Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Raju. R on 4 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF MARCH, 2020
-: PRESENT :-
S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI, B.A. LL.B.,
LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL C.C. No. 546/2017
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka
By Commercial Street Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED: Raju. R,
S/o Rajashekar,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at. No. 121, 4th Cross,
Reddy Palya, H.A.L.
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Mr. YAK/AWK - Advocates]
2
Spl.C C. 546/2017
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1. Date of Commission : 05/06/2017
Of Offence
2. Date of Report
Of Offence : 06/06/2017
3. Date of arrest of
: 21/08/2017
Accused
4. Date of release of
Accused on Bail : 10/01/2018
5 Period undergone in
Judicial Custody by : 139 days
Accused
6 Name of the complainant : Smt. Sampoorna
7. Date of Commencement
of recording evidence : 07/02/2019
8. Date of Closing of 16/10/2019
:
Evidence
9. Charges framed : Sections 342, 366, 376 IPC and
5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
10. Opinion of the Judge : As per final Order
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI)
LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bangalore.
3
Spl.C C. 546/2017
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Inspector of Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 366, 376 of IPC and 5(l), 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that the minor Victim is the second daughter of the Complainant Smt. Sampoorna, when she was taking treatment in the Bowring and Lady Curgon Hospital for her illness as an inpatient from 2/6/2017, on 5/6/2017, the Accused has Kidnapped the minor Victim from the said Hospital by inducing her and threatened that if she did not come with him, he will going to die. Afterwards, he took the minor to Hosur of Tamil Nadu and went around to different places, thereafter taken to the house of his friend and wrongfully confined her. Subsequently, though he was already married with one Nirmala, forcibly committed Sexual Intercourse with the minor without her consent. 4
Spl.C C. 546/2017 Prior to that also he took the Victim similarly to different places as Nandi Hills, Lalbagh and other places. Further the minor Victim was taken to the Room of his friend at Marathahalli for 4-5 times and promised to marry her. Thereafter forcibly had Sexual Intercourse with her repeatedly.
3. On 6/6/2017 the mother of the minor Victim Smt. Sampoorna gave Complaint to the Commercial Street Police Station informing about missing of her daughter from the Bowring Hospital on 5/6/2017, when he was taking treatment as an inpatient. The case was registered against the Accused in Crime No. 53/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of IPC.
4. The Accused was arrested on 21/8/2017 and produced before this court, thereafter remanded to Judicial Custody. Thereafter he was represented through the Counsel and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has granted bail to 5 Spl.C C. 546/2017 the Accused on 10/1/2018 in Criminal Petition No. 9595/2017, he was released on 5/2/2018, after furnishing the sureties before this Court.
5. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 366, 376 of IPC and 5(l), 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. This Court has taken Cognizance of the said offences and heard, arguments of both learned Public prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the Accused. Afterwards, as the prima-facie materials found to proceed against the Accused, charges framed under Sections 366, 342, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The same is read over and explained to the Accused. But, he has not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
6. The Prosecution has examined 5 witnesses out of 13 witnesses as PWs 1 to 5. The documents are marked as Ex. P-1 to 9, P- 1(a), 2(a), 3(a)(b), 6(a), 7(a), 8(a),9(a). After the evidence of Prosecution is closed. The Incriminating 6 Spl.C C. 546/2017 Circumstances in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses has been read over and explained to the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the entire evidence and not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
7. Heard, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the Accused on merits.
8 . The points for my consideration are :
1. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused on 5/6/2017 has Kidnapped the minor Victim from the Bowring Hospital, when her mother was taking treatment, afterwards taken to Hosur in Tamil Nadu ?
2. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused after Kidnapping the Victim wrongfully confined in the house of his friend at Hosur on the promised to marry and forcibly committed Rape and Penetrative Sexual Assault on her repeatedly?7
Spl.C C. 546/2017
3. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 342, 376 of PIC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 ?
4. What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per the final orders
for the following
REASONS
10. Point Nos. 1 to 3: The Prosecution has alleged the
case against Accused that he has forcibly Kidnapped the minor Victim, the daughter of the Complainant on 5/6/2017, when the Complainant was taking treatment at Bowring Hospital. Thereafter taken the minor Victim to the house of his friend at Hosur, where he was said to be wrongfully confined, committed Rape and Sexual Assault forcibly. He was also said to be taken the Victim to 8 Spl.C C. 546/2017 different places as Nandi Hills and Lalbagh etc., around the Bengaluru City and also repeatedly Raped her in the Room of his friend at Marathahalli.
11. In order to prove the Charge framed against Accused under Sections 366, 342, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, the Prosecution is examined the mother of the minor Victim Smt. Sampoorna as PW-1. She has clearly stated that her daughter, the Victim, is deceased and she is not aware of the Accused. She has admitted that the Complaint given as per Ex.P-1 and her Signature marked as Ex.P-1(a), but denied that it was given against the Accused. She has also identified the Signatures on the Mahazars Ex. P-2 and 3 marked as Ex. P-2(a) and 3(a). Admittedly those Mahazars were conducted by the Police in her presence. She has also denied further Statement given against the Accused as per Ex.P-4.
12. She has been treated hostile as deposed against the Mahazar and Statement. In the Cross-examination 9 Spl.C C. 546/2017 by the learned Public Prosecutor she has denied the Complaint given against the Accused stating that he had Kidnapped her deceased minor daughter on 5/6/2017 from the Bowring hospital when she was taking treatment. Afterwards, the Police visited the Spot at Bowring Hospital on 6/6/2017 and drawn Mahazar as per Ex. P-2. Thereafter, on 24/6/2017 the Mahazar drawn at Marathahalli in the house No. 91 as per Ex. P-3 also denied. The important aspect stated about the Accused after Kidnapping her daughter married her for the second time and committed Rape forcibly as stated in Ex. P-4.
13. Smt. Sandhya is the Elder Sister of the deceased Victim examined as PW-2. She has admitted that PW-1 is her mother and the deceased Victim is her younger sister. She has also not identified the Accused and clearly stated no Statement given against him. She has turned hostile and in the Cross-examination on behalf of Prosecution denied the Statement given as per Ex.P-5 stating that the Accused after Kidnapping the deceased 10 Spl.C C. 546/2017 Minor Victim married her as a second wife and forcibly committed Rape on her.
14. The wife of the Accused Smt. Nirmala is examined as PW-3. She has identified the Accused as her husband and denied the Statement given against him. She has also treated hostile and in the Cross-examination her statement given as per Ex.P-6 with regard to deceased minor Victim was kidnapped by her husband and after marrying her, he has forcibly Raped her.
15. The A.S.I. Smt. Shashikala is examined as PW-4. She has stated about the Statement of the deceased minor Victim recorded by her on 22/6/2017, in which she has stated that the Accused after kidnapping her married as his second wife. However in the Cross-examination by the Accused in person, she has denied that the deceased minor Victim has not given any statement before her on 22/6/2017.
11
Spl.C C. 546/2017
16. The Police Inspector Mr. M. Ramesh is examined as PW-5. He has conducted investigation and got recorded the Statement of the deceased minor Victim through PW-4. He has also recorded the further Statement of the Complainant as per Ex.P-4. The Spot Mahazar conducted at the Spot under Ex.P-3 bears his Signature marked as Ex.P-3(b). He has also taken the FSL Report is marked as Ex.P-6 and his Signature marked as Ex.P- 6(a). The Medical Certificate of the Accused obtained under Ex.P-1 and his Signature marked as Ex.P-1(a). The Transfer Certificate of the Minor Victim is marked as Ex.P-7 and his Signature marked as Ex.P-7(a). The FSL Report obtained as per Ex.P-8, his Signature marked as Ex.P-8(a). He has identified the final Medical Certificate of the deceased Minor Victim obtained as per Ex.P-9 and his Signature is marked as Ex.P-9(a).
17. The Prosecution has produced the evidence of witnesses to prove the alleged Kidnap, Rape and Sexual Assault committed by the Accused against the deceased 12 Spl.C C. 546/2017 minor Victim, the daughter of the Complainant. But the evidence of Complainant, her elder daughter is not supported and corroborated the allegations made against the Accused. The independent witness PW-3 is none other than the wife of Accused also denied the Statement given against the Accused as per Ex.P-6. Therefore, only on the basis of the evidence of PW-4, the A.S.I. in whose presence the deceased minor Victim gave Statement with regard to Kidnap, Rape and Sexual Assault committed by the Accused after marrying her as his second wife, it cannot be accepted as the minor Victim herself died subsequent to the filing of the Chargesheet. The evidence of PW-5, the Police Inspector who has filed the Chargesheet against the Accused after obtaining the necessary documents mentioned above is however not sufficient to prove the allegations made against the Accused.
18. Apart from the above discussed facts, the important document is the Final Medical Certificate of the deceased minor Victim who was aged about 17 years as on 13 Spl.C C. 546/2017 6/10/2017 obtained as per Ex.P-9 shows, she was used to the act of Sexual intercourse. But no signs of recent Sexual Intercourse was present, when she was examined by the Doctor. The FSL Report produced under Ex.P-8 discloses the Articles of the deceased Minor Victim collected by the Doctor during her examination were sent to Chemical examination. The opinion given by the Scientific Officer is very clear that no Seminal Stains detected in the Articles 1, 3, 5 and 6. The Vaginal Swab, Cervical Swab, Public hair and Nail clipping. Likewise, the Spermatozoa was not detected in the Vaginal Smear and Cervical Smear. Therefore, without the evidence of deceased minor Victim who was said to be involved in the Sexual intercourse as shown in the final Medical Report, the same cannot be considered, in proof of the allegation of Kidnap, Rape and Sexual Assault by the Accused on her forcibly.
19. Therefore, after taking into consideration of the above discussed aspects as no Corroboration in the oral 14 Spl.C C. 546/2017 and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, I come to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to prove that the Accused has Kidnapped the deceased Minor Victim on 5/6/2017 from the Bowring Hospital and taken her to the house of his friend at Hosur, Tamil Nadu and after marrying her as his second wife, forcibly committed Rape and Sexual Assault on her. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative.
20. Point No.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused Raju R S/o. Rajashekar is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 366, 342, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of of POCSO Act, 2012.
The bail bonds executed by the Accused and Surety under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. shall be in force till the completion of appeal period.
15
Spl.C C. 546/2017
The properties seized by the
Investigating Officer if any, in this case are hereby ordered to be destroyed as useless and worthless after completion of Appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgement writer, transcript and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court today on 4th day of March, 2020.) (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1) List of witnesses examined for the Prosecution PW.1 Sampoorna PW.2 Sandya PW.3 Nirmala PW.4 Shashikala PW.5 Ramesh 16 Spl.C C. 546/2017
2) List of documents marked for the Prosecution Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P1(a) Signature of Pw-1 Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) Signature of Pw-1 Ex.P3 Spot Mahazar Ex.P3(a) Signature of Pw-1 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW-5 Ex.P4 Statement of PW-1 Ex.P5 Statement of PW-2 Ex.P6 Report Ex.P6(a) Signature of Pw-5 Ex.P7 Transfer Certificate Ex.P7(a) Signature of Pw-5 Ex.P8 FSL Report Ex.P8(a) Signature of Pw-5 Ex.P9 Medical Certificate of Victim Ex.P9(a) Signature of Pw-5
3) List of Material Objects marked for the Prosecution Nil
4) List of witnesses examined for the Accused Nil 17 Spl.C C. 546/2017
5) List of documents marked for the Accused Nil
6) List of Material Objects marked for the Accused Nil (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
*** 18 Spl.C C. 546/2017 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused Raju R S/o.
Rajashekar is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 366, 342, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of of POCSO Act, 2012.
The bail bonds executed by the Accused and surety under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. shall be in force till the completion of appeal period.
The properties seized by the Investigating Officer if any, in this case are hereby ordered to be destroyed as useless and worthless after completion of Appeal period.
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
19 Spl.C C. 546/2017