Bangalore District Court
State By Subramanyapura vs Sagar @ Nara on 8 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDL, CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE
Special Court (CCH-54)
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2016.
PRESENT:
Sri.G.B.Mudigoudar, B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl),
LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SPl.C.C.No.292/2015
COMPLAINANT State by Subramanyapura
Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor, Bangalore.)
Vs.
ACCUSED Sagar @ Nara
S/o Raju,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.19, Near Siddappaiah Temple,
Malagala, Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(By Sri.T.S. -Adv)
1. Date of Commission : 1.3.2015
Of Offence
2. Date of Report :
22.4.2015
Of Offence
3. Date of arrest of : 23.04.2015
2 Spl C C 292/15
accused
4 Date of release on Bail 16.06.2015
5 Period undergone in 01 month 23 days
Judicial Custody
6 Name of the : Nithya
complainant
7. Date of :
Commencement of 9.2.2016
recording evidence
8. Date of Closing of :
01.03.2016
Evidence
9. Offences complained of : Section 363, 366 and 376
of Indian Penal Code and
Sec. 5(L) and 6 of POCSO
Act 2012.
10. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
11 Order of the Court : As per final order
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Subramanyapura Police station, Bangalore City has submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(L) and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 on the below said allegations:
3 Spl C C 292/15 "¸ÁQë 5 ²æêÀÄw ¥ÉæêÀiÁ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ DUÁUÀ §AzÀÄ ºÉÄÁÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁV E§âgÀÆ ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1.3.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉB 9.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ §AzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß HjUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV §gÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CzÉà ¢£À PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÅgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ Dr£ÀPÀÄ¥Éà UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÝ£ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀ£ÀP¥ À ÀÅgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÁ¼À UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è Ej¹PÉÆAqÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ ¥Àæw ¢£À zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPðÀ ªÀiÁr ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.4.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë 2, 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²PÀëÁºÀð C¥ÀgÁzÀª s ɸÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ."
2. The complainant is none else the aggrieved girl, who lodged the complaint on 22.6.2015 at about 17.45 hours as under:
" F ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ §¸ÀªÀgÁdÄ, vÁ¬Ä zÀs£® À Qëä eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÆÃt£ÀPÀÄAmÉ UÀt¥Àw¥ÀÄgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ eÉ J¸ï J¸ï ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è J¸ï J¸ï J¯ï ¹ ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁr F ªÀµÀð ¥ÀjÃPÉë §gÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ¨ÁrUÉUÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ £É® ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÉæêÀÄ JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ DUÁUÀ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÅgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÁ¼À gÀWÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä£ÁzÀ ¸ÁUÀgï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁzÀ ¸ÁUÀgï £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw¸À®Ä §®ªÀAvÀ 4 Spl C C 292/15 ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ F «µÀAiÀÄ vÀ£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀjUÉ w½¹zÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä M¥ÀÅàªÀÅ¢®è PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ¨Á®QAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgÀt M¥ÀàzÉ 18 ªÀµðÀ zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÆÃr ªÀiÁqÉÆÃt JA¢zÀÝgÀÄ CµÀÖgÉƼÀUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1.3.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉB 9 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä HjUÉ ºÉÆÃV §gÉÆÃt ¨Á JAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CzÉà ¢£À ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÁ¼À ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ Hj£À°ègÀĪÀ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀ ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÝ£ÀzÀ°è Cj¶£À PÉÆA§Ä PÀnÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÀ. CzÉà ¢£À £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ ¸ÁUÀgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ E£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀð PÀ¼ÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ¤Ã£ÀÄ KPÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁUÀgï£À£ÀÄß PÉýzÀgÀÄ DUÀ ¸ÁUÀgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ, vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CtÚ, DVzÀÄÝ D¬ÄzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà Ej¹PÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£ÀߣÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è Ej¹PÉÆAqÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁZïð/K¦æ¯ï£À°è £À£ÀUÉ J¸ïJ¸ïJ¯ï¹ ¥ÀjÃPÉë EzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¥ÀjÃPÉë §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆr JÃAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉë §gÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁUÀgï CªÀgÀ CtÚ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 ¢£À EgÀĪÀAvÉ DªÉÄÃ¯É PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.4.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁUÀgï §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÁUÀgï vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄAUÀªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß zÉÆqÀØ ªÀÄUÀ gÀWÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåvÁÛ£É ¤ÃªÀÅ EzÉà Hj£À°ègÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄä E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArj JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CA¢¤AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁUÀgï vÀAzÉ gÁdÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzɪ Ý ÀÅ. F ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁUÀgï MnÖUÉ ªÀÄ®UÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¥Àæw ¢£À £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPðÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
5 Spl C C 292/15 ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.4.2015 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÁ¼À UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝz£À ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀgï£À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ KPÉ ºÀÄqÀVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EnÖ¢ÝÃj £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ 18 ªÀµðÀ vÀħĪÀªÀgUÉ É ¤ªÀÄä eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ElÄÖPÉÆArj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. CµÀÖgÀ°è ¸ÁUÀgï ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä CªÀ¤UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ KPÉ PÀvÀÛ°è vÁ½ E®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸ÀÄwÛ®è CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ PÀnÖzÀ ºÀj²t PÉÆA§£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛ ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛãÉÉ ¨ÉÃQzÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÉà PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉvÀ Á¬Ä £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀ̼ÁzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPðÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¸ÁUÀgï «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
3. On the basis of it, a Crime in Crime No.299/2015 for the offences punishable under Sec.366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(L) and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 was registered by the Police Sub Inspector on Station House Officer duty and dispatched the First Information Report before this court and his superior authority.
4. The Police Sub Inspector took up the investigation of the case and proceeded with it. On 6 Spl C C 292/15 23.4.2015, at the instance of the complainant in presence of the panchas drew the mahazar of the seen of occurrence in between 11.30 a.m., to 12.30 p.m. He arrested the accused on 23.4.2015 and followed the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by issuing the arrest notice etc. On the same day, he interrogated the accused and he recorded his confessional statement who confessed the guilt before him. On the very next day, on 24.4.2015, he got medically checked up by producing before General Hospital, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. On the same day, after lodging the complaint, he recorded the statement of the aggrieved girl by interrogating her and on 28.4.2015, he got recorded her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by producing before 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru city. He got medically checked up her on 23.4.2015 by producing before the KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru through WPC. He recorded the statement of all the material witnesses in this case. He collected the medical check up reports. He got remanded the accused on 24.4.2015 by producing before the 7 Spl C C 292/15 court, who got released on bail and actually he released on 16.6.2015. Thus, the accused was in judicial custody for about nearly 2 months as under
trial prisoner. On completion of the investigation of the case, the Police Sub Inspector of Subramanyapura Police Station submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act 2012.
5. On 22.6.2015, this court acting under Sec. 190 of Cr.P.C. perused the entire charge sheet papers and taken the cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and registered it as a Special Case and supplied the charge sheet papers to the accused and thereby complied the provision under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.,
6. This court on 21.8.2015, on being heard as to framing of the charges, this court framed the charge under Section 363, 366 and 376 of Indian
8 Spl C C 292/15 Penal Code and Sec. 5(L) r/w Sec 6 of POCSO Act 2012 by reading out and explained the contents of the charges to accused in Kannada, the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The evidence commenced on 9.2.2016 and closed on 1.3.2016. The oral prayer of the learned prosecutor to issue witness summons to CW3 to CW19 has been rejected on the ground that the victim girl and her father have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case in any manner and in any extent. So, the examination of above referred witnesses would become empty formality and futile exercise and not sub-serve the interest of the prosecution. On the other hand, it would amounts to waste of precious time of the court and public money. Hence the evidence of the prosecution is taken as closed.
8. As there is no incriminating evidence adduced in the deposition of the material witnesses 9 Spl C C 292/15 to answer for by the accused and thereby the recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C dispensed with.
9. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined 2 Witnesses as PWs 1 and 2 out of 19 charge sheeted witnesses and got marked as many as 5 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 in all. On the contrary the defence of the accused is one of the flat denial of the entire prosecution case.
10. We have heard the Learned Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned defence counsel at large.
11. On the basis of the material allegations, this court framed the charges as below:
1. C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1.3.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉB 9.30 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë 1 £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ªÀÄ£É £ÀAB 24 , 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ¥ÀmÉïï 10 Spl C C 292/15 £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸Áé«Ä ¯ÉÃOmï ZÀÄAZÀWÀlÖ PÉÆt£ÀPÀÄAmÉ §½¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÁQë 5 gÀªÀgÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ §zÀÝ PÀ¸ÀÖr¬ÄAzÀ C¥ÀºÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 363 gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀs J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉ ?
2. JgÀqÀ£ÉÃAiÀÄzÁV C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 1.3.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉB 9.30 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë 1 £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ªÀÄ£É £ÀAB 24 , 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ¥ÀmÉÃ¯ï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸Áé«Ä ¯ÉÃOmï ZÀÄAZÀWÀlÖ PÉÆt£ÀPÀÄAmÉ §½¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ C¥ÀºÀj¹PÉÆÃAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 366 gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀs J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀg?É
3. ªÀÄÆgÀ£AÉ iÀÄzÁV C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1.3.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉB 9.30 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë 1 £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ªÀÄ£É £ÀAB 24 , 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ¥ÀmÉÃ¯ï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸Áé«Ä ¯ÉÃOmï ZÀÄAZÀWÀlÖ PÉÆt£ÀPÀÄAmÉ §½¬ÄAzÀ C¥ÀºÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÅgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÁ¼À UÁæªÀÄzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV 11 Spl C C 292/15 §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ºÀoÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 376 gÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀs J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀg?É
4. £Á®Ì£AÉ iÀÄzÁV C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ZÁ¸Á 1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£ÀåªÉ¸ÀVzÀÄÝ PÀ®A 5 (J¯ï) gÉB« PÀ®A 6 gÀ ¥ÉÇøÉÆÌà PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄr zÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀs J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀg?É
5. K£ÀÄ DzÉñÀ?
12. My findings above points are as under:-
Points No.1 to 4: In the negative Point No.5 :as per final Order for the following:
REASONS
13. Point No.1 and 2:- As this transaction of love affairs occurred in the same transaction and the facts and circumstances of the case are inter linked. So, they are taken together for common and 12 Spl C C 292/15 joint discussion to avoid the repetition of the facts of the case.
14. The burden of establishing the guilt heavily lies on the prosecution by leading untainted direct, circumstantial and medical evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. It is a case of kidnapped and forcible sex The prosecution in order to establish the guilt has examined 2 witnesses out of 19 charge sheeted witnesses and got marked as many as 5 documents as per Ex.P1 to P5. On the contrary, the defence of the accused is one of the flat denial of the entire prosecution case.
16. Out of the PW-1 and PW-2 examined, the Pw-1 is the aggrieved girl. PW-2 is the none else lher genitive father.
13 Spl C C 292/15
17. Out of Ex.P1 to P5, the Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P3 is the statement of victim under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is the victim's medical report and Ex.P5 is the statement of PW-2.
18. PW-1 and PW-2 are the genitive daughter and father and related to each other. There is no conflict interest in between them. Both PW-1 and 2 are highly interested in prosecuting the accused in getting convict him. PW-1 is the victim girl in the hands of the accused who subjected to rape against her will and illegally got kidnapped. Both PW-1 and PW-2 disowned the prosecution story by turning out hostile and not supported the prosecution version in its entirety.
19. Even the prosecution treated them as hostile and cross examined at length and failed to show that as to convince this court as to why this court discarded their oral evidence and accepted the police papers and to secure conviction of the 14 Spl C C 292/15 accused. On these grounds, we discarded the evidence of PW-1 and 2 as not trustworthy. In view of these, two materials witnesses turned down hostile and we have discarded the evidence of Pw-1 and 2 in toto as not reliable witnesses. The oral request of the learned prosecutor to issue summons to witnesses CW-3 to CW-19 is rejected on the ground that victim girl and her father have turned out hostile and not supported the prosecution case in any manner and to any extent. Hence, the examination of above referred witnesses would become empty formality and futile exercise and not sub-serve the interest of the prosecution. On the contrary, it would amounts to waste of precious time of the court and public money. Hence the evidence of the prosecution side is taken as closed.
20. As there is no incriminating evidence adduced in the deposition of the material witnesses to answer for by the accused and therefore the recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C dispensed with.
15 Spl C C 292/15
21. On total analysis of the entire prosecution testimony both documentary and oral evidence absolutely there is no evidence on record against the accused to convict the accused with crime alleged against him. It is a zero evidence case. When there is no evidence against accused to connect with alleged crime, this court left with no other option except to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt. It is therefore, we hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, in view of all these reasons, I answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the negative.
22. Point No.5:- In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable Under Section 363, 366 and 376 of 16 Spl C C 292/15 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(L) r/w Sec 6 of the POCSO Act 2012.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.
Accused is set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Stenographer corrected and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 8th day of March, 2016.) (G.B.MUDIGOUDAR) LIII ADDL, CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
Annexure Witness examined for the Prosecution Sl.No. List of witness Date of Examination 01 PW-1 aggrieved girl 09.02.2016 02 PW-2 Basavaraju 01.03.2016 Documents Marked for the Prosecution Sl.No 01 Ex.P.1 Complaint 02 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw 1 03 Ex.P2 Mahazar 17 Spl C C 292/15 04 Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW-1 05 Ex.P3 Victim's statement u/s164 of Cr.P.C.
06 Ex.P4 Victim's medical report 07 Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW-1 08 Ex.P5 Statement of PW-2 (G.B.MUDIGOUDAR) LIII ADDL, CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS, JUDGE, BANGALORE.
18 Spl C C 292/15 Judgment pronounced in open court. (Vide separate Judgment) Accused is acquitted for the offences punishable Under Section 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(L) r/w Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act 2012.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.
Accused is set at liberty.
(G.B.MUDIGOUDAR) LIII ADDL, CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS, JUDGE, BANGALORE.