural to depose favourable to the prosecution, but
this Court opines she is an formal witness.
30. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-Gayathri the
Spl.C.C.75/2016
24
R.C. owner of the car bearing KA-02-AA-9583 and the accused
was working under her as car driver. She has deposed that
earlier two years of 2015, the accused was working as car driver
under her. During 2015 the police seized the said car stating
that the accused used the said car for alleged crime. She
doesn't know the complainant, she has applied for release of the
said car and as per Court order she had taken the said car to
her interim custody. At the time of releasing the said car, the
police kept the accused in lockup. Except that she doesn't know
anything about the case.
31. The accused tested her veracity and she has
admitted that though the accused was driver of the car under
her, but he was good in his work and in his attitude. She
doesn't know his personal matter and at no point of time he has
quarreled with her. He was having cordiality with her and her
family members. Though the prosecution produced the evidence
of this witness about involvement of car belonged to her, but at
the same time it is in no way helpful to prove the alleged
Spl.C.C.75/2016
25
offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
32. By going through the evidence of Pw.11-Raghavendra
B.R.-Police Inspector, he has deposed about registering of case
in Crime No.1283/2015 under section 363, 506 of IPC and
section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, on the basis of complaint
as per Ex.P3 on 30-12-2015 at about 10.50 p.m., lodged by the
mother of victim girl and also he has prepared FIR as per Ex.P9
and submitted to the Court. Here the complainant, victim girl
and father of victim girl, turned hostile to the case of
prosecution. At this stage this Court opines the evidence of this
witness is a formal one. The accused tested the veracity of the
evidence of this witness by denial suggestion, for that he has
denied the same.
33. By going through the evidence of Pw.13-B.Ayyannna
Reddy, he has deposed that after receiving record from Pw.11,
he has conducted further investigation. He has also made the
victim girl subjected to counselling and also received statement
as per Ex.P1 and also recorded statement of Cw.2, Cw.7 to
Spl.C.C.75/2016
26
Cw.9. Here the Cw.2, Cw.7 to Cw.9 turned hostile to the case of
prosecution. Further he has deposed that he went to the spot
and inspected the same shown by the complainant and also
seized Tata Indica Car before Cw.10 and Cw.11 as per Ex.P5
and also drawn Spot Panchanama as per Ex.P5. Further he
has deposed that on the very same day the accused was
produced before him by Cw.17 and submitted report as per
Ex.P10. He has arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary
statement as per Ex.P11. He has also taken him to the spot,
the accused showed him the car involved in the incident. As he
has already drawn mahazar as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, he has
brought the accused to the station and made him subjected to
medical examination and produced him before Court along with
remand application. On the same day he has also recorded the
statement of Cw.10 and Cw.11. Further he has deposed that he
has collected rental document and vehicle document as per
Ex.P12 to Ex.P16. He has collected study and birth certificate
of victim as per Ex.P3, He has also received copy of statement
Spl.C.C.75/2016
27
of the victim girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also recorded
statement of Cw.12, Cw.13, Cw.15 and Cw.16. After closing of
investigation he has filed charge sheet against accused.
34. The accused tested his veracity by elicitating some
commission and omission, except denial suggestion nothing has
been elicited favourable to the defence taken by him. At the
same time Pw.1 to Pw.8 by giving their evidence not supported
the case of prosecution against accused, as such even though
this witness corroborated the case of prosecution, by giving his
evidence, it is not safe to accept the same. At this stage this
Court opines the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
35. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the alleged offences
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense
of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case
including materials on record discussed above probabalises the
defense of the accused rather than the case of the prosecution.
Spl.C.C.75/2016
28
36. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.13 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P17, placed on record in respect of alleged offences is
insufficient to prove that the accused induced the victim girl-
daughter of complainant, resident of Shetty Halli, knowing fully
well that, she was minor aged about 15 years, to have love affair
with him and threaten her with dire consequences that if she
not loved him, he is going to kill her parents and her sister, as
a result the parents of victim girl viz., Cw.1 and Cw.2 changed
their residence from Shetty Halli to Geleyara Balaga, but the
accused after ascertaining the new address of the victim girl,
there also he started to induce her that she has to love him,
otherwise he is going to take away her life and her family
members, on 30-12-2015, when the victim girl was proceeding
towards her home from Gurukula Tuition at Hessaraghatta
Main road at about 08.00a.m., the accused kidnapped her in a
car driven by him bearing registration No. KA-02-AA-9583 and
at that time the parents of victim girl and her brother-in-law
Spl.C.C.75/2016
29
viz., Cw.1 to Cw.2 and Cw.7 saw the accused kidnapping the
victim girl and they followed his car in an auto and on seeing
the same he drove the said car in speed manner at 10 th Cross
and due to end of the road near Soundarya Apartment, he fled
away the car and the victim girl and made the kidnap and
criminal intimidate against victim girl and her parents and her
younger sister with sexual intention and to have love affair with
her and committed sexual assault/sexual harassment on the
victim girl and thereby committed offences punishable under
section 363, 506 of I.P.C., and section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act,
2012 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point
No.1 to 3 in the "Negative".
37. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and
discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused is
entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I
proceed to pass the following:
Spl.C.C.75/2016
30
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 363, 506 of I.P.C., and section 8, 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
The interim custody of Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-9583 is made absolute.
(Computerized to my dictation by the Judgment Writer. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18 th Day of March, 2020) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE A N NE X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Manjula Cw.1 20-12-2018 Pw.2 Manjunth Cw.2 20-12-2018 Pw.3 Victim Cw.3 24-06-2019 Pw.4 Rathna Cw.4 12-11-2019 Spl.C.C.75/2016 31 Pw.5 Venkatesh Cw.5 12-11-2019 Pw.6 Sharath Babu Cw.6 12-11-2019 Pw.7 Amar Narayana Cw.7 12-11-2019 Pw.8 Raghu.S. Cw.8 12-11-2019 Pw.9 Sister Vinutha Cw.14 08-01-2020 Pw.10 Gayathri Cw.10 08-01-2020 Pw.11 Raghavenra B.R. Cw.20 03-02-2020 Pw.12 Neeladevi Cw.19 20-02-2020 Pw.13 B. Ayyanna Reddy Cw.23 20-02-2020 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Statement of victim Pw.3 24-06-2019 before police Ex.P 2 Statement of victim Pw.3 24-06-2019 before Magistrate Ex.P 3 Complaint Pw.1 24-06-2019 Ex.P 4 Spot Mahazar Pw.1 24-06-2019 Ex.P 5 Seizure Mahazar Pw.1 24-06-2019 Ex.P 6 Study-cum-Date of Pw.1 24-06-2019 birth certificate Ex.P 7 Statement of Pw.2 Pw.2 18-07-2019 Ex.P 8 Statement of Pw.6 Pw.6 12-11-2019 Ex.P 9 F.I.R. Pw.11 03-02-2020 Ex.P 10 Report Pw.13 20-02-2020 Ex.P 11 Voluntary statement Pw.13 20-02-2020 Spl.C.C.75/2016 32 of accused Ex.P 12 Copy of rental Pw.13 20-02-2020 agreement Ex.P 13 Copy of Form No.42 Pw.13 20-02-2020 Ex.P 14 Copy of R.C. Pw.13 20-02-2020 Ex.P 15 Copy of Form No.38 Pw.13 20-02-2020 Ex.P 16 Copy of receipt Pw.13 20-02-2020 Ex.P 17 Copy of receipt Pw.13 20-02-2020 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE