Bangalore District Court
State By K.S.Layout vs A1.Ramesh on 14 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 14th day of September, 2021
:Present: Sri. I.P.Naik, B.A., LL.B.(Spl),
30th ACMM, Bengaluru
Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.
C.C.No. 6202/2020
Date of Offence 23.02.2020
Complainant State by K.S.Layout, Police Station
V/s.
Accused
A1.Ramesh,
S/o.Puttanna,
R/at.No.819, 16th Cross,
K.S.Layout,
Bengaluru City
Karnataka.
Offences U/s. 354-A of IPC.
Plea Recorded on:9.02.2021 and accused
person Pleaded not guilty.
313 Statement recorded on: On 17.08.2021
Final Oder Accused is Convicted
Date of Order 13-09-2021
*****
2 C.C.No.6202/2020
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K.S.Layout, Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable U/s. 354-A of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case :-
It is alleged that, on 23.02.2020 at about 4.30pm in the evening, near Dominos Pizza within the territorial limits of K.S.Layout Police Station, accused came on two wheeler motorcycle and squeezed the breasts of CW1(hereinafter CW1/PW1 victim is referred as X), thereafter accused fled from the spot. Hence, accused is charge sheeted.
3. In this regard, X lodged First Information Statement (FIS) before the investigation officer/PSI CW7 Basavarajaiah. Based on the FIS lodged by the X. CW7 registered the case in Cr.No.40120 and forwarded FIR to this court. On 24.02.2020 investigation officer rushed to spot and conducted spot mahazar in the presence of CW3 & CW4 as shown by X. On the same day investigation officer was deputed his staff CW5 & CW6 for search and caught hold the culprit. Based on the credible information both these staff caught hold the accused in his house and produced him before the investigation 3 C.C.No.6202/2020 officer. Accordingly, accused arrested and interrogated by IO . Thereafter, he has produced accused before this court.
4. Thereafter, accused released on bail on the same day IO has interrogated. CW2 and recorded his statement U/s.161 of Cr.P.C. On 9.3.2020 investigation officer produced X before the Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement U/s.164 of Cr.P.C. After collecting copy of the said statement, IO has submitted final report against present accused for the aforesaid offence.
5. As per the order dated 15.06.2020, this court perused the charge sheet documents and taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.354-A of IPC and issued summons in pursuance of the summon accused appeared through his counsel and copy of the charge sheet furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.
6. On 9.2.2020, charge sheet has been framed and read over to the accused. He pleaded not guilty claims to be tried. Hence, case is posted for evidence.
4 C.C.No.6202/2020
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined 6 witness as PW1 to PW6 and got marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.4. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, accused examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. and recorded statement by put forth incriminating evidence against him laid down by the prosecution. Accused denied the prosecution case in toto and taken specific stand that he was not present at the spot tried to establish Plea of alibi. In support of the version accused has examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 no documents produced on behalf of the accused.
8. Heard both side and gone through written arguments submitted by the learned accused.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 23.02.2020 at about 4.30pm in the evening, near Dominos Pizza within the territorial limits of K.S.Layout Police Station, accused came on two wheeler motorcycle and squeezed the breasts of X, thereafter accused fled from the spot and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.354-A of IPC?
2. What order.?5 C.C.No.6202/2020
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
Point No.2 : As per final order
......................... for the following.., REASONS
11. Point No.1 :- The learned Sr. App argued in this case that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonably doubt, by ocular and documentary evidence. Hence, prays to convict the accused in accordance with law.
12. As against this, the learned counsel for the accused urged that, in this case, there is lot of improvements in prosecution case at each stage. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused has drawn the attention of this court at Ex.P.1, Complaint. Ex.P.3 Statement of X given before the Judicial magistrate, it crates lot of improvements. Further the investigation officer not seized the vehicle and also not verified who is the owner of the said vehicle, as mentioned in the complaint. Further, the investigation officer has not collected the CCTV footage in stalled around the alleged place of incident. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has taken the contention that, accused by profession, is an mechanic, he has refused to carry out the repair 6 C.C.No.6202/2020 work of the vehicle belonged to K.S.Layout Police Station, in this regard, K.S.Layout Police have falsely implicated the accused in this case.
13. Further, the counsel has taken the contention that, the word harassment is not defined in Code. According to Black's law dictionary "harassment" is defined as "conduct or action for repeated and persistent". So according to prosecution case, an unknown person has touch the private part of the PW1/X. It not amounts to offence. Therefore, the ingredients of Sec.354-A is not at all applicable to the present case. Hence, for the forgoing reasons, prosecution launched this case based on the fabricated and concocted story. Hence, prays to acquit the accused from the alleged offence in the interest of justice.
14. In view of the rival submission, this court has carefully gone through the evidence placed by the prosecution oral and documentary evidence. The evidence of DW1 and DW2 and other materials on record.
15. PW1/X who is the victim of this case categorically stated that on 23.02.2020 at about 4.00pm to 4.30pm the X was required to go to Hat ostel KIMS and she was standing at the 15F bus shelter, situated within the territorial area of K.S.Layout Police Station. When she was unable to catch the bus, she was tried to book ola, at that time, some un known person came on 7 C.C.No.6202/2020 the Honda Activa two wheeler and touched her breasts and suddenly escaped from the spot. Inspite of X was persuated him up to Dominas Pizza shop. Then the said person has taken diversion,at that time, she was unable to catch the said person. Immediately she has contacted the police by dialing 100 and also contacted her friends. Thereafter, she has lodged the FIS.
16. On the next day, investigation officer visited the said spot and conducted the mahazar. On 25.02.2020 again, investigation officer summons to Police Station for identification of the accused who has committed this illegal act. In the Police Station, she has identified the accused.
17. According to prosecution case, PW6 Venkatesh, is eye witness he is an vegetable vendor by profession. Two years back one day at about 4.00pm to 4.30pm one girl was coming at that time, one bike rider has touched her breasts and ran away from the spot. But he has not identified the accused person. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross-examined him by treating hostile witnesses. Accordingly, permission is granted. In the cross- examination by the prosecution, the learned Sr. APP suggested that, the accused who who is very much present before the court has committed the offence on that date of the alleged incident. This suggestions is categorically denied by the PW6 eye witnesses. The accused has not chosen to cross- examine the eye witness.
8 C.C.No.6202/2020
18. PW4 investigation office/PSI Basavarajaiah stated on 23.02.2020 at about 7.30pm PWI/X lodged the complaint. Based on the said complaint, he has registered the casein Cr.No.40/2020 and forwarded the FIR to this court. On the next day ie. on 24.02.2020 investigation officer rushed to the spot and conducted the spot mahazar as shown by the PW1 in the presence of PW6 Stalin.
19. PW5 Stalin stated that, one year back at about 9.00am to 10.00am police have conducted the spot mahazar in respect of the incident.
20. PW4 investigation officer categorically stated that on 24.02.2020, he has deputed his staff PW2 and PW3 for search and caught hold the accused.
21. PW2-HC-15869 Siddaiah, and PW3-HC-10497 Raghavendra stated that on 24.02.2020 investigation officer has deputed them for search and caught hold the accused. As per the credible information, they have caught hold the accused in his ho use bg.NO.819, situated at 16 th Cross, 2nd Phase, K.S.Layout and produced him before the PW4 Investigation officer. 9 C.C.No.6202/2020
22. PW4 arrested the accused and interrogated him. Thereafter, he has produced the accused before this court. On 9.3.2020. the investigation officer produced the complainant/x before the Judicial magistrate for recording her statement U/s.164 of Cr.P.C. After collecting other materials ie., copy of the statement of the victim PW4 has submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
23. In this case, based on the oral evidence of DW1, Anand-C and DW2 Lakshmipathi, accused tried to establish the Plea of Alibi. According to the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 on 23.02.2020 at about 3.30pm to 8.30pm themselves were in Sudarshan Silk Shop, Chickpeter, Bengaluru along with accused.
24. By considering the version of the prosecution and defence taken by them, this court has analysed the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence placed by both the parties. One thing is very clear that, any offence contains two important ingredients. One is crime and another one is culprit. These two things are two faces of one coin. Without culprit no crime occurs, without crime no one is called as culprit. So in this case, the fact of this case is very sensitive one. This court perused the endorsement made on the Ex.P.1, there is specific address of the PW1 which reads as under:- 10 C.C.No.6202/2020
4C, Nimbar-2 CID Live, BK Kakathi road, Opp to Assam Police Head Quarters Uttar Guwati, Assam State.
25. This fact clearly shows that, PWI/X is not permanent resident of Bengaluru City. PW6 has not identified the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has drawn the attention of the this court on ocular evidence and of the investigation officer, he deposed that, who has stated that PW6 has not permanent resident but he voluntarily stated PW6 is doing business since 30 years, in nearest at the alleged place of incident. PW6 stated that he is 31 years and doing vegetables vendor business. By considering all these facts, it is not absolute truth that, since 30 years PW6 not doing vegetable vending business that by birth or after one year from his birth. But considering the entire oral evidence of PW6 one thing is very much clear that two years back from 11.08.2020 at 4.00pm to 4.30pm one girl was physically abused by one unknown person.
26. In this case, PW5 is spot mahazar witnesses PW4 investigation officer categorically stated that, on 24.02.2020, police have conducted the spot mahazar. In the cross-examination the learned counsel for the accused tried to elicit the exact place of incident. In this regard, X stated that, when she was standing at House bg.No.911 situated on her backside. Further, 11 C.C.No.6202/2020 stated that, she has not stated the exact boundaries of the version. In the cross-examination PW5 stated in cross-examination that, he is cab distributor. His office time, 9.00am to evening 5.30pm to 6.00pm. Further, he has admitted that police have obtained his signature at Dominas Pizza shop. Further, stated that, he has not perused the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.2. Rest of the things are denied by the learned counsel for the accused by suggestions ie. not conducted the mahazar no information about the fact of this case and signature on the request of the police. These suggestions are categorically denied by the PW5 in his cross-examination.
27. In the course of cross-examination of Investigation officer the learned counsel for the accused elicited from his mouth about the boundaries, he has deposed that, Navadurga Garments is situated towards east. The Dominas Pizza shop towards West Vysaraya Bhallala running in the direction of North-South. These boundaries are specifically mentioned in Ex.P.2 mahazar. In the cross-examination of X/PWI stated that, she is not aware about the direction of the road and also she categorically stated that, one women was standing at the upstairs she came and gave her glass of water. By considering the fact, oral evidence of PW1, PW4 andPW5 it clearly shows that, alleged incident was occurred on Vysaraya Bhallala Road, situated within the territorial limits of K.S.Layout Police Station and PW1 categorically stated 12 C.C.No.6202/2020 regarding situation of Domino Pizza. By considering this fact I am of the opinion that, prosecution has successfully proved the place of alleged incident.
28. In this case, the learned counsel for the accused specifically put suggestions to PW2 and PW3 who caught hold the accused on 24.02.2020 at house of the accused. In the cross-examination, they have categorically stated that as per the orders of the higher officer they have caught hold the accused who was in his house. So the accused has arrested and produced before this court. As per the order dated 25.02.2020 accused has produced before this court and enlarged on bail.
29. Victim/X categorically stated that, when he was reached the Kempegowda Airport from Pune on 23.02.2020, by flight. She does not remember the exact time when the flight was departed to Pune and reached Bengaluru on 23.02.20. But she categorically stated that, at about 3.00pm when she climbed the Vajra Bus at Airport. Further she does not remember what time she got down from the Bus at the Dayananda Sagar bus shelter. In her chief examination or cross-examination, as well as X deposed bus top 15E thereafter, she has memorized that the bus stop is 15F. This facts reveals from Ex.P.1 complaint. At about 4.25pm X was moving towards 15F and on 13 C.C.No.6202/2020 23.02.2020 falls on Sunday. She has stated that, some elder persons were in bus shelter. According to English Calendar 23.02.2020 falls on Sunday this court has taken judicial note based on the Calender of 2020 supplied by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka. Further, she stated that, after she was got down from the auto she was waiting for bus to move towards V.V.Puram.
30. The learned counsel for the accused urged that, the said road is very busy and large number of vehicle will be flying on the said road. PWI/X answered to this question that entire area is residential area and it was cool and calm and no one was present except one fruit vendor and one women was standing near the said bus top. She categorically stated that the bike rider came from her right side and moved towards left side. But she was unable to depose about the direction of the road. According tor prosecution version PWI/1X is not permanent resident of the Bengaluru city even though any person who is permanent resident of the Bengaluru City, one cannot remember or identify all roads situated in Bengaluru Metropolitan City.
31. In the cross-examination PWI/X stated that at about 4.00pm one bus moved towards Mahila Samaja. For this reason there was no passengers in the bus shelter. By considering all these aspects it clearly shows that, except PWI. There is no person in the place of incident. 14 C.C.No.6202/2020
32. The learned counsel for the accused urged that, the word harassment is not defined in Cr.P.C, as well as IPC. Admittedly this fact is true. Therefore, this court has relied on the 354-A of IPC.
According to 354-A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment (1) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome an explicit sexual overtures;
or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual fav ours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (I) or clause
(ii) or clause (iii) of sub section(1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub- section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend for one year; or with fine, or with both."
33. In this section it is not mentioned that, how many physical contact or unwelcome act or omissions amounts to sexual overtures. In my opinion single unwelcome act amounts to sexual harassment or overtures.
15 C.C.No.6202/2020
34. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused argued that, PW-4/IO has not interrogated the friends of X. Therefore, at this stage, this court has relied on the following Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
AIR 1962 SC 54 Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan "the rule which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there cane be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances matse if safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge...... The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or injury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practices that there must, in every case be corroboration before a correction can be allowed to stand.
AIR 1983 SC 753 Bharamada Bhogi Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat.
"Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting, refusal to act not the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the women who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles filled lenses finged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion of to do so is to justify the charge of male chuntinism in a male dominate society.
A girl or woman in the tradition bound non permissive society of India would extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to select on chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being 16 C.C.No.6202/2020 ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbors she would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relative and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. If she is unmarried she would apparent that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. In view of these factors, the victims and their relatives are not two seen to bring the culprit to boom. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built in assurance that the charge is genuine rather then fabricated.
(1999) 3 SC 562 Gagan Bihar Samal Vs. State of Orissa In cases of rope, generally it is difficult to find any corroborative witnesses except the victim of the rape.
(2010) 8 SCC 191 Vijai Vs. State of Maharasthra "Its thus the law that emerged on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecution, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on sole testimony of the prosecutrix."
By following these principles laid down by their lordship, I have relied on ocular evidence of PWI/X :-
"ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಪ್ಪು ಬಣ್ಣ ದ ,ಹೊಂಡಾ ಆಕ್ಟಿ ಲವಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದು ಆತ ನನ್ನ ಮುಖವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ, ನನ್ನ ಎದೆಯ ಮೇಲಿನ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ಮುಟ್ಟಿ ಪರಾರಿಯಾದನು."
"ನಾನು ಕ್ಯಾಬ್ ಮಾಡವುದರಲ್ಲಿ ತಲ್ಲಿನನಾಗಿದ್ದೆನು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊರಟಿದ್ದ ವ್ಯ ಕ್ತಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಿಲ್ಲ . ಸಂಜೆ 4-30 ರಿಂದ 4-40 ಗಂಟೆಯ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಘಟನೆ ಆಗಿದೆ. ನಾನು ಬೈಕ್ ಮೇಲೆ ಬಂದ ವ್ಯ ಕ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಆತನ 17 C.C.No.6202/2020 ಬಟ್ಟೆಯನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ನಾನು ಗಮನಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ವಾಹನದ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ ಕೆಎ,4011 ಅಂತ ಇತ್ತು . ಉಳಿದ ವಾಹನದ ನೋಂದಾವಣಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ."
"ವಾಹನದ ಬಣ್ಣ ಕಪ್ಪು ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ಸವಾರನು ಕಪ್ಪು ಬಣ್ಣ ದ ಟೀ ಶರ್ಟ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಕಪ್ಪು ಬಣ್ಣ ದ ವುಡೀ ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಧರಿಸಿದ್ದ ನು ಆ ಸವರಿ ಹೆಲ್ಮ ಟ್ ಧರಿಸಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದಿರುವ ಆರೋಾಪಿಯು ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿದ ಕೃತ್ಯ ದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗಿಯಾಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಒಲ್ಲ . ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪೋಲಿಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪೋಲಿಸರ ಪ್ರಚೋದನೆಯಿಂದ ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಈಗ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಆತನನ್ನು ಘಟನೆಯ ದಿನ ನನ್ನ ಮುಂದೆ ಬಂದಾಗ ನೋಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ."
"ಬೈಕ್ ಸವಾರನು ಘಟನೆಯ ಬಳಿಕ ಪರಾರಿಯಾದನು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಘಟನೆಯ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಬೆನ್ನ ಟ್ಟ ದ್ದಾಗ ಆ ಸವರನು ಹಿಂದಿರುಗಿ ನೋಡಿ ನಕ್ಕು ವೇಗವಾಗಿ ವಾಹನ ಚಲಾಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದನು."
35. I am of the opinion that, PW1 categorically stated about her physical harassment by the bike riders. At that time, no one was present except one lady who was standing at upstairs and one vegetable vendor. The vegetable vendor stated that, one lady was physically abused by one bike riders. So the statement of the X is inspired this court on credibility. An alleged act was occurred in a spur of the moment. No one can see or any one can help the victim on very shortest time PW1 is alone can say about the alleged harassment. By considering the entire fact of the case I am of the opinion that, based on the oral evidence of PW1. The prosecution has successfully proved that X is sexually harassed by one bike rider. 18 C.C.No.6202/2020
36. In this case, the learned counsel for the accused questioned the investigation officer in respect of the seized the vehicle and collected the documents of the vehicle bg.No.KA-4011. Further, IO has not clarified or verified who is the owner of the vehicle used by the bike rider. In this regard, this court relied oral evidence of PW1 for identification of the accused and involvement of the accused in alleged act/crime.
37. By this reasons this court has examined and analysed the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 as well as ocular evidence of X. According to evidence of DW1 and DW2 accused tried to establish the Plea of Alibi of DW1 and DW2 categorically stated that, themselves along with accused were in Sudarshan Silks Sarees shop at Chickpete between 3.30pm to 8.30pm on 23.2.2020. In order to prove this fact, DW1 who is important witnesses stated that at that time, he has paid the amount by scartching his debit card.
38. In the cross-examination DW1 categorically admitted that, Sudarshan Silk House shop is situated at Chikepte which is big cloth center and CCTV Camera are also installed in the said cloth shop.
39. Further stated that, he has lost receipt inrespect of purchase of the clothes ie., shirt, dhoti and inner wears and further stated that there is no 19 C.C.No.6202/2020 hurdles to produce the Bank Statement for payment of amount by using the debit card. But the said statement is not produced before this court. Further, there is long distance between Sudarshan Silk House and K.S.layout. One can reach within 30 to 40 minutes through new road. DW2 Lakshmipathi also stated that, he was accompanied with DW1 and accused to purchase the cloth on occasion of the marriage of the sister of DW1 at Sudarshan Silk House, Chickpete, Bengaluru.
40. In this case, if version of DW1 is taken into consideration, DW1 may have deposed in order to help his friend/accused to protect him from the alleged accusation made against him. If accused himself came to Sudarshan Silk House on the date and time of the alleged incident accused himself has used his debit/credit card for payment then, the matter would have been different. But in this case, the friend of the accused is accompanied with him and visited to Sudarshan Silk House.
41. PW1 categorically stated that, as on the date of the alleged incident a bike rider had not worn helmet. She has not concentrated towards the color of the cloth worn by the bike rider the learned counsel for the accused rightly pointed one important matter ie., identification of the accused not mentioned in the Ex.P.1 complaint. But when she was giving statement before the 20 C.C.No.6202/2020 Judicial Magistrate as per Ex.P.3, at that time, she stated that the rider of the Black color Honda Active had not worn helmet, after squeezing her breasts, he has turned back his neck towards PW1/X laughed and thereafter he fled from the spot. This version is not deposed in the examination in chief. But during the cross-examination she deposed in respect of the attitude and action of the accused. By analysing the oral evidence of PW1 with DW1 and DW2, more credibility is attached to ocular evidence of PW1, because DW1 may have deposed in the interest of his friend. X has no interest, no jealousy, no enemity and no previous grudge towards the accused. Therefore, I am of the opinion that , non seizure of the vehicle is not fatal to the case and also the accused failed to prove his defence/Plea of alibi based on Preponderance of Probabilities ie., by producing the CCTV footages recorded in the shop of Sudarshan Silk House on 23.02.2020. So Iam of the opinion that the accused failed to prove the contention in respect of Plea of Alibi.
42. Under these circumstances, though it is clear that as on the date, time and place of the incident, he was in the said place, not in Sudarshan Silk House, Chickpete. The entire oral evidence of PW1 taken into consideration, an sole helpless lady moving on the public road on day time with her lagguage at that time, accused has mis used the situation and caused this illegal act on X. 21 C.C.No.6202/2020
43. According to accused contention, one time squeezing does not amount to sexual harassment. Now a days women are not safe because this type of act is done by non irre-responsible men. Therefore, meaning of the sexual harassment one time or two times does not makes any difference. The allegations of the PW1/X is very important. In this case, when an sole lady suffered from the illegal act of the accused, I am of the opinion that a single squeezing of private part also amounts to the sexual harassment as explained in Sec.354-A of IPC.
44. In this case, throughout the trial this court observed that, soon after cross-examination of PW1/X the learned counsel for the accused sought sorry from the PW1/X. During arguments the learned counsel for the accused never relied on the sensitive words before the court. The attitude of the learned counsel for the accused is very good. By considering the entire facts of the case, I am of the opinion that, prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
22 C.C.No.6202/2020
45. Point No.2: For the forgoing reason, this court held that, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.354-A(2) of IPC. Hence, posted for extension of benefit under PO Act or hear on sentence.
(I.P Naik.) 30th A.C.M.M., B'lore.
HEARD The learned counsel for the accused urged that, according to Sec.354-A (2) of IPC, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment term which may extent to 3 years or with fine or with both. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused based on the sole statement of X. Hence, prays for impose fine only by taking lenient view.
In this case, I have relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajahar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal passed in (2014) Crl.L J. 18. In that case, their lordship opined in respect of strong guard towards women in following terms:-
Para No.12:- Committed a heinous crime and with the social condition prevailing in the Society the modesty of a women has to be strongly guarded and as the appellant (accused) behaved like a road side romeo, we do not think it is a fit case where the benefit of the Act, 1958 should be given to the appellant."23 C.C.No.6202/2020
So court or Police are required to provide certain protection towards women. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that accused is not entitled to get the benefit under P.O Act.
The learned counsel for the accused rightly argued that, this court has discretionary power to impose rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both.
By considering the entire facts of the case and Act of the accused, his age and in the interest of the Society, accused is 26 years age old person, the Jail atmosphere may cause bad effect on his future. Therefore, one year rigorous imprisonment is sufficient. Therefore, proceed to pass the following..., ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.248() of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.354-A(2) of IPC and he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount he shall undergo S.I for 60 days.
The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
After recovery of the fine amount, Rs.3,000/- amount is ordered to be payable to the X as compensation.24 C.C.No.6202/2020
Office is hereby directed to supply free copy of this Judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 14th day of September, 2021).
(I.P Naik.) 30 A.C.M.M., B'lore. th ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 : X
P.W. 2 : Siddaiah
P.W. 3 : Raghavendra
P.W. 4 : Basavaraju
P.W. 5 : Stalin
P.W. 6 : Venkatesh
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW1
Ex.P.4 : FIR
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL (I.P.Naik) 30th Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.25 C.C.No.6202/2020
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER This court held that, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.354-A of IPC. Hence, posted for extension of benefit under PO Act or hear on sentence.
(I.P Naik.) 30 A.C.M.M., B'lore.
th HEARD The learned counsel for the accused urged that, according to Sec.354-A (2) of IPC, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment term which may extent to 3 years or with fine or with both. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused based on the sole statement of X. Hence, prays for impose fine only by taking lenient view.
In this case, I have relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajahar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal passed in (2014) Crl.L J. 18. In that case, their lordship opined in respect of strong guard towards women in following terms:-
26 C.C.No.6202/2020
Para No.12:- Committed a heinous crime and with the social condition prevailing in the Society the modesty of a women has to be strongly guarded and as the appellant (accused) behaved like a road side romeo, we do not think it is a fit case where the benefit of the Act, 1958 should be given to the appellant."
So court or Police are required to provide certain protection towards women. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that accused is not entitled to get the benefit under P.O Act.
The learned counsel for the accused rightly argued that, this court has discretionary power to impose rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both.
By considering the entire facts of the case and Act of the accused, his age and in the interest of the Society, accused is 26 years age old person, the Jail atmosphere may cause bad effect on his future. Therefore, one year rigorous imprisonment is sufficient. Therefore, proceed to pass the following..., 27 C.C.No.6202/2020 ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.248() of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.354-A(2) of IPC and he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount he shall undergo S.I for 60 days.
The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
After recovery of the fine amount, Rs.3,000/- amount is ordered to be payable to the X as compensation.
Office is hereby directed to supply free copy of this Judgment.
(I.P Naik.) 30 A.C.M.M., B'lore.
th 28 C.C.No.6202/2020