Bangalore District Court
State By Byatarayanapura Police vs Anif Khan on 25 November, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 25 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. 529/2017
COMPLAINANT: State by Byatarayanapura Police
Station, Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Anif Khan,
S/o Ameer Khan,
Aged about 28 years,
No.14, 4th Cross,
Near Old Shepa Hospital,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore.
[By Advocate Sri. B.K. Ramesh]
1. Date of commission of offence From 23.02.2016 to 21.2.2017
2. Date of report of occurrence 21.02.2017
of the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 26.02.2017
Date of release of the accused
on bail 10.03.2017
Period undergone by the
accused in the judicial 12 days
custody
2 Spl CC No.529/2017
4. Date of commencement of 28.02.2019
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 13.03.2020
6. Name of the complainant Victim girl.
7. Offences complained of Secs. 363, 376, 506 of IPC and
[As per charge-sheet] Secs. 4,6,8 and 12 of POCSO Act, and
Sec.67 (B) of I.T Act.
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is Acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, Byatarayanapura police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 376, 506 of IPC and Secs. 4,6,8 and 12 of POCSO Act, and Sec. 67 (B) of I.T Act..
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the victim girl herself has lodged a complaint with the complainant police stating that, she is the daughter of CWS-2 and 3 and residing in House No.19, 2 nd Main Road, Behind Jamia Masjid, Shamanna Garden, Hosaguddahalli, Mysore Road, situated within the limits of Byatarayanapura police station, Bangalore, was about to be given in marriage with the accused and the marriage talks were held about 1 ½ years back to the date of lodging the complaint, and due to some reasons, the said marriage was stopped, but then also, the accused used to call to CW1 through Mobile phone numbers and used to send messages to her phone 3 Spl CC No.529/2017 thereby harassed her and also threatened her that if she discloses the said incident to anyone, he will kill her family members. On 16.2.2016, in the afternoon at 3 P.M., the accused went near the house of CW1 and by confirming that no one else where in the house, he told CW1 that he wants to talk to his mother about their marriage and asked her to join him, but, when CW1 refused to go along with him, the accused took CW1 in one rented auto to his house with an intention to commit illicit intercourse with her and in his house as his mother and sisters were there, they thought that the accused had come with the victim girl to show their house and asked the accused to show the house, so the accused took the victim girl to the first floor of his house to a room and bolted the doors from inside, and threatened the victim girl that if she do not co-operate with him, he will finish off his family and despite her protest, the accused committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl repeatedly and without coming to the knowledge of the victim girl, he had also taken the photographs of the said act and sent those photographs to the mobile of the victim girl. Thereby, the victim girl has requested to take action against the accused. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case in Cr.No.87/2017 for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 376, 506 of IPC and Secs. 4,6,8 and 12 of POCSO Act, and Sec.67 (B) of I.T Act and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused on 26.02.2017, thereafter he has recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused which is 4 Spl CC No.529/2017 numbered as Spl CC No.529/2017. As per the orders of this court dated: 10.03.2017, 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 12 witnesses as PWs-1 to 12 and got marked 22 documents as Exs.P1 to P22 besides marking MOS-1 to 5. 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 he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf and no documents are marked.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, at this stage, following Points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that, CW1 being the daughter of CWS-2 and 3 and residing in House No.19, 2nd Main Road, Behind Jamia Masjid, Shamanna Garden, Hosaguddahalli, Mysore Road, situated within the limits of Byatarayanapura police station, Bangalore, was about to be given in marriage with the accused and the marriage talks were held about 1 ½ years back to the date of lodging the complaint, and due to some reasons, 5 Spl CC No.529/2017 the said marriage was stopped, but then also, the accused used to call to CW1 through Mobile phone numbers and used to send messages to her phone thereby harassed her, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 12 of POCSO Act 2012 ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused knowing that CW1/ victim girl was minor in age, harassed her and also threatened her that he would kill the parents of the victim girl if she discloses the said incident to them, , thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 of IPC?
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 threatened the victim girl, but continued with the contact of her, that on 16.2.2016, in the afternoon at 3 P.M., the accused went near the house of CW1 and by confirming that no one else where in the house, he told CW1 that he wants to talk to his mother about their marriage and asked her to join him, but, when CW1 refused to go along with him, the accused took CW1 in one rented auto to his house, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves , the accused on the same day, at the same time and at the same place, the accused not only threatened the victim girl, but, also took her in an auto to his house with an intention to have illicit intercourse with the victim girl, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC ?6 Spl CC No.529/2017
5. Whether the prosecution further proves , the accused on the same day, at the same time and at the same place, the accused not only threatened the victim girl, but, also took her in an auto to his house with an intention to have illicit intercourse with the victim girl, and in his house as his mother and sisters were there, they thought that the accused had come with the victim girl to show their house and asked the accused to show the house, so the accused took the victim girl to the first floor of his house to a room and bolted the doors from inside, and threatened the victim girl that if she do not co-operate with him, he will finish off his family and despite her protest, the accused committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl repeatedly, thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act 2012?
6. Whether the prosecution further proves , the accused not only took the victim girl to his house, but he also committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly, and without coming to the knowledge of the victim girl, he had also taken the photographs of the said act and sent those photographs to the mobile of the victim girl, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.67(B) of I.T. Act?
7. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 6: In the Negative, Point No .7: As per the final order, for the following:7 Spl CC No.529/2017
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 TO 6:- 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 12 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 12 and 22 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P22, besides marking MOS-1 to 5. Though the victim girl and other her parents have not supported the case of the prosecution but the court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case along with available evidence of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of 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 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 8 Spl CC No.529/2017 parents 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 Lady Doctor who physically examined the victim girl and the evidence of the police official the court cannot convict the accused for the offences as alleged. Even the prosecution has not examined the Investigation Officer who has completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused. 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 12 witnesses, out of them, PW1/CW1 is the victim girl herself , PW2/CW2 is the father of the victim girl. PW3/CW3 is the mother of the victim girl. PW4/CW7 is the mother of the accused. PW5/CW8 is the elder sister of the accused. PW6/CW9 is the elder brother of the accused. PW7/CW12 is the relative of the accused. PW8/CW20 is the Lady Doctor who has deposed about physically examination of the victim girl. PW9/CW19 is the Doctor who has examined the accused. PW10/CW16 is the Retired Head Master who has deposed about issuing the Certificate with regard to the date of birth of the victim girl wherein the victim girl had studied. PW11/CW18 is the Revenue Officer. PW12/CW23 is the ASI who has deposed about taking the 4 sealed articles to RFSL, Mysore for 9 Spl CC No.529/2017 chemical examination. In support of his case, the prosecution has also produced as many as 22 documents. Ex.P1 is the Complaint. Ex.P2 is 6 photos in a sealed cover. Ex.P3 is the Further Statement of the victim girl/ PW1. Ex.P4 is the statement of father of the victim girl /PW2 given under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C before the complainant police. Ex.P5 is the Statement of mother of the victim girl / PW3 given under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C before the complainant police. Ex.P6 is the Spot Panchanama. Ex.P7 is the Statement of PW4 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P8 is the statement of Pw6 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P9 is the Statement of PW1/ victim girl given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P10 is the Spot panchanama of the occurrence of crime. Ex.P11 is the statement of PW7 given before the complainant police under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P12 is the Medical Certificate of PW1/ victim girl. Ex.P13 is the FSL Report. Ex.P14 is the Medical Certificate of the accused. Ex.P15 is the Report given by the Head Mistress, CMA Girls High School, Bangalore with regard to the birth details of the victim girl wherein the victim girl was studying. Ex.P16 is the Requisition given by the Police Inspector, complainant police station to the Revenue Officer, Shivajinagar Ward, BBMP, Bangalore city. Ex.P17 is the Letter issued by the Revenue Officer, Shivajinagar Ward,BBMP, Bangalore City to the Police Inspector of the complainant police station. Ex.P18 is the Khata extract. Ex.P19 is the Acknowledgement issued by RFSL, Mysore. Ex.P20 is the Acknowledgement issued by FSL, Madiwala, Bangalore. Ex.P21 is the Report given by PW12 with regard to taking the 4 sealed 10 Spl CC No.529/2017 articles and handing it over to RFSL, Mysore . Ex.P22 is also the Report given by PW12 with regard to handing over 4 sealed articles to FSL, Madiwala, Bangalore. The prosecution has also got marked 5 material objects as MOS-1 to 5.
11. Now coming to the evaluation of the evidence given by the above prosecution witnesses , I would like to take up firstly the evidence given by the complainant who is none other than the victim girl of this case who is examined as PW1. PW1 in her evidence before the court has deposed about her family status. She has further deposed that, she do not know the accused. During the year 2016, she was aged 17 years and at that time, she was not going to the school and was staying in the house only. She do not know as to where the house of the accused is situated, the accused was neither telephoning to her nor he was sending her message and she has not told anything about this to anybody. The accused has not taken her to his house on the ground that he will marry her and he has not committed rape on her. She has not lodged any complaint against the accused with the police. She has identified her signature on the Complaint,she has put her signature in the police station, as the police had called her to the police station, the police had not sent her to the Hospital nor before the Learned Magistrate. She has not lodged complaint to the police. She herself had gone to the police station along with her parents. Other than this she do not have anything to say. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, about 1 ½ years back to the date of lodging the complaint, 11 Spl CC No.529/2017 she had acquaintance with the accused. She had also denied that, there was engagement held between herself and the accused and due to some reasons, their marriage did not take place. She has also denied that, thereafter the accused used to call to her mobile phone and used to sent message and was threatening her not to reveal the said facts to anybody otherwise, he would finish off her family and because of that reason, she had not told the said fact to anyone. She has also denied that, about 1 year back to the date of giving her evidence before the court, one day, in the afternoon at 3.30 P.M., the accused came near her house and told that he would talk about the marriage talks with his mother and called her to his house, despite refusal, the accused took her forcibly in an auto and in the said house, the mother of the accused was there. She has also denied that, the accused by telling that he will show his house, took her to the 1 st floor of the house and bolted the door from inside and keeping her under threat, he committed rape on her 2 times and at the same time, without her knowledge, the accused also took the photographs of the said act and sent them to her phone. She has also denied that, the accused had told her that whenever he calls her, she should come, otherwise, he will finish off her family members and thereafter the accused left her near her house. She has also denied, likewise, she has given Complaint and thereafter she has told all the things to her parents. She has also denied that, on 23.2.2017, she lodged a Complaint which is as per Ex.P1.She has also denied that the police had come near her house. She has also denied that, the police had taken out the printout of 6 photographs from her Mobile and the said photographs are as per Ex.P2 and the said Mobile is 12 Spl CC No.529/2017 as per MO-1. She has also denied that, she has given Further Statement to the police which is as per Ex.P3. She has further denied that, her parents have compromised with the accused, and hence, she is deposing falsely. She has also denied that, she has shown the place of crime to the police and the police have drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P6 and her signature is as per Ex.P6(a). She has also denied that, she has received money from the accused, because of that reason, she is deposing falsely. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that, the photographs shown in MO-1 does not belong to her. She has also admitted that, she do not know about MO-1 and also the photographs.
12. PW2 is the father of the victim girl and PW3 is the mother of the victim girl. PWS-2 and 3 in their evidence have deposed that, CW1 is their daughter. They do not know the accused and they cannot identify the accused. As on the date of giving their evidence, the age of their daughter/CW1 is 20 years. During the year 2015, their daughter was aged 16 years. The marriage of CW1 was not fixed. Their daughter had not told anything about anyone. No one had taken their daughter. Their daughter had not told anything against the accused and they have not given any statement to the police. The learned Public Prosecutor treated these witnesses as hostile and subjected them to cross-examination. In their cross-examination, they have denied that, the engagement of CW1 and the accused was fixed, but, their marriage did not take place, they have also denied that, inspite of that, the accused used to telephone and send messages 13 Spl CC No.529/2017 to their daughter and the accused had taken their daughter to his house and committed rape on their daughter and the accused had sent the photographs taken at that time to their daughter's mobile phone. They have also denied that, the said photographs are obscene photos. They have also denied that, likewise they have given their statements to the police. Ex.P4 is the statement given by PW2 and Ex.P5 is the Statement given by PW3. They have also denied that, inspite of knowing the contents of Exs.P4 and P5, they are deposing falsely before the court, as they have compromised with the accused by receiving money. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
13. PW4 is the mother of the accused, PW5 is the elder sister of the accused and PW6 is the younger sister of the accused. In their evidence before the court they have deposed that, they do not know CWS-1 to 3. They know the accused and they have identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. They do not know neither the victim girl nor anything about this case. They have not given any statement before the police. They do not know that, the victim girl had come to her house. They also do not know that photographs were taken and they were sent to the mobile of the victim girl. These witnesses were treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and subjected them to cross-examination. In their cross- examination, they have denied that they have performed the engagement of the accused with the accused and the accused and the victim girl used to talk over mobile phone. They have also denied that, about 1 year back to the date of giving their evidence, 14 Spl CC No.529/2017 the accused had come with the victim girl to their house and thereafter the accused took the victim girl to the first floor of the house and there the accused committed rape on the victim girl and at that time, the accused had taken the photographs and sent them to the mobile phone of the victim girl. They have also denied that, likewise they have given their statements to the police. Ex.P7 is the Statement given by PW4, Ex.P8 is the Statement given by PW5 and Ex.P9 is the Statement given by PW6. They have also denied that, inspite of giving Statements as per Exs.P7 to P9 before the complainant police, they are deposing falsely in order to assist the accused, as the accused is their family member. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
14. PW7 is the relative of the accused. In his evidence before the court he has deposed that, he knows the accused and he has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. About 3 years back to the date of giving his evidence before the court, the police had arrested the accused and seized one mobile phone from the accused. He knows the house of the accused. The police have conducted Seizure Mahazar as per Ex.P10 and his signature is as per Ex.P10(a). He has not gone near the house of the accused at any time and the accused has not shown any mobile phone to him. He has not given any statement in this regard. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected him to cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, the police have conducted Seizure Mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P10. He has also denied 15 Spl CC No.529/2017 that, he has given Statement to the police as per Ex.P11. He has also denied that, inspite of knowing all the things, he is deposing falsely in order to help the accused, as the accused is his relative. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
15. PW8 is the Lady Doctor. In her evidence before the court, she has deposed that, on 24.2.2017 at 5.10 P.M., she has examined the victim girl aged about 19 years sent by Byatrayanapura police through WPC along with her mother with the history of sexual assault repeatedly under threat. She enquired with the victim girl and her mother and after taking consent of the mother of the victim girl, she has examined the victim girl. On physical examination, she has found that the victim girl was developed according to her age. On genital examination, she found that the hymen of the respondent police was absent, accordingly she has given her Report which is as per Ex.P12 and her signature is as per Ex.P12(a). During the time of examination of the victim girl, she has collected the specimens of the victim girl, which are as per MOS-1 to 5. The FSL Report is as per Ex.P13. 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. She has also denied that, she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. She has also denied that, she has issued false Medical Certificate of the victim girl.
16 Spl CC No.529/201716. PW9 is the Doctor who has examined the accused. In his evidence before the court, he has deposed that, on 27.2.2017 at 7.30 P.M., he has examined the accused physically and given Report in that regard. The said Medical Report of the accused is as per Ex.P14 and his signature is as per Ex.P14(a). Thereby this witness has performed his statutory duty. This witness was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross- examination he has denied that, he has not examined the accused. He has further denied that, he has given false Medical Report as per Ex.P14. He has also denied that, in order to help the police, he is deposing falsely.
17. PW10 is the Head Mistress of CMA Girls High School, Mysore Road, Bangalore, wherein the victim girl had studied. In her evidence before the court, she has deposed that, ono14.7.2017, Byatarayanapura Police had requested her to issue details of the date of birth of the victim girl. After referring to the School documents, she has issued the Study Certificate of the victim girl showing the date of birth of the victim girl as 9.5.1998, accordingly she has given the Report, which is as per Ex.P15 and her signature is as per Ex.P15(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 deposed that, other than Ex.P15 she has not given any documents to the police.
17 Spl CC No.529/201718. PW11 is the Revenue Officer. In his evidence before the court, he has deposed that, on 12.8.2017, the Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura police station, sent a letter to him to give details of a property bearing No.14-E and as per the office records, he has given letter that the said property is a house property and in the said house, one person by name Mohammed Hameed is residing and the same property belongs to the said person. Accordingly, he has issued copy of the Khata Extract which is as per Ex.P18 and his signature is as per Ex.P18(a). The Letter of the police is as per Ex.P16 and the Letter sent by him to the police is as per Ex.P17 and his signature is as per Ex.P17(a). Thereby, this witness has performed his statutory duty. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has not conducted the spot and that he has not given any documents. He has also denied that, he has created Exs.P17 and P18 as per the say of the police. He has also denied that, he is deposing falsely before the court.
19. PW12 is the Police constable. In his evidence before the court he has deposed that, on 9.3.2017, as per the orders of CW31 he has taken the 4 sealed articles seized in this case to RFSL, Mysuru and obtained Acknowledgement and produced the said Acknowledgement before the Police Inspector and the said Acknowledgement is as per Ex.P19. He has further deposed that, on 25.4.2017, as per the orders of CW31, he has taken the 4 sealed articles seized in this case to FSL, Madiwala, and obtained Acknowledgement and the said Acknowledgement is as per Ex.P20. In this regard, he has given Reports as per Exs.P21 and P22 and 18 Spl CC No.529/2017 his signatures are as per Exs.P21(a) and P22(a). Thereby this witness has performed his statutory duty. This witness was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross- examination, he has denied that, as stated in his chief evidence, he has not been deputed by CW31. He has also denied that, he has not handed over any articles either to FSL, Madiwala or Mysuru. He has denied that, he has given false documents as per Exs.P19 and P20. He has also denied that, as per the say of the police, he is deposing falsely.
20. 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 took the victim girl to his house and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly, under threat knowing fully well that the victim girl was a minor and that the accused has also taken the photographs of the said act and sent the said photographs to the mobile phone of the victim girl. Hence, there is no chain to link the accused with the alleged crime. Even the evidence given by the Lady Doctor who has examined the victim girl physically and given Report that the hymen of the victim girl was absent, but this evidence also do not come to the aid of the prosecution as because the victim girl herself has not supported the case of the prosecution that she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused in his house. The Victim girl except identifying her signatures nothing has 19 Spl CC No.529/2017 deposed against the accused to hold that the accused has committed the offence as alleged against him. The prosecution has also not examined the Investigating Officer who after completion of investigation has filed charge-sheet against the accused. This is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Thereby, I am of the view that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal from the hands of this court. Of course, the presumption under Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 goes against the accused but, the prosecution has to prove its case by furnishing cogent evidence but it failed to do so, thereby, I hold that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 to 6 in the Negative.
21. In the present case, as per the discussions made by me herein above, the victim girl has deposed before the court that, she has not suffered any sexual assault on her from the accused . Considering these aspects, I find no reasons to award compensation to the victim girl as per the provisions under Rule 9 of POCSO Rules 2020, as such no compensation is awarded to the victim girl.
22. POINT NO.7:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 6 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.12 of POCSO Act 2012, Secs. 506, 363, 366 of IPC, 20 Spl CC No.529/2017 Sec.376 of IPC, Sec.4 of POCSO Act 2012 and Sec.67(B) of I.T.Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
MO-1 ie., the Mobile Phone is ordered to be confiscated to the State after the appeal period is over.
MOS-2 to 5 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 25 th day of November, 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 Victim girl CW.1 28.02.2019 PW.2 Harshid Khan CW.2 27.03.2019 PW.3 Hanoorjaha CW.3 27.03.2019 PW.4 Rizwan Katham CW.7 09.10.2019 PW.5 Ruksan CW.8 09.10.2019 PW.6 Saiba Katham CW.9 09.10.2019 PW.7 Aakram Pasha CW.12 11.02.2020 PW.8 Dr. Indumathi CW.20 03.03.2020 PW.9 Dr. Geraldin Sanjay CW.19 02.03.2020 PW.10 Syeda amuthul Asis CW.16 02.03.2020 21 Spl CC No.529/2017 PW.11 Chennappa CW.18 03.03.2020 PW.12 Jayaprakash CW.23 13.03.2020 Documents marked for the prosecution: Ex.P1 Complaint dated: 23.02.2017 lodged by the complainant. Ex.P1(a) Signature of the PW.1 Ex.P2 6 Photos Ex.P3 Further statement of PW.1 Ex.P4 Further Statement of PW.2 Ex.P5 Further Statement of PW.3 Ex.P6 Panchanama Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P7 Statement of PW.4 Ex.P8 Statement of PW.5 Ex.P9 Statement of PW.6 Ex.P10 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P11 Statement of PW.7 Ex.P12 Medical Report of Victim Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P13 FSL Report Ex.P14 Medical Report of the Accused Ex.P14(a) Signature of the Pw.9 Ex.P15 School Report Ex.P15(a) Signature of of PW.10 PW.16 Statement of PW.10 PW.16(a) Signature of PW.10 PW.17 Property Report given by PW.11 Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW.11 Ex.P18 Katha Extract Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW.11 Ex.P19 FSL Acknowledgement Dated: 09.03.2017 Ex.P20 FSL Acknowledgement Dated: 25.04.2017 Ex.P21 Report Given by PW.12 Ex.P21(a) Signature of PW.12 Ex.P22 Report Given by PW.12 Ex.P22(a) Signature of PW.12 22 Spl CC No.529/2017
Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO.1 Mobile phone MOS.2 to 5 Sealed covers MOS-2(a) to 5(a) Signatures of PW8
Witness examined, documents, MOs marked for the accused [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.23 Spl CC No.529/2017
25.11.2020 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.12 of POCSO Act 2012, Secs. 506, 363, 366 of IPC, Sec.376 of IPC, Sec.4 of POCSO Act 2012 and Sec.67(B) of I.T.Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of the
accused stands cancelled.
MO-1 ie., the Mobile Phone is ordered to
be confiscated to the State after the
appeal period is over.
MOS-2 to 5 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.529/2017
The case is called before the court through VC (zoom). The counsel for the accused and the surety are present, filed application under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C Heard and allowed the application on the accused executing the personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for likesum.
The surety by name Gopalappa.K,
S/o. Krishnappa is present. Filed surety
affidavit and declaration. Photo and
identification proof is also produced. He has produced RTC for Sy.94 measuring 2 acres, situated at Chikkanahalli village, Vakkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk & District. The counsel for the accused has identified the surety. The surety is accepted. Office is to take personal bond and surety bond of the accused. The bond shall be in force for a period of six months.
[R.SHARADA]] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.25 Spl CC No.529/2017