Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Manjesh H U @ Manju on 17 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JULY, 2018
- : PRESENT : -
SMT.M.LATHA KUMARI, M.A.,LL.M,
LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
Spl.C.C.No.94/2018
COMPLAINANT :
The State of Karnataka by
Banashankari Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Represented by learned Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Manjesh H U @ Manju,
S/o. Umesh,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at Haniyur,
Singarajpura hobli,
Channapatna taluk,
Ramanagar District.
[By Adv - Sri. M.B.V & Associates]
J U DG M EN T
This is a charge sheet laid down by Banashankari Police,
Bangalore City against the accused in Crime No.329/2017 for
2 Spl.C C.94/18
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of I.P.C
r/w Section 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on
28.9.2017 accused persuaded the daughter of complainant CW-
1, the minor victim on the guise of marring her, taken her away
from the lawful custody of CW-1 in a private bus to Satanur.
Wherein, he purchased duplicate mangalasutra in the shop of
CW-6 and taken her to Antrahalli Siddeshwara betta, wherein
he got married her and later taken her to the house of CW-3
and 5, when they questioned accused about victim who was
present with accused, he informed them that she is major
already attained the age of 18 years and he has married her and
thereby made them to believe the same, both accused and
victim CW-2 stayed in their house till 22.10.2017 and during
these period accused committed repeated sexual intercourse
with her and thereby alleged to have committed the offence
referred supra and also offence punishable under Section 5(l)
r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. In pursuance of the complaint as per Ex.P1 lodged by
CW-1, complainant police registered F.I.R against accused and
CW-24 being Investigating Officer conducted necessary
investigation, got recorded the statement of victim and also
3 Spl.C C.94/18
recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses. On
23.10.2017, victim was sent to KIMS hospital for medical
examination. On 20.11.2017 statement of victim u/Sec 164 of
Cr.P.C got recorded before the learned Magistrate as per
Ex.P3. On 26.10.2017, apprehended the accused and on
27.10.2017 sent him to KIMS Hospital for medical examination.
Investigating Officer collected the birth certificate of victim
depicting her age issued by the Registrar of birth and deaths
and also collected the FSL report and medical reports of
accused and victim. After completion of investigation, laid
charge sheet against accused before this court by opining that
guilt has been established against accused.
4. After taking cognizance, this court framed charges
against accused for the offences 366 of I.P.C and Section 376
r/w Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act 2012, since accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried, called upon the prosecution to prove the
guilt against accused. In the exercise of proving the guilt
against accused, prosecution in all examined only 2 witnesses
out of 24 charge sheet witnesses and got marked as many as 6
documents Ex.P1 to P6 on its behalf. On closure of evidence on
prosecution side, since there was no incriminating evidence
4 Spl.C C.94/18
against accused, his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has
been dispensed.
5. I have carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary
evidence produced by the prosecution. Heard learned counsel
appearing for accused. Heard, the learned Public Prosecutor,
who has taken this court through the material on record.
6. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
1. Whether the prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt
that on 28.9.2017 accused
persuaded the daughter of
complainant CW-1, the minor victim
on the guise of marring her and
taken her away from the lawful
custody of CW-1 from
Banashankari bus stand and
thereby punishable under Section
366 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt
that on the above date, time and
place after kidnapping CW-2 taken
her in a private bus to Satanur and
from there to Antrahalli
Siddeshwara betta, wherein he got
married by tying mangalasutra and
later taken her to the house of
5 Spl.C C.94/18
CW-3 and 5 and made them to
believe that CW-2 is major and
they have stayed in their house till
22.10.2017 and during these period
accused committed repeated
sexual intercourse with her and
thereby punishable under Section
376 of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w
Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012?
3. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : As per final orders for the
following
R E A S O N S
8. Points No.1 & 2: These two points are taken
together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts as
they are interconnected to each other.
9. Crime No.329/2017 came to be registered by the
complainant-police in pursuance of complaint given by CW-1 who
reported the complainant-police about missing of her daughter
and thereby case came to be registered initially for the
offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. In pursuance of
Ex.P1, the complainant-police according to prosecution
6 Spl.C C.94/18
conducted mahazar on 25.10.2017 in front of Banashankari bus
stand. It is the case of prosecution that, accused insisted
victim to come near the said bus stand, where mahazar Ex.P2
came to be conducted and from there she has been taken to
Dharmastala and also Indalavadi of Mandya District
subsequently. When complainant was examined as PW-1 before
this court, in her chief-examination, she has stated that victim
CW-2 is her daughter and she has not at all seen the accused
who was present before this court at any point of time nor she
is acquainted with him. She has also stated that she has not
given any statement before the complainant-police stating that
accused abducted her daughter and committed forcible sexual
intercourse with her. She has denied the contents of Ex.P1
even in her cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor.
10. PW-2 is none other than the victim herself. Even this
witness being vital witness not at all supported the case of
prosecution. She has denied the contents of Ex.P2 spot
mahazar, statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C as
per Ex.P3 and also medical report, which is as per Ex.P4. As on
the date of examination of victim, she was aged about 17 years,
capable of understanding the consequences of evidence she is
deposing before the court. That apart, as per provisions of
Section 33 of POCSO Act, this court conducted trial in-camera
7 Spl.C C.94/18
by creating comfort zone to the victim herein in presence of
her mother. Inspite of the same, victim not at all supported
the case of prosecution and asserted that accused is not at all
known to her nor accused abducted her at any point of time.
She has also stated that she has not given any statement
before complainant-police stating that accused has taken her
away from lawful custody of her guardian CW-1. She has denied
all documents and also her statement which is as per Ex.P2 to
P6. That apart, these two witnesses remained absent initially
inspite of service of summons and later secured on issuance of
NBW. Though, this court issued summons to remaining
witnesses i.e., CW-3 to 5 and also CW-6 to 12 by giving
sufficient opportunity to the prosecution, prosecution failed to
secure these witnesses. As per the provisions of Section 309
of Cr.P.C the trial has to be conducted on day to day basis.
Inspite of the same, this court after issuing summons to CW-3
to 5 on 12.4.2018 fixed the date for examination of these
witnesses on 12.6.2018. Inspite of giving 2 months time to
secure these witnesses prosecution failed to secure these
witnesses and CW-1 and 2 who were secured on warrant on
12.6.2018 turned hostile. On 12.6.2018 apart from issuing
summons to CW-3 to 5, this court also issued summons to
remaining witnesses CW-6 to 22 and posted the matter for
further trial on 13.7.2018. Whereas on that day, summons
8 Spl.C C.94/18
returned unexecuted. Considering the sufficient opportunity
given to prosecution and also testimony of PW-1 and 2 who were
not even ready to identify the accused and deposed before this
court that they are not aware of accused nor accused
committed alleged offence on victim at any point of time, this
court closed the prosecution side. There is absolutely no
incriminating evidence placed by prosecution to prove the guilt
against accused. The oral testimony of PW-1 and 2 recorded on
oath makes the entire case of prosecution vague and baseless
and thereby enables the accused for acquittal. Accordingly, I
have answered points No.1 & 2 in the negative.
11. Point No.3: In view of my above discussion and
findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 12.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of July, 2018.) (M. LATHA KUMARI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
9 Spl.C C.94/18 A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW1 Alumelu PW2 victim girl LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Ex.P 1(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P 2 Panchanama Ex.P 2(a) Signature of victim Ex.P 3 statement of victim u/Sec 164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P 3(a) Signature of victim Ex.P 4 Medical report of victim Ex.P 4(a) Signature of victim Ex.P 5 Statement of victim Ex.P 6 Statement of victim LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
- NIL-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, AND MO'S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
- NIL -
(M.LATHA KUMARI) LIII A.C C & S Judge,Bangalore. 10 Spl.C C.94/18 17.7.2018 Judgment pronounced in the open court, operative portion of which reads as under:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC r/w Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 12..
(M. LATHA KUMARI) LIII A.C C & S J, Bangalore.