Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Sayed Mohammed Ali Jan on 14 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
- : PRESENT : -
SMT.SHUBHA GOWDAR, B.A.LL.B,
LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
SPECIAL C.C.NO. 19/2014
COMPLAINANT :
The State of Karnataka by
Channammanakere Achukattu Police
Station,
Bangalore.
[Represented by learned Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Sayed Mohammed Ali Jan,
S/o. Late Sayed Mohammed,
Aged about 41 years,
R/a. No.13, 4th Cross,
Kousar Nagar, R.T. Nagar Post
Bangalore.
[Reptd by Sri. G.Nagaraja Gowda -
Advocate]
***
2 Spl.C.C.19/14
JUDGMENT
Channamanakere Achukattu Police, Bangalore City have charge sheeted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and under Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :
CW-2 the prosecutrix was child during the year 2013. She was residing with her parents in Kathriguppe, Bangalore.
Accused had taken her on 22.8.2013 to his house in R.T. Nagar and had forcibly sex with her, subsequently left her nearby her house. On 23.8.2013 again at 2.00 p.m., he took her to his house by giving threat and again he had committed rape on her. On 31.8.2013 CW-1, father of the prosecutrix had lodged a complaint reporting missing of his daughter.
Channammanakere Achukattu Police traced prosecutrix with accused in his house in R.T. Nagar and brought them to police
3 Spl.C.C.19/14 station on 27.10.2013. Her statement had been recorded. Accused and victim were sent to hospital for medical treatment. Investigating Officer drew necessary mahazars and also recorded statement of other prosecutrix witnesses. By completing investigation, he submitted charge sheet to the Court for the aforesaid offences.
3. The charge sheet submitted to 50th A.C.C. & S.J Court. Cognizance was taken and registered in Special C.C. On hearing both sides the charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C. r/w Section 5(l) 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. CW-1 was examined before 50th A.C.C & S.J Court, subsequently, on the point of jurisdiction, it was transferred to CCH-54.
4. On prosecution side got examined as many as 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to 8 out of 14 charge sheet witnesses and 4 Spl.C.C.19/14 got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. 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. Heard the arguments both sides. Perused and posted for Judgment.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had kidnapped CW-2 the child of CW-1 Varadaraya Prabhu on 22.8.2013 from her house situated on Ramamindar Road, Cauvery Nagar, Kattriguppe, Bangalore and also on 23..8.2013 at 2.00 p.m., from her house with intent to seduce her to illicit intercourse, punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C?
5 Spl.C.C.19/14
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused had committed rape repeatedly on CW-
2, the child in his house against her will, punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.
r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012?
3. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : As per final orders for the
following
REASONS
8. Point Nos.1:- There are two charges against the
accused. One is for offence under Section 366 of I.P.C., another is offence under Section 376 r/w Section 5(l) r/w 6 Spl.C.C.19/14 Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
9. According to prosecution PW-5 the victim was of 17 years as on the date of alleged occurrence. Accused is alleged to have had taken away PW-5 on 22.8.2013, he had sex with her in his house in R.T. Nagar, thereafter on 23.8.2013 at 2.00 p.m., again took away her to his house, on that day also he had sex with her. The incident occurred after coming into force of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. Hence, the charge has also been framed under Section 5(l) of POSCO Act. In view of Section 2(1)(d) of POSCO Act "child" means any person who is under the age of 18 years. Therefore, the age of the victim shall have to be determined at the first instance.
10. As per prosecution PW-5 was aged about 17 years. To prove the same the prosecution has placed Ex.P8, the certificate issued by the school in which she studied. It is issued by Head Master of the said school by mentioning that 7 Spl.C.C.19/14 date of birth of the victim is 18.6.1997 as per school records. Corresponding to this PW-1 father of the prosecutrix has stated in his evidence that victim had not completed even 17 years as on the date of incident. Though he is subjected to cross- examination on defence side he has denied that he has given approximate age, there is no proof to prove the age. Even at the time of lodging a missing complaint as per Ex.P10 he had given the age of the victim therein as 17 years. Same is also supported by Investigating Officer PW-7. The aforesaid documentary testimony and oral evidence found on record is not contradicted on defence side. There is no other evidence to discard the aforesaid testimony produced on prosecution side. PW-1 the father of the victim is the proper person to speak about her age. His statement is also supported by Ex.P8. The birth certificate or certificate equivalent to that including the school certificate can be based to determine the age of the prosecutrix. On this point, I have relied upon (2013) 14 SCC 637 (Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske Vs. State of Maharashtra and another), it has held that:
8 Spl.C.C.19/14 "Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 376 and 363 -
Kidnapping and rape - Age of prosecutrix/victim
- Determinatin of - Yardstick for - Certificates of age from schools or Local Authorities Vis-à-vis medical evidence - Held, statutory provision in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, R.12(3) is also applicable to determine age of young prosecutrix/victim - Hence, it should be determined by matriculation or equivalent certificates or date of birth certificates from school first attended or birth certificate by Corporation/Municipal authority or Panchayat and only in absence of such documents medical opinion can be sought for - Therefore, reliance placed upon school certificates to arrive at age of prosecutrix to be below 18 years was perfectly justified - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - R.12(3) - Procedure for determination of age of juveniles - Application of, for determination of age of victim/prosecutrix - Criminal Trial - Medical Jurisprudence/Evidence
- Age - Juvenile/Child victim - Proof of age - Valid evidence".
Now, the question arises whether accused had induced PW- 5, due to which she had followed him and stayed with him nearly two months in his house and whether there is offence of rape committed by the accused on her on 22.8.2013 and also on 23.8.2013. At the first instance the offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. is taken for 9 Spl.C.C.19/14 consideration, the aforesaid Section consists of two parts, one is kidnapping woman with intent to compel her for marriage against her will, another is kidnapping of woman with intent to seduce her to illicit intercourse. In the present case, accused had kidnapped her with intent to commit sexual assault on her. Therefore, whether taking away or inducing away the essential ingredient of Section 366 of I.P.C is proved by the prosecution is to be seen.
11. So far as concerned to Section 366 of I.P.C. according to prosecution accused had induced the victim girl and taken her to his house and committed rape on her not only on 22.8.2013, but also on 23.8.2013, she stayed with him till 27.10.2013.
12. According to prosecution the victim girl came in contact with the accused about 8 to 9 months prior to the alleged incident. She was studying in 10th standard. Somehow the accused got the number of the victim girl, he was chatting with her on cell phone. He used to take her outside from her 10 Spl.C.C.19/14 house, sometimes from her school also to cinema, park and hotel where he was committing sexual harassment by way of embracing her, kissing her. On 22.8.2013 he had taken away the victim girl to his house in R.T. Nagar and committed rape on her, thereafter he left her to her house. On 23.8.2013 also victim girl had been taken away by the accused by threatening her and committed rape on her in his house. In order to avoid the police he was taking her outside and returning home during night hours only. In the meanwhile, the parents of the victim girl waited till 31.8.2013, thereafter he had lodged a missing complaint on that day. PW-3, C.N. Ramamurthy, Head Constable and PW-7, Baramappa B. Mallur, Police Sub Inspector who registered the case on receiving the missing complaint from father of the victim girl got the information that accused and the victim girl were in his house, they had been to his house on 27.10.2013 and found both of them in his house at R.T. Nagar and brought them to police station. It was informed to the father of the victim girl who had given the complaint as per Ex.P1 to take action against the accused he 11 Spl.C.C.19/14 had committed rape on the victim girl as per statement given by the victim girl. On 28.10.2013 PW-7 drew spot mahazar in the house of victim girl regarding the kidnapping by the accused, drew another mahazar as per Ex.P7 in the house of the accused on 27.10.2013 itself by taking the accused to his house. Both of them were sent to hospital for medical examination. Her hymen was found absent. Hence, the charge sheet had been submitted for offence of kidnapping and also for offence of rape. This is the case of the prosecution.
13. In order to prove its case prosecution has got examined as many as 8 witnesses. Out of which PW-1 father of the prosecutrix, PW-4 mother of the prosecutrix, PW-6 doctor who examined the victim girl and PW-5 the prosecutrix are the material witnesses. Even PW-3 Ramamurthy, H.C. and PW-7 P.S.I who partly conducted the investigation are also the other material witnesses in the present case. As per prosecution accused had intention of seducing her to illicit intercourse, with that intention he had taken away the victim 12 Spl.C.C.19/14 girl on 22.8.2013 and also on 23.8.2013. On that day, she did not return home, but stayed with him till 27.10.2013. Section 366 is aggravated form of Section 363. Section 363 defines the offence of kidnapping. Taking away or enticing away the victim girl by keeping out of her lawful guardian without their consent is the essential ingredient of offence of kidnapping. When it is coupled with the intention of seducing her to illicit intercourse becomes an aggravated form of offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. Therefore, at the first instance whether the accused had kidnapped the victim girl shall have to be looked into. As already mentioned in supra, the age of the victim girl was under 18 years as on the date of alleged incident. She was above 16 years but under 18 years. She was running in 17 years as on the date of the alleged incident. With this background, on going through the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 the parents of the prosecutrix, they have supported the case of the prosecution so far as concerned to missing of the victim girl. Ofcourse, they have stated that they were informed by the police that accused and the victim girl 13 Spl.C.C.19/14 were in his house in R.T. Nagar. PW-1 has contradicted on this point by stating that the police had taken him to police station in Attibele, where he found accused and the victim girl. This is not at all the case of the prosecution.
14. According to prosecution victim girl was found missing from 23.8.2013. As per the missing complaint at Ex.P10 PW-1 was not in the house, victim girl informed her mother that she would be going to her friend's room for studying, but did not return. On the same night he got the information, he contacted her on cell phone, then she said that she is in her friend's house, but, did not disclose the address. Since she was in the habit of leaving the house 2 to 3 days and thereafter returning, they waited till 31.8.2013. Ex.P10 depicts leaving the house by victim girl on 22.8.2013 is not the first time, earlier also she used to be outside many times for 2 to 3 days. As per Ex.P1, the complaint lodged by PW-1 after Chennammanakere Achukatu police brought victim girl and accused to the police station, he came to know from the victim 14 Spl.C.C.19/14 girl accused had sex with her on 22.8.2013 and also on 23.8.2013. Hence, he had lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. PW-1 has stated in his chief-examination that victim girl did not disclose before him in detail. He came to know about rape on the victim girl, from the doctor in KIMS hospital who subjected her to medical examination. As per the case of the prosecution since the victim girl disclosed before him he has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. But, he contradicts the case of the prosecution on this aspect. Even PW-1 has given contradictory statement that he had been taken to Police Station in Attibele and from that police station accused and victim girl were brought to Chennmmanakere Achukattu police station. It is also not at all the case of the prosecution. The oral testimony of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-4 is very material so far as concerned to offence of kidnapping, because PW-1 and PW-4 are the hearsay witnesses as per the case of the prosecution. PW-5 is the proper person to speak about the act of the accused. As discussed in supra the oral testimony of PW-1 contradicts the case of the prosecution.
15 Spl.C.C.19/14
15. Ofcourse, PW-4 mother of the victim girl has stated in her chief-examination victim girl disclosed that accused had taken her to his house and committed rape on her. On going through the cross-examination of the prosecution witness led on accused side, defence is total denial of the case of the prosecution. She had been to her friend's house, she was not with the accused during that time. In the back drop of oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-4, the evidence of PW-5 is looked into, the whole case of the prosecution goes away. Ofcourse, the consent by the prosecutrix who is under the age of 18 years is irrelevant. However, when the facts found on record leave no doubt that she was neither enticed nor taken away by accused from lawful guardianship of her parents, it is very difficult to connect him with alleged offence of kidnapping.
16. The oral testimony of PW-5 the prosecutrix would give entirely different picture. She has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. She has not complained against the accused. Her version is not against the accused, but against 16 Spl.C.C.19/14 some other person one Rafi, one year back he had taken her in auto forcibly to Bellary Airport road and made an attempt to commit rape on her, then she contacted his friend Firdos over phone, accused was with Firdos, then she came in contact with accused, she met accused once in R.T. Nagar. On going through her whole evidence nothing is forthcoming against the accused. Ofcourse, she has further stated in her chief- examination, she had been to R.T. Nagar as accused said that he is in R.T. Nagar, but not given any statement against him before the police, police obtained her signature nearby her house. She has given the aforesaid version only in her chief- examination of which does not incriminate the accused in anyway either for offence of kidnapping or offence of rape. The learned Public Prosecutor has extensively cross-examined her by putting so many suggestions, she accepted only few suggestions and flatly denied the other suggestions. In the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor she admitted that accused only was in the house, his mother had been to Darga near Dharmapuri on 28.2.2013. She has further 17 Spl.C.C.19/14 admitted that she used to go to his house to talk to him, again accused was dropping her to her house. Then the suggestion of committing rape on her was made by the learned Public Prosecutor. She has totally denied that aspect and also the another suggestion that accused had taken away her on 23.8.2013 by giving threat to her. She has stated that she herself had gone of her own. On going through her cross- examination led by the learned Public Prosecutor nowhere it discloses that accused had either taken away or enticed her on 23.8.2013. According to prosecution accused used to take her from her house and also from school to cinema, park and hotel. But, there is no evidence brought on record on this aspect. The prosecutrix has not stated even a single word against him that at any point of time he had taken away her to anywhere. According to her version, she has herself chosen on 23.8.2013 to go to his house. As per prosecution on 22.8.2013 she was taken away to his house and also on 23.8.2013 forcibly taken her to his house. There is no eyewitness on this point. It is only the person who has to speak on all these aspects is the 18 Spl.C.C.19/14 prosecutrix. According to her version he had never induced or taken away from her house, whereas she herself has left the house. According to her version, she had been to R.T. Nagar and once she visited his house. Under the circumstance, it could not be said that she was with accused either by using force or on account of any kind of persuasion on the part of the accused. Under the circumstance, it could not be held that prosecutrix had been taken or seduced from custody of her parents.
17. I have already discussed in supra that PW-1 had contradicted the case of the prosecution that he was taken away to police station in Attibele and he found accused and the victim girl in the police station and thereafter they were brought to Chennammanakere Achukattu police station. In view of the oral testimony of PW-5 the prosecutrix, she and accused had surrendered before Hebbagodi Police, since the police asked them to come to the police station as her parents had lodged a missing complaint. There is suggestion made by 19 Spl.C.C.19/14 the learned Public Prosecutor that police arrested the accused when he surrendered, then she admitted the same. This is inconsistent with that of the case of the prosecution. Accused and the victim girl were found in the house of the accused. PW-3 Ramamurthy, Head Constable and PW-7 Baramappa P.Mallur, Police Sub Inspector who partly investigated the case had been to the accused house and found them in his house and from that place they were brought to Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station. According to version of PW-1 they were found in Attibele Police Station. According to version of Pw-5 they surrendered before Hebbagodi Police. According to prosecution they were traced by them in the house of the accused. Why this variations is found on record, if at all the case of the prosecution is believed to be true that they were traced by Channammanakere Achukattu police in the house of the accused. The case of the prosecution itself is very suspicious that they were traced by Channammanakere Achukattu police. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer who partly investigated the case. Though it is the case of the prosecution 20 Spl.C.C.19/14 that he himself traced accused and the victim in the house of the accused, nothing is found on record on this aspect. As per the prosecution on 27.10.2013 at 10.00 a.m., they were brought to the police station. Thereafter again they visited the accused house by taking the accused to his house and drew mahazar with respect to the place of rape committed in the presence of panchas between 11.00 a.m., and 11.45 a.m. If at all they were found in his house at 10.00 a.m. and it was traced by Pw-7 he would have naturally drawn the mahazar there itself. But, so many contradictory versions are found in the evidence of Pw-1, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7. Above all PW-5 the prosecutrix herself has testified that accused had never kidnapped her, he had never taken away from her house. According to her version, she herself has left the house. There are no other materials to prove either the inducement or any allurement to the victim girl in leaving the house by herself. It is not at all the say of either PW-1 or PW-4 that accused used to visit her house or used to contact prosecutrix over phone persuading to leave the house. Nothing is forthcoming in the 21 Spl.C.C.19/14 oral testimony of any prosecution witnesses. Under the circumstance, it can not be held that accused is guilty of the act either taking away the girl or seducing her out of keeping of her parents. The act of going on the part of the girl is voluntary and conformable to her own wishes and the conduct of the girl leaves no doubt that it is so, accused cannot be held to have either taken or seduced the girl. I do not find anything on record that accused had neither compelled the prosecutrix by force or had he attempted in other means to entice her to go from her house to his house. The essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping itself is not established by the prosecution. There is no satisfactory, corroborative and reliable evidence to connect him to offence of kidnapping. The contradictory statement of PW-1 and oral testimony of PW-4 are not sufficient to hold the guilt of the accused for offence under Section 366 of I.P.C. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt should go to accused. Hence, I hold point No.1 in the negative.
22 Spl.C.C.19/14
18. Point No.2: There is also charge of rape against the accused. According to prosecution hymen of PW-5 is absent as per medical report at Ex.P5 issued by PW-6 Dr.Sudha who examined her on 27.10.2013. She is examined on prosecution side. In Ex.P5 she opined that there is evidence of signs of recent/previous sexual intercourse present. This itself depicts that she has not given the definite opinion whether there is sign of recent sexual intercourse or previous sexual intercourse. If her oral testimony is read with Ex.P5 no conclusive opinion is formed by her whether it is recent sexual intercourse or previous sexual intercourse. She testifies that there is sign of having sexual intercourse. I have already discussed in supra at length while discussing point No.1 as per the version of father of the prosecutrix herself she was in the habit of leaving the house many times for 2 to 3 days, thereafter she was returning home, even as per version of PW-5 the prosecutrix, accused had never sexually harassed her or committed rape on her, but it is some other person who made an attempt to commit rape on her. In the absence of support by the prosecutrix that 23 Spl.C.C.19/14 accused had sex with her, it is difficult to connect him with alleged offence of rape. Ofcourse, the charge is under Section 376 of I.P.C. r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. Section 29 of the Act provides the presumption in favour of the prosecution. 12. Section 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 provides presumption as to certain offences:-
"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, the accused has been prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of POSCO Act also along with Section 376 of I.P.C. Though the presumption is in favour of prosecution, it can be rebutted by referring to prosecution evidence and there is no requirement for the accused to present any independent evidence to rebut presumption. Whenever any law prescribes that the court shall 24 Spl.C.C.19/14 presume the existence of culpable mandatory stage or to draw a presumption regarding commission of any offence, unless contrary is proved, the onus to prove the contrary undoubtedly shifts upon the accused. However, it does not discharge the prosecution of its duty to first establish and prove the facts, the existence of which can only lead to drawing of any such compulsory presumption or legal presumption by the use of the expression "shall presume". The prosecution in the present case has not put forth convincing, reliable, corroborative and satisfactory evidence.
19. On going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses including the evidence of PW-5 the case of the prosecution is suspicious. PW-5 who is the proper person to speak on this aspect has stated firmly that accused had never any sex with her. At the same time PW-1 has stated that prosecutrix did not disclose anything before him, but, he came to know only from the doctor about the use of the girl for sex. Under the circumstance, his oral testimony does not help the prosecution 25 Spl.C.C.19/14 case to hold the guilt of the accused for offence of rape. Prosecutrix has totally denied the charge of rape, according to her version no offence of rape is committed on her by the accused. Under the circumstance, her version that she along with accused surrendered before Hebbagodi police does not lead to draw the conviction against accused. In the cross- examination led by the learned counsel for the accused she has unequivocally stated that he knows accused for the last 8 to 9 months, he has never sexually harassed, she and accused are very good friends. Under the circumstance, based on the medical report that there is sign of recent /previous sexual intercourse present cannot be based to convict the accused for offence of rape. According to prosecutrix at any point of time he took her from her house, he never induced or forced in leaving her house, both of them were very good friends, he never sexually harassed. In the absence of convincing, satisfactory and reliable evidence, the accused cannot be convicted for offence of rape. In the cases of rape eyewitness may not be available. The version of the prosecutrix carries 26 Spl.C.C.19/14 more weight. It is settled principle of law that on the sole testimony of prosecutrix if found reliable and inspires confidence accused can be convicted for offence of rape. Whereas in the present case according to her version, they are very good friends, he never sexually harassed her in any manner. When that is so, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the offence of rape. Hence, he cannot be held to be guilty for offence of rape. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of the same should go to accused. Hence, I hold point No. 2 in the negative.
20. Point No.3: In view of my above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C. r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of 27 Spl.C.C.19/14 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
Item Nos. 1 to 5 in PF No.138/13 (PR No.257/14) are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after appeal period is over.
Award of compensation as in Section 7(2) of POSCO Act, to PW-5 the prosecutrix is hereby recommended to District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore Urban. Submit the copy of the F.I.R., complaint, charge sheet and last day order sheet to D.L.S.A. (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 14th day of October, 2016.) (SHUBHA GOWDAR) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW.1 Varadaraya Prabhu PW.2 Dr. Ramesh. C PW.3 C.N.Ramamurthy 28 Spl.C.C.19/14 PW.4 Vasudha Prabhu PW.5 Prosecutrix PW.6 Dr. C.P. Sudha PW.7 Baramappa B. Mallur PW.8 P.K. Shekar 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-7 Ex.P 2 Medical report of accused Ex.P 2(a) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P3 Panchanama Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW-5 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW-7 Ex.P4 Statement of victim Ex.P5 Medical report of victim Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW-8 Ex.P6 F.I.R.
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW-7
Ex.P7 Panchanama
Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW-8
Ex.P7(b) Signature of accused
Ex.P8 School certificate
Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW-8
Ex.P9 F.S.L. report
29 Spl.C.C.19/14
Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW-8
Ex.P10 Complaint
Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW-8
Ex.P11 F.I.R.
Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW-8
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
- NIL -
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, AND MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
(SHUBHA GOWDAR) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
*** 30 Spl.C.C.19/14 14.10.2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court, operative portion of which reads as under:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C. r/w Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
Item Nos. 1 to 5 in PF No.138/13 (PR No.257/14) are ordered to be 31 Spl.C.C.19/14 destroyed as worthless after appeal period is over.
Award of compensation as in Section 7(2) of POSCO Act, to PW-
5 the prosecutrix is hereby
recommended to District Legal
Services Authority, Bangalore
Urban. Submit the copy of the
F.I.R., complaint, charge sheet and
last day order sheet to D.L.S.A.
(SHUBHA GOWDAR)
LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.