Bangalore District Court
The State By Rajajinagara vs A1. Srinivas on 20 April, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDL.ACMM,
BENGALURU
Present : Sandesh Prabhu.B. BA.L., LL.B.
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru,
C.C.No.18022/2018
Dated : On this the 20th April, 2021
Complainant: The State by Rajajinagara
Police Station, Bengaluru
(By Assistant Public Prosecutor).
V/s
Accused: A1. Srinivas,
S/o late Lakshman rao,
r/at no.969, 9th main,
6th cross, Prakashnagar,
Bengaluru
(By Sri. R.Nagaraju Advocate)
Date of commission of offence : 30082016
Date of Report of Offence : 30082016
Name of the Complainant : Smt.Reksha
Date of Commencement of
recording of Evidence : 2403221
Date of Closing of evidence : 24032021
Offences complained are :u/s 354, 354(c), 509
and 204 of IPC.
11 CC18022/2018
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty
(Sandesh Prabhu B.)
XXXIX ACMM,
Bengaluru
:: JUDGEMENT ::
The PSI of Rajajinagara PS, Bengaluru has filed
charge sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable U/Sec.354, 354C, 509 and 204 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as
follows :
That on 30082016 at about 5.45 AM within the
jurisdiction of Rajajinagara PS, when complainant went
to buy materials to the shop situated at 9 th main, 6th
cross, Prakashnagara and returning to her home, at
that time accused captured the photo of the
complainant, when the complainant questioned the
same and snatched the mobile phone from him, there
was a photo of her in the mobile phone thereby
outraged the modesty of women.
11 CC18022/2018
3. On the basis of complaint given by complainant
the Rajajinagara Police have registered a case against
the accused in Cr.No.196/2017 for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 354, 354(c), 509 and 204 of IPC.
After completion of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused
for the offences punishable U/Sec. 354, 354(c), 509 and
204 of IPC.
4. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was
taken for the offences punishable U/Sec. 354, 354(c),
509 and 204 of IPC and summons were issued to the
accused. In pursuance of the summons, the accused is
appeared before the court and he is enlarged on bail.
Thereafter the prosecution papers have been furnished
to the accused as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter heard the learned prosecution and counsel
for accused about framing of charge. Since there were
sufficient materials to frame charge against the
accused, charges were framed U/Sec. 354, 354(c), 509
11 CC18022/2018
and 204 of IPC. The sum and substance of the
accusation was read over to the accused and his
answers to the said accusation was denial and he
claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution was given
an opportunity to establish the guilt of the accused.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home the
guilt of the accused, it got examined only one witness as
PW1 and got marked 3 documents as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P3. Since PW1 being the complainant has turned
hostile to the prosecution case, the prayer of the
learned APP for examining the other witnesses has been
rejected and remaining witnesses have been dropped as
no purpose would be served. Since there is no any
incriminating evidence against the accused, the
statement of the accused as required U/Sec. 313 of
Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
6. Heard the arguments of learned prosecution
and counsel for accused.
11 CC18022/2018
7. The points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as under :
:: POINTS ::
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 30082017 at about 5.45 PM within the limits of Rajajinagara PS, House no.964, 6th cross road, 9th main, Prakashnagar you the accused watched her private parts with an intention to outraged the modesty of woman thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC.
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and during the same transaction accused captured the image of CW1 and committed an offence punishable u/s 354C of IPC within my cognizance?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction, accused had destroyed the mobile phone in order to prevent its production as evidence and thereby 11 CC18022/2018 committed an offence punishable u/s 204 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction accused with an intention to insult the modesty of CW1 used gesture thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 509 of IPC?
5 What Order?
8. The findings of this Court on above points are as under: Point No.1 to 4 : In Negative Point No.5 : As per the final order for the following: REASONS
9. POINT No.1 to 4 : All the points are connected each other and in order to avoid the repetition of the facts and appreciation of the evidence, all these points are taken up together for common consideration. 11 CC18022/2018
10. It is the specific case of the prosecution That on 30082016 at about 5.45 AM within the jurisdiction of Rajajinagara PS, when complainant went to buy materials to the shop situated at 9th main, 6th cross, Prakashnagara and returning to her home, at that time accused captured the photo of the complainant, when the complainant questioned the same and snatched the mobile phone from him, there was a photo of her in the mobile phone thereby outraged the modesty of women.
11. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, it got examined only one witness as PW1. Along with the oral evidence, the prosecution has produced and got marked three documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
12. The prosecution got examined PW1, who is the complainant and victim in this case. The said witness in her examinationinchief has deposed that 11 CC18022/2018 there was a misunderstanding between herself with the accused for silly reasons. Further deposed that apart from that the accused had not outraged the modesty, did not captured photo of her and not destroyed the evidence. Further when CW1 went to the police station, police have obtained her signature on two documents but she is not aware of those documents. At this stage, the learned APP treated this witness as hostile witness and cross examined her with great efforts. But, in spite of that, PW1 has denied all the suggestions put by prosecution and nothing has been elucidated from her mouth so as to support the case of prosecution.
13. It is to be expected that, PW.1 being the informant being the star and material witness, has to depose as per the version of prosecution. But in this case, she has turned hostile to the prosecution and not supported her own case and denied the acts of the accused. Moreover, on perusal of the oral evidence of 11 CC18022/2018 PW1, it reveals that she has compromised the matter along with the accused. In view of the nonsupporting of the main and material witness, this Court is of the considered view that, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, for the said reasons this Court answers point Nos.1 to 4 in the Negative.
14. POINT No.5: In view of discussion held on above points, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
:: ORDER :: Acting under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 354, 354C, 509 and 204 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2021) (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru 11 CC18022/2018 ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution PW1 : Smt.Rekha, W/o Vishvanath
2. Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P1a : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2a : Signature of PW1 Ex.P3 : Statement
3. Material objects exhibited on behalf of prosecution NIL
4. List of witnesses and documents on Defense side Nil (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru