Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mounesh @ Mohana on 6 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 6th Day of December 2017
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No.101/2017
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka
By High Grounds Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Mounesh @ Mohana,
S/o. Late Ambrappa Gowda, 22 years,
R/at. Siddapura.B.Hebbal, K.Hobli,
Surupura Taluk,
Yadagiri District [By Sri.A.P-Advocate.]
1 Date of commission of offence 30-09-2016
2 Date of report of occurrence 01-10-2016
3 Date of arrest of Accused 18-10-2016
Date of release of Accused 05-06-2017
Period undergone in custody 17 Days &
by Accused 7 months
4 Date of commencement of evidence 14-09-2017
5 Date of closing of evidence 31-10-2017
2 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
6 Name of the complainant Ramesh
7 Offences complained of Section 366 & 376-
IPC, Sec.4 & 6
-POCSO Act.
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the
final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector, High Grounds Police Station-Bangalore against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Since it is a case of kidnap and rape 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.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused on 30-09-2016 at about 02.30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, from Vasantha Nagar kidnapped the daughter of Cw.1 and 3 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 Cw.2, Cw.3-the victim girl, knowing fully well that she was minor, taken her from that place forcibly, made her to believe that he is going to marry her and went to Siddapur, Yadagiri District to his relative's house and in that house he had forcible sexual intercourse on her girl and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused was enlarged on bail on 26-04- 2017. Earlier to that the copy of charge sheet furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused submitted no arguments before framing charge, as a result charge was framed in respect of offences under section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, the contents of charge read over and explained to the accused in Kannada. The accused pleaded not guilty and submits crimes to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused set down for prosecution evidence. 4 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined in all 12 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.12, got marked 20 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and 9 material objects as MO1 to MO9 and closed its side evidence. In view of available incriminating evidence appeared against accused, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. He denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him. Earlier to that he complied the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, by executing personal bond and surety. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
6. The learned advocate for accused relied on the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1965 SC Page 282, (2) Crl. L.J. 2003 Page 2777, (3) Crl. L.J. 2004 Page 2359 and (4) AIHC 1996 Page 1849. The learned Public Prosecutor also filed memo with provision of Section 376 of IPC with commentary for reference and also mentioned decisions reported in (1) AIR 2004 SC page 1497 equivalent (2004) 3 SCC 106, (2) 2005 Crl. L.J. 4375 (SC) equivalent AIR 2005 SC 3570 and (3) (2004) 3 SCC
602. 5 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
7. 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. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB30.09.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÊUËæAqï ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À À¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀ¸A À vÀ£ÀUg À ¢ À AzÀ ¸ÁQë-
1 gÀªÉÄÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 ²æêÀÄw gÁeÉñÀéj gÀªg À À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-3 ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¥Àºj À ¹ PÉÆAqÀÄ AiÀiÁzÀVj vÁ®ÆèQ£À ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÅgÀzÀ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀA§A¢üPg À À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 366 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
2. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às UÀ¼°À è ¸ÁQë-3gÀªg À £ À ÀÄß ¥ÀŸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¥Àºg À Àt ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ QAvÀtA ô iÀÄ ªÀÄÄ£ÉñÀégÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£P À ÌÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C°èAzÀ vÀ£Àß vÁvÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 376 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
3. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às UÀ¼° À è ¸ÁQë-3gÀªg À £À ÀÄß ¥ÀŸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¥Àºg À Àt ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É §®ªÀAvÀªÁV DPÉAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄw E®èzÃÉ CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£ÀåªÉ¸ÀV PÀ®A.4gÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsU½ À AzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 2012gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
5. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðUÀ¼° À è ¸ÁQë-3gÀªg À £À ÀÄß ¥ÀŸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¥Àºg À Àt ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É §®ªÀAvÀªÁV §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¢£ÁAPÀB 01.10.2016 jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀB04.10.2016 gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ DPÉAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄw E®èzÃÉ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr PÀ®A.6gÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsU½ À AzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 2012gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÀ ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:- 6 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: In the Negative.
Point No.5: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4: As these points are inter-related, hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasonings.
10. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence produced both at oral and documentary and arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.
11. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.12 got marked 20 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and 9 material objects as MO1 to MO9 and this Court perused the same.
12. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 and Pw.3 are the 7 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 parents of the victim girl, Pw.2 is the victim girl, Pw.4 is the neighbours of complainant, Pw.5, Pw.9 and Pw.12 are the doctors who examined the victim girl and the accused. Pw.6 is the Social worker and Pw.7, Pw.8, Pw.10 and Pw.11 are the police witnesses. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the offences alleged against the accused.
13. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused the prosecution is required to prove that the accused on 30-09-2016 at about 02.30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, from Vasantha Nagar kidnapped the daughter of Cw.1 and Cw.2-the victim girl, knowing fully well that she was minor, taken her from that place forcibly, made her to believe that he is going to marry her and went to Siddapur, Yadagiri District to his relative's house and in that house he had forcible sexual intercourse on the victim girl and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 366, 376 of IPC and section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of 8 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. Before venturing into scan the available materials evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 366, 376 of IPC and section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
Section 366 of IPC defines that:
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, (and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority to any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.
Section 376 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for rape-(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section(2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:9 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.
(2) Whoever,-
(a) being a Police Officer commits rape-
(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or
(iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a Police Officer subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or
(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place or custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman's or children's institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant;
or
(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of 10 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.
Section 4 of POCSO Act defines that:
Punishment for penetrative Sexual Assault: Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 6 of POCSO Act defines that:
Punishment for aggravated penetrative Sexual Assault: Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
15. By going through the facts and circumstances it is just and proper to mention the common contentions of the prosecution with regard to the relationship of the victim girl and the complainant and other witnesses. Pw.1 is the father of victim girl, Pw.3 is the mother of victim girl, Pw.4 is the neighbour of the complainant who participated in the spot mahazar. It is also not in dispute that the victim girl was studying in 2nd PUC at Goodwill Girls' High School & Composite College and was going to computer course at the time of the alleged incident. With these observations, now left with available 11 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 material evidence produced by the prosecution to consider whether the facts of the case and evidence attracts the ingredients of above said penal sections to fix liability on the accused and the prosecution proved the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not or the defense to probablise the defense of the accused.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Ramesh, the father of victim girl, he has deposed that the victim girl is his daughter, about 3-4 months back the accused came to his house and asked him to give in marriage the victim girl to him, otherwise he is going to do anything. At that time he told to the accused that he belonged to some other caste and the accused belonged to other caste, even the victim girl has not attained majority, they are intending to give well education to her. For that the accused left the house stating that he is going to do anything with the victim girl. At that the victim girl was studying in 1st year PUC and was also taking training in computer course and her age was 17 years. On 30th or 31st September 2016 the victim girl went to computer class, but she didn't return home. At about 02.30 or 03.00 p.m., his wife went 12 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 to computer center and came to know that the victim girl left the center at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. His wife searched for the victim girl every where, but she was not available to her. His wife phoned to him and after receiving the said phone call he came to house and searched for his daughter every where, but the victim girl was not traced out. As a result he lodged complaint on 01-10-2016. Her date of birth was 01-09-1999. He has given the complaint as per Ex.P1 and his signature is Ex.P1(a). He had also doubt about the accused. He has shown the place where the accused was working. The police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a). He has also given the mobile number of the accused and on the basis of said mobile number the location was traced by the police and came to know that the accused was from Hunsagi of Gulbarga District. As a result himself, his wife and one Chandrakantha Rao along with police went in a car to that place and searched for the accused and his daughter. Thereafter they came to Hunsagi police station, the police also contacted the accused over mobile, but he has not answered properly. They have searched for 3 to 4 days in and around Hunsagi and the 13 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 Hunsagi police told that the victim girl was along with the accused, thereafter one advocate came along with the victim girl and left her in the police station, the police taken the victim girl to their custody and handed over her to this witness and Bengaluru police, after that they return to Bengaluru and went to High Ground Police Station. On enquiry with the victim girl she told that the accused asked her to come with him and he is going to marry her, as a result she went along with him and stayed for 3 to 4 days in the house of relative of accused, at that place he has raped her. Thereafter the police sent the victim girl for medical examination and after that arrested the accused. He has also identified the accused. He has also produced copy of S.S.L.C. Marks Card of the victim girl as per Ex.P3 for the purpose of proving the age of the victim girl.
17. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that since he doesn't know reading and writing of Kannada, he cannot say what was written Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. On 05-10-2016 he along with other co-persons return to Bengaluru along with the victim girl, directly went to the station, but the 14 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 Police Officer was not available at that time, they return to home and after taking bath again they came to Police station. He has also stated that due to not knowing Kannada, he cannot say what was written in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Further he has admitted that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛvÀÄ.Û ºÀÄt¸ÀV¬ÄAzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ £ÁªÀÅ §gÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼Æ É A¢UÉ WÀl£É §UÉÎ ZÀZð É ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzÝÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgzÉ ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÀÉÎ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzɪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
He has also deposed that the victim girl herself given her statement and he has not tutored her and denied all the allegations made against accused by denial suggestion. Through the evidence of this witness, this Court feels to observe that it is not in dispute that as per the admission of this witness, the victim girl fell in love with the accused. He also came to know about the love affair between the victim girl and the accused and the accused had taken the victim girl to his place. But on perusal of statement of victim girl both at the Police Station and before the Magistrate, it quite differs with each other.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-the victim 15 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 girl, she has deposed that Ramesh and Rajeshwari are her parents, she is their eldest daughter, she is also having younger sister, her date of birth is 01-09-1999. She was also studying in 2nd Year PUC and was also learning Computer Science Course when she was residing at Vasantha Nagar. She came in contact with accused since he was working in the house which is opposite to their house. He had given his mobile number to her when she was playing outside her house and both were in contact with each other over mobile. While talking with each other, the accused proposed his love. In the month of July- 2016 the accused came to her house and requested her parents to give the victim girl in marriage to him, for that her parents not accepted his request and also told that they are going to look after their daughter's life and they are not going to give their daughter in marriage to him. At that time the accused threatened that he is going to do any thing. After some time the victim girl told to accused that her parents are not in cordial with her and they were angry about love matter between them. She has also deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬Ä £À£ßÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É vÀÄA¨Á PÉÆÃ¥ÀUÉÆArzÀg Ý ÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀB30.09.2016 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ 16 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 PÀA¥ÀÇålgï PÁè¸ïUÉ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 9.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉ.Ý D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ C°èUÉ £À£Àß §½ §AzÀÄ ¤£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬Ä ¤£Àß eÉÆvÉ PÀÆægÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £Àqz É ÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwz Û g ÀÝ É ºÉüÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÉëêÀĪÁV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÃÉÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ, DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ AiÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀzÉ ¤£Àß eÉÆvÉUÉ §gÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ ºÉýzÉ."
But at the same it is just and proper to consider the statement given by her before the police and before the Magistrate in this regard. On perusal of Ex.P4-the statement given by the victim girl before the police, she has stated that:
"£ÀAvÀgÀ DvÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀÄvÁÛ ¹QÌzÁUÀ¯¯ É Áè ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸ÀÄwÛz£ ÀÝ ÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¤UÉ ¥sÉæAqïì CUÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ¥ÉÇÃ¸ï ªÀiÁrzÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸À®Ä ±ÀÄgÀĪÀiÁrzÉ. DvÀ£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¦æÃwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß §½ EzÀÝ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.8950470545 C£ÀÄß DvÀ¤UÉ ¤ÃrzÉ£ÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀiˤõï vÀ£Àß ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï 9900969062 ¤AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ DUÁUÉÎ ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛz£ ÀÝ ÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛz£ ÉÝ ÀÄ. »ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ ªÀiË¤Ãµï £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀÄ, ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀg s ÀuÉ £À£ÀUÉ EµÀÖªÁVzÁݼÉ, £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝ£A É zÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆr JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ£ÀÄ. DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä E§âgÀÆ DvÀ£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛª£ À A É iÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzj ÝÀ AzÀ DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛz£ ÉÝ ÀÄ, F «ZÁgÀ¢AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ºÀwg Û À EzÀÝ ¥ÉÇãï C£ÀÄß QvÀÄP Û ÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄÄ ªÀiˤõï£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzA À vÉ vÁQÃvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ DvÀ£Æ É A¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä ©qÀÄwÛ®z è À PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃfUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è ¯ÁåAqï ¯ÉÊ£ï¤AzÀ DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛz.ÉÝ . "
The above said statement crystallizes that the victim girl herself contacted the accused, even though her parents restricted her not to contact the accused and no such statement finds a place that the accused himself contacted her and harassing her stating that he is loving her and she has to do the 17 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 same. On perusal of Ex.P6-the victim girl's statement before Magistrate as per section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has also stated that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀévBÀ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß EµÀÖ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À zÀÆgÀªÁtô ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉýzÀÄÝ CªÀ£À£ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸À®Ä DgÀA©ü¹zÉ. £À£ßÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ §½ £À£ÀߣÀÄß §AzÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆà JAzÀÄ CªÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉýgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. F «ZÁgÀªÁV £À£Àß vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä M¥À° à ®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀÆqÀÄ ºÁPÀ®Ä ¥ÁgÀA©ü¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃeïUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï PÁè¸ïUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ £À£ßÀ ¥ÉÇõÀPg À ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß »A¨Á°¸ÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÉÇõÀPg À À F ªÀvð À £ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀÄzsÁj¹PÉƼÀî°®è PÉÆ£ÉUÉ £À£Àß ¥ÉÇõÀPÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¤®ðQë¸À®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀB31-092016 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï PÁè¹UÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ, C°èAzÀ DªÀ££ À ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁtôAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹ £À£ßÀ £ÄÀ ß §AzÀÄ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÉ£ÀÄ ."
Even the above said statement also crystallized that the victim girl voluntarily went along with the accused, no such force or coercion, inducement finds a place and caused by the accused against the victim girl. With these now left with the further evidence of Pw.2.
19. Pw.2 further deposed that the accused had taken her to a place near by Gulbarga by bus and kept her in vacant yard from morning till evening, thereafter he had taken her to his father-in-law's house and stayed there itself, again in the morning he had taken her to the vacant yard, stayed there from morning till evening and return to home. But at that time the 18 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 accused received information that the parents of victim girl are searching for her and also lodged missing complaint, as such he had taken her to his uncle's house and stayed there, again on the next day he has taken the victim girl to another place and thereafter the accused taken the victim girl to his father's friend's house and stayed there for two days, at that time the accused had physical contact with her stating that if both had physical contact, nobody can do any thing against them and they are going to marry to both. But here she has deposed against accused that he has forcibly had physical contact with her, but the statement given before police and the Magistrate is otherwise.
20. On perusal of statement given by the victim girl as per Ex.P4 before police, she has stated that:
"»ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀB30-09-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 10×00 UÀAmÉUÉ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä §AzÀÄ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï ¸ÉAlgï UÉ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. PÁè¸ï ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 12.30 UÀAmÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiˤõï UÉ ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á vÉÆAzÀgA É iÀiÁUÀÄwÛzÉ, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ®Ä EµÀÖ«®è, £À£ßÀ £ÄÀ ß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÉ, DUÀ ªÀiˤõï CzÀð s UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀÄ w½¹ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 01.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀ¸A À vÀ£ÀUg À P À ÉÌ §AzÀ£ÀÄ.
ªÀiË¤Ãµï £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀ¸A À vÀ£ÀUg À z À ° À è MAzÀÄ CmÉÆêÀ£ÄÀ ß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. §AzÀÄ C°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2.30 UÀAmÉUÉ PÉ.PÀ¸ï.Cgï.n.¹. §¸ï C£ÀÄß ºÀwz Û ª É ÀÅ. gÁwæ 08.30 UÀAmÉUÉ AiÀiÁzÀVjUÉ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄvÉ.Û C°èAzÀ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÉÆA Û zÀÄ §¸Àì£ÀÄß ºÀwÛ ªÀÄzsÁå gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 02.0 UÀAmÉUÉ QAvÀtô JA§ HjUÉ ¨É¼V À £À eÁªÀ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ.
£ÁªÀÅ ¨É½Uɪ Î g
À ÉUÉ §¸ï¸ÁÖAqï£À°A è iÉÄà PÁ® PÀ¼z É ªÉ ÅÀ .
19 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
¢£ÁAPÀB01-10-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 07.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀiË¤Ãµï £À£ÀߣÀÄß
MAzÀÄ CmÉÆÃzÀ°è QAvÀtô ªÀÄ£ÉñÀégÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£PÀ ÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀߪÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀĤõï MAzÀÄ CmÉÆà ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ MAzÀÄ vÉÆÃlzÀPÉÌ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĤõï vÉÆÃlzÀ¯ÃÉè MAzÀÄ ¢ªÀ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁwæ vÉÆÃlzÀ ªÀÄgÀzÀ PɼÀUÉ ªÀÄ®V C¯ÉÃè Ezɪ Ý ÀÅ.
¢£ÁAPÀB02-10-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 07.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀiˤõï MAzÀÄ CmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß M§â CdÓ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ C¯ÉÃè CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è Ezɪ Ý ÀÅ. D ¢ªÀ¸À gÁwæ ªÀiË¤Ãµï £À£ÀߣÀÆß §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ M¥Àà¢zÁÝUÀ CªÀ£ÄÀ £À£ßÀ £ÄÀ ß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃV¹zÀ£ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ C¯ÉÃèÉ EzÉªÝ ÀÅ, ªÀiË¤Ãµï ¢£ÁAPÀB03-10-2016 CgÀAAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀB04-10-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀºBÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃV¹zÀ£ÀÄ. "
The above said statement also crystallizes that the victim girl herself voluntarily went along with the accused and on 02- 10-2016 to 04-10-2016, he had forcible sexual contact with her. In Ex.P6-the statement before Magistrate, she has stated that:
"C°èAzÀ £ÁªÀÅ MAzÀÄ §¸ï¸ÁÖArUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ, C°èAzÀ UÀÄ®âUÁðzÀ°g è ÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£P À ÉÌ vÉg½ À zɪÀÅ. MAzÀÄ ¥sÁªÀÄðUÉ vÉg½ À zɪÀÅ. C°è Erà ¢£À £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼z É ªÉ ÀÅ. ªÀÄgÀÄ¢£À £ÁªÀÅ CªÀ£À ¸ÀA§A¢üPgÀ À CdÓ-CfÓ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¢£ÀU¼ À À PÁ® ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ £ÀqɹzɪÀÅ. £Á£Éà CªÀ¤UÉ F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉýzÀÄÝ PÁgÀt ªÀÄÄAzÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ CzÀ° Ý è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À«Ää§g â £À ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ CªÀ¤UÉ w½¹gÀÄvÉ£ Û .É "
Here the victim girl herself told that she herself invited the accused for sexual intercourse, since her parents are going to give consent of their marriage. Admittedly the statement as per Ex.P4 was recorded on 06-10-2016, whereas the Magistrate has recorded the statement on 07-11-2016, that too after lapse of 20 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 one month, when the victim girl was under the custody of her parents. If the above said statement is taken into consideration, there is a doubt whether the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse on the victim girl or the victim girl herself invited the accused for sexual intercourse. While giving evidence she has deposed otherwise.
21. Further Pw.2 deposed that the police and her parents came to the place where they stayed and an advocate brought her to the police station and handed over her to the police and to her parents. After that her parents and Bengaluru police brought her to Bengaluru and sent to remand home for some time, thereafter she had given statement before police as per Ex.P4 and she was subjected to medical examination and the doctor given report as per Ex.P5. On perusal of Ex.P5-the doctor also mentioned the history with sexual intercourse on 2nd, 3rd, 4th October 2016 with Mounesh, due to love affair since five months. The victim girl has eloped with Mounesh on 30-09- 2016. This piece of entry also crystallizes that the victim girl voluntarily eloped with the accused, but was not taken forcibly by the accused. The doctor also opined that on local genital 21 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 examination, evidence of signs of recent sexual intercourse present. Here before the Magistrate the victim girl has given statement as per Ex.P6. If that statement is taken into consideration, she herself permitted the accused for sexual intercourse thinking that if the said act is done, her parents are going to perform her marriage with the accused. Further she has deposed that she was produced before the Magistrate and she has deposed that:
"£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ K£ÉãÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ J¯Áè «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýzÉ. £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ Ý ÀÄß mÉÊ¥ï ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÀÄ, £À£Àß ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqzÉ ÀÄPÉÄÁAqÀgÀÄ."
If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, while giving statement as per Ex.P6, she has voluntarily stated the above said statement and not by any coercion or inducement. The statement given before Magistrate as per Ex.P6 is also very clear that she herself went along with the accused and not by any coercion or inducement. She has also stated before the Magistrate that:
"¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÉÇõÀPg À ÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ D ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. CzÀgA À vÉ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è, vÀAzÉ- vÁ¬Ä eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¸ÉÖÃmï ºÉÆêÀiïUÉ PÀ¼ÄÀ »¹zÀgÀÄ.22 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
CzÀgA À vÉ ±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ gÁwæ ºÉÆÃV ±À¤ªÁgÀ ¨É½UÉÎ ¸ÉÖÃmï ºÉÆêÀiï¤AzÀ §A¢gÀÄvÉ£ Û .É "
Again she has stated that:
" £À£Àß ¨sÁªÀ£ÉU¼À £À ÀÄß vÀqAÉ iÀÄzÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ¤UÉ zÀÆgÀªÁtôAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgz É ÀÄ £À£ßÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár¤AzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÁjUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀ ¸ÀA§AzÀª s £ À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É, CzÀg° À è AiÀÁÄgÀ£Áßzg À Æ À M¦àPÉÆà JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀg Ý ÀÄ, CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ M¥À° à ®è, KPÉAzÀgÉ £À£U À É £À£Àß ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ££ À ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉAiÀÄ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. vÀz£ À AÀ vÀgÀ £À£ßÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ D ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀ°è ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃdgï DUÀĪÀªg À ÉUÀÆ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ©qÀ¯ÁUÀÄvÀz Û É JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. CzÀgA À vÉ £Á£ÀÄ FUÀ jªÀiÁåAqï ºÉÆêÀiï¤AAzÀ §A¢gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É."
Even the said statement also crystallizes that the victim girl on her own will and wish went along with the accused and permitted him to do the act of sexual intercourse, so that her parents are going to perform her marriage with the accused and she has not stated anything against accused before the Magistrate. Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P7-Spot Panchanama, where the accused and the victim girl stayed. The learned Public Prosecutor treated her as hostile to the prosecution case and suggested her that the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, for that she has admitted. Here, when the victim girl not stated about the said fact before the Magistrate as per Ex.P6, question of believing the admission obtained at the time of treating her hostile to the 23 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 prosecution case does not arises.
22. The accused cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also tested her veracity by eliciting that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ JzÀÄgÀĨsÁUÀz°À è EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝ PÁgÀt ¤ÃªÀÅ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸À®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹¢gÁ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ D PÁgÀt¢AzÀ®è DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ DvÀ£À ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA§gï PÉÆlÖ£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À £ÀqÀÄªÉ ¥sÉÆä£À°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¥ÁægÀA¨Àª s ÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß ¦æÃw¸À®Ä ±ÀÄgÀĪÀiÁrzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA§gïUÀ½AzÀ DUÁUÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzª ÉÝ ÀÅ. "
She has also deposed that:
"£À£ÀUÉ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¨sÁµÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV NzÀ®Ä §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÁUÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀzÀ PÁgÀt ¤.¦.4 gÀ°è K£ÀÄ §gÉ¢zÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£U À É DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë £Á£ÀÄ K£À£ÀÄß ºÉýzÉ£ÉÆà CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀgÄÀ ¨Ég¼ À Z À ÀÄÑ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛg.É "
Through this witness also Ex.D1 got marked by the accused, but these facts are in no way helpful to defense of the accused. On the other hand, the very statement given by the victim girl before police as per Ex.P4, the statement given by her before the Magistrate as per Ex.P6 contradicts with the evidence given by her in her chief examination. She has also admitted that:
"¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆlÖ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢B 07.11.2016 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤.¦.6 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÃÝ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆlÖ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 24 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzª À g À « É UÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ EzÉÝ. £À£ÀUÉ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ AiÉÆÃa¸À®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è zÉÆgÉwvÀÄ.Û D ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±Àª£ À ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤.¦.6 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÃÝ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said admission is taken into consideration, what ever statement given before the Magistrate is acceptable for consideration, since she herself went along with the accused and there is no coercion and undue influence, force made by the accused to take her to his village.
23. Here the evidence of the victim girl crystallizes that she herself voluntarily left with the accused. She herself called upon the accused, stating that her parents are not cordial in nature and she is ready to accompany with him and on that ground the accused had taken her along with him towards his native place as per her statements-Ex.P4 and Ex.P6. While giving evidence before the Court, she has changed her version and deposed that the accused forcibly taken her by way of kidnap and caused sexual abuse with her. Admittedly at the time of alleged incident as per the date of birth of victim girl is taken into consideration, she was aged about 17 years and one 25 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 month running and she was having thinking capacity about the consequences if she eloped with the accused, inspite of it as per her statements-Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 she herself called the accused and went along with him. This shows the very intention of the victim girl leaving her parents and living with the accused.
24. At this stage it is worthwhile to emphasize on the decision reported in 2010 Crl.L.J.2180-F.Nataraja Vs. State, wherein it had been observed that:
"Prosecurtrix in love with accused wanted to marry him- Acquittal proper-Admittedly the prosecurtrix herein is less than 14 years of age. Therefore, her consent could be of no relevance if there could be sexual intercourse with her by the accused. On careful reading of the averments in Ex.P1, which is said to have been recorded by the Woman Police Constable, as narrated by the prosecurtrix herself, it could be seen that though she (prosecurtrix) is said to have stated that herself and the accused led marital life as married couple and there was intercourse for the first time and on how many occasions she was subject to same. As could be seen further, from the averments in Ex.P1, it is clear that the prosecurtrix herself fell in love with the accused and she went to the extent of threatening him that if he were not to love and marry her, she would die. Therefore, it is clear that she wanted to marry him at any cost, even without the consent of her parents were thinking of giving her in marriage to some other person, she communicated the same to the accused and compelled him to take her from her house and to marry her. Therefore, having regard to this conduct of the prosecurtrix and all other circumstances of the case, the possibility of her stating falsely that there occurred sexual intercourse between herself and the accused so that her parents would agree to give her in marriage to the accused could not be ruled out. She has also admitted in her cross-examination made on behalf of the accused that on one occasion, when the accused had come to the tiral court during the trial, her parents had requested the accused to marry her. The testimony of the prosecurtrix was not 26 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 found reliable, the conviction of the accused appellant under section 376 IPC was set-aside."
Here also the prosecurtrix voluntarily went with the accused and she left with the accused by expressing that her parents ill-treating her in the house, she went to live with him and she is unable to live without him. As such the accused had taken the prosecurtrix along with him. No doubt it is true that as per the medial report the sexual intercourse was taken place with the victim girl having age of 17years and one month at the time of the incident, she was having thinking capacity about the consequences, inspite of it she herself allowed the accused to do such an act. Under these circumstances the facts and circumstances of the above said decision and facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different, but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable to the present case on hand.
25. No doubt it is true that the learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision reported in (1) AIR 2004 SC page 1497 equivalent (2004) 3 SCC 106, (2) 2005 Crl. L.J. 4375 (SC) equivalent AIR 2005 SC 3570 and (3) (2004) 3 SCC 602 in respect of absence of injury on private parts and 27 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 evidence of prosecurtrix itself is sufficient to believe the alleged offences against accused, but with great respect to the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court feels to observe that the facts and circumstances of the above case decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one, the ratio of principle of the above said decisions are not applicable to the present case on hand.
26. The learned advocate for accused while addressing his arguments submitted that with regard to the age of the prosecurtrix, no such authenticated documents placed by the prosecution, except the certificate issued by the Principal of Goodwill Girls' High School & Composite pre-University College, Bengaluru mentioning her date of birth as 01-09-1999. The learned advocate for accused also relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1965 SC Page 282, wherein it had been observed that:
"Evidence Act (1872) S.35-Entry by person at request of illiterate officer maintaining official record is inadmissible.
An entry of birth made in an official record maintained by an illiterate Chowkidar, by somebody else at his request does not come within S.35 of the Evidence Act.28 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
Evidence Act (1872), S.35-Entry of date of birth in school admission register-value of."
Further in Crl. L.J. 2003 Page 2777, it had been observed that:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.363, 376-Kidnapping and Rape-Proof-Age of prosecurtrix-Determination-Allegations that accused came to house of prosecurtrix in midnight and took her to another place and committed rape against her will- Ossification tests report proving prosecurtrix was more than 18 years of age-But school certificate showing that she was below 16 years of age-No evidence showing as to on what basis and at whose instance the date of birth was written in the school register-Also non-production of original school register in Court- Failure on part of prosecution to prove that prosecurtrix was below 19 years of age-Conviction of accused, not proper."
Further in Crl. L.J. 2004 Page 2359, it had been observed that:
"Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss.65, 35-Age of victim girl- Proof-School certificate prepared on basis of admission form cannot be said to be a primary piece of evidence-Non-production of admission form which is primary evidence in Court-School certificate would be in admissible in evidence.
Penal Code (45 of 1860), S-376-Rape-Proof-School certificate showing prosecurtrix below 16 years of age-Said certificate which has been prepared on basis of admission form cannot be said to be a primary piece of evidence-Evidence of witnesses contradictory to each other regarding age of proseutrix-Age of prosecurtrix cannot be said to be below 16 years on date of incident in view of opinion of Radiologist- Prosecutirx not disclosing said incident for near about 4 or 5 months and accused cohabited with her during said period- Story of cohabitation without her consent not inspiring confidence-Conviction of accused, not proper."29 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
and submitted that the ratio of principle is aptly applicable to the present case on hand. It is true that in order to establish the age of the victim girl, except production of Ex.P8, the prosecution has not produced any other corroborative and cogent documentary evidence in respect of School Admission Register in original for corroboration to consider the genuinity of Ex.P8 and the age of victim girl is below 18 years. Though the facts and circumstances of the above decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one but the ratio of principle is also applicable to the present case on hand.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Rajeshwari, the mother of the victim girl, she has also deposed in her chief examination in support of the prosecution case and she has deposed that her signature is marked as Ex.P5(b), but in her cross-examination the accused tested veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that she doesn't know Kannada language, but she can understand little Kannada version. She has admitted that she doesn't know what was written in Ex.P4. She has admitted that:
30 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ M§âjUÉƧâgÀÄ ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzg ÝÀ ÄÀ JAzÀgÉ ºËzÀÄ."
Further she has admitted that:
"¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CªÀ¼ÃÉ ¸ÀévBÀ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁªÁågÀÄ CªÀ½UÉ CzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ºÉý PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è."
If the above said admission is taken into consideration, whatever the statement given before police as per Ex.P4 and before the Magistrate as per Ex.P6, it is well within the knowledge of the victim girl and not tutored by her father or mother or confused. The contents of Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 and the evidence of the victim girl contradicts with each other and she has deposed against accused and it cannot be considered that the incident occurred only on the alleged ill motive of the accused and as such he is punishable for the offences alleged against him.
28. By going through the evidence of Pw.4- K.R.Rajashekar, the neighbour of the house of the complainant, he has deposed that on 30-09-2016, the victim girl was missing and the complaint was lodged, the police came near the house and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and he has signed the same and his signature is Ex.P2(b). Further the police also 31 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 conducted mahazar in front of computer Centre. No doubt it is true that the investigation conducted by the Investigation Officer is not in dispute, but the victim girl herself eloped along with the accused, question of considering the kidnapping of the victim girl and without her consent, he has raped her, does not arise. In the cross-examination except denying suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of the accused.
29. By going through the evidence of Dr.Chaitra Krishna, she has deposed that on 06-10-2016 at about 05.30 p.m., High Ground Police brought the victim girl along with her mother. She has medically examined her and issued Ex.P5 and her signature is Ex.P5(c). According to her, on local genital examination, evidence of signs of recent sexual intercourse present. She has collected MO1 to MO9 from the victim girl and handed over to the Investigation Officer. The learned advocate for the accused cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and elicited that the statement given by the victim girl was mentioned in Ex.P6, even the statement before police disclose that the victim girl herself went along with 32 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 the accused, due to deep love affair with him. Further she has admitted that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV C«ªÁ»vÀ ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼À°è PÀ£Áå¥ÉÇgÉAiÀÄÄ ºÀjAiÀÄĪÀÅ¢®è DzÀgÉ ºÉa£ Ñ À zÉÊ»PÀ ±ÀæªÀĺÉÆA¢zÀgÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£Áå¥ÉÇgÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉa£ Ñ À ±ÀæªÀÄ ©zÀÝgÉ CAzÀgÉ FdĪÀÅzÀÄ, PÀÄzÀÄgÉ ¸ÀªÁj ºÁUÀÆ d£À£ÁAUÀz° À è PÉʨg É ¼ À £ À ÀÄß ºÁQzÀgÉ ¸Àzj À ¥ÉÇgÉAiÀÄÄ ºÀjAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ EzÉ JAzÀÄ GvÀj Û ¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É PÀ£Áå¥ÉÇgÉAiÀÄÄ ºÀj¢zÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ªÀiÁvÀæPÉÌ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄAiÀÄÄ £ÀqÉ¢zÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Here no such possibilities taken place along with other supporting evidence to believe that hymen was torn due to said possibilities. On the other hand it is the evidence of victim girl that she herself permitted the accused to sexual intercourse with her, so that her parents accept the accused and they are going to perform the marriage with him.
30. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Shobha Stephan, she has deposed that she has issued Ex.P8-birth certificate on the basis of entries available in the school records. In the cross-examination she has admitted that she has given the date of birth of victim girl as 01-09-1999 only after seeing the original register of the school and documents. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, the genuinity of Ex.P8 creates doubt with regard to the age of the victim girl. 33 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
31. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Shivaputra Chattera-Police Constable, he has deposed that on 01-10-2016 he was accompanied with Cw.1 and 2 to Yadagiri District, Surapura Taluk, Thintani Village, to trace out the accused and the victim girl and searched at Hunsagi, Thintani, Siddapura, Srinivasapura, but the victim girl and accused not traced out. Thereafter on 05-10-2016 an advocate brought the victim girl and produced before Hunsagi Police station and thereafter they have brought the victim girl to Bengaluru and he has given report as per Ex.P9 and his signature is Ex.P9(a). Except that nothing has been elicited to accept the evidence of this witness.
32. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Vanitha- W.P.C., she ahs deposed that she has taken the victim girl to Bowring and Lady Cruzan Hospital for medical examination, and after examination she return to police station and handed over the MO1 to MO9 along with her report as per Ex.p10 and her signature is Ex.P10(a). In the cross examination except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited to the defense taken by the accused herein.
34 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
33. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-Dr.K.V. Satish, he has deposed that on 19-12-2017 the accused was produced before him for medical examination. He has examined him and given report as per Ex.P12 and his signature is Ex.P12(b) and Ex.P7(b). The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the stand taken by the accused herein.
34. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-Dr.Arul Dasan, he has deposed that he has examined the accused and issued report as per Ex.P11 and this report is not disputed by the accused.
35. By going through the evidence of Pw.11-Murthy- P.S.I., he has deposed that on 01-10-2016 the complainant lodged complaint as per Ex.P1, the same was received by him, verified the same and registered in Crime No.157/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and he has made endorsement on Ex.P1 and his signatures are Ex.P1(b). He has prepared FIR as per Ex.P17 and his signature is Ex.P17(a) and 35 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 produced the same before Court and also his higher officer. On the same day he went to spot and conducted spot mahazar at 10.00 a.m. Thereafter he went to the Computer Centre where the victim girl was learning computer and conducted mahazar in the presence of complainant from 03.30 p.m., to 04.30 p.m., as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(c). Thereafter he along with Cw.11 and parents of victim girl went to the village of accused to trace the accused and the victim girl as they got information that the victim girl was there along with the accused at Tinthani of Yadagiri District. Thereafter the victim girl was brought and produced before the police by an advocate and he recorded the statement of the victim girl. Thereafter the spot mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P7, at the place where the victim girl was kept by the accused and his signature is Ex.P7(b) and signature of H.C. Ningaiah is Ex.P7(c). He has sent the victim girl for medical examination. He has received report as per Ex.P9 and his signature is Ex.P9(b). He has also received articles as per MO1 to MO9 along with report as per Ex.P10 and his signature is Ex.P10(b). He has given requisition as per Ex.P18 to Court on 07-10-2016 to insert other offences 36 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 in the case after recording the statement of the victim girl and his signature is Ex.P18(a). He has prepared sketch as per Ex.P19 and his signature is Ex.P19(a). He has received true copy of Marks card of victim girl as per Ex.P3 and his signature is Ex.P3(a). The statement of victim girl was recorded in his presence as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(b). He has received medical report of the victim girl as per Ex.P5 and his signature is Ex.P5(b)
36. By going through the evidence of Pw.10- G.Lakshmikanthaiah-Police Inspector, he has deposed that after receiving record from Pw.11, he has conducted further investigation, recorded re-statement of the victim girl and her parents and statement of Cw.2. On 24-10-2016 he has received the address of accused from Raghunath. On 07-11-2016 he has produced the victim girl before Magistrate for recording section 164 Cr.P.C, statement. The victim girl refused to go along with her parents, hence he has sent her to State Home. He has arrested the accused on 19-12-2016, since he personally appeared before the Court, recorded his voluntary statement. He sent the accused for medical examination and thereafter he 37 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 was produced before the Court. He has also received report as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 and his signature is Ex.P11(b) and Ex.P12(a). He has also received report for handing over of articles for chemical examination as per Ex.P13 and acknowledgement from RFSL-Mysore as per Ex.P14 and his signature is Ex.P13(a). After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against accused. He has also received report from RFSL-Mysore as per Ex.P15 and model seal is at Ex.P16 and his signature is Ex.P15(a).
37. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused. No doubt it is true that the evidence of Pw.10 and Pw.11 are formal one, but the material witnesses evidence not acceptable, since the victim girl stated before police and before the Magistrate as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P6, but while giving evidence before Court, she has deposed that due to confusion, she has stated like that before police and before the Magistrate. At the same time this Court feels to observe that there is a gap of one month for recording of statement by the police and recording of statement under 38 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 section 164 of Cr.P.C, by the Magistrate and at that time she was under the custody of her parents. When such being the case, question of confusion does not arise to depose as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P6, as she voluntarily eloped with the accused and there is no compulsion, coercion or force made by the accused to take her away from her lawful guardians and he has committed rape on her.
38. 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 probablizes the defense of the accused rather than the case of the prosecution.
39. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.12 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and MO1 to MO9, placed on record in respect of alleged offences is insufficient to prove that the accused on 30-09-2016 at about 02.30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, from Vasantha Nagar kidnapped the 39 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 daughter of Cw.1 and Cw.2, Cw.3-the victim girl, knowing fully well that she was minor, taken her from that place forcibly, made her to believe that he is going to marry her and went to Siddapur, Yadagiri District to his relative's house and in that house he had forcible sexual intercourse on her girl and thereby committed offences punishable under section 366, 376 of I.P.C., and section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
40. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 366, 376 of IPC and section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
MO-1 to MO-9 are treated as worthless properties. Office is directed to destroy MO-1 to MO- 9 in accordance with law after appeal period is over 40 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 and, if an appeal is preferred, after the disposal of the appeal, subject to the result of said appeal.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th Day of December 2017) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Ramesh Cw.1 14-09-2017 Pw.2 Victim Cw.3 14-09-2017 Pw.3 Rajeshwari Cw.2 14-09-2017 Pw.4 K.R.Rajashekar Cw.4 14-09-2017 Pw.5 Dr.Chaitra Krishna Cw.8 15-09-2017 Pw.6 Shobha Stephan Cw.5 15-09-2017 Pw.7 Shivaputra Chattera Cw.11 16-09-2017 Pw.8 Vanitha Cw.12 16-09-2017 Pw.9 Dr.Arul Dasan Cw.7 06-10-2017 Pw.10 Lakshmikanthaiah. Cw.16 06-10-2017 G. Pw.11 Murthy Cw.18 02-02-2017 Pw.12 Dr.K.V.Satish Cw.9 31-10-2017 41 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 14-09-2017 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 14-09-2017 Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017 Ex.P 2 Mahazar Pw.1 14-09-2017 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 14-09-2017 Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 14-09-2017 Ex.P 3 Copy of S.S.L.C. Pw.1 14-09-2017 Marks card Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017 Ex.P 4 Statement of victim Pw.2 14-09-2017 girl Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 14-09-2017 Ex.P 4b Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017 Ex.P 5 Medical report of Pw.2 14-09-2017 victim girl Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 14-09-2017 Ex.P 5b Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 14-09-2017 Ex.P 5c Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 15-09-2017 Ex.P 6 Statement of victim Pw.2 14-09-2017 girl u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P 6a, Signatures of Pw.2 Pw.2 14-09-2017
6b,
6c
Ex.P 6d Cover Pw.2 14-09-2017
Ex.P 6e C.D. Pw.2 14-09-2017
Ex.P 7 Mahazar Pw.2 14-09-2017
Ex.P 7a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 14-09-2017
42 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
Ex.P 7b Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 7c Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 8 Age certificate Pw.6 15-09-2017
Ex.P 8a Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 15-09-2017
Ex.P 8b Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 9 Report of Pw.7 Pw.7 16-09-2017
Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 16-09-2017
Ex.P 9b Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 10 Report of Pw.8 Pw.8 16-09-2017
Ex.P 10a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 16-09-2017
Ex.P 11 Report of Pw.9 Pw.9 06-10-2017
Ex.P 11a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 06-10-2017
Ex.P 11b Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 06-10-2017
Ex.P 12 Medical report of Pw.10 06-10-2017
victim girl
Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 06-10-2017
Ex.P 12b Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 31-10-2017
Ex.P 13 Report of Cw.13 Pw.10 06-10-2017
Ex.P 13a Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 06-10-2017
Ex.P 13b Signature of Cw.13 Pw.10 06-10-2017
Ex.P 14 FSL Pw.10 06-10-2017
acknowledgement
Ex.P 15 FSL Report Pw.10 06-10-2017
Ex.P 15a Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 06-10-2017
Ex.P 16 FSL Seal. Pw.10 06-10-2017
Ex.P 17 F.I.R. Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 17a Signature of Pw.10 Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 18 Requisition to Court Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 18a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017
43 Spl.C.C.No.101/2017
Ex.P 19 Spot sketch Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 19a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017
Ex.P 20 Requisition given to Pw.11 17-10-2017
Court to transfer FIR
Ex.P 20a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-10-2017
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON
BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
MO 1 Vaginal Swab Pw.5 15-09-2017
MO 2 Vaginal Smear Pw.5 15-09-2017
MO 3 Cervical swab Pw.5 15-09-2017
MO 4 Cervical swab Pw.5 15-09-2017
MO 5 Pubic Hair Pw.5 15-09-2017
MO 6 Nail Clippings Pw.5 15-09-2017
MO 7 Pink colour top Pw.5 15-09-2017
MO 8 Purple colour pant Pw.5 15-09-2017
MO 9 Brown colour under Pw.5 15-09-2017
wear
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Ex.D1 Portion of statement Pw.2 14-09-2017 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MAKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE