Bangalore District Court
State By Hebbala Police vs Manjuntha on 31 August, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 31 st day of , August, 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.166/2019
COMPLAINANT: State by Hebbala Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Manjuntha,
Son of Narayanaswamy,
Aged 24 years,
Residing at: Siddanahalli, Nandagudi
Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
[the accused is in the judicial custody]
[By Advocate Smt.Zynab Begum]
1. Date of commission of offence From 4.11.2018 to 5.11.2018
2. Date of report of occurrence 5.11.2018
of the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 12.11.2018.
Since the date of arrest ie., from 12.11.2018
till date, the accused is in the judicial
custody
4. Date of commencement of 30.3.2019
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 19.8.2020
2 Spl CC No.166/2019
6. Name of the complainant Smt.Pushpalatha, complainant as well as the mother of
the victim girl.
7. Offences complained of Secs. 363, 366(A), 376, 506, 392 of IPC
[As per charge-sheet] and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, Hebbala police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366(A), 376, 506, 392 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the complainant who is none other than the mother of the victim girl had lodged a missing complaint that, on 4.11.2018 in the morning at 11 A.M., her daughter / victim girl who was aged 15 years told that she is going to her friend's house, but, did not turn up. Inspite of her search, she was not traced out. Hence, the complainant requested the police to trace out her daughter. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case in Cr.No.221/2018 for the offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the victim girl was traced out and on her enquiry, she revealed that, the accused by enticing her on 4.11.2018 in the morning at 11 A.M., took her from her house to Hosakote to the house of CW3 and kept her in the said house and 3 Spl CC No.166/2019 committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly and also threatened that he will kill her if she reveals the said act to anyone and the accused by saying that he has no money with him, forcefully snatched the golden ear studs and silver leg chain and pledged them with the financier-CW11 and obtained money. Hence, on the basis of the statement given by the victim girl, the complainant police have instered Secs. 366(A), 376, 506 and 392 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and continued with the investigation by arresting the accused and taking him to remand and remanded him to the judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the accused which is numbered as Spl CC No.166/2019. Since the date of arrest ie., from 12.11.2018 till date, the accused is in the judicial custody.
3. 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 13 witnesses as PWs-1 to 13 and got marked 27 documents as Exs.P1 to P27. As per Sec.33(2) of POCSO Act 2012, the evidence of the victim girl has been recorded in the presence of her mother. Thereafter Statement of the accused recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has 4 Spl CC No.166/2019 denied all the incriminating evidence told to him, but he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf and no documents are marked.
5. 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, the accused by enticing the victim girl who was minor in age on 4.11.2018 in the morning at 11 A.M., took her from her house to Hosakote to the house of CW3 and kept her in the said house , 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 by enticing the victim girl who was minor in age on 4.11.2018 in the morning at 11 A.M., took her from her house to Hosakote to the house of CW3 and kept her in the said house, knowing that the victim girl was minor in age, committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her ,thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012 ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused by enticing the victim girl who was minor in age on 4.11.2018 in the morning at 11 A.M., took her from her house to Hosakote to the house of CW3 and kept her in the said house knowing that the victim girl was minor in age, committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual 5 Spl CC No.166/2019 assault on her , but,also threatened her that he will kill her if she discloses the said incident to anyone, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves , the accused not only confined CW2/ victim girl in the house CW3, but, also committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault knowing that she was minor in age, he also threatened the victim girl with dire consequences and also snatched the gold ear studs and silver leg chain of the victim girl by saying that he has no money and pledged the said articles with the financier-CW11 and obtained money, thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sec.392 of IPC ?
5. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 4: In the Negative, Point No .5: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 TO 4:- 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 13 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 13 and 26 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P27 . Though the victim girl and other her parents have not supported the case of the prosecution but the court has to look into the facts and 6 Spl CC No.166/2019 circumstances of the case along with available evidence of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the police officials have totally supported the case of the prosecution the complainant approached the police with a complaint, registered as FIR, taken up investigation, traced out the victim girl as well as the accused recorded statements drawn mahazar finally after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not contradicted by the counsel for the accused.
Apart from that, according to Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012, there is burden casted upon the accused to prove his innocence, but, he has failed to chose to examine any of the witness on his behalf, thereby, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused has to be convicted and he 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 doubt. The victim girl and her mother and other material witnesses have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case when they were subjected to the cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, these witnesses have denied all the suggestions put to them supporting their chief evidence. When all these material witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution, considering only the evidence of the police officials the court cannot convict the accused for the 7 Spl CC No.166/2019 offences as alleged. Even the prosecution has not examined the Lady doctor who has examined the victim girl and given Medical Report as per Ex.P2. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the Judgment dated: 28.8.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.881/2019 held between Sri.Arun Vs. State by Rajagopala Nagar Police and submitted that, the accused of that case was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him, thereby the present accused is also entitled for an order of acquittal from the hands of this court. With these, the learned counsel for the accused prays to acquit the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
10. 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 13 witnesses, out of them, PW1/CW2 is the victim girl, PW2/CW1 is the complainant as well as the mother of the victim girl, PW3/CW3 is the owner of the house where the accused the victim girl were staying. PW4/CW7 is the spot mahazar witness as per Ex.P4. PW5/CW5 is the circumstantial witness. PW6/CW12 is the witness to the Seizure Mahazar as per Ex.P9 PW7/CW9 is the friend of the accused as well as the witness to the Spot Mahazar as per Ex.P10. PW8/CW17 is the woman HC who has deposed about taking the victim girl to the Bowring Hospital for medical examination. PW9/CW18 is the Police constable who has deposed about taking the sealed articles to FSL for chemical examination.
8 Spl CC No.166/2019PW10/CW6 is the circumstantial witness. PW11/CW24 is the Police Inspector/ Investigation Officer of this case who has deposed about filing of the charge-sheet against the accused. PW12/ CW23 is the PSI and PW13/CW22 is the Woman PSI who has recorded the statement of the victim girl. In support of its case, the prosecution has also produced the following documents: Ex.P1 is Statement of the Victim girl under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P2 is the Medical Report of the victim girl. Ex.P3 is the complaint. Ex.P4 is the spot panchanama . Ex.P5 is the further statement of PW2. Ex.P6 is the Statement of the victim girl/ PW1 given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P7 is the Statement of PW3 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P8 is the Statement of PW5 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P9 is the Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P10 is Spot Panchanama. Ex.P11 is the Report given by PW8 with regard to taking the victim girl to the Bowring hospital for medical examination and collecting the articles belonging to the victim girl and producing them before the Police Inspector of the complainant police station . Ex.P12 is the Acknowledgement issued by FSL, Madivala, Bangalore . Ex.P13 is the Statement of PW10 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P14 is the FIR. Ex.P15 is the PF No.101/2018. Ex.P16 is the Voluntary statement of the accused. Ex.P17 is the Statement of the victim girl/ PW1 given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P18 is the Report given by CW19-Anand- Head constable for having apprehended the accused and producing him before the Police Inspector of the 9 Spl CC No.166/2019 complainant police station .Ex.P19 is the Receipt issued by Pawn broker. Ex.P20 is the Report given by PW9 for having taken the sealed articles of this case to FSL, Madivala, Bengaluru . Ex.P21 is the Letter dated: 8.12.2018. Ex.P22 is the Requisition letter written by PW11 to Head Master, Government High School, Yelahanka, Bangalore where the victim girl for issuing the study certificate of the victim girl .Ex.P23 is the Study Certificate issued by the Head Master, Government High School, Yelahanka, Bangalore where the victim girl was studying showing the date of birth as 4.4.2003. Ex.P24 is the Copy of the Admission Register wherein the victim girl/ PW1 was studying. Ex.P25 is the Medical Report of the accused. Ex.P26 is the FSL Report and Ex.P27 is the PF No.110/2018
11. Now coming to the evaluation of the evidence given by the above prosecution witnesses , I would like to take up the evidence given by the victim girl who has been examined as PW1 in this case. PW1 in her evidence has deposed that, CW1 is her mother. She can identify the accused. But she does not wish to see him. As her senior uncle had met with an accident and was admitted to Victoria hospital, her mother had gone to the hospital and at that time she was alone in the house. Further she has deposed that, no one came to her house and no trouble is caused to her. She has not given any statement to the police. Before arrival of her mother, she had went to her friend's house. She has not stated anything against the accused. She has identified her signature on the Statement given by her under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C 10 Spl CC No.166/2019 which is as per Ex.P1 and her signature is as per Ex.P1(a). The Medical Report of the victim girl is as per Ex.P2 and her signature is as per Ex.P2(a). She do not know the contents of Ex.P2. She has signed as per the say of the police. She has not stated anything about the accused before the doctor. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, when her senior uncle was admitted to the hospital, at that time, she came in contact with this accused. She has further denied that, on 4.11.2018 in the morning at 11.30 A.M., the accused forcibly secured her to Hosakote and from there he took her to his aunt's house and during the night hours, the accused committed rape on her. She has further denied the suggestion that, on 5.11.2018 the accused took her to a drink's shop and made her to drink. She has also further denied the suggestion that, the accused snatched her ear studs and leg chain and pledged them and obtained money. She has further denied the suggestion that, the accused took her to Palamenuru, Andhra Pradesh and there also they were sleeping together. She has further denied that, she has given the statement as stated above which is as per Ex.P1. She has further denied that, the accused forcibly secured her and inspite of knowing that she is minor in age, committed rape on her. She has further denied the suggestion that, she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. In her further chief examination by the learned Public Prosecutor she has stated that, she can identify her signature on the statement given by her before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C as per Ex.P2 and her 11 Spl CC No.166/2019 signature is as per Ex.P6(a). She do not know the contents of Ex.P6. Other than this, she do not know anything. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, she has denied that, she is deposing falsely against the accused. She has also denied that, inspite of knowing the contents of Ex.P6, she has obtained money, and is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. This witness was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
12. PW2 is the complainant as well as the mother of the victim girl. In her evidence before the court she has deposed that, CW2 is her daughter. She can identify the accused. She has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. As her brother-in-law had met with an accident and was admitted to Victoria hospital, she had gone to the hospital and at that time her daughter/ victim girl was alone in the house. Further she has deposed that, before she arrived to the house, her daughter/ victim girl had went to her friend's house. So she had lodged a complaint. She has not stated anything about the accused in her complaint. After 4 to 5 of lodging the complaint, her daughter came back to the house and she did not say anything against the accused. She has identified the complaint as per Ex.P3 and her signature is as per Ex.P3(a). The police had come near her house and conduced Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and her signature is as per Ex.P4(a). She do not know the contents of these documents. Other than this she do not have anything to 12 Spl CC No.166/2019 say. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross- examination, she has denied that, her daughter had told that she came in contact with the accused when her [complainant] brother- in-law was admitted to the hospital. She has further denied that, on 4.11.2018 in the morning at 11.30 A.M., the accused forcibly secured her daughter to Hosakote and from there he took her to his aunt's house and during the night hours, the accused committed rape on her. She has further denied the suggestion that, on 5.11.2018 the accused took her daughter to a drink's shop and made her to drink. She has also further denied the suggestion that, the accused snatched the ear studs and leg chain of her daughter and pledged them and obtained money. She has further denied the suggestion that, the accused took her daughter to Palamenuru, Andhra Pradesh and there also they were sleeping together. She has further denied that, she has given the statement as stated above which is as per Ex.P5. She has further denied that, the accused forcibly secured her daughter and inspite of knowing that her daughter was minor in age, committed rape on her. She has further denied the suggestion that, she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
13. PW3 in her evidence before the court has deposed that, she knows CWS-1 and 2. The accused is the friend of her elder sister's son. She has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. She do not know anything 13 Spl CC No.166/2019 about this case. She has not given any statement against the accused. The accused and the victim girl had not visited her house at any point of time. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that on 15.11.2018 the police had come along with the accused . She has also denied that, before that, the accused had come along with the victim girl and she had accommodated them to stay in her house and at that time, the accused had physical contact with the victim girl. She has denied that, she has given Statement to the police, as per Ex.P7. She has denied that, the accused by knowing that the victim girl was minor in age had brought her to her house and committed rape on her. She has also denied that, she has compromised with the accused by receiving money and is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
14. PW4 is the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P4. In her evidence before the court, when Ex.P4 was confronted to her, she has identified her signature on it as per Ex.P4(b). When she had been to the police station for some work, the police had obtained her signature. She do not know CWS-1 and 2. She also do not know the contents of Ex.P4. She has not read Ex.P4. As per the say of the police, she has signed. Other than this , she do not know anything about this case. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross- examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied the 14 Spl CC No.166/2019 suggestion that, she has read over the contents of the Mahazar and signed on it. She has denied that, she has compromised with the accused by receiving money and is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
15. PW5 in his evidence before the court has deposed that, he do not know CWS-1 and 2. But, he knows the accused and he has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. The accused is his relative. He do not know anything about this case. Other than this , he do not know anything about this case. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected him to cross-examination. In his cross- examination, he has denied the suggestion that, he has given statement before the police as per Ex.P8. He has denied that, the accused showed him the victim girl and he [accused] had given the neck chain and leg chain of the victim girl to him to sell them and give him [accused] the money and that he had taken those articles to Palamenuru and pledged them for Rs.1,800/- and given the money to the accused is also denied. He has denied all other suggestions put to him. Finally he has denied that, as the accused is his friend, he is deposing falsely in order to help him.
16. PW6 is the witness to the Seizure Mahazar. In his evidence when Ex.P9-Seizure Mahazar was confronted to him, he has identified his signature on it as Ex.P9(a). He is owning a cloth store in Palamenuru. About 1 ½ years back to the date of 15 Spl CC No.166/2019 giving his evidence, the police had come along with the accused near his shop. In front of his shop, Heera Finance is situated which belongs to one Rajesh. As said Rajesh was out of city, he [PW6] opened the keys of the said shop and gave one Golden ear stud to the police and the police had written the same thing. The accused was sitting in the jeep. The said golden ear stud is as per MO-1. He has identified the accused in the court hall as to the person who was sitting in the jeep. This witness was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross- examination, he has denied that, he has signed as per Ex.P9(a) in the police station.
17. PW7 in his evidence before the court has deposed that, he knows the accused as the accused is his friend. He do not know anything about this case. On 15.11.2018, the police had secured him to the police station for Mahazar and obtained his signature. The said Mahazar is as per Ex.P10 and his signature is as per Ex.P10(a). He do not know the contents of Ex.P10. Other than this, he do not know anything about this case. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected him to cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that, the accused was secured to the police station as the accused had given trouble to one girl. He has denied the suggestion that, himself and CW10 also secured to the police station. He has also denied the suggestion that, he knows the accused since 4 to 5 years and for that purpose he is deposing 16 Spl CC No.166/2019 falsely in order to help the accused. This witness was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
18. PW10 in his evidence before the court has deposed that CW3 is her junior aunt. He do not know the accused. He has not identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. The accused had not brought any girl with him and he has not given any accommodation to them. He has not given any statement to the police. Other than this, he do not know anything about this case. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected him to cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the suggestion that, himself and the accused are from one place. But he has denied the suggestion that, himself and the accused are friends. He has also denied the suggestion that, on 4.11.2018, the accused had brought the victim girl and he had telephoned to him [PW10].He has denied the suggestion that, the accused had told that he will marry the victim girl, so he had accommodated the accused and the victim girl in the house of CW3. He has denied that, he has given Statement as per Ex.P13. He has denied that, as the accused is his friend, he is deposing falsley in order to help the accused. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
19. Now coming to the evidence given by the police officials, I would like to take up firstly the evidence given by PW8- Woman HC. In her evidence she has deposed before the court that, on 17 Spl CC No.166/2019 7.11.2018, as per the directions of Police Inspector-CW24, she has taken the victim girl to the Bowring Hospital for medical examination. After the medical examination, she has brought back the victim girl along with the 6 sealed articles and produced them before the Police Inspector and given her Report as per Ex.P11 and her signature is as per Ex.P11(a). Thereby, this witness has performed her statutory duty. This witness was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
20. PW9-Police constable in his evidence before the court has deposed that, on 27.11.2018, as per the orders of Police Inspector he has taken the 6 sealed articles to the FSL, Madiwala, Bangalore and handed it to them and obtained acknowledgement and produced the said acknowledgement before the Police Inspector. The said acknowledgement is as per Ex.P12. Thereby, this witness has performed his statutory duty. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
21. PW13 is the Woman PSI. In her evidence before the court she has deposed that, on 7.11.2018 as per the orders of CW24, she went to the complainant police station to record the statement of the victim girl of this case. In her statement, the victim girl stated that, the accused came in contact with her, he took her to Hosakote in an auto and he kept in the house of the aunt of one Shankar and in the night the accused slept with the victim girl and had physical contact with her. The Statement given by the victim girl is as per Ex.P1 and her [PW13] is as per 18 Spl CC No.166/2019 Ex.P1(b). At the time of recording the statement of the victim girl, her mother was also present. The signature of the mother of the victim girl is as per Ex.P1(c). Thereafter she has handed over the statement of the victim girl to CW24. Thereby this witness has performed her statutory duty. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, she has not recorded the statement of the victim girl. She has also denied that, as per the say of CW24, she has prepared Ex.P1. She has also denied that, she is deposing falsely in order to help the police.
22. PW12 is the PSI who has conducted preliminary investigation of this case has deposed before the court that, as per the instructions of CW24, he has conducted the Mahazar on 15.11.2018 by taking his staff and also the accused and visited the shop of CW13 at Palamaneuru. The accused has shown the shop as well as stated that he has pledged the gold jewels belonging to the victim girl in that shop. Even CW13 has accepted the statement of the accused and handed over one pair of gold ear studs weighing about 1.4 grams. The Seizure Mahazar is as per Ex.P9 and the signature of this witness is as per Ex.P9(c) and the signature of CW13 is as per Ex.P9(d). He has received the Receipt for having pledged the gold jewels by the accused with CW13 and the said gold jewels are in PF No.110/2018 and the said PF No.110/2018 is as per Ex.P27 and the signature of this witness is as per Ex.P27(a). He has further deposed that, on the same day, 19 Spl CC No.166/2019 i.e, on 15.11.2018 at about 5 P.M., he has visited Hosakote to the house of one Shankar as shown to him by the accused, verified the spot and drawn spot mahazar, at that time, the accused stated that is the place he has committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Accordingly, he has drawn Mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses ie., CWS-9 and 10. The spot mahazar is already marked as per Ex.P10 and his signature is as per Ex.P10(b). The signature of CW10 is as per Ex.P10(c) and the signature of CW9 is as per Ex.P10(a), thereafter he came back to the police station and handed over Exs.P9, P10 and P19 along with the gold jewels to CW24 and orally submitted to his higher officers about the investigation conducted by him. Thereby this witness has performed his statutory duty. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he has created Exs.P9, P10 and P10 for the purpose of this case. He has also further denied that, he is deposing falsely in order to help CW24.
23. PW11- Police Inspector/ Investigating Officer of this case. In his evidence he has deposed that, on 5.11.2018, CW1 came to the police station and given complaint. He received the said complaint which is as per Ex.P3 and prepared FIR in Cr.No.221/2018 and sent the FIR to the jurisdictional court and copy of the same to his higher officers. His signature on the complaint is as per Ex.P3(a). FIR is as per Ex.P14 and his signature is as per Ex.P14(a); on 6.11.2018, he went near the house of CW1 along with panchas CWS-7 and 8 and conducted spot panchanama 20 Spl CC No.166/2019 as per Ex.P4 and his signature is as per Ex.P4(c) and the signature of CW7 is as per Ex.P4(b) and the signature of CW8 is as per Ex.P4(d); on 7.11.2018, he continued with the investigation and deputed CWS-17 and 19 for tracing out the victim girl and the said police officials traced out the victim girl and produced her before him and he conducted counselling of the victim girl with the assistance of CW22. The Counselling Report of the victim girl is as per Ex.P1; thereafter he sent the victim girl for medical examination and obtained the Medical Report and 6 sealed articles of the victim girl which is as per Ex.P2 and his signature is as per Ex.P2(b); the 6 sealed articles are subjected to PF No.101/2018 which is as per Ex.P15 and his signature is as per Ex.P15(a) ; on 12.11.2018, his staff CWS-19 and 20 traced out the accused and produced before him, he took the accused to his custody and recorded the voluntary statement of the accused, conducted arrest formalities and arrested the accused; thereafter he sent the accused for medical examination; on 14.11.2018, he sent the victim girl for recording her statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C and obtained the said Statement which is as per Ex.P17; on 14.11.2018, he sent CW23 for conducting the spot mahazar along with the accused, CW23 went along with the accused to Hosakote and Palamenuru and conducted spot mahazar as well as seizure mahazar; on 15.11.2018 he recorded the statements of CWS-3, 4, and 6; on 19.11.2018, he recorded the statement of CW5; on 8.1.2018, he sent the sealed articles of the victim girl to the FSL for chemical examination ; on 14.12.2018, he sent requisition as per Ex.P22 to CW16 for issuing Study Certificate of the victim girl wherein the 21 Spl CC No.166/2019 victim girl was studying thereafter he received the Study Certificate of the victim girl which is as per Ex.P23 and his signature is as per Ex.P23(a). The Admission Register extract of the victim girl is as per Ex.P24 and his signature is as per Ex.P24(a). According to these documents, the date of birth of the victim girl is 4.4.2003; on 27.12.2018, he obtained the Medical Report of the accused which is as per Ex.P25 and his signature is as per Ex.P25(a); the FSL Report which he received is as per Ex.P26 and his signature is as per Ex.P26(a) and the Sample seal is as per Ex.P26(b). After completion of investigation, he has filed charge-sheet against the accused. Thereby this witness has performed her statutory duty. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has filed false charge-sheet against the accused without there being no case against the accused.
24. Considering the evidence given by the above prosecution witnesses , I am of the view that, the evidence of the Victim girl who is material witness in the case is not helpful to the prosecution case to link the accused to the crime that the accused eloped her and took her to Hosakote and Pulmaneru and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and the accused also threatened her with dire consequence to kill her if she reveals the said incident to anyone and he also snatched her gold jewels and silver leg chain and pledged it with the Financier and obtained money. Even the mother of the victim girl has not supported the case of the prosecution that, the accused eloped her 22 Spl CC No.166/2019 daughter and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her daughter. On looking into the evidence of other material prosecution witnesses they have also turned hostile to the prosecution case denying the allegations made by the Investigating Officer against the accused. Thereby, their evidence is also not helpful to convict the accused for the offences complained of. Though the evidence of the police officials and Investigating Officer are corroborative that, complaint was filed by the complainant, case was registered, the victim girl and the accused were traced out, the victim girl and the accused were subjected to medical examination and the accused was arrested, statements of the witnesses were recorded and finally charge-sheet was submitted against the accused, but they do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as because PWs-1 and 2 who are the material prosecution witnesses ie., the victim girl and her mother have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the prosecution case. Even the Lady doctor who has physically examined the victim girl and given the Medical Report as per Ex.P2, has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Though PW13 Woman PSI has been examined before the court who has deposed about the statement recorded by her but this witness is only a hear-say witness as told to her by the victim girl. The Victim girl except identifying her signatures on her statements, she has not deposed anything against the accused to hold that the accused has committed the offence as complained of. Thereby, I am of the 23 Spl CC No.166/2019 view that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal from the hands of this court. Of course, the presumption under Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 goes against the accused but, the prosecution has to prove its case by furnishing cogent evidence but it failed to do so, thereby, I hold that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 to 4 in the Negative.
25. In the present case, as per the discussions made by me herein above, the victim girl has deposed before the court that, she has not suffered any sexual assault on her from the accused and the accused has not snatched her gold and silver ornaments. Considering these aspects, I find no reasons to award compensation to the victim girl as per the provisions under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules 2012, as such no compensation is awarded to the victim girl.
26. POINT NO.5:-:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 4 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 24 Spl CC No.166/2019 Secs.363, 376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012 and Secs. 506 and 392 of IPC.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of August, 2020] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Victim girl CW2 30.3.2019
PW2 Pushpalatha CW1 30.3.2019
PW3 Nagamani CW3 5.8.2019
PW4 Bhagya CW7 5.8.2019
PW5 Shamanth Kumar CW5 5.8.2019
PW6 Somaram CW12 19.2.2020
PW7 Vengaiah CW9 5.3.2020
PW8 Vanitha Nayak CW17 12.3.2020
PW9 Raghu CW18 12.3.2020
PW10 Shankar CW6 12.3.2020
PW11 R.S.T.Khan CW24 19.8.2020
PW12 Rajesh CW23 19.8.2020
PW13 K.S.Premakumari CW22 19.8.2020
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Statement of the victim girl /PW1 given before the
Woman PSI under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
25 Spl CC No.166/2019
Ex.P1(a) Signature of the victim girl/ PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW13
Ex.P1(c) Signature of PW2
Ex.P2 Medical Report of the victim girl/ PW1
Ex.P2(a) Signature of the victim girl/ PW1
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P3 Complaint dated: 5.11.2018 lodged by the
complainant/ mother of the victim girl/ PW2 to the complainant police Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW11 Ex.P4 Spot Panchanama Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P4(c) Signature of PW11 Ex.P4(d) Signature of CW8-kumar Ex.P5 Further statement of PW2 Ex.P6 Statement of the victim girl/ PW1 given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P6(a) Signature of the victim girl/ PW1 Ex.P7 Statement of PW3 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P8 Statement of PW5 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P9 Seizure Panchanama Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P9(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P9(c) Signature of CW11-Dilip Ex.P9(d) Signature of CW13-Shanthilal Ex.P10 Spot Panchanama Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P10(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P10(c) Signature of CW10-Mahadeva Ex.P11 Report given by PW8 with regard to taking the victim girl to the Bowring hospital for medical examination and collecting the articles belonging to the victim girl and producing them before the Police Inspector of the complainant police station 26 Spl CC No.166/2019 Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P11(b) Signature of PW11 Ex.P12 Acknowledgement issued by FSL, Madivala, Bangalore Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P13 Statement of PW10 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P14 FIR Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P15 PF No.101/2018 Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P16 Voluntary statement of the accused Ex.P17 Statement of the victim girl/ PW1 given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P18 Report given by CW19-Anand- Head constable for having apprehended the accused and producing him before the Police Inspector of the complainant police station Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P19 Receipt issued by Pawn broker Ex.P19(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P20 Report given by PW9 for having taken the sealed articles of this case to FSL, Madivala, Bengaluru Ex.P20(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P21 Letter dated: 8.12.2018 Ex.P21(a) Signatures of PW11 to (c) Ex.P22 Requisiton letter written by PW11 to Head Master, Government High School, Yelahanka, Bangalore where the victim girl for issuing the study certificate of the victim girl Ex.P22(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P23 Study Certificate issued by the Head Master, Government High School, Yelahanka, Bangalore where the victim girl was studying showing the date of birth as 4.4.2003 Ex.P23(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P24 Copy of the Admission Register wherein the victim girl/ PW1 was studying 27 Spl CC No.166/2019 Ex.P25 Medical Report of the accused Ex.P26 FSL Report Ex.P26(a) Sample seal Ex.P27 PF No.110/2018 Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-1 One pair of golden ear studs (ಒಒದದ ಜಜಜತಜ ಚನನದ ಗದಒಡದ) Witness examined, documents, MO marked for the accused: NIL [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.28 Spl CC No.166/2019
31.8.2020 Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable Secs.363, 376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012 and Secs. 506 and 392 of IPC.
[R.SHARADA]] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.29 Spl CC No.166/2019