Bangalore District Court
State By R.T.Nagar Police Station vs Syed Asgar on 30 April, 2018
Before the Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban
District.
Dated this the 30th day of, April, 2018
Present: Smt.Yadav Vanamala Anandrao., B.Com. LL.B.[Spl.]
LIV Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH:55),
Sitting in the Child Friendly Court,
Bengaluru Urban District
Spl.C.C.No.575/2014
COMPLAINANT: State by R.T.Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED Syed Asgar, Syed Ezaz,
Aged 23 years, R/at No.3/1,
R/at Mumtaz Manjil, Near
V Care hospital, 9th 'A' Cross Road,
Adi Kabeer Ashrama,
Devegowda Road, R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru - 32.
(By Sri Mohammed Pasha. C, Advocate)
Date of commission of offence 14.10.2014
Date of report of occurrence of 15.10.2014
the offence
Date of arrest of accused 30.10.2014
Date of release of accused [bail] 10.2.2015
Date of commencement of 30.12.2015
evidence
Date of closing of evidence 3.3.2018
Name of the complainant Smt.Raziya Begum
Offences complained of Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of IPC
[as per the charge-sheet] and under Secs.5((l) r/w.S.6 of
POCSO Act, 2012
Opinion of the Judge The accused is acquitted
2 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, R.T.Nagar police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and under Secs.5((l) r/w.S.6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
The accused had acquaintance with CW.2-Kum.Arshiya Begum, aged about 16 years. On 14.10.2014 at about 4.00 p.m. under the guise of love affair he kidnapped the victim girl near House No.16, 11th 'A'Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, Bengaluru, by inducing her to marry her and took her to Hyderabad and kept her in a house, and that during such stay, knowingly that she was a minor, the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault/rape against her will repeatedly.
3. Therefore, on the basis of missing complaint, lodged by mother of victim initially, a case was registered in Cr.No.292/2014, under Section 363 of IPC and the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, the victim girl and the accused were traced out and the accused was taken to the judicial 3 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 custody. The victim girl narrated the incident by getting added other said sections of IPC and POCSO Act. Then Investigating Officer has collected the materials during the course of investigation. At the crime stage, the accused was released on bail. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation, has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and under Secs.5(l) r/w.S.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 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.
5. The accused who is on bail, is represented by the counsel of his choice. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution papers [charge-sheet] was furnished to the counsel on behalf of the accused in-compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
4 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014
6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this court has framed the Charge 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 10 witnesses and placed reliance on documents at Exs.P.1 to P.12. After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. He denied the incriminating evidence placed by prosecution against him, and he not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the oral and documentary evidence and the record on hand.
9. Following Points are formulated for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused having acquaintance with the victim girl aged 16 years, and had kidnapped her on 14.10.2014 at about 4.00 p.m. near House No.16, 11th 'A'Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, Bengaluru, under the pretext of marrying her, from her legal guardianship and thereby 5 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the said date, time and place, the accused had committed offence of kidnap of victim girl/CW2 and took her to Hyderabad with intent that she can be compelled for marriage and kept her in a house, seduced her for illicit intercourse with the accused and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the said date time and place, the accused kidnapped the victim girl/CW2 under the pretext of marriage, took her to Hyderabad and kept the victim girl in a house and knowing that she was a minor, he committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault during such stay, repeatedly, and thereby the accused has committed an offence coming within the definition Clause of Sec.5(l) r/w.S.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Sec.376 of IPC?
4. What Order?
10. 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 order,
for the following:
6 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014
REASONS
11. Points Nos.1 to 3:- As these Points are inter-linked
with each other, hence, they are taken up for common consideration to avoid repetition of facts.
12. The prosecution has come up with the specific case that, the accused by kidnapping the victim girl from her house and from her lawful guardianship with an intention that, she may be compelled to marry him and that she may be forced or seduced to illicit sexual intercourse and also promising her of marriage, induced her and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her [victim girl] by taking her to Hyderabad, knowing that she was minor and against her will, repeatedly.
13. Therefore, initial burden is casted upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt, though presumption under Sec.29 & 30 of POCSO Act, 2012 is in favaour of the prosecution. Hence, it has tried to bring on record the evidence of the very victim girl [CW2] as PW2, her mother/complainant[CW1] as PW1, her father [CW3] as PW6 and relied on the documents i.e., Ex.P.1- complaint, Ex.P.2-Medical Report of the victim girl, Ex.P.4 is the report; 7 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 Ex.P.5 is the Medical report of accused; Ex.P.6 is the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., given before the Learned Magistrate, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8-Marked portions of the Statements of PW2 and PW.6 respectively, Ex.P.9 is further statement of PW.3; Ex.P.11 is the FIR and Ex.P.12 is the mahazar.
14. Though the complaint, spot mahazar-Ex.P.12 and the statements of the victim girl, complainant and father taken during the investigation are revealing that, " the victim girl was kidnapped on 14.10.2014, from her house at about 4.30 P.M., by the accused by inducing her of marriage and took her to Hyderaba and kept her in a house, and knowing that she was a minor, had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her" etc. But, the very contents of the said complaint and Spot Mahazar and statements are not supported by the very material witnesses, specifically the victim girl, the complainant/mother of the victim girl, and her father i..e, PWs.1, 2 and 6, though they have stated in the chief-examination, but they have turned hostile in the cross- examination, made by learned counsel for accused with explanation. Apart from this it is love affair case and the 8 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 victim girl was having mind maturity to think about the consequences. Even PW.2 has not supported the Medical Report as per Ex.P.3, though she has admitted her signature thereon. However, the evidence on record, it is revealed the relationship of PWs-1, 2 and 6 interse between them and that during the year 2014, the age of the victim girl was 16 years. PW.2 has stated in her Chief-examination that, she has not intended to continue her studies after completion of 9th standard and she was going to tailoring class and the accused used to met her and thereafter they have loved each other. She has further stated that when she was in her aunt's house, the accused sent his sisters for marriage proposal of the accused with her, but her aunt refused the same and that about one year back at about 3.30 p.m. the accused called her through phone and he took her to Registrar Office, where they took her signature on some document, from there they went Yelahanka, then to Hyderabad, where they took lodge and the accused has committed rape on her and later he kept her in a rented house and on all the days he had physical contact with her forcibly against her will and later the accused has decided to go Goa, when they were in railway station, the police came 9 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 and brought back to the police station at Bengaluru and the police have recorded her statement and they sent her to medical examination. She identified her signature on Ex.P.3 the Medical report.
15. But it is material to note that she has admitted in her cross-examination made by defence counsel, on putting suggestion on material facts that, her age on the date of evidence i.e. on 25.7.2017 was 22 years, According to her, as per say of police she has given the statement before the Magistrate. She has stated that as she was tutored her to give evidence, hence she has stated the facts in the chief examination. She has further stated that about 2 years back she was in her aunts house, as her aunt and uncle frequently quarrelling with each other, she went to her relatives house in Hyderbadad, later her parents brought back her to Bengaluru and the police took her to the police station, but she did not know as to why they took her to the police station. She has denied the entire case of the prosecution that the accused had kidnapped her and got her married in the Registrar's office and had committed rape on victim. It is specifically suggested the incident, but she has specifically admitted and stated that he did not took her to any place 10 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 and he has not committed rape on her and she has not given any statement before the police, as the police told her to depose before the court, as they have told to her, hence she has deposed in the chief examination. She has further stated on suspicion her parents have stated the name of the accused, in the complaint filed before the police. Even in her Medical report, she has admitted the signature on Ex.P.3 as she has put her signature thereon, when she was taken to the hospital for medical examination,. Thus, she has specifically stated that, the accused did not forced her to have love affairs and to have marriage with him; nor he had committed her kidnap; nor he had any physical contact with her. As she deposed against the prosecution case, the learned PP with permission has cross examined her and put suggestions about the incidents, but she denied that accused had not committed said offences. Thus, she [PW2] turned hostile to the prosecution case and not supported the case of the prosecution, that the accused had kidnapped her and committed sexual assault on her. She has explained the things why she left the house and that she resided in the house her relative.
11 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014
16. So, also the complainant/mother of the victim girl[PW1] deposed that, she had filed missing complaint of her daughter/victim girl, who was aged 16 years, when she was in her sister's house and on the said date of incident, her sister has intimated that the victim girl did not return back to the home by usual time, hence, she filed the missing complaint as per Ex.P.1. She has further stated that the about 4 months back the sisters of the accused came to her sister's house for the marriage of the accused and the victim girl, but she refused, after 15 days she came to know that the victim girl was in Hyderabad and they met the victim girl and the accused in the Railway station and they brought back the accused and the victim to the police station at Bangalore. PW-1 has stated in the chief examination, about the incident as narrated by PW-2(victim) that PW-1 disclosed that at 3.30 p.m. the accused called her through phone and he took her to Registrar Office, where they took her signature on some document, from there they went Yelahanka, then to Hyderabad, and kept her in the lodge and then rented premises and committed rape on her on all the days, forcibly against her will. She has given her statement before the police. She has identified the accused before the court. 12 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014
17. But in the cross-examination by defence counsel she has admitted the defence version as her sister and her husband were quarrelling with each other, hence getting depressed the victim girl went to Hyderabad without intimating them, hence, she [PW2] lodged the missing complaint. She has further stated that at the time of lodging of complaint the age of the victim girl was 18 years. She has admitted that she has not stated before the police that the accused has kidnapped her, married her, took her to Hyderabad and he has committed rape on her. Thus, she has turned hostile to the prosecution case and not supported the case of the prosecution, that the accused had kidnapped the victim girl and committed sexual assault on her (PW.2). It is material to note that, this witness is cross-examined partly putting suggestions that, whatever stated in the cross- examination made by the learned counsel for the accused were all false and hence the evidence of PW1 with explanation has to be considered. Now the victim girl has attained the age of majority.
18. The father of the victim girl PW.6 being hear-say witness is considered to be circumstantial evidence. He has 13 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 turned hostile to the prosecution case that, on the said date of incident, the accused had kidnapped the victim girl under the guise of love affairs and promise of marriage, knowingly that she [victim girl] was minor and had committed rape on the victim girl. Even he denied that, he gave statement before the police as per Ex.P.9 in that regard. Thus, PW.6 too has turned hostile to the prosecution case and not supported the material fact that, the accused had kidnapped the victim girl and committed sexual assault on her.
19. PW.8-Melurappa is the Headmistress of Government High School, Bangalore, has deposed that, as per the requisition of the Investigating Officer, he had verified the school records of the victim girl and issued the Certificate as per Ex.P.10 stating the date of birth of the victim girl as 17.12.1997. There is no effective cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve his version and to discard the materials placed with reference to the date of birth of the victim girl, specifically Ex.P10. The said documents are having the evidentiary value and prosecution has adduced the evidence of this witness and thereby proved the age of the victim girl, 14 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 based on the said documents that, the victim girl was a minor below the age of 18 years, at the time of the alleged incident.
20. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of Dr.B.M.Nagaraj, PW.7, who has examined the victim girl. He has deposed about the medical examination conducted on the victim girl and issuing of Medical Certificate/Report of the victim girl as per Ex.P.3. Thus, the evidence of Doctor- PW.7 needs corroboration. Opinion of an expert, medical evidence independently cannot be the material piece of evidence. Their evidence is limited to that of the medical examination and issuance of Medical Reports/Certificates with reference to the victim girl.
21. The other witnesses i.e. P.W.3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 are the police witnesses. They have stated about their part of investigation done by them.
(a) CW9-Syed Rafee Ahmad- Head Constable of the complainant-RT Nagar police station deposed as PW3 has assisted the Investigating Officer in apprehending the accused along with CW10 as they went to the Hyderabad taking passport, as per the directions of the Investigating Officer and they went in a vehicle along with CWs-1 to 3 and they 15 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 went to Hyderabad. The informant told that the accused and the victim girl have vacated the house at 2.00 A.M., and went to Mumbai in rail and took them to Secundrabad railway station. On 29.10.2014 at about 3.20 A.M., two persons i.e, one person along with the victim girl were getting down from the auto and the parents of the victim girl identified the victim girl and the accused along with the informants and hence, they apprehended the accused and took the custody of the victim girl and as they not secured any address of their [victim girl and the accused] stay at Hyderabad, hence, they brought the accused to Bangalore and produced him before the Investigating Officer and he [PW3] gave Report in this regard s per Ex.P4, but, it is pertinent to note that, the parents of the victim girl and also the victim girl [Pws-1 to 3] have not spoken about the apprehending in the manner as referred to by PW3. Even they have not traced out the place of stay of the victim girl and the accused. Therefore, without cogent and clinching evidence, mere suggestions put to PW3 do not come to the aid of the prosecution. Apart from this, the apprehension of the accused has been disputed during the cross-examination by the defence counsel as PW3 did not give details about the auto from which the accused and the 16 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 victim girl alleged to be getting down and about the private car that was used for going to Hyderabad etc. Therefore, without corroborative evidence of this police official, do not support the prosecution case to convict the accused.
(b) CW12-Rathnamma the then ASI of the complainant-RT Nagar police station deposed as PW4. At the time of giving evidence, PW4 was retired from service. During her investigation, i.e., on 29.10.2014, at about 5 P.M., she took the victim girl to Dr.Ambedkar Medical College for medical examination as per the directions of the Investigating Officer with requisition of the Investigating Officer and after medical examination, she produced the victim girl before the Investigating Officer. There is no cross-examination in this regard and there is no dispute regarding the medical examination of the victim girl.
(c) CW11-Theerthappa-Head constable of the complainant-
RT Nagar police station deposed as PW5 about his duty as per the directioin of the Investigating Officer that, he took the accused on 30.10.2014 to Dr.Amedkar Hospital for medical examination and after the medical examination, he brought back the accused to the police station along with the Doctor's reference for having examined the accused and it is marked 17 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 as Ex.P5. There is denial in this regard. However, there is no serious dispute about the medical examination of the accused by the Doctor, as per the requisition of the Investigating Officer. However, this witness has done his duty as per the directions of the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. However, his evidence alone cannot be clinching and cogent evidence.
(d) CW13-KAllappa.S.B.,-Police Inspector deposed as PW10 has done part of the investigation as he took the written complaint-Ex.P1 and registered a case in Cr.No.292/2014 and FIR-Ex.P11 was sent to the jurisdictional court. He appointed the police staffs for tracing out the victim girl and the accused and in turn he went to the spot of incident i.e., Thimmaih Garden, 11th 'A' Cross, House No.16, and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P12 in the presence of panch witnesses CWs-6 and 7 and it was from 7 A.M., to 8 A.M., and CW4 showed the place where from the victim girl went out of the house and he[PW10] has recorded the statements of Cws-3 and 4 and CW3 gave the statement as per Ex.P8. He has handed over the further investigation to CW14 i.e., PW9. His evidence also considered to be the 18 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 evidence of Investigating Officer, which needs corroboration. He has done the duty during the course of investigation.
(e) CW14- Raghupathi.S.N,-Police Inspector deposed as PW9. He has stated about taking of further investigation from PW10 and conducted further investigation on 20.10.2014. Thereafter, he collected materials and filed charge-sheet against the accused. The learned defence counsel has cross- examine these PWs-9 and 10 witnesses. However, their evidence needs corroboration. As discussed above, the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and even they have not supported the Investigating Officers PWs-9 and 10. Their evidence is not supported by corroborative evidence hence, the evidence of PWs-9 and 10 cannot be considered exclusively, so as to convict the accused.
22. Thus, as material witnesses [PWs-1, 2 and 6] have not supported the prosecution case, as referred above. Because of they turned hostile to the prosecution case, specifically the victim girl aged about 16 years. But, in this regard, the learned counsel for the accused supporting his 19 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 arguments has relied upon the decisions regarding the age proof of the victim girl, reported in:
(1) 1992 Cri.L.J 4073 [Chidda Ram Vs. State[, wherein it is held thus:
" Penal Code [45 of 1860], Ss. 366, 376- Rape on minor girl-Proof of age- School Certificate, not a conclusive evidence and ossification test, not a sure test- No birth certificate filed with the school-Age of prosecutrix revealed from her mother's version to be above 16 years and from the Doctor's opinion below 16 years- Neither direct proof of age produced nor reliable evidence adduced-Drawing of conclusion that age of prosecutrix was below 16 at the time of commission of offence- Not justified".
(2) In another decision reported in 1996 Cril.L.J 198 [ Narendrasingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh], wherein it is held thus:
" Penal Code [45 of 1860], S.375-Rape-Age of victim-Proof- Statement of father of prosecutrix not even showing year of birth of prosecutrix- School admission certificate relating to age of victim not trustworthy-Medical opinion based on ossification test was that prosecutrix could be between 14 to 16 years-Said opinion uncorroborated by any substantial piece of evidence- Marginal benefit of 2 years must go in favour of accused- prosecution failed to prove that, prosecutrix was below 16 years of age-Act voluntary and out of volition of both parties- Conviction, not proper".
(3) In another decision reported in 2011 Crl.L.J 1218 [State of H.P Vs. Mano alias Man Singh], wherein it is held thus:
"" Penal Code [45 of 1860], S.376- Rape-Appeal against acquittal- Allegations that respondent accused took prosecutrix, 20 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 a minor girl in a field on pretext of providing fruits and commeitted rape on her-Testimony of prosecutrix is not inspiring confidence- No material showing as to whose instance entry regarding birth of prosecutrix was got entered in Parivar Register-Entry made in parivar register is not conclusive-Prosecutrix was above 16 years of age at time of occurrence and she appears to have consented for sexual interaction with accused/respondent- Order of acquittal of respondent accused hence not interfered with".
(4) In another decision reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1029 [ Ram Murthi Vs. State of Haryana], wherein it is held thus:
"Penal Code [1860], Section 366-Age of prosecutrix- Evidence- Unproved and unexhibited school certificate cannot be relied on".
With due respect to the said decisions, the cumulative legal effect regarding the age factor pertaining to the victim girl is duly considered, but, in the present case, the accused has seriously disputed the age of the victim girl that she was aged about 16 years. Admission secured from the mouth of PW1 during the course of cross-examination and she has clearly admitted that, the real explanation given and statement given by her regarding the incident that there was difference of opinion between her family and the family of the accused with reference to the proposal of marriage of the accused with the victim girl. But, it was not taken down and at the time of lodging the complaint, the victim girl was aged about 18 years 21 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 and that at the time of her[victim girl] birth, it was not registered in the Birth and Death Register with the competent authority and at the time of getting her admission to the school they gave date of birth, based on approximate age of the victim girl, etc. Therefore, with reference to the age of the victim girl whether she attained the age of majority or minor, is under dispute and it creates doubt about the prosecution case.
23. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on a decision reported in 2010 Crl.L.J 1515 [Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka] wherein it is held thus:
" Evidence Act[1 of 1872]- S.3- Hostile witness- Credibility- Witness fully supports prosecution case in his examination-in- chief as to any material and relevant fact-But turns hostile to prosecution in his cross-examination made on behalf of accused on a later date and states contrary to his evidence in his examination-in-chief as to the said fact- Evidence of such hostile witness in his examination-in-chief has to be accepted as true if it is not shown that what he stated in his examination-in-chief was not stated by him at the earliest opportunity in his statement recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C by Investigating Officer".
And argued further that, in this case, the victim girl and her mother and material witnesses supported the prosecution case during the chief examination and that in the 22 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 cross-examination by defence totally turned hostile and with permission treating them hostile, he cross-examined, but, they do not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, contents of chief examination to be believed. On the contrary the learned defence counsel argued countering the said argument and relied upon the decision reported in 2005 Cri.L.J 808 [ Damber Bahadur Chettri Vs. State of Sikkim], wherein it is held thus:
" Evidence Act[1 of 1872], S.136, S.138- Examination of witnesses-Witnesses taking diametrically opposite stand in the cross-examination from what they had stated in examination-in-chief. No efforts made by the prosecution to bring on record, by cross-examining them. The facts showing that their statements made in examination-in-chief should be preferred-Their statements made in examination-in-chief cannot be preferred".
With due respect to the said decision, the guidelines and dictum laid down therein are duly considered. But, in the present case, the facts and circumstances of the case are relevant, as because, it is already held about mind maturity of the victim girl and there are material discrepancies highlighted by the learned counsel for the accused. Apart from this, the marriage of the victim girl with 3rd person was performed and parents of the victim girl and the very victim 23 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 girl, have avoided to support the prosecution case and turned hostile to the prosecution case.
24. It is therefore material to note that, PWs-1, 2 and 6 stated that, the accused did not committed the offence of kidnap; nor he committed the sexual assault on the victim girl, coming within the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012. Therefore, the recording of evidence of other material charge- sheet witnesses considered to be not necessary and as no purpose would be served on getting their presence. Hence, the evidence of other material charge-sheet witnesses have been dropped. It is also important to note about the conduct of the victim girl, her parents and reasons for turning hostile that, victim girl and 3rd person marriage and the accused may come in the way of their leading of marital life. Therefore, considering the materials on record, that, the material witnesses [PWs-1, 2 and 6] turning hostile to the prosecution case, there is no clinching and cogent evidence to accept that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The materials placed are not supported the prosecution case, even through the evidence of PWs-1, 2, and 6. Therefore, the accused is entitled for extension of benefit of doubt and he is entitled for an order of 24 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 acquittal. Hence, Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the negative.
25. The victim girl and the other material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 2 and 6 have turned hostile to the prosecution case and they did not supported the prosecution case admitting the contents of the documents at Exs.P.1 to P12. It seems that, the marriage of the victim girl with 3rd person was performed and parents of the victim girl and the very victim girl, have avoided to support the prosecution case. Hence, the victim girl is not entitled for any victim compensation.
26. Point No.4:- 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.363, 366 and 376 of IPC and under Sec. 6 of POCSO Act,2012.
His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, directly on the computer, corrections carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the, 30th day of April, 2018) (YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO) LIV Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH:55), Sitting in the Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District 25 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Razia Begum PW.2 Victim girl PW.3 Syed Rafi Ahamed PW.4 Rathanamma PW..5 Theerthappa PW.6 Shahabuddin PW.7 Dr.Nagaraj PW.8 Melurappa PW.9 Raghupathi PW.10 Kallappa Documents marked for the prosecution: Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P1[a] Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 Letter Ex.P.3 Medical report of victim girl Ex.P.4 Report Ex.P.5 Medical report of accused Ex.P.6 Statement of victim girl under Sec.164 Cr.P.C Ex.P.7 Statement of PW..2 Ex.P.8 Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.9 Further statement of PW.3 Ex.P.10 Birth certificate Ex.P.11 FIR Ex.P.12 Mahazar
Witness examined, documents marked for the accused: NIL LIV Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH:55), Sitting in the Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District 26 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014 30.4.2018 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.363, 366 and 376 of IPC and under Sec.6 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.27 Spl.C.C.No.575/2014