Bangalore District Court
State By Magadi Road Police vs Prakash.A on 7 November, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 7 th day of , November, 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.420/2017
COMPLAINANT: State by Magadi Road Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Prakash.A,
Son of Anjanamurthy,
Aged 21 years,
No.8, 'C' Street, 2nd Cross,
Near Government school,
Gopalapura, Magadi Road,
Bangalore.
[By Advocate Ms.Shilpashree.T.S. ]
1. Date of commission of offence 29.5.2017
2. Date of report of occurrence 29.5.2017
of the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 31.05.2017
Date of release of the accused
23.09.2017
on bail
3 Months 22 days
Period undergone by the
accused in the judicial
custody
2 Spl CC No.420/2017
4. Date of commencement of 7.2.2019
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 14.10.2020
6. Name of the complainant Sri.Muniraju, complainant as well as the father of
victim girl.
7. Offences complained of Secs. 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Secs. 4
[As per charge-sheet] and 6 of POCSO Act 2012
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, Magadi Road police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366, 376 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 father of the victim girl had lodged a missing complaint stating that, his daughter/ victim girl aged 17 years that on 29.5.2017 in the evening at 5 P.M., went out of the house, but, did not turn up. Inspite of her search, she was not traced out. The complainant suspected that the accused herein might have kidnapped his daughter. Hence, the complainant requested to trace out his daughter. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case in Cr.No.134/2017 for the offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the complainant police have traced out the victim girl on 31.5.2017 3 Spl CC No.420/2017 and on her enquiry, she revealed that, the accused was loving her since 6 to 7 years when she was going and coming from the school. This fact was within the knowledge of the family members of the victim girl as well as the accused. The family members of the victim girl were trying to get her married to another person, so she informed this fact to the accused, so the accused told that they would go elsewhere and get married. So on 29.5.2017 in the evening in between 4 to 5 P.M., the victim girl told in the house that she is going downstairs of the house, and came out of the house, and telephoned to the accused and asked the accused to come near Star Bazaar, likewise, the accused came near Star Bazaar and from there, they both went to Dharmasthala and on the next day, in the morning ie., on 30.5.2017 in the morning at 6 A.M., they reached Dharmasthala and in the said temple they got married . On the same day ie.., on 30.5.2017 in the morning at 8 A.M., they left Dharmasthala and went to Kotitopu at Tumkur to the house of junior aunt of the accused and in the said house at night hours, the accused had sexual intercourse with her. Even on 31.5.2017 the accused had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. On 31.5.2017, the mother of the accused telephoned to him and told to come back to Bengaluru as there was some quarrel going on, so, they both came to Bengaluru and later she was taken to the police station. Hence, on the basis of the said statement of the victim girl the Investigating Officer has inserted Secs. 366, 376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and continued with the investigation by arresting the accused on 31.05.2017 and taking him to remand and remanded him to the judicial custody.
4 Spl CC No.420/2017Thereafter the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, he has submitted charge-sheet against the accused which is numbered as Spl CC No.420/2017. Thereafter by the Orders of this court dated: 23.09.2017, the accused was released on bail.
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 7 witnesses as PWs-1 to 7 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to 16 besides marking MOS-1 to 6. 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 denied all the incriminating evidence told to him, but to the question put by the court that whether he has anything to say, he has stated that, he has got married with the victim girl and his marriage is also registered and out of the said wedlock, a baby girl is born to them and now the baby is aged 11 months and he has got marked one document which is the Marriage Certificate as Ex.D1.
5 Spl CC No.420/20175. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, at this stage, following Points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the prosecution proves that, on 20.5.2017, in the evening at 5.30 P.M., the accused by knowing that CW2/ victim girl was minor in age, took her from Rajajinagar to Dharmasthala , 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 not only took CW2/ victim girl to Dharmasthala, but on 30.5.2017, in the morning at about 6 A.M., he got married the victim girl by tying thali around her neck in front of the Temple, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.4 of Child Marriage Restraint Act?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused not only kidnapped CW2/ victim girl but took her to Dharmasthala and got her married, then took her to the house of CW4 and stayed there in the said house and during the night hours, despite her refusal, the accused committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and
6 of POCSO Act 2012 ?
4) What Order?
6 Spl CC No.420/20176. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 3: In the Negative, Point No .4: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 TO 3:- These Points are inter-linked to each other, hence, they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in order to prove the prosecution case totally 7 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 7 and 16 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to 16 besides marking MOS-1 to 6 . Though the victim girl and her parents have not supported the case of the prosecution 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 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. Even the doctor who has conducted physical examination of the victim girl has supported the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault 7 Spl CC No.420/2017 by 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 parents have not supported the case of 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, Investigating Officer and the Lady Doctor who physically examined the victim girl the court cannot convict the accused for the offences as alleged. Hence, 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 7 witnesses, out of them, PW1/CW1 is the complainant as well as the father of the 8 Spl CC No.420/2017 victim girl. PW2/CW2 is the victim girl. PW3/CW3 is the mother of the victim girl. PW4/CW13 is the Lady doctor who has examined the victim girl physically. PW5/CW19 is the Police Inspector/ Investigating Officer of this case. PW6/CW15 is the Woman PC who has taken the victim girl of this case to Victoria Hospital for medical examination and PW7/ CW11 is the Woman PSI who has recorded the statement of the victim girl. In support of his case, the learned Public Prosecutor has also produced the following documents: Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the statement of PW1 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 is the statement of the victim girl given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C.Ex.P4 is the statement of the victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P5 is the statement of the mother of victim girl given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is the Certificate of date of birth of the victim girl. Ex.P7 is the Medical certificate of the accused. Ex.P8 is the Provisional Medical Report of the victim girl. Ex.P9 is the official Memorandum. Ex.P10 is the Acknowledgement issued by RFSL, Mysuru. Ex.P11 is the FSL Report. Ex.P12 is the sample seal. Ex.P13 is the Requisition. Ex.P14 is the Report. Ex.P15 is the Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P16 is the Panchanama.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has produced the Marriage Certificate of the accused and the victim girl which is marked as Ex.D1.
9 Spl CC No.420/201712. Now coming to the evaluation of the evidence given the above referred prosecution witnesses , I would like to take up firstly the evidence given by PW1 who is the complainant as well as the father of the victim girl. In his evidence before the court, PW1 has deposed that, CW2 is his daughter. He knows the accused and he has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. About 1 ½ years to 2 years back to the date of giving his evidence before the court, he had lodged a complaint as because the accused had taken his daughter along with him at that time, his daughter was studying in 10 th standard and she was 17 years of age. The house of the accused is situated nearby his house and he is residing with his parents. He further deposed that, his daughter used to go to the school at 11.30 A.M., and she used to return by 4 to 5 P.M.. CW2 is his eldest daughter. About 2 years back to the date of giving his evidence, his daughter had gone out of the house for bathroom, but, she did not return. This fact came to light in the evening and inspite of search, he did not trace out his daughter. So, he lodged a complaint and the said Complaint is as per Ex.P1 and his signature is as per Ex.P1(a). After 3 to 4 days of lodging the complaint, the police had brought her daughter to the police station and the police had telephoned him and he and his wife went to the police station and found that the accused and his daughter were in the police station. He enquired with his daughter, but, his daughter did not tell anything. The police told that the accused had taken his daughter and he had tied thali to his daughter. Now his daughter is in the house of the accused. He has told all these things to the police and given 10 Spl CC No.420/2017 his Further Statement which is as per Ex.P2 and his signature is as per Ex.P2(a). This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
13. PW2 is the victim girl herself. In her evidence before the court she has stated that CWS-1 and 3 are her parents. Her father had lodged a complaint at that time, she was aged 17 years. She knows the accused and she has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. She further deposed that, during the year December-2018, her marriage was performed with the accused and she is staying with the accused. During the year 2017, she went along with the accused to Dharmasthala. At that time, her parents had decided to get her married to another boy, she was not liking that, so she took the accused to Dharmasthala and got married there. Her father had lodged the complaint. After 2 days, herself and the accused came to the police station and the police enquired with her and her parents were also there. When the police enquired with her, she told that she wants the accused. Thereafter she was sent to the doctor and her mother had also accompanied her. She has identified the statement given by her to the police, which is as per Ex.P3 and her signature is as per Ex.P3(a) and the signature of her mother is as per Ex.P3(b). She has sent before the Learned Magistrate there also she has given her statement and she has not stated anything against the accused in the statement. The said Statement of the victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C is as per Ex.P4 and her signature is as per Ex.P4(a). she 11 Spl CC No.420/2017 has not stated that, the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her before the Learned Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, on 29.5.2017, the accused had taken her to Dharmasthala. But she herself had gone. As there was no proper documents, the accused did not marry her in the Temple, but he tied thali around her neck besides the temple. She has admitted that, on 30.5.2017, the accused took her to Kotitopu, at Tumkuru to his junior aunt's house. But, she has denied that on the said date and on the next date, the accused committed rape on her. She has denied that, she has give statement as per Ex.P3. She has also denied that, as the accused is her husband, she is deposing falsely, as her future will be affected. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination she has admitted that, now her marriage has been performed with the accused as per their wish. The accused has not taken her anywhere forcibly. She is living happily with the accused and she is 4 months pregnant. The accused who is before the court is her husband. In her cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, she has denied that, the clothes shown to her is not belongs to her. She has also denied that, the accused took her to Dharmasthala and tied thali around her neck and thereafter he took her to his uncle's house and there they stated for 2 days. She has also denied that, at that time, the accused had physical contact with her. She has deposed that, for the past 3 years back to the date of giving her evidence before the court, she knows the 12 Spl CC No.420/2017 accused and for the past 1 year she and the accused started loving each other and now she is residing in the house of accused and she is 4 months pregnant. Her parents are not in cordial terms with her. Before registering of this case, her parents were in cordial terms with her, after they are not in cordial terms. She has denied that, she has married the accused as because none will marry her, after this case has been registered. She has also denied that, she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused on 11.3.2020. In her cross-examination, she has stated that, as on the date of giving her evidence, she is aged 21 years and herself and the accused have agreed and got married and out of the said wedlock, she is having 4 months girl baby and the accused is looking after her nicely and their marriage is also registered and the said Marriage Certificate is as per Ex.D1.
14. PW3 is the mother of the victim girl. In her evidence before the court she has deposed that, CW1 is her husband and CW2 is her eldest daughter. The complaint is lodged by her and her husband as because her daughter was not found. She knows the accused and he is staying nearby her house and she has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. At that time, her daughter was aged 17 years and she was studying in 9th standard. She had advised her daughter as her daughter was in love with this accused and her daughter had also heeded to her advise. Her daughter had eloped with the accused so she had lodged the complaint, 4 days after lodging the complaint her 13 Spl CC No.420/2017 daughter was traced out, the police had called them and they had gone to the police station and there her daughter and the accused and his family members were there. Herself and her husband did not talk with their daughter. Even her daughter had also not told anything. She has not given any complaint. Other than this , she do not have anything to say. This witness was treated as partly hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and subjected her to cross- examination. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that, she has given statement before the police and in the said statement she has stated that, the accused telephoned to her daughter and secured her and they both went to Dharmasthala. She has also admitted that, on 30.5.2017, her daughter and the accused got married. But she has denied that, thereafter the accused took her daughter to Kotitopu, located at Tumkuru to his junior aunt's house and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her daughter. She has denied that, as read over to her, she has given statement. The said Statement is as per Ex.P5. She has further denied that, though she has given statement as per Ex.P5, as the accused is the husband of her daughter, she is deposing falsely, as it would affect the future life of her daughter. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she has stated that, the victim girl is her daughter, at the time of giving her evidence before the court, her daughter is aged 21 years. She knows the accused . The accused has married her daughter and their marriage is also registered and now out of the said wedlock, a baby girl is born to them and the accused is looking after her daughter nicely.
14 Spl CC No.420/201715. Now coming to the evidence given by the Medical Officer. PW4 is the Lady Doctor who has deposed before the court in her evidence that, on 31.5.2017 at 7.50 P.M., she has examined the victim girl sent by Magadi Road Police through WPC accompanied by her mother and her aunt with the history of kidnap and rape. She enquired with the victim girl and her mother. The victim girl was aged about 17 years at the time of her medical examination as told by the victim girl herself in the presence of her mother. After taking consent of the victim girl and her mother, she has examined the victim girl. On physical examination, she found that the victim girl was developed according to her age. On genital examination, she found that the Hymen was in-tact. Accordingly she has issued Provisional Report as per Ex.P8 and her signature is as per Ex.P8(a). She has identified the 6 articles collected from the victim girl at the time of her medical examination. 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 examined the victim girl physically. She has also denied that, she has given false Report as per Ex.P8. She has also denied that, the 6 articles collected by her from the victim girl at the time of her medical examination does not belong to the victim girl. She has also denied that, she has given false Report in order to assist the Investigating Officer.
15 Spl CC No.420/201716. Now coming to the evidence given by the police officials, firstly I would like to take up the evidence given by PW6 who is the woman PC. PW6 in her evidence before the court has deposed that, on 30.5.2017, as per the orders of CW18, she has taken the victim girl of this case to Victoria Hospital for medical examination and after her medical examination, she has produced the victim girl before the Investigating Officer. She has further deposed that, again on 13.6.2017, as per the orders of CW18, she has collected the articles belonging to the victim girl from Victoria Hospital and given Report before the Investigating Officer. The said Report is as per Ex.P14 and her signature is as per Ex.P14(a). 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 taken the victim girl to the hospital for medical examination. She has also denied that, she do not know anything about this case. She has also denied that, she has given Ex.P14 as per the say of the Investigating Officer. She has also denied that, in order to give trouble to the accused, she is deposing falsely. She has also denied that, the accused do not have anything to do with this case.
17. PW7 is the Woman PSI. In her evidence before the court she has deposed that, on 31.5.2017, as per the Request of CW18, she has recorded the statement of the victim girl as told by the victim girl. The said Statement is as per Ex.P3 and her signature is as per Ex.P3(c). She has recorded the statement as told to her by 16 Spl CC No.420/2017 the victim girl. She can identified the victim girl if shown to her. 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, without recording the statement of the victim girl as per Ex.P3, she is deposing falsely. She has also denied that, even though the accused has not committed any wrong act, but as per the say of her higher officers, she is deposing falsely.
18. PW5 is the Police Inspector/ Investigating Officer of this case. In his evidence before the court, he has deposed that, on 29.5.2017, CW18 had registered the above case and he had given information to him. During the month of July 2017, he has received the case file of this case for further investigation. He has sent the sealed articles of this case to RFSL, Mysore for examination along with CW13 and CW13 has also given acknowledgement in this regard and the said Acknowledgement is as per Ex.P10 and his signature is as per Ex.P10(a). After completion of investigation, he has filed charge-sheet against the accused. On 6.1.2018, he has received the FSL Report which is as per Ex.P11 and his signature is as per Ex.P11(a) and the sample seal is as per Ex.P12 and his signature is as per Ex.P12(a). The Requisition is as per Ex.P13 and his signature is as per Ex.P13(a). He can identify the accused if shown to him. Thereby, this witness has performed her statutory duty. This witness was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-
17 Spl CC No.420/2017examination, he has admitted that, CW18 is the Preliminary Investigating Officer of this case, but, he has denied that, he do not know anything about this case. He has also denied that, he has filed false charge-sheet against the accused. He has also denied that, he is deposing falsely before this court.
19. Considering the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of the victim girl and her parents all these 3 witness have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused eloped the victim girl, took her along with him to Dharmasthala, got married her and kept her in his junior aunt's house at Kotitopu, Tumukuru and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly, knowing fully well that the victim girl was a minor. Hence, there is no chain to link the accused with the alleged crime. Of course, PW1 and PW3 being the parents of the victim girl have deposed that the accused had eloped their daughter/ victim girl but further deposed that this information is given by the police to them, the victim girl did not tell anything to them. Hence, on the basis of this evidence, the accused cannot be punished even under Sec.366 of IPC. Though the evidence of the police officials are corroborative , the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault by the accused and the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and the accused was arrested, but, they do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as because PWs-1 to 3 have totally turned hostile to 18 Spl CC No.420/2017 the prosecution case and they have not supported the prosecution case. The Lady doctor who has physically examined the victim girl and given the Medical Report and opined that, the hymen of the victim girl was in-tact and given her Report as per Ex.P8. Though the Woman PSI has been examined before the court as PW7, who has recorded the statement of the victim girl as told by the victim girl to her, but this witness is only a hear-say witness as told to her by the victim girl, but when the Victim girl herself has not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of this witness is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
20. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the accused and the victim girl are married and they are living under one roof and their marriage is also registered and out of the said wedlock, a baby girl is born to them and the accused is looking after them nicely, hence, on this ground the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the accused has produced the Marriage Certificate of the victim girl and the accused which discloses that the accused and the victim girl married on 8.3.2019 and their marriage is registered on 27.1.2020.
21. On looking into the Marriage Certificate, it discloses that, the accused and the victim girl are married and their marriage is also registered and they are living as husband and wife under one roof. It appears after lodging the complaint, this development has been taken between the accused and the Victim girl thereby, the 19 Spl CC No.420/2017 material witnesses have not come forward to un-earth the whole set of facts of the crime. Further it appears that, PW1 and PW3 being the parents of the victim girl might have back-tracked from their version, somehow pacified themselves with an intention to see amicably family life of their daughter. Thereby, considering all these facts and circumstances of the case and want of clinching evidence to link the accused to the crime, and also further developments taken place between the Victim girl and the accused , I hold the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and 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 3 in the Negative.
22. In the present case, as per the discussions made by me herein above, the victim girl has deposed before the court that, the accused has not committed any sexual assault on her, besides that, she has married the accused and she is living happily with him under one roof, out of the said wedlock, she has begotten a baby girl and the accused is looking after her and the child nicely . Considering these aspects, I find no reasons to award compensation to the victim girl as per the provisions under 20 Spl CC No.420/2017 Rule 9 of POCSO Rules 2020, as such no compensation is awarded to the victim girl.
23. POINT NO.4:-:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 3 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Sec.363 of IPC, Sec.4 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, under Sec.376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
MOS-1 to 6 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of November, 2020] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.21 Spl CC No.420/2017
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Muniraju CW1 7.2.2019
PW2 Victim girl CW2 6.2.2019
PW3 Vijayalakshmi CW3 6.3.2019
PW4 Dr.Indumathi.H.K CW13 5.10.2020
PW5 Niranjan Kumar.C CW19 7.10.2020
PW6 Sharada CW15 7.10.2020
PW7 Geetha Lakshmi CW11 14.10.2020
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint dated: 29.5.2017 lodged by PW1/
complainant/ father of the victim girl to the
complainant police
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P2 Statement of the PW1 given before the
complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P3 Statement of PW2/ victim girl given before the
complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW2/ victim girl
Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P3(c) Signature of Pw7
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 Certificate of Birth of PW2/ victim girl issued
by the Principal, BBMP Pre-University College, Magadi Road, Bangalore, wherein PW2/ victim girl was studying showing the date of birth of PW2/ victim girl as 25.8.1999 [consent marked] Ex.P7 Medical certificate of accused [consent marked] Ex.P8 Provisional Medical report of PW2/ victim girl Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P9 Official Memorandum dated: 31.5.2017 Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW5 22 Spl CC No.420/2017 Ex.P10 Acknowledgement issued by RFSL, Mysuru Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P11 FSL Report Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P12 Sample seal Ex.P13 Requisition dated: 8.1.2018 given by the Police Inspector, complainant police station Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P14 Report given by PW6 to the PSI of the complainant police station with regard to collecting of articles from Victoria Hospital with regard to the victim girl Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P15 Seizure Panchanama [consent marked] Ex.P16 Panchanama [consent marked] Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-1 Black panty MO-2 Purple bra Mos-1(a) and 2(a) Signatures of PW4 MO-3 Sealed cover in Item No.1 MO-3(a) Signature of PW4 MO-4 Sealed cover in Item No.2 MO-4(a) Signature of PW4 MO-5 Sealed cover in Item No.3 MO-5(a) Signature of PW4 MO-6 Sealed cover in Item No.4 MO-6(a) Signature of PW4
Witness examined, MOs marked for the accused: NIL Documents marked for the accused : Ex.D1 Marriage Certificate of the accused and the victim girl [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.23 Spl CC No.420/2017
7.11.2020 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 under Sec.363 of IPC, Sec.4 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, under Sec.376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
The bail bond and surety bond of the
accused stands cancelled.
MOS-1 to 6 being worthless are ordered to
be destroyed after the appeal period is
over.
[R.SHARADA]]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.24 Spl CC No.420/2017