Bangalore District Court
State By Cottonpet Police vs No.3: Judishter Mespuri @ Raju on 17 February, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 17 th day of , February, 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.570/2014
COMPLAINANT: State by Cottonpet Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED NO.3: Judishter Mespuri @ Raju,
Son of Khitish Mestri,
Aged 32 years,
Swarang Pura Village and Post,
Poorvasthari Thana,
Vardhaman District,
West Bengal State.
Presently Residing at:
C/o. Gopal Building, No.7/1,
Nagarthpete, Near Dharmaraya Temple,
Bangalore.
[By Advocate Sri.B.S.Manu ]
1. Date of commission of offence From 1.4.2013 to 15.9.2013
2. Date of report of occurrence 17.9.2013
of the offence
2 Spl CC No.570/2014
3. Date of arrest of accused 08.09.2014
Date of release of the accused 04.02.2015
on bail
Period undergone by the 4 Months and 24 Days
accused in the judicial
custody
4. Date of commencement of 6.9.2016
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 3.2.2019
6. Name of the complainant Sri.M.S.Koulapure, Police Officer, CID,
Bangalore.
7. Offences complained of Secs. 328, 370, 372, 373, 376, 344,
[As per charge-sheet] 366(A) r/w Sec.34 of IPC, Secs. 3, 4,
5,6, 7 of ITP Act and under Secs. 5(l), 6
and 17 of POCSO Act 2012.
8. Opinion of the Judge Accused No.3 is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, Cottonpet police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Secs. 328, 370, 372, 373, 376, 344, 366(A) r/w Sec.34 of IPC, Secs. 3, 4, 5,6, 7 of ITP Act and under Secs. 5(l), 6 and 17 of POCSO Act 2012.
3 Spl CC No.570/20142. It appears from the records that, as accused Nos. 1 and 2 stood absconded, the Investigation Officer has submitted before the court after they are traced out, he will file separate charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, the case in Spl CC No.570/2014 is proceeded against accused No.3 only
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, accused No.3 along with accused No.2 with common intention to earn the amount by running the brothel, having knowledge that accused No.1 brought the victim minor girl from West Bengal by kidnapping her, and sold her to accused No.2 for Rs.2 lakh, and brought her to Bangalore for the purpose of using her as a prostitute and wrongfully confined her in a house situated in 16th Cross, 1st Main, Mattikere Gokula layout, Bangalore, belonging to one Krishnappa and wrongfully restrained her in the said house and used the said premises as brothel and assisted accused No.2 in keeping or managing the brothel in order to earn the money and lived on the earnings of the prostitution, with intent that such victim girl may have sexual intercourse with a person who is not the spouse of such victim girl. Thereby, accused No.3 has committed the offences punishable under Secs.344, 373 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Secs.3, 4 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant who is the Police Officer of CID, Bangalore stating that, on the statement of the victim girl given to him who was rescued from immoral traffic, stated that, she [victim girl] was originally from West Bengal and when she was going to her 4 Spl CC No.570/2014 grandmother's house in a bus and in the same bus, accused No.1 was also travelling and he was sitting besides her and he gave her injection due to which she fell unconscious and when she regained her consciousness, she was in a lodge at Kolkatta city and accused No.1 kept her in the said lodge for 10 days and during the said period, accused No.1 committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Thereafter accused No.1 brought the victim girl to Bangalore and sold her to accused No.2 at Mathikere for Rs.2/- Lakhs for the purpose of prostitution and accused No.2 was not allowing the victim girl to go out of the house and she used to give torture to the victim girl to indulge in prostitution. The victim girl escaped from the said house and telephoned to her mother and on 15.9.2013 her mother came to Bangalore and when she was searching for mother, the BOSCO organization have rescued the victim girl. Hence, the complainant has requested to take action against accused Nos. 1 to 3. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case in Cr.No.329/2013 against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Secs. 372, 373, 341,370, 376, 342, 366(A) r/w Sec.34 of IPC, Secs.3, 4, 5, 6,7, 9 of ITP Act and Secs. 4, 8, 17 of POCSO Act 2012 and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, accused No.3 was arrested and he was taken to custody and remanded to judicial custody. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were shown as absconded. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer has submitted charge-sheet against all the 3 accused persons showing accused Nos.1 and 2 as absconded.
5 Spl CC No.570/20144. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused No.3 on 08.09.2014 thereby he was remanded to the judicial custody. Thereafter as per the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated: 04.02.2015 , the accused was released on bail. As per the provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, copies of the charge-sheet furnished to the accused. Accordingly charge is framed, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty, claims to be tried. Accordingly, the trial is fixed, summons issued to the prosecution witnesses.
5. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as PWs-1 to 14 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14, besides marking MOs-1 to 5. Thereafter Statement of the accused recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the incriminating evidence told to him, but he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf and no documents are marked.
6. 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, accused No.3 along with accused No.2 with common intention to earn the amount by running the brothel, having knowledge that accused No.1 brought the victim minor girl from West Bengal by kidnapping her, and sold her to accused No.2 for Rs.2 lakh, and brought her to Bangalore for the purpose of using her as a prostitute and wrongfully confined her in a house situated in 16th Cross, 1st Main, Mattikere Gokula 6 Spl CC No.570/2014 layout, Bangalore, belonging to one Krishnappa and wrongfully restrained her, and thereby accused No.3 has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.344 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, accused No.3 along with accused No.2 with common intention bought the victim minor girl who is under the age of 18 years for Rs.2 lakhs with the intention that the said victim minor girl shall be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with a person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, thereby accused No.3 has committed an offence punishable U/sec.373 r/w 34 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that accused No.3 along with accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention wrongfully confined the victim minor girl in a house referred above, used the said premises as brothel and assisted accused No.2 in keeping or managing the brothel thereby accused No.3 has committed an offence punishable U/sec.3 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and under Sec.17 of POCSO Act 2012 ?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves that accused No.3 along with accused No.2 with common intention wrongfully confined victim minor girl in the premises referred above and used her as a prostitute, in order to earn the money and lived on the earnings of the prostitution, thereby accused No.3 committed an offence punishable U/sec.4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 ?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves that accused No.3 along with accused No.2 with common intention detained the victim minor girl in a rented premises belonging to one Krishnappa with intent that such victim girl may have sexual intercourse with a person who is not the spouse of such victim girl, thereby committed an offence U/sec.6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 ?
6. What Order?7 Spl CC No.570/2014
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 5: In the Negative, Point No .6: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NOS.1 TO 5:- 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.
9. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in order to prove the prosecution case totally 14 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 14 and 14 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P14, besides marking MOs-1 to 5. Though the victim girl and her mother and other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution that this accused is also involved in the commission of the offence but the court has to look into the facts and 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 and Investigating Officer 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 No.3, recorded statements drawn mahazar finally after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3. This evidence is not contradicted by the counsel for the accused. Apart from that, according to Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012, there is burden casted 8 Spl CC No.570/2014 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 No.3 has to be convicted and he prays to convict the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The victim girl and her mother 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 and the Investigating Officer, the court cannot convict the accused No.3 for the offences as alleged. Hence, the learned counsel for the accused No.3 prays to acquit the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
11. 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 14 witnesses, out of them, PW1/CW1 is the complainant who has set the criminal law into motion by filing the complaint as per Ex.P1. PW2/CW2 is the victim girl. PW3/CW3 is the mother of the victim girl .
PW4/CW6 is the employer of accused No.3 PW5/CW8 is the Police 9 Spl CC No.570/2014 official. PW6/CW17 is the FSL Officer. PW7/PW16 is the Lady doctor who has examined the victim girl physically. PW8/CW12 is the witness to Mahazar as per Ex.P9. PW9/CW13 is also one of the witness to Mahazar as per Ex.P9. PW10/CW15 is the witness to Mahazar as per Ex.P10. PW11/CW22 is the Police Inspector/ Preliminary Investigation Officer of this case. PW12/CW18 is the Woman HC who has deposed about taking the victim girl to Vani Vilas Hospital for medical examination. PW13/CW19 is the Head Constable and PW14/CW23 is the Police Inspector/ Final Investigation Officer of this case. In support of the case, the prosecution has also produced the following documents: Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the statement of PW2/ victim girl given before the police. Ex.P3 is the Study Certificate of PW2/ victim girl. Ex.P4 is the Statement of PW2/ victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P5 is the statement of PW3 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C . Ex.P6 is the FSL Report. Ex.P7 is the sample seal. Ex.P8 is the Provisional Examination Report of PW2/ victim girl. Ex.P9 is the Spot Panchanama. Ex.P10 is also the Spot Panchanama. Ex.P11 is the FIR. Ex.P12 is the Police notice. Ex.P13 is the Report and Ex.P14 is also the Report.
12. Now coming to the evaluation of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses , I would like to take up firstly the evidence given by the complainant/ PW1-M.S.Kaulapur who is the Police Officer. In his evidence before the court, he has stated that, on 17.9.2013, in the morning at 11 A.M., he was secured by his 10 Spl CC No.570/2014 higher officer who gave him a letter to go to BOSCO to help the victim girl who was rescued. After seeing the letter, he came to know that, the victim girl was minor in age and she was trafficked and she belonged to West Bengal State and the said BOSCO had recorded the statement of the victim girl. According to the statement of the victim girl, 5 months prior to 16.9.2013 when she was going by bus to her grandmother's house, accused No. 1 who was sitting besides her gave her an injection, as a result of which she fell unconscious and accused No.1 took her to a Lodge at Kolkatta for 10 days along with him and during such period, accused No.1 committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and he brought the victim girl to Bangalore and sold her to accused No.2 who was residing at Mathikere for Rs.2 Lakhs for the purpose of prostitution. Accused No.2 kept her in her house and used the victim girl for prostitution and she was not allowing the victim girl to go out of the house. On 15.9.2013, the victim girl escaped from the house of accused No.2 and she called her to her mother through phone and when she was searching for her mother, the BOSCO organization rescued her. On the basis of the said statement given by the victim girl, he [PW1] lodged a complaint to the police which is as per Ex.P1 and his signature is as per Ex.P1(a). The statement given by the victim girl before the BOSCO is marked as per Ex.P2 and the study certificate of the victim girl is as per Ex.P3. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused in length. In his cross- examination he has denied that, in order to implicate accused No.3 in this case, he has filed false complaint. He has stated that, as 11 Spl CC No.570/2014 told by him Ex.P1, he has not conducted any investigation against accused No.3.
13. PW2 is the victim girl. In her evidence before the court she has deposed that, during the year 2013, she was aged 17 years. She has not identified accused No.3 in the accused platform located in the court hall. She has deposed about accused Nos.1 and 2 that accused No.1 had made her unconscious by giving an injection and took her to a Hotel near Howra, Kolkatta and kept her in the said lodge for 10 days and during that period, he had committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Thereafter, accused No.1 telephoned to accused No.2 and secured her to Howra station and from there, accused Nos. 1 and 2 brought her to Bangalore and kept her in a house and used her for prostitution. Accused No.2 was not allowing her to go out of the house. When she was staying with accused No.2, she [PW2] had not met accused No.3. She has further deposed that, she has not stated anything before the Learned Magistrate against accused No.3. Accused No.3 had not come to the house of accused No.2 and he never received any tips. She has identified her signature on Ex.P4 which is the statement given by her before the Learned Magistrate and her signature is as per Ex.P4(a). She do not have anything to say against this accused No.3. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and she was subjected to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, inspite of knowing that accused No.3 is the friend of accused No.2, but she is deposing falsely. She has also denied 12 Spl CC No.570/2014 that, accused No.3 used to forcible snatch the tips money from her. She has also denied that, she has compromised with accused No.3 and deposing falsely in order to help accused No.3. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused No.3.
14. PW3-S.R.Mondal is the mother of the victim girl. In her evidence before the court she has stated that victim girl is her eldest daughter. During the year 2013, her daughter was aged 17 years. She has not identified accused No.3 in the accused platform located in the court hall. She has further deposed that, she has not given any statement against accused No.3. his witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and she was subjected to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, she has given statement against accused No.3 which is as per Ex.P5. She has also deposed that, inspite of knowing all the things, she has compromised with accused No.3 and deposing falsely in order to help accused No.3. This witness was cross-examine by learned counsel for the accused No.3.
15. PW4-Gopal is the employer of accused No.3 . In his evidence he has deposed that, he knows accused No.3, as he was working under him from 2008 for a period of 4 to 5 years . During the year 2014, he had kept accused No.3 along with him for his assistance in his work. About 5 to 6 years back to the giving of his evidence, the Cottonpet police had come near his house and took the accused to their custody and the police had told him that, with 13 Spl CC No.570/2014 regard to case regarding girls, they are arresting the accused. Other than this, he do not know anything. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination he has admitted that, the accused was working under him. He has also admitted that, the police have not told anything to him about this case.
16. Now coming to the evidence of Mahazar witnesses, among them, PW8-Afsar Pasha and PW9- Karthik . In their evidence before the court, when Mahazar-Ex.P9 was confronted to them, they have identified their signatures as Ex.P9(a) and P9(b). During the year 2013, they have signed on Ex.P9 in Bangalore City Railway station . These 2 witnesses were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused No.3. In their cross-examination, hey have admitted that, they do not know the contents of Ex.P9.
17. PW10-Nagesh is a witness to spot mahazar as per Ex.P10. when Mahazar-Ex.10 was confronted to him, he has identified his signature as Ex.P10(a) . He do not know the accused. He has not read the contents of Ex.P10. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and subjected him to cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has denied that inspite of knowing all the things, he is deposing falsely in order to help accused No.3. This witness was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused No.3.
14 Spl CC No.570/201418. Now coming to the evidence given by the doctors, among them, PW6-Dr.Malathi, FSL Officer, Madiwala, Bangalore, has deposed in her evidence that on 23.10.2014, she has chemically examined the 5 sealed articles sent to her in this case and given her opinion as per Ex.P6 and her signature is as per Ex.P6(a). The Sample seal is as per Ex.P7 and her signature is as per Ex.P7(a). She has identified 5 sealed articles as per MOS-1 to 5. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
19. PW7-Dr.Sarojini in her evidence before the court has deposed that, on 18.9.2013 at 3 P.M., she has examined the victim girl aged about 17 years sent by Cottonpet Police through WPSI and WPC with the history of sexual assault by accused No.1. She eqnuired with the victim girl and after taking the consent of the victim girl, she has examined the victim girl. On physical examination, the victim girl was developed according to her age. On genital examination, the Hymen of the victim girl was not intact, old multiple tears were present. Accordingly she has issued the Provisional Report which is as per Ex.P8 and her signature is as per Ex.P8(a). The FSL Report is as per Ex.P6. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused No.3.
20. Now coming to the evidence of the police officials, out of them PW5-Prasanna Kumar, CID, Bangalore, has deposed before the court that, on 17.9.2013, he along with CW1 went to BOSCO to enquire with the victim girl of this case who was rescued by 15 Spl CC No.570/2014 BOSCO . At that time, the victim girl had told that, she hails from West Bengal, during the year 2013, in the month of February when she was going by bus to her grandmother's house, at that time, the accused No.1 who was sitting besides her, gave her injection and she fell unconscious and the accused No.1 took her to a Lodge at Kolkatta and kept her there with him for 10 days and during the said period of 10 days, the accused No.1 committed rape / aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Thereafter accused No.1 brought the victim girl to Bangalore and sold her to accused No.2 for Rs.2 lakhs and accused No.2 along with accused No.3 confined the victim girl in her house and used the victim girl for prostitution and somehow the victim girl managed to escape from their hands. Thus, this witness has performed his statutory duties. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
21. PW11- Jagadish.H.S, Police Inspector/ Preliminary Investigation Officer of this case in his evidence before the court has deposed that, on 17.9.2013, in the evening at 4 P.M., when he was incharge of the station duty, the complainant / CW1 appeared before him and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 and his signature is as per Ex.P1(b). He received the complaint, prepared FIR and registered a case in Cr.No.329/2013. The FIR is as per Ex.P11 and his signature is as per Ex.P11(a). Thereafter he sent the FIR to the jurisdictional court and copy of the same to his higher officers. CW1 had produced the victim girl along with the complaint. On 18.9.2013, he sent the victim girl to the Medical examination along 16 Spl CC No.570/2014 with CW18. Thereafter he conducted spot mahazar which is as per Ex.P9 and his signature is as per Ex.P9(c). He has obtained the medical report of the victim girl as per Ex.P8. Thereafter he has handed over the case file to CW23 for further investigation. Thereby, this witness has performed his statutory duties as the Preliminary Investigation Officer of this case. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused No.3. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, CW1 had not appeared before him to lodge the complaint. He has also denied that, he is deposing falsely without conducting any investigation. He has also denied that , as per the say of his higher officers, he is deposing falsely.
22. PW12-Padma, Woman HC in her evidence before the court has stated that, on 23.9.2013 as per the instructions given by CW22, she has taken the victim girl to Vani Vilas Hospital, Bangalore for medical examination. After the medical examination of the victim girl, she returned to the police station along with Medical Report as well as 5 sealed articles given by the doctor and handed over it CW22 and in this regard, she has given the Report to CW22 and the said Report is as per Ex.P13 and her signature is as per Ex.P13(b). Thereby, this witness has performed her statutory duty by taking the victim girl to the medical test. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused No.3.
17 Spl CC No.570/201423. PW13-Shankar Gowda, Head Constable in his evidence before the court has deposed that, on 3.10.2013 as per the instructions of CW23, he has taken the 5 sealed articles of this case and handed over it to FSL, Bangalore and received acknowledgement and produced the said acknowledgement before the Police Inspector and given his statement. Thereby this witness has performed his statutory duty. This witness was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused No.3. In his cross- examination, he has denied that, he has handed over the sealed articles to FSL. He has also denied that as per the say of his higher officers, he has given false Report.
24. PW14-Sunil Kumar.V, is the Police Inspector/ Final Investigation Officer of this case. In his evidence before the court, he has deposed that, on 27.9.2013, he has received the case file of this case from CW22 and verified it. On 28.9.2013, he continued with further investigation and sent the victim girl before Learned Magistrate for recording her statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. On 3.10.2013, he sent the sealed articles of the victim girl. Thereafter he has recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 8.4.2014, he deputed his staffs to trace out the accused persons and his staffs have apprehended accused No.3 and produced before him and he has recorded his voluntary statement. On 9.9.2014, he has conducted spot mahazar of the place of incident. On 11.9.2014, he has recorded the statements of CWS-5 and 6. On 14.9.2014, he has obtained the school documents of the victim girl which is as per Ex.P3 On 25.10.2104, he has received the FSL 18 Spl CC No.570/2014 Report and as the investigation was completed, he has filed charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Thereby this witness has performed his statutory duty as the Final Investigation Officer of this case. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has not recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has further denied that, inspite of no case against accused No.3, he has filed false charge-sheet. He has denied that, he has created all the documents.
25. Considering the evidence of the above referred prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of PW2/ victim girl wherein she has deposed in her chief examination itself that, she has not met accused No.3 when she was in the house of the accused No.2. Even she has stated that, she as not told anything against accused No.3 before the Learned Magistrate. Even PW3 the mother of the victim girl has denied in her cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that, accused No.3 along with accused No.2 used to send her daughter/ victim girl to other houses to do the illegal act. When these 2 material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution that, this accused No.3 along with accused No.2 was sending the victim girl to other houses for the purpose of indulging in prostitution by the victim girl,, the evidence of other witnesses like Medical Officers or Police Officers cannot be held sufficient to hold that accused No.3 has committed the alleged crime against the Victim girl. Even PW1/complainant who has lodged a complaint against 19 Spl CC No.570/2014 accused Nos.1 to 3, when subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused he has stated that, he has not conducted any investigation against accused No.3 and he has not obtained the details of father of accused No.3 or his residential address. Hence, there is no chain to link the accused No.3 with the alleged crime. Though the evidence of the Medical Officers, police officials and Investigation Officer are corroborative that, the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault and the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and the accused No.3 was arrested, but, they do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as accused No.3 has nothing to do with the sexual assault on the victim girl, as the victim girl has been subjected to rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault by accused No.1. Even the evidence of mahazar witnesses is not helpful to the case of the prosecution as because they have not stated anything against this accused No.3 except identifying their signatures on the Mahazars. When PWS-1 to 3 being the complainant, victim girl and her mother have not deposed anything as against accused No.3 that accused No.3 has used the victim girl for the purpose of prostitution and earning money from the said prostitution and that the victim girl was rescued from the clutches of accused Nos.2 and 3, due to lack of evidence against accused No.3, he is entitled for an order of acquittal from the hands of this court. Thus, I held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 to 5 in the Negative.
20 Spl CC No.570/201426. At this stage, it appears that, in the present case, the Investigating Officer has not yet filed charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 though he stated in the charge-sheet submitted before this court that, he will file separate charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2. According to the evidence of the Victim girl, she had been subjected to sexual assault by accused No.1 though she has not identified accused No.3 and the prosecution failed to prove the alleged crime against accused No.3 but the benefit under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012 cannot be denied to the Victim girl. Thereby, the Victim girl is entitled for compensation.
27. POINT NO.6:-:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 5 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit accused No.3 by name Judishter Mespuri @ Raju of the offences punishable under Secs.344, 373 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, under Secs. 3, 4 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act ,1956 and under Sec.17 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.3 stands cancelled.21 Spl CC No.570/2014
Send a copy of this Judgment to District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru to award victim compensation to PW2/ victim girl of this case as provided under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the
computer, corrected carried out and then pronounced
by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of
February, 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:
PW.1 M.S.Kaulpure CW1 6.9.2016
PW.2 Victim girl CW2 5.11.2018
PW.3 S.R.Mondal CW3 5.11.2018
PW.4 Gopal CW6 7.6.2019
PW.5 Prasanna Kumar CW8 16.7.2019
PW.6 Dr.Malathi.D CW17 13.8.2019
PW.7 Dr.Sarojini CW16 20.9.2019
PW.8 Afshar Pasha CW12 27.9.2019
PW.9 Karthik CW13 27.9.2019
PW.10 Nagesh CW15 11.10.2019
PW.11 Jagadish H.S CW22 19.10.2019
22 Spl CC No.570/2014
PW.12 Padma CW18 29.11.2019
PW.13 Shankar Gowda CW19 20.1.2020
PW.14 Sunil Kumar.V CW23 3.2.2020
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint dated: 17.9.2013 lodged by the
complainant /PW1
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P2 Statement of PW2/ victim girl
Ex.P3 Study Certificate of PW2/ victim girl showing
the date of birth of PW2/ victim girl as
17.10.1995
Ex.P4 Statement of PW2/ victim girl given before the
Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW2/ victim girl Ex.P5 Statement of PW3 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P6 FSL Report Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P6(b) Signature of Assistant Director of FSL Ex.P7 Sample seal Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P8 Provisional Examination Report of PW2/ victim girl Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P9 Spot Panchanama Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P9(b) Signature of PW9 Ex.P9(c) Signature of PW11 Ex.P9(d) Signature of BOSCO- SJPU Ex.P10 Spot Panchanama Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P10(b) Signature of PW14 Ex.P11 FIR Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P12 Police Notice Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW11 23 Spl CC No.570/2014 Ex.P13 Report given by PW12 regarding taking PW2/ victim girl to Vani Vilas Hospital and collecting the articles of PW2/ victim girl and producing them before the Police Inspector of complainant police station Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P13(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P14 Report given by PC-Muniraju-CW20 regarding tracing out accused No.3 and apprehending him and producing him before the Police Inspector of complainant police station Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P14(b) Signature of CW20 Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MOS-1 to 5 5 sealed articles Witness examined, documents, MOs marked for the accused: NIL [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.24 Spl CC No.570/2014
17.2.2020 Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit accused No.3 by name Judishter Mespuri @ Raju of the offences punishable under Secs.344, 373 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, under Secs. 3, 4 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act ,1956 and under Sec.17 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.3 stands cancelled.
Send a copy of this Judgment to District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru to award victim compensation to PW2/ victim girl of this case as provided under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012.25 Spl CC No.570/2014
Issue intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned to report this court about the further action taken against accused No.1 and 2 and the progress of investigation against them.
[R.SHARADA]] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.26 Spl CC No.570/2014