Bangalore District Court
State By Subramanya Nagar Police vs Ramachandra.C on 25 June, 2018
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 15th day of June, 2018.
Present: SMT.R.SHARADA,B.A. M.L
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55]
SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SPL CC NO. 400/2017
COMPLAINANT: State by Subramanya Nagar Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Ramachandra.C,
Son of Late. Channappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.3102, 1st Cross,
1st Main Road, Near M.T.S.Showroom,
Gayathrinagar,
Bangalore-21.
[in judicial custody]
[By Advocate Sri. D.L.Somesh]
1. Date of commission of offence 16.5.2017
2. Date of report of occurrence of 16.5.2017
the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 16.5.2017
4. Date of commencement of 6.10.2017
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 7.4.2018
6. Name of the complainant Smt.T.C.Manjula, complainant as well
as the mother of the victim girl
2 Spl CC No.400/2017
7. Offences complained of Sec.354 of IPC and Secs. 8 and 12 of
POCSO Act, 2012
8. Opinion of the Judge Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C
the accused is hereby acquitted
for the offence punishable under
Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Further acting under Sec.235(2) of
Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby
convicted for the offence
punishable under Sec.8 of POCSO
Act, 2012.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, SubramanyaNagar police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.354 of IPC and under Secs. 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 16.5.2017, at about 1 P.M., in the afternoon, the accused being a gas cylinder boy went to the house of CW2/victim girl situated at No.P-37/3220, 7th Main Road, Gayathrinagar, 2nd Floor, Bangalore-21 to deliver the gas cylinder and at that time, CW2/victim girl aged 10 years was in the house and the accused delivered the gas cylinder and received the amount from CW2 and took the signature of CW2 on the Gas bill and thereafter the accused touched the breasts and private parts of CW2/victim girl and kissed her on her lips, with a sexual intent as a result of which she got frightened and escaped from the accused. Thereby 3 Spl CC No.400/2017 the accused has committed the offence of sexual assault, sexual harassment and outraged the modesty of CW2/victim girl knowingly that she was a child of 10 years. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant/mother of the victim girl, the complainant police has registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.162/2017 and also filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Secs.354 of IPC and under Secs.8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. During the course of investigation the accused was apprehended by the Investigating Officer produced before the court and he remanded to judicial custody. After filing of the charge- sheet, the court has taken cognizance and registered a case as Spl.CC and notice was issued to the Investigating Officer to produce the accused before the court. In-response to the notice, the accused has been produced before the court from the judicial custody. Thereafter Charges are framed and read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Accordingly, summons issued to the charge-sheet witnesses.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses as PWs-1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20 documents, besides marking MOs-1 to 4. Thereafter Statement of the accused recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the incriminating evidence told to him, but he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf and no documents are marked.
4 Spl CC No.400/20175. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, at this stage, following Points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that, 16.5.2017, at about 1 P.M., in the afternoon, the accused being a gas cylinder boy went to the house of CW2 situated at No.P-37/3220, 7th Main Road, Gayathrinagar, 2 Floor, Bangalore-21 to deliver the gas cylinder and nd at that time, CW2/victim girl aged 10 years was in the house and the accused delivered the gas cylinder and received the amount from CW2 and took the signature of CW2 on the Gas bill and thereafter you the accused touched the breasts and private parts of CW2/victim girl and kissed her on her lips, with a sexual intent and thereby the accused outraged the modesty of the victim girl and have committed sexual assault on CW2/victim girl for the offence punishable under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Sec.354 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the said date, time and place, the accused being a gas cylinder boy, when he had been to the house of CW2/victim girl to deliver the gas cylinder, he touched the breasts and private part of CW2 and kissed on her lips, with a sexual intent and thereby the accused have committed an offence of sexual harassment on CW2/victim girl for the offence punishable under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 ?
3. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3 As per the final order, for the following:5 Spl CC No.400/2017
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 AND 2:- Since these Points are interlinked, taken up for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt because the prosecution has examined totally 18 witnesses out of them evidence of PWs-1 and 2 i..e, the victim girl and her mother, evidence of the Medical Officers and the evidence of the Investigating Officer are very much important and also corroborative with each other, thereby it can be hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused has to be punished with maximum sentence. The prosecution further got marked totally 20 documents and also MOs-1 to 4. The contents of the documents and the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses are corroborating with each other. Further he submitted that, as per Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 there is presumption against the accused that he has committed the offence alleged against him unless it is rebutted. In the present case the accused has not led any evidence on his behalf and no documents are marked. Looking into the cross-examination of PWs- 1 and 2, the accused has not denied the evidence given by them before the court with respect of the accused coming to their house, talking to the victim girl, touching her body and caught hold by the father of the victim girl. Thereby on the basis of the prosecution evidence placed 6 Spl CC No.400/2017 before the court and also presumption available under Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 the accused is liable for conviction. Hence, he prays to convict the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused during the course of arguments submitted that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt because the prosecution though examined 18 witnesses before the court but failed to examine one of the Investigating Officer i..e, ASI-B.G.Krishnamurthy who is the material witness in this case. According to the case of the prosecution, the complainant has stated to her father to take delivery of gas cylinder in her absence but her father-PW3 in the cross-examination has clearly stated that the complainant has not given any instructions to him, thereby the case of the prosecution at primary level shows that the complainant police have manipulated a case against the accused. Further he submitted actually there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused with regard to payment of Rs.20/- as reward for his delivering gas cylinder to their house which is situated at upstairs. The complainant always used to pick up quarrel with the accused for payment of Rs.20/-. On this guise, with a malafide intention she lodged a complaint before the complainant police and the complainant police have cooked up story against the accused and submitted charge-sheet. Further the witness PW8 turned hostile to the prosecution case though she was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor but nothing is elicited in their favour. She specifically deposed before the court that it is not possible to say that who had delivered the gas 7 Spl CC No.400/2017 cylinder to the complainant's home only by looking into Ex.P9. Even the Doctor-PW5 has deposed before the court that on genital examination of the victim girl, she did not find any injuries and hymen was intact. This evidence is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Further he submitted that when the prosecution itself failed to prove its case before the court then there is no necessity to examine any witness on defence side. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal and prays to acquit the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
10. I have perused the evidence placed before the court by the prosecution. PW1 is the victim girl. PW2 is the mother of the victim girl who has deposed before the court with regard to the contents of the complaint- Ex.P5. PW3 is the father of PW2 and the grandfather of the victim girl. According to the prosecution, PW3 is a hearsay witness. However, he has supported the prosecution case stating that when he came to the spot then he found that some people were gathered in front of their house by caught holding the accused and the accused was requesting for pardon with the complainant. PW4 is a Senior Medical officer who has deposed before the court that after receiving information from Subramanyanagar Police, he referred the victim girl for Gynecologist for further evaluation and also deposed about issue of Exs.P7 and P8. PW5 is the Gynecologist who deposed before the court that on 16.5.2017 at about 11.30 P.M., she examined the victim girl and submitted her opinion which is marked as Ex.P8(b) and her signature is marked as Ex.P8(c). PW6 is another doctor of KC General Hospital who has deposed before the court that he 8 Spl CC No.400/2017 had examined the accused and his potentiality. This evidence is not much relevant to the case of the prosecution. PW7 is the Investigating Officer who deposed before the court that he has taken up further investigation on 21.5.2017 on receiving the case papers from CW17 and also filed charge-sheet. PW8 is the owner of Gas Agency who deposed before the court that she had issued Ex.P9 i.e., bill issued for delivering gas cylinder and Acknowledgement is as per Ex.P1. PW9 is a witness to Spot Mahazar-Ex.P6. PW10 is the father of the victim girl who was examined by the prosecution in part thereafter he has not turned up to the court. PW11 Police Constable of Subramanyanagar police station who has deposed about that he was appointed to take the custody of the accused. PW12 Head Constable of the same police station who has deposed that he had handed over the articles to the office of RFSL, Mysuru and received Acknowledgement as per Ex.P11 and submitted the same to the Investigating Officer. PW13 WPC has deposed before the court that she had accompanied the victim girl for medical examination. PW14 is the neighbour of the complainant's house and hearsay witness. PW15 Head Mistress of the school in which the victim girl was studying, deposed with regard to the issue of Study Certificate as per Ex.P14. PW16-PSI and preliminary Investigating Officer has deposed before the court about receipt of the complaint, registering the same, preparing the FIR, sending to the jurisdictional court, recording the statement of the victim girl and handing over the case papers to the Police Inspector-CW19. PW17 is the Senior Scientific Officer, RFSL, Mysuru who deposed before the court with respect to scientific analysis of the articles mentioned in MOs-1 9 Spl CC No.400/2017 to 4. PW18 is the Co-ordinator of SJPU who deposed before the court about the counseling she conducted with the victim girl.
11. Once again I have gone through the entire oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution in the course of trial of the case has in all examined 18 witnesses as PWs-1 to 18 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P20 and Material objects at MOs-1 to 4. The accused has not led any defence evidence. It is the defence of the accused as found from his stand in the cross-examination of PWs-1 and 2 that he on the date of the alleged incident had only kissed PW1/victim girl as his daughter. Out of 18 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is the victim girl spoken to the facts of the case. As known well this kind of offence will not be committed or takes place in all probability in open or in the presence of the witnesses. Like-way in this case, we cannot also expect any independent witnesses, therefore prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined the mother of the victim girl as PW2 who has spoken to all circumstances under which she came to know the incident arrived at the spot and deposed to had been told by PW1/victim girl as to what was done to her by this accused. The other witnesses are circumstantial witnesses and the Investigating Officer whose role I have narrated above and observe here except mentioning about the investigation done by the Investigating Officer and the medical examination done by the doctor, I find no necessity of detail discussion of the other circumstantial witnesses.
10 Spl CC No.400/201712. PW5 the lady Doctor who has examined the victim girl has deposed before the court that on 16.5.2017 at about 11.30 P.M., she has examined the victim girl sent by CMO of her hospital the victim girl was accompanied by the lady police and also with her mother with the history of molestation by one person by name Ramachandra on 16.5.2017 in afternoon hours. The witness further stated that she has taken consent from the mother of the victim girl and subjected the victim girl for physical examination. On examination, she found that the victim girl was well developed and nourished according to her age. On genital examination, no external injuries were found, hymen was intact. She has collected vaginal swab and clothes of the victim girl packed and sealed and sent for FSL Examination. This witness has also identified the said articles which are marked as MOs-1 to 4 and further she identified her opinion as well as her signature which are marked as Ex.P8(b) and (c). In the cross-examination nothing is suggested to this witness to discredit her chief examination.
13. As narrated above, it is the case of the prosecution that on 16.5.2017 at about 1 P.M., when the victim girl was alone in her house the accused who is the gas cylinder delivery boy went to the house of PW1, replaced the filled gas cylinder with the empty cylinder and at that time, the accused alleged to had touched her breasts and private part and alleged to had kissed that girl and thereby he has been charge-sheeted for the alleged offences.
11 Spl CC No.400/201714. PW1 who is a 10 years old girl in her evidence before the court has stated that herself and her parents and her brother are residing in the 3rd floor of the building, in the 2nd floor of the building, her grand-parents and her maternal aunt and her family are residing and stated that her father is an auto driver, her mother is an employee in a private industry, her elder brother had gone to the college and she was alone in the house as that period was summer vacation and stated that at that time she was studying 4th standard. Therefore she was alone in the house. It is further evidence that on that day her mother had told her father-PW3 that she has kept the gas cylinder money on the television with the gas book and requested PW3 to get empty cylinder replaced when the gas delivery boy comes. She has further stated that on that day at about 1 P.M., the accused i..e, the gas cylinder delivery boy came with the gas cylinder and then PW1 went and knocked the door of her grandfather in the 2nd floor to wake him up for attending the gas boy, despite her efforts to get him awaken, she could not get the services of her grandfather and stated that her grandfather is short of hearing. Therefore she herself gave gas book and Rs.800/- to the accused, took her signature on the Receipts which are marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P9 Witness further stated that the accused thereafter came inside the house and touched her breasts and also touched her private part and also kissed her by inserting his tongue into her mouth and then she stated to had shouted as "aunty" then the accused closed her mouth with his hand and she then bitten his hand then the accused stated to gone out telling that he will get the change. It is further narrated that she ran to the house of one Amala a lady to 12 Spl CC No.400/2017 whom she revealed about the incident who told her to inform her father telephonically and stated that Amala told her father telephonically and told her to be in the house itself. Thereafter the accused alleged to had brought some chocolates with the change payable to them and then Amala when questioned the accused about what he did to PW1, for which the accused stated to had told Amala that he has only kissed PW1 and went away. Then at 5 P.M., when PW10 came home, she narrated as to what happened, then PW2 also came there and PW1 narrated as to what happened at that time. The father of the victim girl-PW10 brought the accused near their house and then persons who had assembled there bet the accused and by then police were secured in the spot who took the accused to the police station. They all went to the police station where the statement of PW1/victim girl was recorded by the police as per Ex.P2 and further stated that she also gave her statement before the Learned Magistrate as per Ex.P3.
15. PW2 who is the mother of PW1/victim girl supported the evidence of PW1 narrating that PW2 was alone in the house narrating what arrangement she had made for taking the delivery of the gas cylinder and further stated that she had been for her work and received telephonic call at about 5 P.M., and on returning home that evening this accused who was gas cylinder boy was there and her husband-PW10 was also there and that PW1 was in the house of CW5 and when asked PW10 as to what happened he told her to ask this accused as to what happed and stated that the accused fell on her leg admitted his guilt and requested to excuse him and stated that PW1 also came there and revealed to her that 13 Spl CC No.400/2017 this accused had touched her breasts, private part and kissed her by inserting his tongue into her mouth and stated that she gave complaint to the police as per Ex.P5 and she took PW1 for medical examination. She also spoken to draw spot maahazar as per Ex.P6 and stated that the police took PW1 for recording the statement to the court. The learned counsel for the accused subjected PW1 for cross-examination in which the witness has stated that she was not told to take delivery of gas cylinder. In the cross-examination the defence has not denied that this accused as a gas cylinder delivery boy had been to the house of PW1 as on the date of the offence and it is also not denied at that time PW1 was alone in her house. In the cross-examination of PW1, has suggested as if the accused asked PW1 whether she has finished her lunch and breakfast affectionately and kissed her for which the witness has denied the accused having had made such an enquiry and kissed her with affection only. The witness further to the question to which hand of the accused she had bitten for which she has stated that she do not remember. Further the learned counsel for the accused suggested by repeating that the accused by affectionately feeling her as daughter kissed her for which this witness in the witness box stated to had admitted as 'yes' and further stated it is not true to suggest that the accused had only kissed her by denying what is suggested by defence counsel. Nothing more is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 to discredit that evidence and to impeach her from what has been told by her in the cross- examination.
14 Spl CC No.400/201716. Similarly in the cross-examination of PW2 the learned counsel for the accused admitted that the accused on that day went to their house to deliver gas cylinder regularly. Further PW2 in the cross-examination has stated that she came to know as to what had happened to PW1 in her absence in her house by this accused. When this witness has admitted that the police in her statement recorded as per Ex.P6, they have not written about this accused inserting his tongue into the mouth of PW1. It is further suggested as if that there was a quarrel between PW2 and the accused regarding payment of Rs.20/- to the accused as a reward for delivery of gas cylinder on the previous occasion. Because of that quarrel, they have concocted a false case. This witness totally denied that suggestion. It is further suggested to this witness as if the accused equating PW1 as his daughter, he had kissed her and that PW10 is taking it as an offence and made use of that incident to take revenge against the accused, has foisted false case against the accused. The witness has denied this suggestion. Again the learned counsel for the accused has not elicited any contrary evidence to contradict this witness as to what had been told to her by PW1 on her arrival in the evening. Therefore the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 remained uncontradicted and unrebutted.
17. PW1 has further stated that the police took her to the Judge where she also gave her statement as per Ex.P3. This statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. This had not been questioned by the learned defence counsel in the cross-examination. Further the evidence of PW1 that her father went and brought the accused from the s pot where he was 15 Spl CC No.400/2017 delivering the gas cylinder to others near her house whether the public assaulted him and the police were secured and the accused was taken to the custody. This fact also remained unquestioned. Further the evidence of PW1 that the accused touched her breasts and also her private part and kissed her by putting his tongue into her mouth with sexual intention has not been contradicted. Therefore considering the evidence of PW1 which goes in corroboration with the allegations made in the complaint given by PW2 and the statement given by PW1 before the police and the Learned Magistrate unerringly goes in corroboration with each other and establishes the guilt of the accused. Added to this the accused having admitted having had gone to the house of PW1 for delivering of gas cylinder, presence of PW1 though contended that he only kissed PW1 with affection as his daughter, found to be futile allegation for getting away from the clutches of law on the contrary, goes in support of evidence of PW1. With this, I am constrained to hold that, presumption laid down under Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 having not been rebutted also goes to the benefit of the prosecution. With this cumulative proof, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
18. The accused has been charged for the offences under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.354 of IPC. That my learned Predecessor-in-Office basing on the charge-sheet filed by the police has charged the accused under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 as well as Sec.354 of IPC. But, considering ingredients of Secs.7 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.354 of IPC, I am of the 16 Spl CC No.400/2017 considered view that Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 provides for minor sexual harassment/offence, then sexual assault fall under Sec.7 of POCSO Act, 2012 therefore the accused has not committed minor offence as provided under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012. But, having committed the offence under Sec.7 of POCSO Act, 2012, the accused cannot be charged for minor offence under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Therefore charge under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 do not survive. Similarly the charge under Sec.354 of IPC, I am of the view that POCSO Act, 2012 is a Special Enactment guaranteed by the Parliament exhaustively as self-contained law to deal with the offences like sexual harassment, sexual assault , penetrative sexual assault against the children, except further major offences like Secs.376, 302 of IPC etc., therefore I am of view that when the offender can be dealt with Secs.8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, there found to be no need for charging the offender independently under Sec.354 of IPC. Therefore I hold charge under Sec.354 of IPC do not survive and with this conclusion, I hold that the accused is guilty of the offence under Sec.7 of POCSO Act, 2012 and punishable under Sec.8 of the same Act. With these I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative and Point No.2 in the Negative.
19. POINT NO.3:- As per the final orders, for the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012.17 Spl CC No.400/2017
Further acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereby corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of June, 2018] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Date : 25/06/2018 ORDER ON SENTENCE The accused and his counsel are present, the learned Public Prosecutor also present. The accused is heard regarding sentence to be imposed on him. He submitted that, he is aged about 42 years, was working as a Gas cylinder supplier, he has no any bad antecedents and he has been in the judicial custody since 13 months, thereby prayed for leniency. The learned counsel appearing for accused submitted repeating what the accused submitted that the accused is having family with two school going children and he is only earning member of the family and thereby submitted for imposing lesser punishment.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012 under which the accused stood convicted is heinous offence, thereby prayed for imposing maximum sentence.
18 Spl CC No.400/2017Having regard to the fact that the accused having a family and also two school going children and has to take care of his family and he is in the age of 42 years and already spent more than one year in judicial custody I feel that imposing minimum sentence of 3 years and fine would meet the ends of justice. With these, I proceed to pass the following:
SENTENCE The accused is convicted under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 Months.
Out of the fine amount collected, a sum of Rs.4,000/- shall be given to the victim girl by way of compensation. The balance amount shall be remitted to the State.
Acting under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C, the period of detention undergone by the accused is set-off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed.
Copy of this Judgment shall be given to the accused free of cost forthwith.
[ Sentence dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereby corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of June, 2018] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.19 Spl CC No.400/2017
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Victim girl CW2 6.10.2017
PW.2 Manjula CW1 6.10.2017
PW.3 Chandrashekariah CW4 24.1.2018
PW.4 Dr.Sanjeevkumar CW9 8.2.2018
PW.5 Dr.Parvathi Bai Addl.Witenss 17.2.2018
PW.6 Dr.Jagadish CW10 5.3.2018
PW.7 A.V.Venkatesh Murthy CW18 7.3.2018
PW.8 Rajani CW8 7.3.2018
PW.9 Vijay CW7 7.3.2018
PW.10 Ganesh CW3 7.3.2018
PW.11 Hanumanthappa Mastar CW15 21.3.2018
PW.12 Thirthakumar CW16 21.3.2018
PW.13 Ashwini.H.R CW14 26.3.2018
PW.14 Gopi CW6 26.3.2018
PW.15 Varalakshmi CW13 28.3.2018
PW.16 Santhosh CW17 3.4.2018
PW.17 Dr.Radha.S Addl.Witness 7.4.2018
PW.18 Arogyamma CW11 7.4.2018
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 True copy of Gas bill
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P2 Statement of PW1/ victim girl given before
CW12/WPSI of Mahalakshmilayout police station Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1/victim girl 20 Spl CC No.400/2017 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW2 Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW16 Ex.P3 Statement of PW1/victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P4 Xerox copy of the Rent Agreement of the house wherein the complainant and her family members are residing Ex.P4(a) and Signatures of PW7 P4(b) Ex.P5 Complaint dated: 16.5.2017 Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW16 Ex.P6 Spot Mahazar dated: 17.5.2017 conducted in the house of the complainant/PW2 Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P6(b) Signature of PW9 Ex.P6(c) Signature of PW14 Ex.P6(d) Signature of PW16 Ex.P7 MLC OPD slip of the accused Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P7(b) Opinion of PW6 on the back page of MLC-Out Patient record-Ex.P7 Ex.P7(c) Signature of PW6 Ex.P8 MLC OPD slip of PW1/victim girl Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P8(b) Opinion of PW5 on the back page of MLC-Out Patient record-Ex.P8 Ex.P8(c) Signature of PW5 21 Spl CC No.400/2017 Ex.P9 Original Gas bill Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P9(b) Signature of PW8 Ex.P10 Acknowledgement issued by the Regional FSL, Mysuru city for having received the articles of this case in Cr.No.162/2017 Ex.P11 Report given by PW12 for having taken the sealed articles to RFSL, Mysuru City and received the acknowledgement and returned back to Bengaluru and produced the same to the Police Inspector of the complainant police station Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P11(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P12 Report given by PW8 regarding the working of the accused in their gas company i.e, Benaka Enterprises and delivery of gas to the house of the victim girl Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P13 Birth certificate of PW1/victim girl showing her date of birth as 30.8.2007 Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P14 Study Certificate of PW1/victim girl issued by the Head Mistress, St.Marks Convent, Rajajinagar, Bangalore wherein the victim girl was studying Ex.P14(a) Signature of Pw7 Ex.P14(b) Signature of PW15 Ex.P15 FSL Report Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P15(b) Signature of PW17 Ex.P16 Police Notice 22 Spl CC No.400/2017 Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P16(b) Signature of PW14 Ex.P16(c) Signature of PW16 Ex.P17 Report given by PW11 regarding taking the accused to KC General Hospital for medical examination and after examination, producing the accused before the PSI of the complainant police station Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P17(b) Signature of PW16 Ex.P18 Report given by PW13 regarding taking the victim girl to KC General hospital for medical examination and collecting of the articles of the victim girl collected at the time of her medical examination and producing the victim girl and the sealed articles before the PSI of the complainant police station Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P18(b) Signature of PW16 Ex.P19 FIR Ex.P19(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P20 Counselling of PW1/victim girl done by PW18 Ex.P20(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P20(b) Signature of PW18 Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-1 CD of Ex.P3
MO-1 Vaginal swab
MO-2 One Top of PW1/victim girl
MO-3 One pant
23 Spl CC No.400/2017
MO-4 One panty
Witness examined, documents and MOs marked for the accused: NIL [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.24 Spl CC No.400/2017
15.6.18 Accused is produced from judicial custody.
Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Further acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
[R.SHARADA]] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
25.6.2018 Accused is produced from judicial custody.
Sentence pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Sentence] The accused is convicted under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall 25 Spl CC No.400/2017 undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 Months.
Out of the fine amount collected, a sum of Rs.4,000/- shall be given to the victim girl by way of compensation. The balance amount shall be remitted to the State.
Acting under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C, the period of detention undergone by the accused is set- off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed.
Copy of this Judgment shall be given to the accused free of cost forthwith.
[R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.