Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Bala @ Balan @ Kiladibala on 15 March, 2022
1 Spl.CC.No.1204/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE SITTING AT CHIDREN'S COURT, BENGALURU.
Dated this 11 th day of March, 2022.
: PRESENT:
Smt. B.K. KOMALA, B.A.L., LL.M.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Sitting at Children's Court, Bengaluru.
Spl, C.C. No.1204/2019
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka
By Adugodi Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor]
/ Vs /
ACCUSED : Bala @ Balan @ Kiladibala,
S/o. late Velu, Aged 30 years,
R/o. No.150, 7th Main,
7th Cross, Rajendranagar,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru-47.
[In J.C]
[Rep. Sri.V.K, Adv.]
2 Spl.CC.No.1204/2019
1 Date of commission of offence 22.12.2011
2 Date of report of occurrence 27.12.2011
3 Date of arrest of Accused 29.12.2011, 07.09.2012,
31.08.2019, 02.12.2021
Date of release of Accused 24.01.2012, 31.12.2012,
30.09.2020 [Now in J.C]
Period undergone in custody 1 year 8 Months & 28 days
by Accused
4 Date of commencement 17-02-2020
Evidence
5 Date of closing of evidence 16-12-2021
6 Name of the complainant Father of victim
7 Offences complained of Section 366A, 506B &
Sec.511 I.P.C.
8 Opinion of the Judge. Accused found not guilty
for the offences
punishable u/s. 366A
and 511 IPC .
Accused found guilty for
the offence punishable
u/s. 506 IPC.
3
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by Adugodi Police against the accused for the offences publishable u/sec. 366A, 506B and Section 511 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused, who was known to CW2 and his family members threatened CW2 to cut the fingers of her sister and to kill her parents if she did not agree to marry him and to go to Chennai along with him. It is further alleged that on 22.12.2011, the accused forced CW2 to go along with him to Chennai by showing knife and when she refused, he intimidated that he would rape her and make false propaganda that she has illicit relationship with some other person and would also sell her to somebody for Rs.50,000/-.
3. Hence, as per the complaint given by CW1, case in Crime No.329/2011 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 506 IPC. After 4 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who has committed the case to this court after securing the accused.
4. After receipt of records, cognizance was taken. After complying with Section 226 Cr.P.C., charges were framed and read over to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of the prosecution case 10 witnesses have been examined as PW.1 to PW.10. 7 documents have been marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. One material object has been marked as MO1. The statement of the accused u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence. The accused has not led any oral or documentary defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments. Perused the records. 5
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019
7. From the materials placed before the court following points arise for my consideration:-
1.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 21.12.2011 and 22.12.2011 in Rajendranagar, Koramangala, the accused attempted to kidnap the victim with an intention to seduce her for illicit intercourse and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec. 366 r/w Section 511 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused intimidated CW2 to cut the fingers of her sister, kill her parents and dishonour her by raping her and by making false propaganda that she has illicit relationship with another person if she did not go along with him to Chennai and marry him, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec 506 of I.P.C.?
3. What order?6
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019
8. After the close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments, my findings to the above points are as below:
Point. No. 1: In the Negative Point. No. 2: In the Affirmative Point. No. 3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos.1 and 2: Both these points are interconnected and therefore they are taken up together for consideration.
10. The case has been registered on the basis of complaint given by CW1, who is the father of the victim. In Ex.P1, which is the complaint dated 27.12.2011, it is stated that on 22.12.2011, the accused forced his daughter CW2 to go with him to Chennai and when she refused, he intimidated the victim to kill her parents, to cut the fingers of her sister and that after raping her he would make false propaganda that she has illicit relationship with another person and thereby 7 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 defame her in the society. It is further alleged that the accused also intimidated that he would sell the victim to somebody for Rs.50,000/-.
11. The complainant has been examined as PW1. He has deposed in his chief-examination that accused used to follow the victim while she was going to school and was intimidating her that if she did not go along with him, he would cut the fingers of her sister and brother and also that he would sell her if she did not cooperate with him sexually. He has further deposed that on 22.12.2011, accused intimidated the victim at the point of knife that if she did not accompany him to Chennai, he would kill her. He has identified Ex.P1 as the complaint given by him. PW1 has not not all been cross-examined and therefore his evidence has remained unchallenged.
8
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019
12. PW2 is the victim. She has deposed that accused always used to possess a button knife and when she was alone in the house, he used to threaten her by showing knife that if she did not accompany him, he would kill her parents, cut the fingers of her sister and hands of her brother and instigate some other person to rape her. She has further deposed that, he threatened her that he would take her to Chennai and marry her and if she did not agree, he would sell her to somebody for Rs.50,000/-. She has further deposed that she intimated the above facts to her parents and her father gave the complaint. She has identified the accused and MO1. Even during cross-examination, it has been elicited that the accused by showing knife used to threaten her.
13. PW4 is the mother of the victim. She has also deposed in corroboration with the oral evidence of PW1. PW3 and PW6 are cited as independent 9 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 eyewitnesses. They have deposed that CW1 informed them about the alleged intimidation by the accused. PW3 and PW6 have deposed that accused, who was an unemployed, along with 2-3 persons always used to stand near the house of the victim and was following CW2. PW5 and PW10 are cited as attesting witnesses to Ex.P2 and Ex.P4. Whereas PW5 has deposed in corroboration with the case of the prosecution with regard to conducting of spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, PW10 has turned hostile. The remaining witnesses are the Investigating Officers.
14. As stated above the complaint is dt:27.12.2011 given by father of CW.2. Ex.P2 is the spot mahazar conducted on 28.12.2011 as shown by the informant. The attesting witness to Ex.P2, who has been examined as PW.5 has deposed in support of the case of the prosecution in his chief-examination. Though he has been cross-examined nothing has been elicited to deny 10 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 or dispute the case of the prosecution regarding conducting of mahazar as per Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is the voluntary statement of the accused marked u/s.27 of the Evidence Act, wherein it is stated that if the accused is taken he would show the place of incident and the Knife used for commission of offence. Ex.P4 is the Mahazar dt:29.12.2011 drawn in House No.150, 7 th Cross, 7th Main, Rajendra Nagar, Koramangala, under which a Knife i.e., MO.1 has been seized. One of the attesting witnesses to Ex.P4 i.e., PW.10 has turned hostile. However, the Investigating Officer, who has conducted the said mahazar i.e., PW.7 has deposed in corroboration with the recitals of Ex.P4. He has identified MO.1 as the Knife seized under Ex.P4. Even PW.2 has identified MO.1 as the Knife which was in custody of the accused at the time of commission of offence. Though PW.7 has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused, nothing has even been suggested disputing the seizure of MO.1 and that MO.1 11 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 was seized as shown by the accused. There is no cross-examination even with regard to identification of MO.1 and custody of MO.1 with the accused at the time of commission of offence. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.7 and PW.2 coupled with Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, the prosecution has proved that MO.1 was seized under Ex.P4 at the instance of the accused as per the voluntary statement given by him, which is marked as Ex.P3.
15. Ex.P5 is the Certificate issued by the Lawrence High School, showing the date of birth of CW.2 as 01.01.1998. Ex.P6 is the F.I.R, Ex.P7 is Report given by PW.9.
16. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it is seen that PW.2/CW.2 has deposed fully in support of the prosecution case as regards the criminal intimidation and nothing has been elicited during cross- 12
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 examination. On the other hand, even during cross- examination it has been elicited that the accused threatened the victim as alleged in the complaint and as deposed by her in chief-examination. PW.1, who is the father of the victim and PW.4, who is the mother of the victim have also deposed in corroboration with the said oral evidence of the victim. Even circumstantial witnesses i.e., PW.3 and PW.6 have deposed in corroboration with the oral evidence of PW.1. They have withstood the cross-examination and nothing could be elicited as regards the charge under criminal intimidation so as to disprove the case of the prosecution. The said oral evidence is coupled with the oral evidence of the Investigating Officers and the documentary evidence as discussed above.
17. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the accused by showing the Knife intimidated the victim to cause death of her parents, to cause grievous hurt to 13 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 her siblings and to impute unchastity to her if she did not accompany him to Chennai and agree to marry him, which caused alarm to her. Therefore, the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Sec.503 of IPC, which is punishable under Part-II of Section 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the affirmative.
16. The prosecution has also alleged offences against the accused u/s.366 and 511 IPC. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused intimidated the victim that if she did not go alongwith him to Chennai to marry him, he would commit rape upon her, make her pregnant and make false propaganda that she has illicit relationship with another person.
17. It is pertinent to note that the said threat according to the prosecution has been made by the accused on 21.12.2011 and 22.12.2011. The complaint 14 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 has been given on 27.12.2011. It is stated in the complaint that the victim informed the informant about the alleged threat on the said date and therefore, the complaint was given on 27.12.2011. It is neither stated in any document or statement produced by the prosecution or none of the witnesses have deposed in their oral evidence that in furtherance of the said threat the accused did any act for commission of the said offence i.e., forcibly took the victim to Chennai to commit rape upon her or he did any attempt to make false propaganda against the victim.
18. In the Commentary of Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, it has been opined that "In the language of Stephen, an attempt to constitute a crime is an act done with an intent to commit that crime and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted. Further, it has been opined that an attempt is an act done in 15 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 part execution of a criminal design, amounting to more than mere preparation, but falling short of actual consummation, and possessing, except for failure to consummate, all the elements of the substantive crime, combined with the doing of some act adapted to, but falling short of, its actual commission". But in the case on hand, no such attempt or preparation has been proved by the prosecution to have been made by the accused to commit offences u/s.366 IPC or 366A IPC either in law or on facts. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused attempted to kidnap the victim to seduce her for illicit acts or compel her for marriage against her will. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused u/s.366 or 366A IPC r/w. Sec.511 IPC. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
16
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019
19. POINT NO.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Section 366A, 511 IPC.
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.PC, I convict the accused for the offence punishable u/s.506 IPC.
To hear regarding sentence.
*** (Dictated to the Judgment Writers, transcribed by them, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on 11 th day of March, 2022).
(B.K. KOMALA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, Sitting at Children's Court, BENGALURU.17
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 Dt:15/03/2022:
ORDERS ON SENTENCE Heard the accused and the learned counsel for accused.
2. The accused submitted that he has not committed any fault and he may be acquitted.
3. The learned counsel for accused submitted that the benefit of set off may be given.
4. The accused is convicted for the offence u/s.506 IPC.
5. Considering the nature of allegation and the nature of act committed by the accused, it is held that the accused is not entitled for the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
6. The accused is directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (Two) years for the offence u/s. 506 IPC.18
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019
7. Under Section 428 Cr.PC, the accused shall be entitled for benefit of set off for the period already undergone in Judicial Custody.
8. MO.1 shall be confiscated to State after the expiry of appeal period.
9. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of judgment to the accused.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer in open Court].
(B.K. KOMALA) L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sitting at Children's Court, Bengaluru. ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
P.W.1/CW.1 Father of victim
P.W.2/CW.2 Victim girl
P.W.3/CW.3 Anthony
19
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019
P.W.4/CW.4 Mother of victim
P.W.5/CW.6 Srinivasa
P.W.6/CW.5 Arokya Nathan
P.W.7/CW.14 Manjunatha
PW.8/CW.13 S.N.Subhash Chandra
PW.9/CW.11 V.Sampath Narayana
PW.10/CW.8 Challan.S
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint dtL27.12.2011 Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.3 Statement of accused Ex.P.4 Seizure mahazar Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.5 Certificate issued by Lawrence High School Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.6 F.I.R Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.7 Report dt:28.12.2011 of PW.9 Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW.9 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED MO.1 : Knife 20 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
- Nil -
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & M.OS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
- Nil -
(B.K. KOMALA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, Sitting at Children's Court, BENGALURU.21
Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 ORDERS ON SENTENCE Heard the accused and the learned counsel for accused.
2. The accused submitted that he has not committed any fault and he may be acquitted.
3. The learned counsel for accused submitted that the benefit of set off may be given.
4. The accused is convicted for the offence u/s.506 IPC.
5. Considering the nature of allegation and the nature of act committed by the accused, it is held that the accused is not entitled for the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
6. The accused is directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (Two) years for the offence u/s. 506 IPC.
7. Under Section 428 Cr.PC, the accused shall be entitled for benefit of set off for the period 22 Spl. C.C.No.1204/2019 already undergone in Judicial Custody.
8. MO.1 shall be confiscated to State after the expiry of appeal period.
9. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of judgment to the accused.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer in open Court].
(B.K. KOMALA) L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sitting at Children's Court, Bengaluru.