Bangalore District Court
State By Hsr Layout Police vs Ramji @ Ramsingh on 23 January, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 23 rd day of January, 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. 197/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by HSR Layout Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Ramji @ Ramsingh,
Son of Late. Ratansingh,
Aged 30 years,
Residing at: Darchula Grama,
Darchula Police Thana,
Pitorganj District,
Uttarkhand State.
[By Advocates Sri. Venkatesh
/Sri.Naveen.K.E]
1. Date of commission of offence From 20.10.2015 to 3.2.2016
2. Date of report of occurrence 3.2.2016
of the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 04.02.2016. Since the date of his arrest
ie., from 4.2.2016, till date, the accused is
in the judicial custody.
4. Date of commencement of 13.12.2018
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 7.1.2020
2 Spl CC No.197/2016
6. Name of the complainant Yogesh.V, of Talash Association.
7. Offences complained of Secs. 4, 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and
[As per charge-sheet] Secs. 370, 376, 504, 506 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, HSR Layout police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 4, 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and Secs. 370, 376, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the accused during the month of October-2015, brought CW4-victim girl who was aged 17 years to Bangalore, knowing that she is a minor by assuring her to get a job at Bangalore and he took the victim girl to his friend's house at Uttarahalli, Bangalore and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, without her consent and insulted the victim girl and on 31.1.2016 at about 11 P.M., the accused telephoned to CW10 and asked him to give the phone to CW4-victim girl and when CW4 took the phone, the accused abused her in filthy language and threatened her and on the next day i.e., on 1.2.2016 at about 8 A.M., the accused went near the house of CW10 and picked up quarrel with CW4-victim girl by telling that, not to inform the said fact to anyone, otherwise, he will kill the victim girl . The complainant who is none other than the Investigation Officer of Talash Association lodged a complaint with the complainant police 3 Spl CC No.197/2016 that the accused brought the victim girl to Bengaluru in order to provide her a job, but, instead of providing job to her, he has committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl repeatedly and the accused had also threatened the victim girl with dire consequences of life if she were to disclose the said act to anyone. On receiving the information from the family of the friend of the accused to rescue the victim girl, the complainant went to the spot and rescued the victim girl and brought her to the police station and lodged a complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.91/2016 for the above referred offences and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the complainant police have arrested the accused and takken him to remand and remanded him to the judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer has submitted charge-sheet agianst the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 4, 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and Secs. 370, 376, 504, 506 of IPC.
3. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused on 04.02.2016, thereby he was remanded to the judicial custody. Since the date of his arrest ie., from 4.2.2016, till date, the accused is in the judicial custody. 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 Spl CC No.197/20164. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as PWs-1 to 8 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P96, besides marking MOs-1 to 14. 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, the accused during the moth of October-2015, brought the CW4-victim girl to Bangalore, knowing that she is a minor by assuring her to get a job at Bangalore and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.370 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, the accused on the pretext of getting a job to CW4-victim girl, took her to his friend's house at Uttarahalli, Bangalore and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly , without her consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act 2012?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on 31.1.2016 at about 11 P.M., the accused telephoned to CW10 and asked him to give the phone to CW4-victim girl and when CW4 took the phone, the accused abused her in filthy language thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.504 of IPC?5 Spl CC No.197/2016
4. Whether the prosecution further proves that, the accused on 1.2.2016 at about 8 A.M., the accused went near the house of CW10 and picked up quarrel with CW4-victim girl by telling that, not to inform the act of rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed on her to anyone, otherwise, he will kill her and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 of IPC?
5. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 4: In the Negative, Point No .5: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 TO 4:- 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 8 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 8 and 9 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P9, besides marking MOs-1 to 14. Though the victim girl has not been examined by the prosecution before the court, but the court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case along with available evidence of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the police official has totally supported the case of the prosecution the complainant approached the police with a complaint, registered as FIR, taken up investigation, traced out the 6 Spl CC No.197/2016 victim girl as well as the accused recorded statements drawn mahazar finally after completion of investigation, submitted charge-
sheet against the accused. This evidence 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, With this, the learned Public Prosecutor 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 doubts. The material witness ie, the victim girl has not been examined before the court. Even the Investigation Officer who has filed charge-sheet against the accused is also not examined by the prosecution before the court. The complainant who rescued the victim girl from the accused and lodged the complaint has also not been examined by the prosecution. When all these material witnesses are not examined before the court, considering only the evidence of the police official and the doctors, this court cannot convict the accused for the offences as alleged. Hence, the learned counsel for the accused prays to acquit the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
10. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence furnished by the prosecution before this court. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 8 witnesses, out 7 Spl CC No.197/2016 of them PW1/CW2 is the witness to the Spot Mahazar as per Ex.P1. PW2/CW6 is the Lady Doctor who has physically examined the victim girl. PW3/CW3 is also the witness to the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1. PW4/CW8 is the circumstantial evidence. PW5/CW7 is the doctor who has examined the accused PW6/CW9 is also the circumstantial witness. PW7/CW14 is the Doctor who has issued FSL Report. PW8/CW17 is the PSI who has conducted preliminary investigation of this case.
11. Now coming to the evaluation of the evidence given by the above prosecution witnesses , I would like to take up firstly the evidence of the mahazar witnesses. PW1-Shanmugam and PW-3 Ravi are the witnesses to the Spot Mahazar as per Ex.P1. When Ex.P1 was confronted to them, they have identified their signatures as Exs.P1(a) and P1(b) respectively. PW1 has stated that he do not know the contents of Ex.P1 and the police have not read over the contents to him. Even CW3 had signed along with him. Other than this, he do not know anything about this case. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness [ PW1] and subjected him to cross-examination. In his cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that, the victim girl had shown the spot to the police and the police had drawn mahazar. He has stated that he knows the accused. PW1 was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. PW3 has further deposed even the accused was present at the time of spot mahazar and he has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. PW3 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the 8 Spl CC No.197/2016 accused. In his cross-examination, admitted the suggestions put to him, but he has denied that, he himself had gone to the spot.
12. Now coming to the evidence given by the Medical Officers and FSL Officer, among them, PW2-Dr.Geetha Monappa is the Lady Doctor. In her evidence before the court, she has deposed that on 4.2.2016 at 3.15 P.M., she has examined the victim girl sent by HSR Layout police station through WPC with the history of sexual assault. She enquired with victim girl and after taking her consent, she has examined the victim girl. On physical examination of th victim girl, she found that the victim girl was developed to her age and she was aged about 16 to 17 years. On genital examination, she found that the hymen was ruptured and she has vaginal infection. Accordingly, she has issued Provisional Report as per Ex.P2 and her signature is as per Ex.P2(a). She has identified the Material Objects collected by her during the time of examination of the victim girl which are as per MOS-1 to 9. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
13. PW5-Dr.Betty Alben in her evidence before the court has deposed that, on 5.2.2016 at 12.35 p.m., the accused was produced before her through HC of HSR Layout police station and she has examined the accused. After physical examination of the accused, she has issued Medical Certificate which is as per Ex.P3 and her signature is as per Ex.P3(a). She has identified MOS-10 to 14 of the articles of the accused.
9 Spl CC No.197/201614. PW7-Dr.Chayakumari, Scientific officer, RFSL, Davanagere, has deposed in her evidence before the court that on 27.2.2016 she has received 14 sealed articles from HSR Layout police station of this case and she has examined it scientifically and given her Report as per Ex.P5 and her signature is as per Ex.P5(a). The sample seal is at Ex.P6 and her signature is as per Ex.P6(a). This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
15. Now coming to the evidence of the circumstantial witness, PW4-Shankar has deposed before the court that, he is owning 6 houses in Uttarahalli and he has given one house to one Mohan Singh and when he had gone to collect the rent, the accused as also with said Mohan Singh and a lady was also with them. The age of that lady was about 20 years. By seeing them, he asked Mohan Singh about the said persons, so Mohan Singh told that the accused is his friend and the said girl and the accused were married to each other. One year after this, said Mohan Singh vacated the house and went away. Three years thereafter the police had come with the said girl to Uttarahalli and the police had told that the accused and the said girl were married. He has also not given any statement to the police. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected him to the cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that, the accused had brought CW4 without the knowledge of her parents. He has also admitted that he came to know that, that the accused had kept the victim girl in a house and committed rape on her and she was threatened with dire consequences of life.
10 Spl CC No.197/2016But, he has denied that, inspite of knowing that, CW4 was subjected to threat to her life, he is deposing falsely. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
16. PW6-Rajanna in his evidence before the court has deposed tat, he knows the accused and he has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. He do not know anything about this case and he has not given any statement. This witness as treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and he was subjected to the cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he has given statement as per Ex.P4. He has also further denied that, inspite of giving statement as per Ex.P4, he is deposing falsely in order to help the accused.
17. Now coming to the evidence of the police official PW8-Nagaraju, PSI. In his evidence he has deposed that, on 3.2.2016, in the evening at about 7.15 P.M., when he was incharge of the police station, at that time, CW1 appeared before him along with the victim girl and lodged a complaint. The said complaint is as per Ex.P7 and his signature is as per Ex.P7(b). After receiving the complaint, he prepared FIR as per Ex.P8 and registered a case in Cr.No.91/2016. His signature on Ex.P8 is as per Ex.P8(a). Thereafter he sent the FIR to the jurisdictional court and copy of the same to his higher officers. Thereafter he recorded the statement of the victim girl and the statement of the victim girl is as per Ex.P9. Further he has deposed that, on 4.2.2016, he has conducted spot mahazar in the place where the 11 Spl CC No.197/2016 accused committed rape on the victim girl in the presence of CW1, panchas and the victim girl. On the same day, he sent the victim girl to the medical examination to St.John's Hospital. Thereby, this witness has performed his statutory duties as the Preliminary Investigation Officer of this case. This witness was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross- examination, he has denied the suggestion that CW1/ complainant had not appeared before him with victim girl and lodged a complaint. He has also denied the suggestion that, he has not conducted the spot mahazar. He has also denied that he has registered a false case against the accused.
18. Considering the evidence of the above referred prosecution witnesses, though the evidence of the Medical Officers and the police official though corroborative in nature showing that this accused has committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and that the accused was arrested and the victim girl was sent to the medical examination and she was examined, but they do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as because the victim girl herself of this case has not been examined by the prosecution before this court to link the accused with the alleged crime. Though the evidence of the Doctor-PW2 discloses that, the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault and her hymen was ruptured, but, this evidence also do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as because, the victim girl was not all been produced by the prosecution to lead evidence. Even the complainant /CW1 who has rescued the victim girl from the clutches of the accused and who has lodged a complaint against 12 Spl CC No.197/2016 the accused for the acts he has committed is reported to be dead. Moreover, Investigation Officer who after completion of investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against the accused before this court is not examined by the prosecution which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. When the material witnesses especially the victim girl is not examined before the court, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be linked to the prosecution case to hold that the guilt of the accused persons is proved.
19. Apart from that on perusal of the order sheet it appears this court has issued summons and warrants to the Victim girl through Investigating Officer on several occasions. But the prosecution was not able to keep the presence of the Victim girl before this court, for evidence. Hence as per the order dated: 14.1.2020, this court has closed the evidence of the Victim girl . Under these circumstances, I am constrained that, the prosecution has miserably failed to examine the material witness ie. CW4/ Victim girl . Therefore, due to lack of evidence against the accused, the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal from the hands of this court. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 to 4 in the Negative.
20. It is the case initiated by the complainant for the offences punishable under Secs. 370, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012, who had also been secured the victim girl along with the accused and after investigation, charge-sheet is filed against the accused. But, in the course of trial, the victim girl who is said to be from 13 Spl CC No.197/2016 Uttarkhand State has not turned up to give evidence and thereby, she has not co-operated with the prosecution to conduct trial on merits. Consequently, the court has to conclude the trial by non-examination of the victim girl on the ground of inability of the prosecution agency to secure the presence of the victim girl. This being the fact, I do not consider this case as a fit case for awarding compensation to the victim girl as per the provisions under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules 2012, as such no compensation is awarded to the victim girl.
21. POINT NO.5:-:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 4 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused from the offences punishable under Secs.370, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
MOs-1 to 14 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 23 rd day of January, 2020] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.14 Spl CC No.197/2016
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Shanmugam CW2 13.12.2018
PW.2 Dr.Geetha Monappa CW6 20.2.2019
PW.3 Ravi CW3 6.7.2019
PW.4 Shankar CW8 6.7.2019
PW.5 Dr.Betty Alben CW7 17.9.2019
PW.6 Rajanna CW9 10.10.2019
PW.7 Dr.Chaya Kumari CW14 17.12.2019
PW.8 Nagaraju CW17 7.1.2020
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Panchanama
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P1(c) Signature of PW8
Ex.P1(d) Signature of CW1/ complainant
Ex.P2 Medical Certificate of the victim girl /CW4
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P3 Medical Certificate of the accused
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P4 Statement of PW6 given before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P5 FSL Report
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P6 Sample seal
Ex.P6(a) Signature of Pw7
Ex.P7 Complaint dated: 3.2.2016 lodged by the
complainant/ CW1
Ex.P7(a) Signature of the complainant/ CW1
Ex.P7(b) Signature of PW8
Ex.P8 FIR
Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P9 Statement of the victim girl/ CW4 given to the
complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C 15 Spl CC No.197/2016 Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-1 High Vaginal smear
MO-2 Low vaginal smear
MO-3 High Vaginal swab
MO-4 Low Vaginal smear
MO-5 Perianal swab of the victim girl
MO-6 Hair clippings
MO-7 Nail Clippings
MO-8 Pubic Hair
MO-9 Blood
MOs-10 to 14 5 sealed articles of the accused
[as per PF No.27/2016 dated: 17.2.2016]
MOs-10(a) Signatures of PW5
to 14(a)
MOS-1(a) to 9(a) Signatures of PW7
and MOS-10(b)
to 14(b)
Witness examined, documents, MOs marked for the accused: NIL [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.16 Spl CC No.197/2016
23.1.2020 Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused from the offences punishable under Secs.370, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
MOs-1 to 14 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.17 Spl CC No.197/2016