Bangalore District Court
State By Rmc Yard Police vs Lokesh on 30 October, 2017
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2017
Present: SMT.YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO., B.Com. LL.B.[Spl.]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55]
SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SPL CC NO.489/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by RMC Yard Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Lokesh,
Son of M.Raju,
Aged about 20 years,
Residing at: Totadaguddadahalli,
Near Fancy Garments,
Nagasandra Post, Bangalore-56.
[By Advocate Sri.K.Raghu]
1. Date of commission of offence 31.3.2016
2. Date of report of occurrence of 31.3.2016
the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 31.03.2016
4. Date of release of accused [bail] 21.04.2016
5. Period undergone in custody by 20 Days
the accused
6. Date of commencement of 26.10.2017
evidence
2 Spl CC No.489/2016
7. Date of closing of evidence 26.10.2017
8. Name of the complainant Sri.Parvathe Gowda-
complainant as well as the
father of the victim girl
9. Offences complained of Secs. 354(B), 323, 504 and 509
of IPC r/w Secs. 7, 8 and 12 of
[as per the charge-sheet]
POCSO Act, 2012
10. Opinion of the Judge As per the final order
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, RMC Yard police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 354(B), 323, 504 and 509 of IPC and under Secs. 7, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The prosecution case in nut-shell is that:
The accused by inducing the victim girl aged about 17 years to have love affairs with him and was following her when she was going and coming from college and waiting near by the college and it was came to the knowledge of the father of the victim girl and the father of the victim girl and their neighbourers advised the accused not to torture the victim girl. Inspite of it, the accused did not give heed to their advise and continued his torture. On 31.3.2016, at 8 A.M., in the morning, when the victim girl went for college results of I year PUC, the security 3 Spl CC No.489/2016 guard at the college gate told her that the results would be announced at 11 A.M. and the same was intimated to her father on phone and she was waiting nearby the college till 11 A.M., Thereafter, she came near the college at 11 A.M.,, at that time, the accused by holding her hands, had pulled her inducing her to come with him and immediately, her father who came there, asked him to stop the act, the accused assaulted her father on his right hand and right shoulder, thereby her father sustained fracture injuries. The accused also threatened her father to perform his [accused] marriage with the victim girl, otherwise, he would not allow them to live and thereby criminally intimidated. Hence, complaint was lodged. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered in Cr.No.54/2016 and the Investigating Officer has proceeded with, for investigation and after collecting the materials, he has charge-sheeted the accused.
3. The accused was arrested during the investigation and subjected to judicial custody. During the crime stage, the accused was released on bail. Cognizance was taken.
4. Initially this case was made over to this court. Since as per the Notification No. ADM-I (A)/ 614/2017, of the Office of the city Civil Court, Bengaluru, dated:4.8.2017 with effect from the afternoon of 5.8.2017, now, the case is before this Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District, for disposal.
4 Spl CC No.489/20165 The accused who was bail, is represented by the counsel of his choice. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution papers [charge-sheet] was given to the counsel on behalf of the accused in-compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this court has framed the Charge on 12.10.2017 and read over to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
7. The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 5 witnesses out of 13 charge-sheet witnesses and placed reliance on documents at Exs.P1 to P8. Since material witnesses including the victim girl turned hostile to the prosecution case, summons/warrants were not issued to the other charge-sheet witnesses, as no purpose would be served. Hence, the evidence of other charge-sheet witnesses were not recorded and they were dropped. So, also as the material witnesses including the victim girl turned hostile to the prosecution case and as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. The recording of his Statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Accordingly the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Perused the oral and documentary evidence and the record on hand. Following Points are formulated for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused has outraged the modesty of victim girl aged about 17 years on 31.3.2016 at about 8 A.M., when she was 5 Spl CC No.489/2016 proceedings towards Government PU College at SRS, Peenya, to know her 1st PUC results, with sexual intent, the accused pulled her by holding her hand and called her to come with him and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.354(B) of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused on the same date, time and place, has committed sexual harassment on the victim girl by pulling her hand, calling her to come with him, with a sexual intent and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012?
3. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that, on the same date, time and place, when CW1-father of the victim girl came to the place of alleged incident, while the accused was pulling the hand of the victim girl, while asking about his [accused] said criminal act, the accused assaulted CW1 by hand on his right shoulder and hands of CW1 and caused simple injuries to CW1 and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.323 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that, on the same date, time and place, apart from assaulting CW1, the accused abused CW1 in filthy language and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.504 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that, on the same date, time and place, the accused has also given life threat to CW1 and the victim girl/CW2 of killing them, if CW1 does 6 Spl CC No.489/2016 not perform the marriage of CW2 with the accused and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 of IPC?
6. What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 5: In the NEGATIVE Point No.6: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. POINTS-1 TO 5:- As these Points are inter-linked with each other, hence, they are taken up for common consideration to avoid repetition of facts.
10. The prosecution has come up with the specific case that, the accused has committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the victim girl aged about 17 years, with a sexual intent and gave life threat to the victim girl and her father and caused injuries to the father of the victim girl by insulting him. Hence, burden is casted upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt that, presumption under Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 is available in favour of the prosecution. Hence, evidence on record placed by the prosecution is of the victim girl-PW1[CW2], her mother-PW2[CW3] and other witnesses are neighbourers deposed as PW3, PW4 and PW5 [CWs-4 to 6 by names Ramesh, Shivanna and Thulasamma respectively]. All these witnesses have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case. Apart from this, the complainant-father of the victim girl was died during the trial stage. The documents referred 7 Spl CC No.489/2016 are Statement of the victim girl before the complainant-RMC Yard police, as per Sec.161 of Cr.P.C at Ex.P1. As the victim girl identified the signature of her father, hence, the Complaint was got marked at Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is the Spot Mahazar, as it has been referred to during the course of evidence of PW1, as she [PW1] identified the signature of her father, but, denied the contents of Ex.P3 that, the Investigating Officer had conducted spot maahzar etc. The Statement of PW1/victim girl recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C by the Investigating Officer, as she turned hostile, that portions are marked at Exs.P1(b) and P1(c). The Statement of the victim girl recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C before the Learned Magistrate is marked at Ex.P4. PWs-2 to 5 have not supported the prosecution case. The marked portions with reference to their respective statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C, are at Exs.P5 to P8 respectively.
11. The victim girl-PW1 and her mother-PW2 have stated about their relationship with the deceased CW1/complainant, as wife and daughter of the complainant, who died about 18 days back immediately prior to giving their evidence before the court on 26.10.2017. During the year 2016, in the month of March, she [ PW1/victim girl] was aged about 15 years and she was studying in I year PUC and that the accused was resident of nearby her house and was knowing him and she also identified the accused in the open court, who was present in the accused box. PW1 deposed about the incident that, on 31.3.2016, she went to see the results of I year PUC to her college at about 8 A.M., and as the results were displayed at belated time, hence, she stayed there and informed it 8 Spl CC No.489/2016 to her father on phone and as there was crowd of students, hence, she [PW1] waited in her class, but, there was galata and police came there. Even her father was also there. At that time, because of galata and rush, her father/CW1 fell down and his right hand bone was fractured and when she was in the class room, the police took her signature on a paper. But, she does not know what are its contents. It is at Ex.P1 which is the Statement of the victim girl. But, she has not supported the prosecution case that, what has been written in Ex.P1 specifically about the incident regarding the allegations against the accused that, he has outraged her modesty and caused injuries to her father and gave life threat to her and her father etc. She [PW1] denied the suggestion put to her in this connection, after declaring her as hostile witness and stated that, the accused has not committed the alleged offence and he did not force her for love affairs and marriage; nor he pulled her hands nor assaulted her father and he never outraged her modesty. She denied the complaint [Ex.P2] lodged by her father regarding the alleged incident and conducting of spot mahazar [Ex.P3]. Even she [PW1] has not supported the prosecution case about the statement given by her before the Learned Magistrate as per Ex.P4, as she has deposed that, at the instance of the police, she gave the statement before the Learned Magistrate, accordingly. But, she was unable to remember the contents of Ex.P4. Thus, PW1 has totally turned hostile to the prosecution case, to link the alleged guilt of the accused.
9 Spl CC No.489/201612. So also the mother [PW2] of the victim girl has denied the suggestion put to her, about the incident, after declaring her as hostile witness. Apart from this, she [PW2] is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. Though she has stated about the age of the victim girl and that the accused was resident of their locality and the victim girl had acquaintance with the accused. Identification of the accused was made by her [PW2] during her evidence on 26.10.2017. She denied the suggestion regarding the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C as per Ex.P5, marked portion of her statement, which would not run against the accused, as incriminating statement. But, it is not supported by this [PW2] witness in the witness box before the court that, the accused forced her daughter/victim girl for marriage and on the said date, the accused went near the college of the victim girl and made galata by outraging the modesty of the victim girl with a sexual intent and assaulted her father-CW1 and caused injuries to CW1 and gave life threat to the victim girl and her father. Thus, these [PWs-1 and 2] witnesses have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the prosecution case that, the accused had committed the offences, as alleged.
13. Apart from this, the other material witnesses are PWs-3 to 5, who are the residents of nearby house of PWs-1 and 2. They know the victim girl and her parents. But, they denied the suggestion, after treating them as hostile witnesses, regarding the incident that, the accused had committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the victim girl with a sexual intent and assaulted 10 Spl CC No.489/2016 her father-CW1 and caused injuries to CW1 and gave life threat to the victim girl and her father. It was narrated by the father of the victim girl/CW1 and accordingly, it was repeated at the time of investigation and recording of their [PWs-3 to 5]Statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C and hence, the said statements running against the accused as incriminating statements are marked at Exs.P6 to P8. Thus, these witnesses [PWs-3 to 5] have not deposed in-consonance with their statements given before the complainant police to support the case of the prosecution to link the accused with the alleged offences.
14. Thus, from the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, as material witnesses, as referred above, have turned totally hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to place cogent and clinching evidence against the accused. Since the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case, the evidence of other charge-sheet witnesses, considering it to be not necessary to secure their presence, hence, their evidence has been dropped. Therefore, as per the above discussions, it is hereby held that, it is failure on the part of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, so as to convict him for the offences punishable under Secs. 354(B), 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thus, prosecution being not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt is extended in favour of the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, Point Nos. 1 to 5 are answered in the Negative.
11 Spl CC No.489/201615. The victim girl and other material witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case and they did not supported the prosecution case, more specifically the victim girl. Hence, the victim girl is not entitled for any victim compensation.
16. POINT NO.6:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs.354(B), 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereby corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of October, 2017] [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1 Victim girl CW2 26.10.2017
Pw.2 Veda CW3 26.10.2017
Pw.3 Ramesh CW4 26.10.2017
Pw.4 Shivanna CW5 26.10.2017
Pw.5 Thulasamma CW6 26.10.2017
12 Spl CC No.489/2016
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Statement of PW1/victim girl given before the
complainant-RMC Yard police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P1[a] Signature of PW1/victim girl Ex.P1(b) Marked portion of the statement of PW1/victim girl Ex.P1(c) Marked portion of the statement of PW1/victim girl Ex.P2 Complaint dated: 31.3.2016 Ex.P2(a) Signature of the complainant identified by PW1, as the complainant is dead Ex.P3 Spot Mahazar dated: 31.3.2016 Ex.P3(a) Signature of the complainant identified by PW1, as the complainant is dead Ex.P4 Statement of PW1/victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW1/victim girl Ex.P5 Statement of PW2 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P6 Statement of PW3 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P7 Statement of PW4 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P8 Statement of PW5 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Witness examined, documents marked for the accused: NIL [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.13 Spl CC No.489/2016
.
30.10.17 Accused is present.
Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs.354(B), 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
His bail bond and surety bond stand
cancelled.
[YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO]]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.14 Spl CC No.489/2016