Bangalore District Court
State By Basaveshwaranagara Police vs Mahesh.V on 29 May, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 29 th day of May, 2020.
Present: SMT.R.SHARADA,B.A. M.L
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55]
SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SPL CC NO.389/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Basaveshwaranagara Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Mahesh.V.,
Son of Venkatesh,
Aged 23 years,
Residing at No.987, 6th Main Road,
Kamalanagar, Bangalore-79.
[By Advocate Sri.Jagadish.R ]
1. Date of commission of offence 24.03.2015
2. Date of report of occurrence 25.03.2015
of the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 25.03.2015
Date of release of the accused
15.04.2015
on bail
Period undergone by the
20 days
accused in the judicial
custody
2 Spl CC No.389/2015
4. Date of commencement of 20.7.2018
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 13.2.2020
6. Name of the complainant Sri.Raju, complainant as well as the father of the victim
girl.
7. Offences complained of Secs. 363, 366 of IPC and Sec. 11(iv) of
[As per charge-sheet] POCSO Act 2012.
8. Opinion of the Judge Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I
hereby acquit the accused of the
offences punishable under
Sec.363 of IPC and also Sec.11(iv) of
POCSO Act, 2012.
Further acting under Sec.235(2) of
Cr.P.C, I hereby convict the accused
for the offences punishable under
Sec.366 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of
the accused stands cancelled.
3 Spl CC No.389/2015
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, Basaveshwaranagara police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366 of IPC and Sec. 11(iv) of POCSO Act 2012.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 24.3.2015, in the morning hours, the accused kidnapped the victim girl /CW6 who was aged 17 years from Sari Factory, situated near the house of the victim girl with an intention to marry her and to have illicit intercourse with her and took her to his house and on 25.5.2015 at about 12 Noon, the accused attempted to tie turmeric thread around the neck of the victim girl against her will, thereby, committed sexual harassment on the victim girl. Hence, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366 of IPC and Sec. 11(iv) of POCSO Act 2012. Initially the complainant who is none other than the father of the victim girl had lodged a missing complaint stating that, his daughter/ victim girl who was aged 16 years that on 24.3.2015 in the morning at 9.30 A.M., left the house, but did not turn up. Inspite of her search, she was not found. The complainant suspected that the accused herein might have kidnapped his daughter. Hence, the complainant requested to trace out his daughter and to take action against the accused. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.140/2015 for the offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC 4 Spl CC No.389/2015 and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the accused and the victim girl were traced out and on the basis of the statement given by the victim girl, the complainant police have inserted Sec. 366 of IPC and Sec. 11(iv) of POCSO Act 2012 . After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused which is numbered as Spl CC No.389/2015.
3. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused on 25.03.2015, thereby he was remanded to the judicial custody. Thereafter as per the Orders of this court dated: 15.04.2015 , the accused was released on bail. As per the provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, copies of the charge- sheet furnished to the accused. Accordingly charge is framed, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty, claims to be tried. Accordingly, the trial is fixed, summons issued to the prosecution witnesses.
4. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as PWs-1 to 9 and got marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. As per Sec.33(2) of POCSO Act 2012, the evidence of the victim girl has been recorded in the presence of her father. Thereafter Statement of the accused recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the incriminating evidence told to him, but he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf and no documents are marked.
5 Spl CC No.389/20155. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, at this stage, following Points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that, on 24.3.2015, in the morning hours, the accused kidnapped the victim girl /CW6 who was aged 17 years from Sari Factory, situated near the house of the victim girl and from her lawful guardianship, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused kidnapped the victim girl /CW6 who was aged 17 years with an intent to compel her to marry him and to have illicit intercourse with her, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused not only kidnapped the victim girl/ CW6 but on 25.5.2015, at about 12 noon, he attempted to tie turmeric thread to the neck of the victim girl against her will, thereby, the accused has committed sexual harassment on the victim girl thereby the accused has committed the offence as defined under Sec.11(iv) of POCSO Act 2012 ?
4. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos. 1 and 3: See the final Order Point No.2 : In the AFFIRMATIVE 6 Spl CC No.389/2015 Point No .4: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 TO 3:- These Points are inter-linked to each other, hence, they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in order to prove the prosecution case, totally 9 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 9 and 7 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P7. PW3 is the complainant and father of the Victim girl , PW4 herself is the Victim girl and PW5 the brother of the Victim girl have supported the prosecution case by deposing that, the accused forcefully taken the Victim girl with him, kept with him for certain days and when the father of the Victim girl came to know that his daughter is staying with the accused, he went there and tried to take back his daughter, even at that time, the accused attempted to tie turmeric thread around the neck of the Victim girl with an intention to marry her. All these evidence clearly proves the guilt of the accused that, the accused was very well aware that the Victim girl was a minor at that time inspite of that, he has taken the Victim girl by inducing her and also subjected her to sexual harassment. Apart from that the evidence of the Investigating Officer who is examined as PWS-7 and 8 and other police official witness also supported the case of the prosecution. Such being the situation the accused has to be convicted and to be punished as per law thereby the 7 Spl CC No.389/2015 Learned Public Prosecutor prays to convict the accused, in the interest of justice and equity.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The Victim girl and her parents have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Victim girl clearly deposed before the court that, the accused has not caused any trouble to her, she herself went to the house of the accused and she was a major as on the date of the alleged incident, thereby the provisions under the POCSO Act, 2012 are not attracted. Though the Learned Public Prosecutor has subjected her for cross-examination, after treating her as hostile but he failed to elicit any worthful evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The parents of the Victim girl also clearly stated that, the accused has not given trouble to their daughter. PW5 the brother of the Victim girl also deposed before the court that, the Victim girl has not suffered any trouble from the accused. Considering the evidence of the material witnesses there is no chain to connect the accused to the crime. Of course the police officials supported the case of the prosecution according to their duties discharged. But only on the basis of the evidence of the police officials, the accused cannot be convicted. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Thereby, the learned counsel for the accused prays to acquit the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
8 Spl CC No.389/201510. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence furnished by the prosecution before this court. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 9 witnesses, out of them, PW1/CW4 is the ASI who has deposed about tracing of the victim girl and the accused. PW2/CW5 is the Woman Head constable who has deposed about tracing of the victim girl and the accused. PW3/CW1 is the complainant as well as the father of the victim girl who has set criminal law into motion by filing the complaint as per Ex.P2. PW4/CW6 is the victim girl. PW5/CW8 is the elder brother of the victim girl. PW6/CW10 is the Head Mistress of the school wherein the victim girl was studying. PW7/CW14 is the Police Inspector who has deposed about filing of the charge-sheet against the accused. PW8/CW11 is the ASI who has received the complaint and filed FIR and PW9/CW12 is also the Investigation Officer of this case who has conducted part of the investigation. In support of its case, the prosecution has produced the following documents: Ex.P1 is the Report. Ex.P2 is the Complaint. Ex.P3 is the statement of the victim girl given to the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is the Panchanama. Ex.P5 is the copy of the SSLC marks card of the victim girl. Ex.P6 is the School document and Ex.P7 is the FIR.
11. Now coming to the evidence given by the above referred prosecution witnesses , firstly I would like to take up the evidence of the material witnesses ie., the evidence of the father of the victim girl, victim girl and the elder brother of the victim girl. PW3 being the complainant as well as the father of the victim girl who set law into motion for investigation regarding missing of the 9 Spl CC No.389/2015 victim girl/ PW4. PW3 in the complaint -Ex.P2 reported to the police that his 2nd daughter ie., the victim girl who went out from the house on 24.3.2015 at 9.30 A.M., telling that she was going to work, had not returned home and prior to that about one month back that victim girl had gone with one Mahesh and returned on the same day. Therefore expressing that suspicion, given the complaint giving the description of the victim girl and her age as 16 years. In furtherance to this complaint, this witness PW3 in the witness box during the trial has stated that, about 4 years back to the date of giving his evidence before the court, his daughter went to school, but did not turn up. So, he had lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2 along with a photo of his daughter and that his daughter returned on the next day morning, but the witness continued to say that themselves went and brought the victim girl after coming to know from the neighbours that the victim girl was in the house of the accused.
12. The witness [PW3] further stated that when he and his wife enquired with their daughter for which she told them that the accused had taken her on a bike from near the school . Therefore, after giving a complaint, the police came and enquired their daughter/ victim girl. This witness has been treated as hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor to the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor in the cross-examination the witness has admitted to have told the police in his further statement that the victim girl had told them that the accused had taken his daughter to his house after visiting the 10 Spl CC No.389/2015 ISKON Temple and attempted to tie a turmeric thread to her neck for which his daughter/ victim girl did not agree.
13. PW4- victim girl in her evidence before the court has deposed about her family status and further deposed that, while she was studying PUC, the accused was known to her when she was going to college and returning to home. The accused had taken her to Hebbal Park that her date of birth is 2.12.1998 and stated that the accused had not taken her to any temple,that her father had given complaint to the police complaining that herself and the accused have run away but stated that she had returned home on the same day. This witness has further stated that, she was taken to the police station where she was enquired and she has given statement. The witness further elaborated stating that the accused had taken her to ISKON temple forcibly and identified her statement as per Ex.P3. She has further stated that police went to the house at Kurubarahalli and brought her from there and spoken to the Mahazar drawn by the police at that time as per Ex.P4.
14. This witness has also been subjected to cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the cross- examination, this witness to the suggestion answered in the Affirmative admitting that herself and the accused were in the house of the accused. She has also admitted that her parents had taken the police to the house of the accused, and that herself and the accused were in his house thereafter herself and the accused after seeing the police they were scared and the accused in the 11 Spl CC No.389/2015 presence of her parents attempted to tie the turmeric thread around her neck and she refused to get it tied. Further answered that her parents held the accused and conceded to have given similar statements to the police. The witness went on admitting that she was taken by the accused to his house from ISKON temple and police has also drawn the Mahazar at ISKON temple.
15. PW5-Guruprasad is the elder brother of the victim girl. In his evidence before the court he has deposed about his family status, and further deposed that, he knows the accused and he can identify him. About 3 years back to the date of giving his evidence before the court, his sister was studying in 2 nd PUC and at that time, she was aged 18 years. One day his sister went to the college, but she did not return, therefore his father had lodged a complaint suspecting the accused. Then he came to know that his parents had already gone to the police station then he also saw the accused, victim girl and sister and brother of the accused were also in the police station and he was told by the victim girl that she was taken by the accused to his house.
16. Now coming to the evidence given by PW6-Latha, Head Mistress, Jagadguru Sri.Jayadeva High School, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore wherein the victim girl had studied. In her evidence before the court she has deposed that, on 3.6.2015, Basaveshwaranagar police had requested for issuing date of birth details of the victim girl , accordingly she has issued the Study Certificate which is as per Ex.P6 showing the date of birth of the victim girl as 2.12.1998 and her signature on Ex.P6 is as per 12 Spl CC No.389/2015 Ex.P6(a). This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
17. Now coming to the evidence of the police officials ie., PWS-1, 2, 7, 8 and 9. Among them, PW1-Premkumar, ASI and PW2- Kavithabai, in their evidence before the court have deposed that, on 25.3.2015, as per the Orders of CW12, they went in search of the accused and the victim girl. They went to 6 th Main Road, Kamalanagar and caught hold of the accused and the victim girl and produced them before the PSI. Accordingly, PW1 has given Report which is as per Ex.P1 and his signature is as per Ex.P1(a). They have identified the accused who was present before the court hall. Thereby, these witnesses have performed their statutory duties. These 2 witnesses were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused thereby their chief evidence remained un-controverted and un-impeached.
18. PW8-B.S.Hanumantharayappa, ASI in his evidence before the court has deposed that, on 25.3.2015, he has received complaint, from the complainant registered in Cr.No.140/2015, prepared FIR, and sent to the copies of htre FIR to his higher officials and to the court concerned. This witness has identified the complaint as per Ex.P2, FIR as per Ex.P7 and also his signatures as per Ex.P2(b) and Ex.P7(a) respectively. Thereafter, he has handed over the case file to CW12 for further investigation. Thereby, this witness has performed his statutory duties. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, the 13 Spl CC No.389/2015 complainant has not lodged any complaint before him. He has also denied that in order to give trouble to the accused, he joined hands with the complainant/ CW1 and filed a false case against the accused.
19. PW9-Mallikarjun is the Preliminary Investigation Officer of this case. In his evidence before the court he has deposed that, on 25.3.2015, he has received the case papers of this case from CW11 and verified it. On the same day, CWS-4 and 5 have traced out the victim girl and the accused of this case and produced them before him . On the same day, he has recorded the statement of the victim girl, he conducted the spot mahazar at E- Clothing Factory, 1st Main, 4th Cross,, on the same day, he arrested the accused , thereafter he has handed over the case papers to CW13 for further investigation. He has recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereby, this witness has performed his statutory duties. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has created false documents in order to help the complainant.
20. PW7-Kallappa.S.Karad is the Final Investigation Officer of this case. In his evidence before the court he has deposed that, on 7.5.2015, he has received the case papers of this case from CW13 and verified it. He has obtained the birth of date details of the victim girl which is as per Ex.P6 and his signature is as per Ex.P6(b). After completion of investigation, he has submitted charge-sheet against the accused. Thereby, this witness has 14 Spl CC No.389/2015 performed his statutory duties. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he has denied that, he has filed false charge-sheet against the accused.
21. The witnesses PWS-3 to 5 are subjected to cross- examination by the learned defence counsel. In the cross- examination of PW3, the learned defence counsel suggested as if the accused and the accused knew each other since long time,for which this witness has stated to had no information. To the further suggestion that this witness in the complaint had stated that the victim girl who had gone with the accused had returned on the same day for which this witness has answered in the Affirmative. These suggestions of the learned defence counsel establish that the accused was moving with the victim girl even earlier to the date of incident.
22. Further the learned defence counsel except suggesting that the accused has not taken his [PW3] daughter/ victim girl outside and attempted to tie a turmeric thread to her neck and the witness given the false complaint absolutely the evidence given by PW3 in the chief examination has not at all been traversed. The other suggestions of the learned counsel for the accused are denied by the witness, therefore, the evidence of this witness withstood un-contradicted.
23. Coming to the cross-examination of PW4/ victim girl here also the defence has admitted that the accused and the victim girl knew each other and that the victim girl herself took the 15 Spl CC No.389/2015 accused to ISKCON Temple, but denied the suggestion that at her instance, the accused had taken her to Hebbal park and she has volunteered that the accused himself taken her. Further the witness has denied the suggestion that the accused had not attempted to tie turmeric thread to her and also denied having given false evidence, but admitted that the accused had not given trouble to her. With this cross-examination, the evidence of this witness that the accused had taken her to his house from ISKON Temple is not at all denied and contradicted. The evidence of PW4/ victim girl that the accused attempted to tie Turmeric thread to her neck in the presence of parents of this witness has also remained unrebutted.
24. Coming to the cross-examination of PW5, here also, the defence has admitted that the accused was known to the victim girl during her college studies and the witness has denied his knowledge about the accused had taken the victim girl to ISKON temple on her request. The learned defence counsel made a suggestion that, on the date of giving the complaint of missing of the victim girl that the accused and the victim girl had come to the police station, to which the witness has answered in the Affirmative. With this also, the defence has admitted the presence of the accused and the victim girl in the police station in pursuance of the missing complaint given by his [PW5] father. The further suggestion that the victim girl had not gone to the house of the accused is denied by this witness. Thus the evidence of PW5 that he saw the victim girl and the accused in the police station and that his sister the victim girl had told him that she was taken by the 16 Spl CC No.389/2015 accused to his house and there he attempted to tie turmeric thread around her neck, remained unimpeached.
25. On going through the evidence of the police officials who are examined as PWS-1, 2, 7 , 8 and 9 they have given evidence before the court according to their duties discharged. PWs-1 and 2 have clearly deposed that, they were entrusted the work of tracing out the Victim girl as well as the accused in the present case, accordingly, they went in search of them as per the credible information received by them they went to 6 th Main Road, Kamalanagar, where the accused was coming along with the Victim girl . These 2 witnesses have caught hold them, enquired them thereafter brought them to the Basaveshwaramagar police station and produced them before PW9/ CW12. In turn, on perusal of the evidence of PW9, he also deposed befiore the court that PWS-1 and 2 have produced the accused and Victim girl before him. This evidence is not contradicted by the learned defence counsel. PWS-7 and 8 have deposed about receiving of complaint, registering in Cr.No.140/2015, conducted further investigation, finally submitting charge-sheet before the court.
26. On going through the evidence of PWS-3 to 5 and also police officials, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution case that the accused had taken the victim girl who was aged about 16 years 3 months as on the date of the 2.12.1998 incident ie., on 24.3.2015 to his house kept her there until 25.3.2015 and until the police and the parents of PW4/ victim girl went in search of them and brought them to the police station, is proved and that the 17 Spl CC No.389/2015 defence 2.12.1998 has not been successful to dis-credit any of these material witnesses and evidence they have given.
27. No doubt PWS-3 to 5 though had at some stage stated that the victim girl was 18 years old then, but, PW4/ victim girl has confirmed in her evidence that her date of birth was 2.12.1998 and the Study Certificate the prosecution produced ie., the Marks Card of 10th standard of the victim girl also prove the date of birth of the victim girl as 2.12.1998 and it is marked as Ex.P5, though she [victim girl] is aged 15 years and plus is still a child as defined under Sec.2 of POCSO Act 2012 and that the accused could not have taken the liberty to take her from the custody of her parents, which also supports the say of PW4/ victim girl and that establishes that the victim girl was a minor was even below the age of 18 years. This view is supported by the evidence of PW6-Head Mistress of the school wherein the victim girl was studying, who has issued the Study Certificate of the victim girl as per Ex.P6 and deposed that, the Victim girl was a student in her school where she is working and the date of birth of the Victim girl is 2.12.1998. Further it is proved by the evidence of the prosecution that, the the accused had taken the Victim girl to his house without the consent of her parents from their custody with an intention to marry her and even attempted to tie turmeric thread to her neck as a symbol of marriage, but because of the refusal of PW4/ victim girl that did not happen. The evidence of PWS-3 to 5 in my view ihas not been effectively contradicted on material facts and therefore remained unblemised and that establishes the guilt 18 Spl CC No.389/2015 of the accused under Sec.366 of IPC. Therefore the accused is liable to be convicted for the said offence.
28. My learned Predecessor has also charged the accused; for the offence of kidnap under Sec.363 of IPC, which section only speaks of kidnapping a minor girl and nothing more. Whereas, in the case on hand, kidnapping is done with an intent to compel her for marriage with a further intention to have forcible sexual intercourse, therefore, the charge only sustains under Sec.366 of IPC and do not sustain under Sec. 363 of IPC as such, that charge is left unanswered.
29. Again my Learned Predecessor had charged the accused under Sec.11 (iv) of POCSO Act, 2012. Sec.11 of POCSO Act, 2012 speaks of sexual harassment upon a child with sexual intent. Sec.11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012 speaks of a perpetrator repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means. In the case before me, that the accused having had kidnapped the prosecutrix from the legal custody of her parents with intent to marry her and that the prosecution has not placed any material or adduced evidence to prove sexual harassment by the accused and that attempt of accused to tie the turmeric thread around the neck of the Victim girl do not amounts to sexual harassment as defined under Sec.11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012 as such, this section do not sustain thereby, left unanswered. With this I answer POINT NO.2 in the AFFIRMATIVE and POINTS-1 AND 3 are not answered since they do not sustain.
19 Spl CC No.389/201530. POINT NO.4:-:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 3 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Sec.363 of IPC and also under Sec.11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012.
Further acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C, I hereby convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.366 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of May, 2020] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.20 Spl CC No.389/2015
29.5.2020 ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard the accused regarding the sentence to be imposed on him for the offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC .
The accused has submitted that he is aged about 28 years and having aged parents residing at Kunigal ie.., his native place and he is living with his grandmother at Bangalore is working as a painter by profession and he is the only earning person of his family, he has to take care of his aged parents as well as his grandmother, thereby he submitted to show leniency in imposing the sentence. The Learned counsel for the accused also present and submitted in the same lines as submitted by the accused and prayed for to take lenient view in imposing the sentence on the accused.
On perusal of the entire records, it appears that this court has already held the accused as guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC acquitting him for other offences. The accused appears to be aged about 28 years and still he is a bachelor and no any antecedents. Thereby, considering the future prospectus of the accused and also as he is having had family responsibilities some leniency could be shown in imposing sentence for the offence committed by him under Sec.366 of IPC. With this observation, I proceed to pass the following:
21 Spl CC No.389/2015ORDER I hereby sentence the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 Years and also he shall pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
Out of the fine amount collected, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be given to the Victim girl by way of compensation under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012. The balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
Acting under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C, the period of detention undergone by the accused is set-off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed.
Copy of this Judgement shall be given to the accused free of cost forthwith.
[ Sentence dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrections carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of May, 2020] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
22 Spl CC No.389/2015ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Premkumar CW4 20.7.2018
PW2 Kavithabai CW5 20.7.2018
PW3 Raju CW1 10.7.2019
PW4 Victim girl CW6 19.7.2019
PW5 Guruprasad CW8 19.7.2019
PW6 Latha CW10 15.10.2019
PW7 Kallappa.S.Karad CW14 14.11.2019
PW8 B.S.Hamuntharayappa CW11 16.1.2020
PW9 Mallikarjun CW12 13.2.2020
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Report of PW1
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P2 Complaint dated: 25.3.2015 lodged by the
complainant/ father of the victim girl /PW3 to the complainant police Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW8 Ex.P3 Statement of PW4/ victim girl given to the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW4/ victim girl Ex.P3(c) Signature of PW9 Ex.P4 Panchanama Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW4/ victim girl Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW9 Ex.P5 Copy of SSLC Marks card of PW4/ victim girl showing her date of birth as 2.12.1998 Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P6 Study Certificate of PW4/ victim girl issued by the Head Mistress, Jagadguru Sri.Jayadeva High School, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore wherein PW4/ victim girl was studying showing the date of birth of PW4/ victim girl as 2.12.1998 Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW6 23 Spl CC No.389/2015 Ex.P6(b) Signature of PW7 Ex.P7 FIR Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW8 Witness examined, documents, marked for the accused: NIL [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.24 Spl CC No.389/2015
29.5.2020 Judgement pronounced in the open court:
[vide separate detailed Judgement] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Sec.363 of IPC and also under Sec.11(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012. Further acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C, I hereby convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.366 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
[R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 25 Spl CC No.389/2015 29.5.2020 Sentence pronounced in the open court:
[vide separate detailed Sentence] I hereby sentence the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 Years and also he shall pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
Out of the fine amount collected, a sum of Rs.10,000/-shall be given to the Victim girl by way of compensation under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012. The balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
Acting under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C, the period of detention undergone by the accused is set-off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed.
Copy of this Judgement shall be given to the accused free of cost forthwith.
[R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
26 Spl CC No.389/2015