Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Sethu on 28 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY 2016
- : PRESENT : -
SMT.SHUBHA GOWDAR, B.A.LL.B,
LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
SPECIAL C.C.NO. 395/2015
COMPLAINANT :
The State of Karnataka by
Chamarajpet Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Represented by learned Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Sethu,
S/o.Bala ,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.148, (old No.165)
5th Cross, Near Shiva temple,
Anandapura, Mysore Road,
Bangalore City.
[Reptd by Sri. G.Muralidhar-
Advocate]
***
2 Spl.C.C.395/15
JUDGMENT
Chamarajpet Police, Bangalore City have charge sheeted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-B and 376 of I.P.C r/w Section 5(m), 6, 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :
CW-2 is the minor daughter of CW-1. She was studying in 3rd standard during the year 2015. CW-1 has 4 daughters, CW-2 is the third daughter. CW-3 is the second daughter. While CW-2 and 3 along with their eldest sister were playing in front of the house 10 days prior to 11.5.2015, accused who was the neighbour of CW-1, now residing in his own house situated in next cross came to the spot and asked CW-2 to bring rasam from her house. When she brought from her house he asked to keep in his house, she along with CW-3 went to his house and kept the sambar in his house. Thereafter, the accused took away CW-2 to the terrace where bath room is situated. Where he made an attempt to commit
3 Spl.C.C.395/15 rape/aggravated sexual assault on CW-2. By that time, CW-3 called CW-2, then he gave CW-2 Rs.50/- and asked her to comeback after sending CW-3 to the house. However, CW-2 after disclosing before CW-3 about the incident, both of them in fear returned to house. This fact was disclosed before eldest sister. But, they did not reveal this incident before their parents because of fear. On 11.5.2015 CW-1 after her returning from her duty was telling the story to her children in the evening, then the eldest daughter disclosed about the incident. She enquired CW-2. She revealed the entire incident. On next day, CW-1 disclosed before her husband. The neighbourers also on coming to know this incident asked her to lodge a complaint. Hence, CW-1 by taking CW-2 to the police station lodged a complaint against the accused. Investigating Officer registered the case and drew necessary mahazars. He had also recorded the statement of CW-2 and other witnesses. Accused was apprehended. CW-2 and accused were sent to hospital for medical examination. By completing investigation, he submitted charge sheet to the Court for the aforesaid offences.
4 Spl.C.C.395/15
3. The charge sheet submitted to this Court. Cognizance was taken and registered in Special C.C. Then learned Presiding Officer hearing both sides framed the charge for offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-B of I.P.C, Section 376 r/w Section 511 of I.P.C and under Section 5(m) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The same was read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, posted for prosecution evidence.
4. On prosecution side got examined as many as 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to 7 out of 19 charge sheet witnesses and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6(a). On closure of evidence on prosecution side, it was posted for accused statement. Accused statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded against accused. Accused has denied the whole incriminating evidence against him and he has not chosen to lead evidence on his side. It was posted for arguments.
5 Spl.C.C.395/15
5. Heard the arguments both sides. Perused and posted for Judgment.
6. When the case was at final stage, hearing as to alteration of charge so far as concerned to place of occurrence, in all charges and in last charge concerned to adding of Section 18 of POCSO Act, charge has been altered. The same was read over to the accused. He has pleaded not guilty. On both sides submit no further evidence, no further arguments. Hence, posted for Judgment.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused
8 to 10 days prior to 11.5.2015 between 11.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m had committed sexual harassment on CW-2 the child of CW-1 in the bath room at the terrace of the building of the 6 Spl.C.C.395/15 accused, punishable under Section 354-A of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused had used criminal force with intent to disrobing or compelling CW-2 to be naked, punishable under Section 354-B of I.P.C?
3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused had made an attempt to commit rape on CW-2, punishable under Section 376 r/w Section 511 of I.P.C?
4. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused had made an attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault on CW-2 below the age of 12 years, punishable under Section 5(m) and 6 r/w Section 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012?
7 Spl.C.C.395/15
5. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
Point No.2 : In the affirmative
Point No.3 to : As per final orders for the 5 following REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 4: These four points are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and discussions as they are relating to sexual offences and interconnected to each other.
10. The prosecution has made several allegations against the accused that PW-2 the victim girl was aged about 9 years as on the date of occurrence, she was studying in 3rd standard at that time. The accused had committed sexual harassment on PW-2, he made an attempt to commit rape, there is involvement of physical contact. Therefore, the charge sheet has been filed for offence under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 376 of 8 Spl.C.C.395/15 I.P.C and for offence punishable under Section 5(m), 6 and 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The charge has been framed for offences under Section 354-A, 354-B, 376 r/w Section 511 of I.P.C and under Section 5(m) r/w Section 6 r/w 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
11. According to prosecution accused is not a stranger to PW-2, the prosecutrix. Earlier he was neighbour, after he got constructed his own house, shifted to his own house situated in 6th cross which comes in the next street of PW-2's house. Therefore, PW-2 has acquaintance with accused. PW-1 has 4 daughters, i.e. CW-4, PW-3 Sandhya, PW-2, the victim girl and another daughter Pooja. The first 3 daughters have been residing with their parents, the last daughter is with parents of PW-1 Rathna, mother of the victim girl. The father of the victim girl is doing loading and unloading coolie work. PW-1, the mother of the victim girl who is complainant is working in bath brush factory situated in Goods Shed road. The first three daughters of PW-1 are going to the same school. 8 to 9 Spl.C.C.395/15 10 days prior to 11.5.2015, as usual PW-1 had gone to her work. She came back home at about 6.45 p.m. Her husband had not yet come home. She was telling the story to her 3 daughters, then eldest daughter disclosed about the incident taken place 8 to 10 days prior to 11.5.2015 between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m on that day. On an enquiry, PW-2 has stated that while they were playing in front of the house accused came, asked her to bring Rasam. After she brought the Rasam, asked her to keep in the kitchen of his house. PW-3 also accompanied PW-2 to the house of the accused. Thereafter accused took PW-2 to the terrace where the bathroom is situated. PW-3 had not gone to the terrace. PW-2 only was taken by the accused to the terrace with intent to commit sexual abuse on her. He used criminal force compelling her to be naked, he undressed himself, he had put one rattu, spread one clothe over it, made her lie on it, thereafter he lied over her. Then PW-3 was climbing the staircase calling PW-2. Then accused gave Rs.50/- to PW-2, asked her to send PW-3 to the house and come back. After PW-2 came down with PW-3, disclosed about the incident.
10 Spl.C.C.395/15 They both went home in fear, hidden in the house, accused had come to the house enquiring about the victim girl. CW-4 the elder sister of the victim girl said she has gone elsewhere, then accused went out. After revealing this incident by the victim girl before PW-1, she asked them why they did not disclose it earlier, then they said that they had the fear of being beaten up by their father, so they did not disclose. PW- 1 had gone to the house of accused and enquired with the wife of the accused. She did not inform her husband as he usually drinks during night. On the next day, she brought the same to the notice of her husband. It was also spread to neighbours. She was advised to lodge a complaint. She took victim girl to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 making allegation against the accused as mentioned in supra. Thereafter, PW-2 was also enquired by Investigating Officer and she also disclosed the same. Thereafter she was also taken by Investigating Officer before the learned Magistrate for 164 statement and same was also got recorded. After apprehending the accused, victim girl and the accused 11 Spl.C.C.395/15 were sent to hospital for medical examination. This is the case of the prosecution.
12. As already mentioned in supra, there are four charges against the accused. All are relating to sexual offences. 3 charges are under provisions of I.P.C. The last charge is under provision of POCSO Act.
13. Section 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 provides presumption in favour of the accused, it reads as under:-
"Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved."
In the present case accused has been prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. Ofcourse, the presumption under Section 29 of the Act is available to the prosecution. However, the initial burden is upon the 12 Spl.C.C.395/15 prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Then the burden is shifted over to the accused to rebut the same. Hence, the evidence on the prosecution side has to be looked at the first instance.
14. POCSO Act applies in case of 'child' of which denotes any person below the age of 18 years as laid down under Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act. Ofcourse, the other charges which are under provisions of I.P.C refer to the word 'woman', which denotes female humanbeing of any age as per Section 10 of I.P.C. The first 3 charges apply in case of woman, the last charge applies in case of child. Therefore, at the first instance, the age of the victim shall have to be looked into.
15. According to prosecution age of PW-2 the prosecutrix was 9 years as on the date of occurrence. According to prosecution the incident took place 8 to 10 days prior to 11.5.2015. During that time, she was studying in 3rd standard. At the time of evidence, PW-1 the complainant has 13 Spl.C.C.395/15 stated that PW-2 was studying in 3rd standard as on the date of incident. Ofcourse, at the time of recording evidence PW-2 has stated that her age is 4 years. But, on looking to Ex.P1, the complaint and also as per oral testimony of PW-2, the victim girl herself, she was in 3rd standard during the year 2015, 4th standard during the year 2016. Therefore, her age is not 4 years during the year 2016. Ex.P1 discloses that age of PW-2 is 9 years as on that date. PW-3, the elder sister of the victim girl is also examined. At the time of recording her evidence on 1.8.2016, she has stated that her age is 10 years, she is studying in 3rd standard. PW-3 is the immediate elder sister of PW-2. Apart from that the age of PW-2 is not at all disputed by otherside. In the complaint Ex.P1 itself mentioned her age is 9 years. It has gone unchallenged. On going through the cross-examination of all the prosecution witnesses including Investigating Officer and victim girl the age of the victim girl is not disputed, her age has remained undisturbed. Therefore, merely because of non-production of any document, does not defeat the case of the prosecution so far as concerned to the age of PW-2. As already mentioned in 14 Spl.C.C.395/15 supra, the age of PW-3 is 10 years during the year 2016. PW- 2 is the younger sister of PW-3 who is studying in 4th standard in 2016. The incident is alleged to have had taken place in the year 2015. According to prosecution at the time of the incident, the children of PW-1 had holidays. In other words PW-2 had written the examination of 3rd standard, she had the summer vacation. Therefore, above all in the medical report at Ex.P3 also mentioned age of the victim girl as 9 years. Ex.P3 consists of outpatient card and sexual offence report. In outpatient card also mentioned the age of the victim as 9 years. Therefore, the age of PW-2 can be very well concluded that she is the child, very particularly below the age of 12 years.
16. Now the question arises is there sufficient evidence to show the guilt of the accused. In order to prove its case prosecution has got examined as many as 7 witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant. She is the mother of the prosecutrix. PW- 2 is the prosecutrix. PW-3 is the elder sister of PW-2. PW-5 is the spot panch to Ex.P2 stated to have had been drawn in the 15 Spl.C.C.395/15 place of occurrence. PW-4 is Dr. Veena who conducted genital examination of PW-2 and also issued sexual offence report as per Ex.P3. PW-6 Puttamadaiah, then P.S.I received the complaint and registered the case. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer.
17. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The Special Court shall presume that he has committed offence unless the contrary is proved, hence the burden is on the accused. On this aspect I have already discussed in supra after proving the guilt of accused satisfactorily by the prosecution, the burden is shifted over to accused to discharge the same.
18. The learned counsel for the accused has strenuously argued that there are lot of improvements and omissions found in the evidence of PW-1 to 3. Even evidence of PW-4 is not conclusive with respect to sexual offence committed by the accused. There is no definite opinion given by the doctor.
16 Spl.C.C.395/15 Apart from that PW-2 and 3 have admitted that there was galata often taken place between Kakajji and the wife of accused, PW-1 supported the Kakajji. There was also chit business between PW-1 and the wife of the accused, due to which accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no reliable evidence to convict the accused for alleged charges. It is also further argued by him that there is inordinate delay of 8 to 10 days in reporting to the police, there is no satisfactory explanation found on record, hence, the case of the prosecution itself is very suspicious. If incident had really taken place, victim and PW-3 would have disclosed before her mother and PW-1 would have lodged a complaint immediately. PW-2 admits in her evidence that she informed her mother on the same day. Apart from that PW-2 and 3 have been tutored. Hence, no evidentiary value could be attached to their evidence, accused has not committed any offence.
19. With this background, on going through the oral testimony of the material witnesses very particularly PW-1 to 3 17 Spl.C.C.395/15 and 5 there is enough evidence to show the sexual abuse committed by the accused on PW-2. Ofcourse, there is delay of 8 to 10 days in reporting to the police. On this aspect I will discuss little later. As mentioned in supra the oral testimony of PW-1 to 3 is very material in the present case in establishing the prosecution case.
20. Accused is not a stranger to the victim girl. That is an undisputed fact. PW-2 and also PW-3 have stated in their chief-examination itself while they were playing in front of the house on the date of incident, accused asked PW-2 to bring rasam, after PW-2 brought rasam, asked her to keep in his house, accordingly PW-2 and 3 had gone to his house where PW-2 was asked to keep it in kitchen, thereafter she was taken by the accused to terrace. PW-2 is aged about 9 to 10 years at the time of recording of evidence. PW-3 is 2 to 3 years elder than PW-2. Both are the child witnesses. Therefore, their evidence shall have to be carefully scrutinized with utmost care. At the same time, merely because they are the child witnesses their evidence cannot be discarded.
18 Spl.C.C.395/15 Before commencing the chief-examination of PW-2 and 3 the child witnesses were enquired, after being satisfied with their capacity to understand the questions, and answers to be given, their evidence was recorded.
21. PW-2 has been examined and cross-examined on the same day. PW-2 has identified the accused that he is one Setu. As mentioned in supra he is not a stranger to her. She has further stated about the illegal act of the accused. She has narrated about the incident in clear terms that "she was asked by the accused to bring rasam and asked to keep it in the kitchen of his house. She has further stated that thereafter he took her to bathroom where he had put one rattu, spread one clothe on it and made her lie on it, he undressed himself and lied over PW-2. Ofcourse, she has in further stated that he had put his penis into her vagina, by that time PW-3 came calling her, then accused gave Rs.50/- and sent her". The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the oral testimony of PW-2 is contradictory to case of the prosecution, her statement that accused had put 19 Spl.C.C.395/15 his private part into her private part is not the case of the prosecution, that is not the allegation made in complaint at Ex.P1, even not stated by PW-2 before Investigating Officer. It is pertinent to note, merely because she has exaggerated that he had put his penis into her vagina, the other part of her evidence cannot be discarded. Her evidence would suggest that accused made her to be naked, he undressed himself, made her lie on clothe and he lied over PW-2. It is quite natural that some discrepancies may arise in the evidence of prosecution witnesses due to the time gap or loss of memory. PW-2 is the child witness. Therefore, her whole evidence shall have to be looked into in its entirety.
22. Ofcourse, in the chief-examination, she has stated that accused had come in the evening. Merely because of this sole ground the whole case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away in wind. Other part of her oral testimony and also the other materials found on record is very material to find out the truth whether he had committed the sexual offences or not. Merely because she has stated that she does not know the 20 Spl.C.C.395/15 time, thereafter she said that it was evening, the prosecution case cannot be doubted. According to the case of the prosecution the incident took place between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. PW-3 the another material witness has clearly stated in her chief-examination that between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m they were playing in front of their house, then accused had come and asked PW-2 for rasam, then they took the rasam to the house of the accused. Ofcourse in the cross- examination led on defence side she has stated that she is unable to say the timings. That stray statement given by her does not take away the case of the prosecution. Under what circumstance, she has given that answer is the material. In the cross-examination, the learned counsel for the accused had put some questions. Then she went on stating that PW-2 took rasam to the house of accused, she also accompanied her, accused took PW-2 to terrace, then she was in the downstairs. Then she was asked how much time she was alone, then she said 'some time', again the another question was put to her 'some time means what', then she did not answer, again the another question to the effect "whether 21 Spl.C.C.395/15 she can tell the timings". Then she nodded. The learned counsel for the accused continued with the another question concerned to the timings and put another question that "at what time they had been to the house of the accused", she said that it was 1.00 p.m. Again she was put another question about the timings of their return to the house, she said 'at 1.30 p.m'. It is pertinent to note the whole evidence of the child witness i.e., PW-2 and 3 shall have to be read in its entirety, the stray statement cannot be based to find out the truth. The discrepancy which arose in the evidence of PW-2 and 3 is not as significant it goes to the root of the case of the prosecution.
23. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that PW-2 victim has admitted in her evidence Kakajji is her grand mother, the wife of the accused used to visit her house, there was often galata taken place between Kakajji and wife of the accused, then her mother was supporting Kakajji. Ofcourse, she said that her mother supported Kakajji, but on going through her whole cross-examination she has unhesitatingly 22 Spl.C.C.395/15 denied that she has been tutored by the police or her mother. Even there is another suggestion to her "that at the instance of Kakajji her mother had lodged a complaint, accordingly she is deposing falsely". PW-2 has flatly denied this suggestion. Merely because PW-2 has stated that there was a galata taken place between Kakajji and wife of the accused then her mother was supporting Kakajji is not the ground to take away the other part of evidence of PW-2 that accused had taken her to the kitchen and made her to be naked and he lied over her. In the backdrop of the oral testimony of PW-2 so far as concerned to relationship between her family and Kakajji, PW- 3 has clearly stated that Kakajji is not their relative, she is residing nearby her house, they called her Ajji. Even in the cross-examination PW-1 the mother of the prosecutrix has denied that Kakajji is her relative. PW-2 is the child of 9 to 10 years. When the people are residing in the same locality, if they call her Ajji, it cannot be said that she is her relative. Evidence of PW-1 and 3 would suggest that Kakajji is not the relative of the victim girl, she is the old lady residing nearby their house. In the cross of PW-1 on defence side made 23 Spl.C.C.395/15 suggestion that there is enmity between their family and the family of the accused, between the family of Kakajji and family of the accused, there is a chit business contact with Kakajji. PW-1 has denied the chit business and also the enmity between her family and family of the accused. There are only bare suggestions with respect to enmity between families and also the chit business. PW-2 was put with repeated questions with respect to the galata taken place, she once said 'no', thereafter she said 'yes'. She is child of 9 to 10 years, so far as concerned to the difference between two families there is no enough evidence to believe it, and even there is nothing brought on record to show that there is chit business run either by Kakajji or by wife of the accused. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW-2 so far as concerned to taking away her to his house by the accused and thereafter to bathroom and compelled her to be naked, after removing his clothes he slept over her cannot be suspected. Her evidence is found reliable. That is also corroborated by the evidence of another material witness PW-3. She is probable witness. It is the specific case of the prosecution that PW-3 accompanied the PW-2 while 24 Spl.C.C.395/15 taking rasam to the house of the accused and also some time after PW-2 was taken by the accused to the terrace, after sometime PW-3 called PW-2 by climbing the stairs, then PW-2 came back. On these aspects evidence of PW-2 and 3 is corroborative. So far as concerned to the offence committed by the accused, whether the evidence of PW-2 would suggest that accused with intent to commit sexual offence he asked PW-2 to bring rasam and thereafter took her to the terrace. The oral testimony of PW-2 and 3 is consistent and found reliable. For the reason some trivial contradictions are found in the evidence of PW-2 and 3 does not defeat the case of the prosecution. Whether the heinous act committed by the accused on PW-2 amounts to rape/penetrative sexual assault or made an attempt to commit rape or sexual harassment is a different aspect. It is the case of the prosecution that he had sexually exploited her. On looking to the oral testimony of PW-2 whose evidence assumes more importance in the case like this nature is very material to be looked into. What is the offence he has committed. Firstly, whether accused had brought PW-2 or whether she was taken away by him to his 25 Spl.C.C.395/15 house, thereafter to the terrace are the crucial points. Thereafter, act of the accused is another factor to be looked into.
24. It is also the case of the prosecution that the 164 statement of victim girl was got recorded, she had also given the similar statement before the learned magistrate. The copy of the same is available on record, but not the original. PW-2 the victim has specifically stated that she was taken away by the police before the court earlier and her statement was recorded. She has also further stated that she had given the same statement before the court earlier, in other words her 164 statement was recorded. Ofcourse she has exaggerated to some extent, but it does not make the case of the prosecution suspicious. Her evidence is found satisfactory. It is corroborated by the oral testimony of PW-3.
25. There is also another material witness on prosecution side to prove its case. PW-1 is the complainant, she is the mother of PW-2. Ofcourse, she is the hearsay witness.
26 Spl.C.C.395/15 However, what she learnt from PW-2 has been stated by her. She has also exaggerated to some extent "that when PW-3 knocked the door of the bathroom, accused sent her outside", she has also stated "that accused had put his penis into the vagina of the victim girl". But, the other part of the evidence that accused made PW-2 to be naked, he lied over her corroborates the case of the prosecution. Exaggeration does not make the case of the prosecution doubtful. They are not amounting to contradictions, but exaggerations. But, it does not defeat the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the accused has also made a suggestion that she has tutored PW-2 and 3, she out rightly denied this suggestion. She has also stated in the chief-examination that accused is not the stranger to her family, her children were calling him as mama. She came to know about incident on 11.5.2015 in the evening while she was telling the story to her children. So far as concerned to the commission of sexual offences by the accused, the evidence of PW-1 to 3 is corroborative. Whether it amounts rape/penetrative sexual assault or harassment is to 27 Spl.C.C.395/15 be discussed little later. There are different categories of sexual offences under POCSO Act and also under I.P.C.
26. So far as concerned to sexual exploitation by the accused on PW-2 is found to be reliable. The testimony of victim is vital. Unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate to looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual abuse/assault alone to convict the accused where her testimony inspires the confidence and is found to be reliable. Ofcourse, victim's evidence would require a careful assessment and evaluation for her credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence as the sole touchstone for test of such credibility. There are proved circumstances to sufficiently corroborate the guilt of the accused.
27. The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that there is no conclusive opinion given by PW-4 Doctor who conducted genital examination of PW-2, the 28 Spl.C.C.395/15 prosecutrix. It is pertinent to note ofcourse Ex.P3 would suggest that "hymen was appearing to be torn, which was not very conclusive and it can also be (torn hymen) due to many other reasons (other than sexual act), hymen status was doubtful". This Ex.P3 along with oral testimony of PW-4 is read together she is not sure that hymen is torn. On going through her whole evidence she has not given definite opinion as to status of hymen whether it is torn or not. Ofcourse, she has stated that no external injuries are found on the body of the victim, she cannot say whether she is used to act like that of sexual intercourse. It is pertinent to note according to case of the prosecution accused made an attempt to commit rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the prosecutrix, but, the act of rape. I have already discussed in supra about the case of the prosecution that accused made the PW-2 to be naked with intent to commit sexual abuse on her, he also put off his dress, he made her lie on the clothe as stated in supra and also he lied over PW-2. This act of the accused would clearly indicate the intention of the accused that he intended to commit sexual abuse on her. Ofcourse, the process of rape 29 Spl.C.C.395/15 is not complete. As per the medical evidence no rape was committed, in other words there was no insertion of penis into the vagina. Merely because of that reason accused cannot be escaped from the other offences. Because, there is sufficient and convincing evidence on the part of the prosecution to show that intention of the accused to commit the sexual exploitation and also he had committed other sexual offences. There is not only the charge of attempt to commit rape/penetrative sexual assault, but also sexual harassment as laid down under Section 354-A and also used criminal force for committing sexual offence as laid down under Section 354-B. Therefore, merely because there are no injuries found on her body and there is no clear evidence with respect to insertion of his private part into her vagina accused cannot be escaped from the allegations of other charges. I have already discussed in supra in detail about the oral testimony of the prosecutrix and also the corroborative evidence of the complainant and another material witness PW-3, the elder sister of PW-2. There are proved circumstances to hold the guilt of the accused.
30 Spl.C.C.395/15
28. According to prosecution the spot mahazar had been drawn by Investigating Officer in the place shown by PW-3. PW-3 has also supported the case of the prosecution. Ofcourse, in the cross-examination she has given dual statement, one is she had shown the place and Investigating Officer had drawn mahazar, again the similar question in another way was put to PW-3, then she said 'no' . But, as already discussed in supra the whole evidence of the child witness shall have to be read together and cumulative effect of her evidence is to be taken into consideration. Apart from that PW-5 the independent witness who is one of the spot pancha to Ex.P2, the mahazar, has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has clearly stated "in his chief- examination with respect to sexual exploitation committed on PW-2, the police had drawn the mahazar in the building of the house of the accused. Firstly they had been to the house of the prosecutrix, thereafter they had gone to the house of the accused whose house in the first floor. One Arul and also PW- 3 Sandya also put their signatures to the spot mahazar". From the evidence of PW-1 to 3 and also 5 concrete evidence 31 Spl.C.C.395/15 is found on record that accused had taken the prosecutrix to the terrace where bathroom is situated and sexually exploited her.
29. PW-8 is Dr. M.P. Pradeep Kumar, who had subjected accused to medical examination and issued medical report as per Ex.P6 that there is nothing to suggest he is incapable of having sexual intercourse. PW-6 is then P.S.I who received the complaint from the complainant and registered the case and also drew mahazar as per Ex.P2 in presence of panchas in the place of occurrence shown by PW-3. PW-6 has also clearly stated in his evidence about all these aspects. PW-7 is then P.S.I who took up the further investigation. Ex.P5 is F.S.L report. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that F.S.L report does not support the prosecution case as the seminal stain is not detected in items No.1, 3 and 4 and spermatozoa is also not detected in item No.2. Items No.1 to 4 i.e., vaginal swabs, vaginal smears, nail clippings and one undergarment had been collected from the victim girl and they were sent to F.S.L. for examination. It is pertinent to note it 32 Spl.C.C.395/15 is the specific case of the prosecution that accused made an attempt to commit rape on her after removing clothes of victim girl. Apart from that there is a gap of about 12 days for medical examination of the victim girl. Under the circumstance, detection of either seminal stain or spermatozoa may not be possible in the circumstance of the present case. Therefore, though F.S.L report does not favour the prosecution is not the ground to say accused has not committed any offences on the victim girl. From the evidence of PW-1 to 3 and 5, 6 and 7 the prosecution has put forth the satisfactory and corroborative evidence.
30. Now the question arises whether the act of accused amounts to attempt to commit rape or any other offences. There are four charges. The first charge is under Section 354- A of I.P.C. Section 354-A of I.P.C provides sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.
Section 354-A (1) (i) (ii) reads as under:
(1) A man committing any of the following acts :-
33 Spl.C.C.395/15
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures;
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours.
On plain reading of Section 354-A of I.P.C there must be physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.
31. In the present case accused had removed clothes of the victim girl, made her lie on the clothe, thereafter he also removed his clothes and he lied over her. The physical contact can be gathered from this act of the accused. The insertion of the private part is a different from physical contact. Apart from that, Section 354-A (1) (ii) deals with a demand or request for sexual favours. From the evidence brought on record on prosecution side the ingredients of Section 354-A (1) (i) & (ii) are established by the prosecution.
34 Spl.C.C.395/15
32. The second charge is under Section 354-B of I.P.C. Section 354-B of I.P.C deals with assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe her. It reads as under:
"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets or conspires to assault or uses such criminal force to any woman intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that by such assault, he will thereby outrage or causes to be outraged the modesty of the woman by disrobing or compel her to be naked on any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine"
On reading of aforesaid provisions there are two essential ingredients. One is use of criminal force, another is with intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked. i.e. if any one of these acts. Use of criminal force or intention of disrobe or compelling her to be naked is established, that falls within the purview of Section 354-B. I have discussed at length in 35 Spl.C.C.395/15 supra about the evidence found on record that accused disrobed the victim girl with intent to commit sexual exploitation. Hence, it also attracts Section 354-B of I.P.C.
33. The third charge is under Section 376 of I P C r/w Section 511 of I.P.C. 4th charge is under Section 5(m) r/w 6 r/w Section 18 of POCSO Act. Section 376 provides punishment for rape. Section 375 is the definition clause of rape. This section has been amended by the Criminal Law Amendment 2013 of which takes effect from 3.2.2013. i.e., subsequent to commencement of POCSO Act. 375(a) and (b) are in para materia with that of Section 3(a) and (b) of POCSO Act, which deals with penetrative sexual assault. Section 3 is the definition clause of penetrative sexual assault.
34. There are three main categories of offences found in this Act.
Namely, (i) penetrative sexual assault (Section 3).
(ii) Sexual assault (Section 7) & 36 Spl.C.C.395/15
(iii) sexual harassment (Section 11).
Section 3 (a) to (d) are verbatim as in Section 375 (a) to
(d). In the present case there is no sufficient evidence to show the penetration of private part of the accused into the vagina, urethra or anus as laid down under Section 3 (a) to
(d) or Section 375 (a) to (d). The specific case of the prosecution is he made an attempt to commit rape/penetrative sexual assault. But, for the reason he stripped of the victim girl and also himself and he lied over her does not satisfactorily establish either penetration or insertion to any extent into the private part of the child. Ofcourse, from the evidence available on prosecution side, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that he touched the body of the victim girl. The act of the accused i.e., disrobing victim girl and lying over the child itself would show that there was presence of sexual intent. The intention of the accused can be gathered from his act and surrounding circumstances. The sexual intent of the accused is forthcoming in the oral testimony of the 37 Spl.C.C.395/15 victim girl. Even that can be gathered from proved circumstances.
35. The Public Prosecutor has submitted that PW-3 was climbing the stairs calling her sister, then accused left the victim girl by giving Rs.50/- and also asked her not to disclose the incident to anybody and come back after sending her sister to the house, if PW-3 had not at all come to the terrace accused would have continued his act and committed rape, hence, that itself establishes he made an attempt to commit rape. It is also further argued by him that with intent to commit rape he lied over victim girl that itself would suggest the attempt from the accused to commit rape/penetrative sexual assault. It is pertinent to note, as per medical evidence there are no marks or external injuries found on the body of the victim girl, hymen is not appearing to be torn. Under the circumstance, this case does not fall within the purview of either under Section 376 r/w Section 511 of I.P.C. or Section 5(m) r/w 6 r/w Section 18 of POCSO Act. Because, there is only evidence that he removed the clothes of the victim girl, 38 Spl.C.C.395/15 he made himself naked and after making the child lie on the clothe he lied over her. That is enough to prove not only his sexual intention, but also the offence under Section 354-A of I.P.C and also Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act is complete. As mentioned in supra Section 7 is the definition clause of sexual assault.
Section 7 defines sexual assault as under:
"Sexual Assault - Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.
Section 9(m) reads as under:
Aggravated Sexual Assault - (m) whoever commits sexual assault on a child below 12 years.
39 Spl.C.C.395/15 If sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act falls under any one of the categories laid down under Section 9 of the Act, it becomes Aggravated sexual assault. According to Section 9(m) if any type of sexual assault on child below 12 years it becomes aggravated sexual assault.
36. There are three essential ingredients for this offence. (1) Sexual intention (2) touching the private parts involving physical contact without penetration.
(3) Victim must be under the age of 12 years. I have already discussed about the intent of the accused of which can be gathered from his act and surrounding circumstances. So far as concerned to first ingredient, in the present case the victim is under the age of 12 years. The second ingredient is relating to "touch the private part involving physical contact without penetration". The act of lying over the victim girl which is established by corroborative and reliable evidence of the victim girl, amounts to touching the private parts without penetration. That itself amounts to 40 Spl.C.C.395/15 involving the physical contact. Therefore, it is a clear case of which falls within the square of Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act. The offence under Section 354-A (1) (i)(ii) and Section 7 of POCSO Act are one and the same except the presence of sexual intent of which is laid down under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Section 354-A does not speak out the sexual intent. However, the other ingredients of both Sections are one and the same. The prosecution has established that accused is found guilty of aggravated sexual assault. It does not tantamount offence under Section 376 r/w Section 511 of I.P.C or Section 5(m) r/w Section 6 r/w Section 18 of POCSO Act.
37. The prosecution has put forth reliable, trustworthy and convincing evidence to prove the charge under Section 354-A of I.P.C and also Section 354-B of I.P.C. At the same time, the offence falls under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act. The evidence of victim is found reliable. It is explicit enough to hold guilt of the accused. There is no discrepancy in material particulars which could go to the root of the 41 Spl.C.C.395/15 matter. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused as mentioned in supra. The offence under Section 9(m) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act is lesser offence than the offence under Section 5(m) r/w Section 6 r/w Section 18 of POCSO Act. Ofcourse the charge under Section 5(m) r/w Section 6 r/w Section 18 of POCSO Act is framed. But the accused can be held to be guilty for lesser offence under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act though there is no separate charge under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act. It does not defeat the case of the prosecution. The accused is found guilty of offence under Section 354-A of I.P.C and also under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act as mentioned in supra. The punishment of those offences may be little different. That is immaterial. There is specific provision under Section 42 of the POCSO Act with respect to alternative punishment.
38. Now, the burden is shifted over to accused. But, there is no iota of evidence brought on record by the accused to rebut the said presumption laid down under section 29 of the 42 Spl.C.C.395/15 Act. In view of the presumption if a person has been prosecuted for the offence under Section 9 of POCSO Act the Special Court shall presume that he has committed the offence unless contrary is proved. In the present case the prosecution has succeeded in putting forth convincing, reliable, corroborative and satisfactory evidence. But, the accused has failed to discharge his burden. No materials are brought on record by the accused to prove contrary to the case of the prosecution. Accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 354-A of I.P.C, under Section 9(m) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and also under Section 354-B of I.P.C. Hence, I hold point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3, 4 accordingly.
39. POINT NO.5: In view of my above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354- A, 354-B of I.P.C and under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of Protection of 43 Spl.C.C.395/15 Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
To hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized and print out taken by him and after correction signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of January, 2017.) (SHUBHA GOWDAR) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard both the sides regarding the sentence. The learned counsel for the accused and also the accused have submitted that he has family consisting of three children, who are depending on his earnings. He has to perform marriage of his daughter. He is from poor family. Leniency may kindly be shown.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the maximum punishment may kindly be imposed as the 44 Spl.C.C.395/15 offence like this nature are being hiked in the society now a days, and it should be curbed.
3. Accused is aged about 40 years. Section 3 of P.O Act does not apply as the offence committed by the accused is punishable under Section 354-A, 354-B of I.P.C and under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. Section 3 of P.O. Act applies to cases where offence is punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 404 or Section 420 of I.P.C. or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under I.P.C. or any other law.
4. According to me it is not a fit case even to extend the benefit laid down under Section 4 P.O Act. He is found guilty for the aforesaid offences. In recent years crime against women are on the rise. The crimes are affront to the human dignity of the society. Imposition of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against mandate of the legislature not only is an injustice to the victim of the crime in particular 45 Spl.C.C.395/15 and the society as a whole in general but also at times encourages a criminal.
5. Section 42 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 provides;
Alternate punishment- Where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under Sections 1661, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376, 376A, 376D, 376E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.
In the present case, the punishment prescribed for offence punishable under Section 354-A (1) (i) or (ii) of I.P.C shall be punished with Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine, or with both. Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 354-A are one and the 46 Spl.C.C.395/15 same. The punishment prescribed for offence under Section 9(m) of POCSO Act is for a term which shall not be less than 5 years, but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. The punishment prescribed for offence under Section 9(m) is higher in degree. Hence, it should be taken. The minimum sentence prescribed by the legislature making Imprisonment of 5 years is statutory mandate, unless court records adequate and special reasons for reduction in terms of acceptance. The punishment for offence under Section 354-B is for a term which shall not be less than 3 years, but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Here also the legislature stipulated 3 years imprisonment as statutory mandate. On accused side assigned some reasons to reduce the sentence that he has 3 children and he is from poor family. These reasons could not be relevant or germane for taking a lenient view. There is no scope for awarding sentence lesser than prescribed minimum. In the cases like this nature, leniency is not acceptable. The punishment must fit the crime and that is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment. The social impact of the crime and the 47 Spl.C.C.395/15 public interest cannot be lost sight of and per-se require exemplary treatment. Here is the girl of 10 years who must have undergone a traumatic experience. The court is equally bound to see the atrocity and heinous crime and ill-effects of which on the victim and her family members. While it is true that justice should be tempered with mercy, undue mercy is harmful to the cause of Justice. There are no mitigating circumstances to reduce minimum sentence of 5 years for offence under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act for offence under Section 354-B of I.P.C. imprisonment for a term of 3 years. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby convicted for offence punishable:-
1 a) under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 years and shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in case of default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment of another
48 Spl.C.C.395/15 8 months, of which shall run consecutively.
b) under Section 354-B of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 years and shall also pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in case of default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment of another 6 months, of which shall run consecutively.
c) The aforesaid both sentences shall run consecutively.
2. The J.C. period of accused from 13.5.2015 to 28.1.2017 (totally 1 year 8 months 13 days), be setoff as laid down under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
3. The Item Nos. 1 to 4 in PF No.58/15 and (PR No.763/15) are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after appeal period is over.
4. Award of compensation as in Section 7(2) of POCSO Act, to PW-2 the prosecutrix is hereby recommended to District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban, to be computed. Submit the copy of the Judgment to D.L.S.A. 49 Spl.C.C.395/15 Free copy of this Judgment to be supplied to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized and print out taken by him and after correction signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of January, 2017.) (SHUBHA GOWDAR) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW.1 Rathna PW.2 Prosecutrix PW.3 Sandya PW.4 Dr. Veena PW.5 Raghu PW.6 C. Puttamadhaiah PW.7 Thanveer S.R. PW.8 Dr. M.P. Pradeep Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P 1(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P 1(b) Signature of PW-6 Ex.P 2 Spotmahazar Ex.P 2(a) Signature of victim 50 Spl.C.C.395/15 Ex.P 2(b) Signature of Ex.P 2 (c ) Signature of PW-6 Ex.P 3 Medical report of victim Ex.P 3(a) Signature of PW-4 Ex.P 4 F.I.R Ex.P 4(a) Signature of PW-4 Ex.P 5 F.S.L. report Ex.P 5(a) Signature of Ex.P 6 Medical report of accused Ex.P 6 (a) Signature of PW-8 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENCE
Ex.D1 Specimen seal
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED,
AND MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
(SHUBHA GOWDAR)
LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
*** 51 Spl.C.C.395/15 28.1.2017 Judgment pronounced in the open court, operative portion of which reads as under:-
ORDER Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354-A, 354-B of I.P.C and under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
To hear regarding sentence.
(SHUBHA GOWDAR) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Heard both sides regarding sentence.
For sentence by 3'O clock 52 Spl.C.C.395/15 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard both the sides regarding the sentence. The learned counsel for the accused and also the accused have submitted that he has family consisting of three children, who are depending on his earnings. He has to perform marriage of his daughter. He is from poor family. Leniency may kindly be shown.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the maximum punishment may kindly be imposed as the offence like this nature are being hiked in the society now a days, and it should be curbed.
5. Accused is aged about 40 years. Section 3 of P.O Act does not apply as the offence committed by the accused is punishable under Section 354-A, 354-B of I.P.C and under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. Section 3 of P.O. Act applies to cases where offence is punishable under Section 379 or 53 Spl.C.C.395/15 Section 380 or Section 404 or Section 420 of I.P.C. or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under I.P.C. or any other law.
4. According to me it is not a fit case even to extend the benefit laid down under Section 4 P.O Act. He is found guilty for the aforesaid offences. In recent years crime against women are on the rise. The crimes are affront to the human dignity of the society. Imposition of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against mandate of the legislature not only is an injustice to the victim of the crime in particular and the society as a whole in general but also at times encourages a criminal.
5. Section 42 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 provides;
Alternate punishment- Where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under Sections 1661, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376, 376A, 376D, 376E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) then, 54 Spl.C.C.395/15 notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.
In the present case, the punishment prescribed for offence punishable under Section 354-A (1) (i) or (ii) of I.P.C shall be punished with Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine, or with both. Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 354-A are one and the same. The punishment prescribed for offence under Section 9(m) of POCSO Act is for a term which shall not be less than 5 years, but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. The punishment prescribed for offence under Section 9(m) is higher in degree. Hence, it should be taken. The minimum sentence prescribed by the legislature making Imprisonment of 5 years is statutory mandate, unless court records adequate and special reasons for reduction in terms of acceptance. The punishment for offence under Section 354-B 55 Spl.C.C.395/15 is for a term which shall not be less than 3 years, but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Here also the legislature stipulated 3 years imprisonment as statutory mandate. On accused side assigned some reasons to reduce the sentence that he has 3 children and he is from poor family. These reasons could not be relevant or germane for taking a lenient view. There is no scope for awarding sentence lesser than prescribed minimum. In the cases like this nature, leniency is not acceptable. The punishment must fit the crime and that is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment. The social impact of the crime and the public interest cannot be lost sight of and per-se require exemplary treatment. Here is the girl of 10 years who must have undergone a traumatic experience. The court is equally bound to see the atrocity and heinous crime and ill-effects of which on the victim and her family members. While it is true that justice should be tempered with mercy, undue mercy is harmful to the cause of Justice. There are no mitigating circumstances to reduce minimum sentence of 5 years for offence under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act for 56 Spl.C.C.395/15 offence under Section 354-B of I.P.C. imprisonment for a term of 3 years. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby convicted for offence punishable:-
1 a) under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 years and shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in case of default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment of another 8 months, of which shall run consecutively.
b) under Section 354-B of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 years and shall also pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in case of default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment of another 6 months, of which shall run consecutively.
c) The aforesaid both sentences shall run consecutively.
2. The J.C. period of accused from 13.5.2015 to 28.1.2017 (totally 1 year 8 57 Spl.C.C.395/15 months 13 days), be setoff as laid down under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
3. The Item Nos. 1 to 4 in PF No.58/15 and (PR No.763/15) are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after appeal period is over.
4. Award of compensation as in Section 7(2) of POCSO Act, to PW-2 the prosecutrix is hereby recommended to District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban, to be computed. Submit the copy of the Judgment to D.L.S.A. Free copy of this Judgment to be supplied to the accused.
(SHUBHA GOWDAR) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.