Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Pascal Mazurier on 19 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 19th Day of April 2017
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. B.S.REKHA, B.A. Law., LL.M.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SPECIAL C. C. No.178/2013
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka,
By High Ground Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Rep. by learned Public Prosecutor,
Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Pascal Mazurier,
S/o. Jaques Mazurier, 39 years,
R/at. No.102, Fine View Apartment,
1st Floor, Edward Road,
Vasantha Nagar,
Bangalore.
Rep. Sri.S.M.-Advocate]
1 Date of commission of offence 01-04-2010 to
13-06-2012
2 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
2 Date of report of occurrence 14-06-2012
3 Date of arrest of Accused 19-06-2012
Date of release of Accused 18-10-2012
Period undergone in custody 29 days &
by Accused 3 months
4 Date of commencement of evidence 23-01-2015
5 Date of closing of evidence 16-12-2016
6 Name of the complainant Suja Jones
Mazurier
7 Offences complained of Section 376(2)(f)
& 377 of IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is
Acquitted.
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cubbon Park Sub-Division, Bangalore City, has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused who is the resident of House No.102, Fine View Apartment, 1st Floor, Edward Road, Vasantha Nagar, 3 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Bangalore, committed sexual abuse on his 3 years 9 months old daughter from April 2010 to 13-06-2012 and there by the accused committed the aforesaid offences.
3. After submission of charge sheet before VIII ACMM, Bangalore, cognizance was taken and the learned Magistrate has committed this case to the Court of Sessions for trial. After committal, this case was made over Fast Track Court-X and registered as S.C.No.1288/2012. Accused was on bail. He engaged counsel for his defense. The copies of the charge sheet were furnished to them.
4. After hearing both sides charge for the above offences was framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. As per the notification No.ADM-I (A)/858/2013 dated 30-08-2013 this case is withdrawn from FTC-X and transferred to this Court i.e., CCH-51 and registered as 4 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, Pw.1 to Pw.26 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 and MO1 to MO10 are marked. Thereafter, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the evidence, which appeared against him and he has not chosen to lead evidence on his side but got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D15. It was posted for arguments.
7. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused and posted for Judgment.
8. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused from April-2010 to 13-06-2012 in House No.102, Fine View Apartment, 1st Floor, Edward Road, Vasantha Nagar, Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of High Ground Police Station, Bangalore, committed rape on his own daughter below the age of 12 years, several times 5 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of I.P.C?
Additional Charge framed on 15-03-2014
2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused on the aforesaid date, time and place had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with his own daughter-
the victim, who is minor hurting her anus and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC?
3. What order?
9. 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:
10. Point No.1 and 2:- In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined 26 witnesses.
11. Cw.6-Nataraj examined as Pw.1 has stated that the police have taken his signature, but he is not aware of 6 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 contents of the document i.e., Ex.P1.
12. Cw.4-Kushi Kushalappa examined as Pw.2 has stated that on 13-06-2012 she along with Cw.8 and Cw.1 went to High Grounds Police Station and on the next day also they went there along with the victim. At about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m., she went to Fine View Apartment for mahazar and the police have seized four articles i.e., MO3 to MO6.
13. During the course of cross-examination of the defense she has stated that she belongs to Enfold Trust- NGO, which is the trust to help the families of the children who are subjected to sexual harassment. There are two founders i.e., Sangeetha Saxena and Dr.Shaibya Saldanha. She has specifically stated that on 5th or 6th June-2012 when she and Dr.Shaibya Saldanha were in the office, the complainant came and she told that she did not contact the complainant up to 13-06-2012. She denied that she had been to Baptist Hospital to get the report of the child. 7 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 However she admitted that there is relationship between Enfold Trust and the Baptist Hospital and the witness further admitted that they have got relationship with other hospital, wherein they have conducted the training programme. She took Suja Jones to Fedina Organization and on 13-06-2012 to the Baptist Hospital, wherein the Doctors stated that the swab test came positive and thereafter on the same day between 05.30 p.m., to 06.00 p.m., she went to the office of the advocate-Geetha Menon along with Cw.1. Geetha Menon is Governing Counsel Member of their Trust. Thereafter they have brought the complaint which was drafted by Geetha Menon and given to High Ground Police. Prior to fling of the FIR, she contacted twice with the complainant. She denied that along with the complainant they have foisted a false complaint. She is supporting person to Enfold Trust in many cases. She has stated that she is working as guardian to the complainant and also to other families. She admitted that the complainant is her neighbour after filing of the F.I.R. She 8 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 is not aware of other cases pending between the accused and the complainant in the Family Court.
14. Cw.3-Kallesh examined as Pw.3 has stated that he signed Ex.P1 as instructed by the police, but he shown ignorance about the seizure of Passport
15. Cw.1-Suja Jones Mazurier examined as Pw.4 has stated that she married the accused on 20-10-2001 and having three children viz., Samson, Stella and Joshua. In the year 2010 April month the victim told that she is having pain in her private part, fingering the accused who is responsible for that pain. When she enquired him, he told that she might have sustained pain when she was playing. At that time she was pregnant to the third child. In 2012-May, the victim told that whenever she goes to toilet she will be having pain and she took her to counseling center and told the same. There she was advised to contact the Counselor who used to handle the cases regarding sexual harassment and thereafter she went 9 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 to Cw.8 who was working in NGO.
16. She further stated that on 05-06-2012 she went to Dr.Shaibya Saldana and on her advice she took the victim on 6th of the same month and they counseled her for one hour and thereafter she told that the accused has committed sexual harassment on the child and advised her to take the victim to NIMHANS. On 12-06-2012 she took the victim to NIMHANS, wherein Dr.Shobha Srinath told to bring the victim for regular counseling and on 13-06-2012 she contacted Dr.Shaibya Saldana who told that the report is ready. On the same day at about 01.30 p.m., the accused came for dinner, the children were with Geetha and she told her to make the children to sleep and went to meet Cw.8.
17. She has further stated when she came back at 05.00 or 05.30 p.m., Cw.20 told that the accused has kept the lunch in the fridge and taken the victim to room and told that he is going to make her to sleep in the bed room 10 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 and closed the door and he went to office at 03.30 p.m., and the victim was crying and when she went and enquired the victim she told that the accused has caused pain in her private part and she found redness in the private part and she called Dr.Shaibya Saldana who told her to take the victim to Baptist Hospital and she took the victim there.
18. She has further stated that Cw.10-Dr.Madhuri and Dr.Nalini have examined the victim and told her to come on the next day for the report and on the next day she came to the hospital for collecting the report and the doctor told that there was sexual harassment on the child and there is swab positive for sperms and the hymen was absent and she contacted Dr.Shaibya Saldana and on her advise she went to advocate-Geetha Menon and Geetha Menon had prepared the complaint. On the same night the police came for mahazar and seized clothes and bed spread and she identified them as MO3 to MO6.
11 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
19. During the course of cross-examination of the defense she has stated that she is native of Kerala, but she was born in Calcutta. She commenced her earnings life from the age of 22 years and she was Reservation Agent in Calcutta Traveling Agency. She met the accused in the house of Swiss friends. She admitted that she used to accompany the accused to Pubs, Movies and late night parties. According to her she used to meet him once or twice in a week. She admitted that she loved the accused. The accused was working in French Consulate Office at Calcutta.
20. She further admitted that her sister left India to America and married an American and she also went with her in 1999. The accused and she were in contact over phone. She admitted that she intimated him that she was pregnant and she got aborted in Siyat. She admitted that there was a dispute between her sister and her husband and her sister has filed a case against her husband and her 12 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 husband was arrested and thereafter there was a divorce.
21. She further admitted that she came to India in 2000 and she wanted to settle at India and the accused was working in France. He left Delhi to France in June 2000 and thereafter they met at France, may be in July or August. Thereafter she was residing with him in living in relationship and in 2001 she married him in France. Her parents did not attend the marriage, because they were not having money for the tickets. Prior to the marriage she came to Delhi along with the accused for short visit and stayed with him. She studied Media Technology & Communication in America. Further she denied that she received financial assistance from the accused. She admitted that from 2003 to 2005 the accused was transferred to Bangla Desh. She admitted that the accused had purchased a house in France in 2005 which is in 4 acres of land. She admitted that they were having joint account and the accused was having 44,000 Eros. She is 13 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 having two personal debit cards. She is working as teacher in FIS at Dhaka. She had given birth to the first child in 2005 in Kerala. In 2005 the accused was transferred to Chad of Africa and she went to Chad in 2006-January and she was working as teacher there. In 2008 he was transferred to India and she has given birth to the second child in Kerala.
22. She denied that the accused told prior to the marriage that he was not interested in night clubs and pubs. She denied that she was attending the clubs which was not interested by the accused. She denied that she was going to night clubs in Bangalore with male and female friends and she was not taking care of the children and she was spending money more than the income. She denied that she was demanding more money and not taking care of the children. Sometimes there will be two workers in the house. In 2012 the accused was transferred to Cape Town. 14 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
23. According to her she has not given the complaint when her E-mail was hacked. She shown ignorance about the E-mails confronted to her which were sent by her. There are suggestions made with respect to the E-mails exchanged regarding holding of joint account and also using of debit cards. She denied that she had borrowed money from her sister's husband-Anthony and the accused has cleared the amount. She also denied that the accused has paid for her educational expenses. She had given birth to third baby on 21-09-2010. Earlier the accused was taking care of Samson and Stella in India and thereafter he brought the children to France. But according to her there were two servants to look after the children.
24. She denied that she was going along with Anthony to rock climbing and gemination and he was giving money for her education and for abortion. But she has stated that along with them her sister-Emily was also coming. She denied that her sister was not happy with her 15 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 movement with her husband. She denied that she was responsible for the misunderstanding between her sister and Anthony. She admitted that Emily has not attended her marriage.
25. She was taking her children to Dr.Shetty and Dr.Vidya Sagar and that Dr.Vidya Sagar was her neighbour. She denied that she became the friend of Dr.Vidya Sagar. Even after shifting to Vasantha Nagar that Dr.Vidya Sagar used to give treatment to her children. She admitted that she had kept separate rooms for the children in Vasantha Nagar and in the other rooms they used to sleep.
26. She denied that in France the accused was not happy with her as she was going to parties and the accused was not happy with her dress and with her friends, to which she told that she will change her attitude after coming to India, but she continued the same in India also. She denied that there were three workers in the house and 16 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 she used to go to the parties and she was spending money and also there was a dispute between her and the accused about these aspects. She denied that she was quarrelling with the accused for many reasons. She denied that because of the harassment the accused told that he wanted to separate from her, to which she told that let them file divorce petition in France and also she told that he has to take custody of the child and in the mean time he was transferred to Cape Town and on 31-08-2012 he ought to have reported for the duty.
27. She admitted that she and Jessie Jones are twines. She was working in Bahare Security Office and she is unmarried. Her brother is also unmarried. Her sister- Emily has not taken second marriage and she is still in America. She was taking the children to Dr.Vasantha Shetty or Dr.Vidya Sagar for vaccination. There is Fortis Hospital in Cunningham Road and other clinics and Vikram Hospital in that area. That apartment was selected 17 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 because it was in a walkable distance to the office of the accused. She was taking the children to the hospital once in three months to child specialist.
28. She admitted that they used to go out for holidays. She admitted that they went to Masinagudi and stayed in general lodge and they were swimming and going to safari and spent good time. She admitted that after that trip Stella's health was upset as she was having pain during urination and there was redness in vagina and she was also feeling pain. She denied that the accused told her to take Stella to the hospital, but she called Dr.Keerthi Vidya Sagar, who told to have urine test. She took the child to Fortis Hospital for urine test and she admitted that Ex.D-3 which is the Urine Test report. She denied that Stella was having E-Coli disease. She denied that she did not take care of her and no proper treatment was given and after that the infection became more. She had taken the child to Dr.Roshni Rao for some other reasons. She 18 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 admitted Ex.D4.
29. She admitted that she was having advocate friend in Calcutta and she is in touch with her from 2010. She admitted that she has written letter to India and French Embassy after the incident. She denied that many interviews were taken with her support, to which she told that one or two interviews she attended. One Advocate- G.V.Ashok is her counsel in the Family Court and that advocate was referred by Kushi of N.G.O-Enfold.
30. She went to Parivarthana-N.G.O. to meet Counselor. She came to know the same through her friend about Parivarthana and she met Sangeetha Unni on 02-06- 2012. She met Dr.Shobha Managooli on 01-06-2012 who belongs to Space Organization which is an N.G.O. That Shobha Managooli is a psychiatrist. She is not aware of Dr.Mamatha Shetty, but through her friend-Tarana Bhandari, she came in contact with Shobha Managooli. 19 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
31. On 02-06-2012 she met Sangeetha Unni over phone and contacted on 04-06-2012. She told that they are going to leave India immediately and she wanted to contact her, because her husband is transferred to South Africa. On 05-06-2012 she met Dr.Shaibya Saldanha. She met Dr.Shaibya Saldanha on 05/06-06-2012 through Sangeetha Unni. That Dr.Shaibya Saldanha belongs to Enfold Trust. Pw.2 also belongs to Enfold Trust. She denied that she started working in Enfold Trust. On 12-06- 2012 she met Dr.Shobha Srinath. On 13-06-2012 she met Dr.Shaibya Saldana and went to Baptist Hospital. She met Mr.Jewet of Ferina-NGO. She went to said NGO in order to know the rights of French Children. She also wanted to know the right of the children who are subjected to sexual harassment. On 14-06-2012 she met Premila Nesargi.
32. It is undisputed that there was regular sexual intercourse between the complainant and the accused. However she denied that on 12-06-2012 there was sexual 20 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 intercourse between them. It is also suggested regarding her behaviour with her friends and also performance of wild parties in the absence of accused and he came to know about the same when he repaired the laptop. She admitted that she had taken nude photos. Even it is suggested that she had taken the nude photos when she, her friend-Reetha and her boy friend were there, but to which she has stated that the accused has asked to send her nude photos. It is admitted that the accused got transferred in the year 2012 to Cape Town. It is also suggested that if the allegations of rape was made it will be a serious offence and hence she contacted the N.G.O. She denied that she attempted to fix the accused in this case with the help of N.G.O., advocates, doctors and made him as accused in order to get property, children and also money. She denied that she had kept the condom which is used during her sexual intercourse with the accused in order to collect sperms about the sexual intercourse was created all these documents. She denied that she made 21 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 several allegations against High Ground Police and also she twisted the whole matter. She had given interviews in T.V. and also she made Press Meet and she met S.M.Krishna- Minister. She had specifically stated in April-2010 her daughter-Stella told that she is having pain in genital.
33. Cw.8-Dr.Shaibya Saldana examined as Pw.5 has stated that in the year 2012 one counselor called and told that she is going to send a woman who came with complaint and thereafter Suja called and requested to counsel the victim and she called mother and the child and she is an expert in enquiring the children. She talked to her mother first and she counseled the child alone and by showing some pictures she enquired about the information regarding the incident. The child told her that her brother is sleeping with her mother and she used to push the father when he went to sleep with her and when the picture of buttock is shown the child told ' c c' and when the photo of a boy was shown the child by showing the genital it 22 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 showed that her father pushed his genital to her buttock and the child started colouring the picture and she stopped telling any information.
34. She has further stated that she had given white sheet to the child, but the child refused to discuss and she called her mother and handed over the child and had given toys to the child to play and told that there is sexual harassment by father and the mother was found shocked. The mother told that there are changes in the behaviour of the child since six months. The child was getting angry and she used to cry and she used to hold her and tell that she want to sleep with her and she advised her to take the child to NIMHANS and also advised her to take legal opinion.
35. There is cross-examination about her qualification and also her approach through Trust about POCSO cases. It is pertinent to note that the cross- examination version shows that institutions which are 23 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 involved in this case are connected with one or other they are having connected with the Enfold. Even the advocates appearing on behalf of the complainant are also connected with Enfold. She is not an expert in Psychology. She came to know that one lady used to come in June-2012 for counseling through one Sangeetha Unni and also many cases are referred to her. She examined and she counseled the child and she came to the conclusion that there was sexual harassment by the father to the child by examining and by giving toys and also by showing pictures. She denied that there are cases against her. She admitted that from her Trust they are helping the complainant in this proceeding.
36. Cw.10-Dr.Madhuri Murali Child Specialist, Baptist Hospital examined as Pw.6 has stated that on 13- 06-2012, Dr.Varsha called and told that there is a child case with respect to C.C.R.U and she went to see the child which was accompanied with mother and she got the 24 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 information from the mother that the child used to tell her that there is a pain in her private part and she suspected about sexual harassment and she discussed with Dr.Nalini, the child was taken to O.P.D., and Dr.Nalini had conducted the examination and found that there is spermatozoa in the lab test. On 15th the police have taken the provisional report.
37. She also stated that she is M.D. in Peaeadrics and she also stated that she is having contact with Dr.Shaibya Saldana and her Trust, because they are giving training to them. Dr.Nalini had conducted the examination of the child. On 14th Pw.2, and the complainant came to the hospital, wherein they have given report that they cannot say about the sexual harassment because there is no injuries found surrounding the genital, but it was red in colour.
38. Cw.9-Dr.Varsha, Child Specialist, Mehta Hospital, Chennai, examined as Pw.7 has stated that on 25 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 13-06-2012 Dr.Shaibya Saldana called her and told that there is suspicion regarding sexual harassment on child aged 3 years 10 months and told that she is going to send the child for examination and she contacted Dr.Madhuri, Dr.Dhanalakshmi and on the same night Cw.6 told that the child was examined and sample was sent to test. On the next day she received report about the presence of spermatozoa. She intimated the same to Dr.Naveen Thomas and then informed to the Hebbal police. She had given provisional medical certificate.
39. Dr.Shaibya Saldanha has called her on 13-06- 2012 for the examination of the particular child. She is Child Specialist and joined Baptist Hospital. In the C.C.R. Unit of the Baptist Hospital, Enfold is one of the organizations which is giving training. On that day she was not on duty and she is not aware personally as to what had happened. She has given report based on the case sheet. She denied that she had given statement that as per the 26 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 record there was no bleeding and hymen was not ruptured. She admitted that she is having good contact with Dr.Shaibya Saldana.
40. Cw.11-Dr.Nalini-Gynocologist, Baptist Hospital examined as Pw.8 has stated that on 13-07-2012 in between 06.30 to 07.00 p.m., Dr.Madhuri brought one child for examination and there is suspicion of sexual harassment on the child and on her request she attempted to talk with the child, but the child has not co-operated. When she enquired the mother, she told the same information. She examined the child and she had doubt about sexual harassment, but after receipt of lab report she confirmed about the presence of spermatozoa and thereafter recorded the MLC case.
41. According to her, Dr.Madhuri has brought the child for examination. She shown ignorance about the cross-examination with respect to taking of the child to Masinagudi and also regarding taking of the child 27 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 previously with Dr.Roshni Rao who had given treatment for that particular problem. She shown ignorance that the child was suffering from conceptions problem. She had given admissions with respect to bacterial infection and also E-Coli infection which caused the injury. She also admitted that there are many more reasons for damage of hymen. She has specifically stated that the clothes were not recovered, because those clothes are not the one which the child was wearing at the time of the incident. That child was wearing panty which was also not recovered because it is stated by the complainant that the clothes were changed. Even it is suggested that there are many more methods of rupture of hymen and also the behaviour of the child in case of erythematic. She admitted that surrounding the vagina there was no bleeding or sperm discharge.
42. Cw.12-Dr.Dhanalakshmi- E.S.I. Hospital, examined as Pw.9 has stated that for the medical examination of the victim the consent was taken in her 28 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 presence. She has stated about her presence at the time of giving consent.
43. Cw.13-Dr.Nina Joan Joseph, Pathologist, Baptist Hospital examined as Pw.10 has stated that on 13-06- 2012, Dr.Madhuri told that she is sending swab for examination and she called Shalika-Senior Technician and told her to preserve the same in the lab and on the next day she examined the swab along with Cw.14 and stated the information to Dr.Varsha along with the report.
44. She has stated that she received swab for examination on 13-06-2012. On the next day she examined the same along with Cw.14 and given the report.
45. Cw.23-Dr.Prathima.S.-Assistant Professor, Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital, examined as Pw.11 has stated that on 15-06-2012 at 03.45 p.m., she conducted medical examination of the victim and found redness in the genital and buttock and she got information from the 29 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 mother who had stated that this incident was committed by the father. The Labia part was having redness, hymen was not in order. There was one finger entry into the vagina and she collected vaginal swab and anal swab and she found symptoms of sexual harassment.
46. She has examined the victim on 15-06-2012 who has stated that the hymen was absent in the child. She has collected the vaginal and anal swab. She admitted that it is not possible to assess about the case history given during examination is true or false. There may be chances of fixing the wife or husband in cases. The victim's mother has not told about any infection to the child, but she admits about the treatment given as per Ex.D4. That Escherichia Coli means bacteria causing urinary infection and it is possible that there will be burning sensation and pain at genitals and if it enters vagina there is chances of itching and if it is not properly treated it will lead to higher side. For Erythematous the infection is responsible and if 30 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 the genital is not kept cleanly, there is every chance of infection which may leads to Erythematous, all these are called woman diseases. It may also cause Vulvo Vaginites which is infection to vagina. It may lead to vaginal discharge, vaginal infection, Pruritis and it may cause damage to the hymen. She admitted that in some children hymen will not be there from the birth and she has not taken any history regarding this child. She admitted that there is some more chances hymen rupture. She has not collected the clothes which were worn by the child at that time.
47. Cw.24-Dr.Vani Ravi Kumar, Pathologist examined as Pw.12 has stated that she had taken blood sample of the accused in June-2012 for FSL examination and send to FSL.
48. Cw.17-R.Vimala Raj-Medical Records Supervisor, Baptist Hospital examined as Pw.13 has stated that on 16- 06-2012 she had taken two slides and test tubes and kept 31 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 it in plastic container and covered with paper cloth and sealed with the hospital seal in the presence of Dr.Nalini and Dr.Madhuri.
49. Cw.22-Dr.K.V.Satish, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital examined as Pw.14 has stated that on 15- 06-2012 at 02.30 p.m., High Ground Police have produced the accused for examination and on that day between 02.30 to 03.00 p.m., he examined the accused and found abrasion an left fore arm which turned to darkness and he identified the accused.
50. He has stated about the examination of the accused. He has admitted that it cannot be said that if a person is having genitals, he can do sexual intercourse. He admitted that when he examined the accused the genital was not enlarged. He admitted that it is not possible to do sexual intercourse when the genital is not expanded. 32 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
51. Cw.22-Dr.Latha-Victoria Hospital examined as Pw.15 has stated that on 28-09-2012 she had taken EDTA 3ml in two tubes pertaining to Kumari.Stella of Cr.No. 153/2012 and sent it to DNA Center. She has spoken about the blood sample of the victim for D.N.A. examination.
52. Additional Witness No.3-Mohan Kumar examined as Pw.16 has stated about the collection of blood sample.
53. Cw.10-Dr.Roshani.P.Rao examined as Pw.17 has stated that on 05-06-2012 she has examined Stella in between 12.30 to 01.00 p.m., and mother of the victim suspected about sexual harassment. She examined the external part of the body and found some abrasion in the private part and there are 2 to 3 pustules and she had given treatment to ring worm.
54. She has stated that she is not the family doctor 33 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 of the victim. The mother of the child had brought her. She has not noted about the sexual harassment in Ex.D4. She has not noted because, she did not noticed any sexual harassment on the child. The mother has not stated about any infection when they went to trip. As per the lab report the child suffered Bacteria Infection and the mother has not stated the same and not shown any documents. There is every chance for bubbles with pus in case of infection and she had given T-Bact Cream. There may be chances of burning sensation, itching and redness if T-Bact Cream is applied. She admitted that there may be chances of abrasions due to scratching by the children. There may be chances of worms entering from back to Vagina and there are chances of scratching by the child. She has admitted that she has given Zental Syrup for worms. She has given Ex.D4 to the mother of the victim. She has not worked in Baptist Hospital.
55. Cw.9-Sangeetha Unni-General Counseller 34 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 examined as Pw.18 has stated that in the year 2012, Suja Jones came to her and two days prior to that she contacted over phone and Suja Jones spoken with anxiety and requested to contact her immediately and on enquiry she told that she wanted to talk about the child and on 04-06- 2012 she contacted her and told that she suspect about sexual harassment by the father and requested to meet the child, but she refused because, she is not an expert in child psychology and she suggested about Dr.Shaibya Saldanha.
56. This complainant had met Cw.18 for the first time on 02-06-2012 over phone and told that she wanted to contact her, but on 04-06-2012 she met her. She is Counselor in Parivarthana Counseling Training Center, which is an NGO. She shown ignorance that this complainant has used her as a weapon to create this incident against her husband. She came to know about the arrest of the accused on 14-06-2012 through media. She admitted that she came to know that during that 35 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 period Suja came to her.
57. Cw.11-Dr.Shobha Srinath, Senior Professor, NIMHANS examined as Pw.19 has stated that on 12-06- 2012 the victim aged 3 years 10 months was brought by the mother to the hospital and the child was crying and was not leaving the mother and the child was not sleepy and the mother told that at the age of 1½ years her father used to cause pain to private parts and she came to know that there was sexual harassment by the father and child was referred to therapist.
58. She has further stated that she got full information from the mother and thereafter the child was sent to therapist for playing twice or thrice in a week and the child was displaying her problem with the toys and the child was not accepting to be alone and on observation of the child it was very silent and used to hold her mother and her mental status was varying. When she had given 36 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 one toy, it has removed its clothes and touched the private parts and after 2 or 3 sessions it was writing the pictures and some times it used to tell I love Papa, but he should not hurt me. When the child came for the first time it was afraid and after treatment she recovered and on 20-06- 2015 she found that the child was completely recovered and it was going to school.
59. She has admitted that Child psychology is very important. If no proper interview is made it may lead involvement of some other persons. She admitted that there are various methods of interviewing the children who are subjected to sexual harassment. She admitted that it is very difficult to interview the children who are subjected to sexual harassment. She admitted that children who are aged 3 to 4 years are under the influence of the mother and they used to tell what the mother has stated. They will not able to make out true or false and they used to tell what ever the mother told them to tell. She admitted that these 37 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 matters are kept in secret and information should not be given third person. It is suggested about the method of interview. One Ms.Megha Roopa-Clinical Psychologist has interviewed the child. Further interview is conducted by Ms.Snigda, who are not doctors. She has given Ex.P17 based on their interviews particulars. She admitted that Ex.P17 is not furnishing the entire particulars and result of the interview. That child was talking in English, French and Malayalam and the child was not leaving her mother and was telling as per the instructions of her mother.
60. She came to know about the injuries to the child in the genital in the month of May on the basis of the documents. She came to know that the child was treated for bacterial infection and for worms from the prescriptions. On 12-06-2012 the child was suffering from pain in genital, but she is not aware of the same. The mother of the child told about family dispute between she and her husband. She was aware that her husband was transferred to some 38 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 other country. She admitted that always the mother used to bring the child. She admitted that if genital is hurt, it cannot be said that it is a sexual harassment.
61. Cw.36-Hanumantharaya, Police Inspector, D.C.I.B., examined as Pw.20 has started that on 16-06- 2012 he took up further investigation from P.S.I., Shobha and on the same day he requested her to bring the samples collected in Baptist Hospital and she produced the same on the same day. On 18-06-2012 one Vincent has produced the passport of the accused, it was seized through mahazar and he sent the victim to medical examination. He collected the document. On 19-06-2012 he obtained provisional report from Bowring Hospital and there was a direction given to arrest the accused from the Commissioner's office and thereafter called and arrested the accused. He requested for collection of blood sample to DNA from the hospital and sent the accused with H.C.Ramalingappa to the hospital, recorded his voluntary statement and 39 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 produced him before the Court.
62. He has further stated that on 22-06-2012, P.S.I. Shobha had recorded the statements of Dr.Varsha, Dr.Madhuri, Dr.Nalini, Dr.Dhanalakshmi, Nina, Suzi, K.Nagesh and he recorded further statement of the complainant on 26-06-2012 and the statement of Geetha, Jyothi and Charles and thereafter transferred the case file to Cubbon Park Police Station.
63. In his evidence he has categorically stated that Geetha and Charles have given statements.
64. Cw.34-Shoba.G-Police Inspector examined as Pw.21 has stated that on 14-06-2012 she received written complaint and registered the case and submitted FIR to the Court. She prepared the mahazar at the spot in the presence of Kuttaiah and Khushi and seized MO3 to MO6 from the spot and brought the articles seized in the hospital belongs to the victim and handed over further 40 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 investigation to Police Inspector. On 22-06-2012 she recorded the statement of Dr.Madhuri, Dr.Nalini, Dr.Dhanalakshmi, Dr.Nina, Dr.Suzy Agustin and security guard-K.Nagesh and handed over to Police Inspector.
65. She admitted that the area wherein the house of the accused is situated comes within the Edward Road area of and it is a silent area. She has seized the articles given by the complainant. She has no personal knowledge about the house and those articles collected from the child.
66. Cw.37-D.Devaraj examined as Pw.22 has stated about FSL examination. He also stated about recording of the statement of the complainant and other documents. Initially this case was registered in High Ground Police Station and thereafter transferred to Cubbon Park Police Station. He has recorded the statement of Geetha and driver-Charles.
67. Cw.2-the victim examined as Pw.23 had stated 41 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 that accused is her father, when she was a small child one day she had salad to the dinner and vomited the same as she does not like and it was spread on her clothes and he has given bath to her and during that time he pinched to her private part, stomach and legs and assaulted her as the maid had told something to him. On the next day he put some white liquid to her private part, but she was not sleeping at that time and on the next day when she was passing urine, she found that white liquid was coming out and she was having pain. On the next day her mother had collected her urine. She was unable to pass urine freely and the accused is responsible because he has hurt to her private part with hands. After some time he showed his private part to her by calling her to the bath room.
68. She shown ignorance about the persons present in the photos. She studied in Baddy School when she was 3 years old. She does not remember the name of the persons who studied with her at that time. She shown 42 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 ignorance about the name of one Meenakshi. She shown ignorance about her visit to France when she was aged 3 years. Ex.D12 and Ex.D13 are the photographs. She is not aware of probable years 2011 and 2012. She does not remember that her father has taken her to Masinagudi in May 2012. She admitted that she had infection to her C.C., and she was having pain while passing urine. She shown ignorance about Dr.Roshni Rao and her treatment and she does not member Geetha Aunty. She does not remember that her parents and Geetha Aunty used to apply the medicine around her C.C. She admitted that her mother told her that she is taking her to the Court and she has to answer to the question asked by the advocate. She admitted that her mother discussed with her about this case before coming to the Court. She further admitted that her mother told her that she is going to get chocolate and taking her to the picnic if she tells what she taught to tell.
69. Cw.38-H.K.Venkataswamy, retired D.C.P., 43 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 examined as Pw.24 has stated that he had taken up further investigation on 07-09-2012 from A.C.P.Devaraj. On 11- 09-2012 he sent requisition to Dr.Prathima-Assistant Professor for final opinion and received the report on the same day and he had received the age certificate of the victim on 12-09-2012. On 12-09-2012 the mother of the victim had brought the victim to Bala Mandira at Cubbon Park and he enquired and recorded her statement. He submitted provisional charge sheet and on 21-09-2012 he sent the requisition to VIII-A.C.M.M. Court for collection of sample blood for DNA Test and on the same day he went to Baptist Hospital and recorded statement of Dr.Varsha, Dr.Madhuri, Dr.Shaibya Saldana, Dr.Nina and Lab Assistant-Shalika.
70. He has further deposed that on 26-09-2012 he sent the Police Inspector-Hanumantharaya to collect D.N.A. Kit from F.S.L., and he had issued another notice to bring the victim and on 28-09-2012 the complainant had 44 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 brought the victim to Bowring Hospital and he requested the doctor to collect the blood sample of the victim and the doctor had collected blood sample and handed over to him. On 04-01-2013 he filed additional charge sheet.
71. He has stated about the further investigation conducted by him, recording of statement of Doctor who examined the D.N.A. He admitted that Dr.Varsha has stated that on seeing the case sheet, I say that the sexual assault is not acute and no sign of bleeding or hymen tear. He also recorded the statement of Dr.Nalini who has stated that on that day she noticed only old abrasions and noticed nothing. He had not enquired the Enfold. He admitted that as per Ex.P29 the allegation against the accused is not proved. Further Geetha and Charles have not stated about the alleged incident.
72. Cw.30-Dr.Purushotham, Scientific Officer, DNA Centre, examined as Pw.25 had stated on 18-06-2012- H.C.1696-Ramalingaiah of High Ground Police Station had 45 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 handed over one file with eight sealed articles to D.N.A. Center and he examined those seals and he registered as DNA-76/2012. He found bed cover, bed sheet, full arm top, one panty, vaginal swab, anal swab, vaginal smear slide, anal smear slide, Vaginal swab and anal swab. On 19-06- 2012 the same Head Constable had produced two more sealed articles and he found those articles in tact and he registered the same.
73. He has further deposed that he had taken sample spermatozoa and stain for DNA examination. Thereafter collected those articles on F.T.A. Card and by using phenol chloropharm he separated those samples and subjected to polymerize chain reaction by using genetic analyzer conducted propelling action. Thereafter he conducted ectrophorogram and thereafter he decoded the same.
74. He has further stated that in Item No.1, 2, 3 and 4 he found human sperms and in item No.5(1) and 5(2) 46 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 also he found human sperms stains which belong to both male and female. In item No.7 and 8 he found stains are of woman and in item No.9 and 10 he found the DNA of the accused and found said DNA profile matching to item No.1, 2, 3 and 4. He used differential extraction method for bifurcating male and female seminal stains and on comparison he found item No.1, 2, 3 and 4 and item No.9 and 10 those were matching with DNA profile of the accused. The seminal stains on item No.1 2, 3 and 4 belongs to the accused and item No.5 (1) and 5(2) does not belong to the accused.
75. He has stated that there are chances of vaginal discharge in the women also. If the smear discharged is spread on cloth or bed sheet, it may cause seminal marks. He admitted that one cane collect sperms after the sexual intercourse and it can be spread on the cloths. He admitted that if such thing is done, there might be presence of sperms on MO1 to MO4 and it also give the result. He 47 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 admitted that item No.5(1) and 5(2) seminal stains are not tallying with the DNA of the accused.
76. Cw.29-Dr.Vinod G.Lakkappa-Assistant Director, examined as Pw.26 has deposed that on 29-09-2012 P.S.I- Girish of High Ground Police Station had handed over one sealed article for DNA examination and he checked the seal which were intact and the same was tallying with the sample seal, item No.11 contained two tubes consists of sample blood of the victim and the complainant. He compared the D.N.A. examination result of 18-06-2012 and 19-06-2012 with 10 articles in D.N.A.No.76/2012 and 78/2012 and given his report. On comparing the result of blood samples sent in item No.11 and D.N.A. examination result of item No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5(1), 5(2). 7, 8 and 10 he came to the conclusion that sample blood of victim found in item No.11 was completely matching with the D.N.A. result found in article No.7 and 8. The sample blood of victim found in item No.11 was not matching with the D.N.A. 48 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 result found in article No.5(1) and 5(2).
77. He has further stated that the sample blood of victim found in item No.11 was not completely matching with the D.N.A. result found in article No.1, 2, 3 and 4 and he opined that stains found in item No.7 and 8 are of the victim, stains found in item No.5(1) and 5(2) are not of the victim. Stains found in Item No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are not of the victim.
78. The documents relied upon by the prosecution are Ex.P1 is the seizure mahazar, Ex.P2 is one cover, Ex.P3 is the mahazar, Ex.P4 is the complaint. Ex.P5 is the letter, Ex.P6 is the drawings which is in four pages, Ex.P7 is the case sheet, Ex.P8 is the provisional medical certificate, Ex.P9 is the report, Ex.P10 is the letter, Ex.P11 is the report, Ex.P12 is the medical examination report of the victim, Ex.13 is the OPD card, Ex.P14 is the prescription, Ex.P15 is the medical examination report of the accused, Ex.P16 is the DNA Identification Form, Ex.P17 is the case 49 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 summary, Ex.P18 is the letter, Ex.P19 is the P.F.No.63/ 2012, Ex.P20 is the P.F.No.64/2012, Ex.P21 is the P.F.No. 65/2012, Ex.P22 is the report, Ex.P23 is the letter, Ex.P24 is the F.I.R., Ex.P25 is the P.F.No.62/2012, Ex.P26 is the D.N.A. Report, Ex.P27 is the requisition Ex.P28 is the requisition, Ex.P29 is the D.N.A report.
79. The material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution are MO1 is the personal passport, MO2 is the Service Passport, MO3 is the bed sheet, MO4 is the blanket, MO5 is the underwear, MO6 is the T-shirt, MO7 is the vaginal swab, MO8 is the vaginal smear, MO9 is the vaginal swab and MO10 is the anal swab.
80. The documents marked on behalf of the accused are Ex.D1 is the bank attestation, Ex.D1(a) is its translated copy, Ex.D2 is E-Mail dated 03-01-2000, Ex.D3 is the Fortis Hospital Medical report, Ex.D4 is the prescription, Ex.D5 is the F.I.R., Ex.D6 is the statement of Pw.7, Ex.D7 is the statement of Pw.8, Ex.D8 and Ex.D9 are 50 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 the prescriptions of Dr.Roshni.P.Rao, Ex.D11 to Ex.D14 are the photos, Ex.D15 is the statement of victim.
81. In this case first of all it could be gathered that there was misunderstanding between the husband and the wife. But it is undisputed that it is a love marriage. After giving birth to the third child the dispute became more serious. It is undisputed that this complainant used to visit the parties which was not accepted by the accused. The allegation of the accused is that she used to spend money which is more than his income and she was not taking care of the children and he was taking care of the children.
82. In this case it is undisputed that this complainant is in the habit of moving with the friends and she also admitted that she had taken nude photos in the absence of her husband, to which she has offered explanation that her husband had requested her to send her nude photos. Why she has taken nude photos with her 51 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 friends is unexplained. This shows that this complainant is in the habit of leading her life by spending her time in parties.
83. In this case it is also suggested that the sister of the complainant went to U.S., she married an American and thereafter due to the interference of this complainant, there was a dispute and she had taken divorce, but it is undisputed that she is a divorcee. But this complainant had denied that she is responsible for that act.
84. In this case the marital life and having children are all undisputed. But according to the accused he was not happy with the behaviour of the complainant Further it is suggested to her that because of her behaviour the accused wanted to take divorce and he wanted to take the children to his place. It is undisputed that he was transferred in that particular time when this alleged incident is reported to be taken place.
52 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
85. Further it is very pertinent to note that the allegation of the complainant is that the accused started sexually abusing the victim when she was aged 1½ years old. According to her in the year 2010-April for the first time the victim told that she has pain while passing urine. When she enquired the accused told that while playing the victim might have some pain. However that matter was not considered subsequently. Once again in May-2012 according to the complainant the victim had pain when she was going to the toilet. Thereafter on 01-06-2012 she met Sangeetha Unni.
86. In this case it is pertinent to note that instead of getting treatment to the child and also instead of giving complaint immediately this complainant has met Parivarthana-NGO on 01-06-2012 and thereafter she called Sangeetha Unni over the telephone on 02-06-2012 and she met her on 04-06-20212 and told that she along with her family are leaving India and she wanted to meet her 53 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 immediately. It is pertinent to note that during that visit she told that her husband has transferred and she wanted to meet her and thus she met her on 04-06-2012. Thereafter on 05-06-2012 she met Dr.Roshni Rao.
87. In this case Dr.Roshni Rao is the particular doctor who treated this victim. According to Dr.Roshni Rao the child had sustained bacterial infection which is the defense of the accused. According to the accused they went to trip to Masinagudi, where this victim sustained bacterial infection thereafter she was taken to Dr.Roshni Rao which is undisputed. That Dr.Roshni Rao examined the child and she had given the treatment to the victim by giving tablets for worms and also T-Bact Ointment. Thereafter this complainant met Sangeetha Unni on 05-06-2012 i.e., on the same day when she took her daughter to Dr.Roshni Rao, when Dr.Roshni Rao has stated that there was no sexual harassment on the child. Then what was the necessity for this complainant to meet Dr.Shaibya 54 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Saldanha is doubtful thing in this case. That Dr.Shaibya Saldanha advised her to bring the child on the next day. On 06-06-2012 the complainant took the child to Dr.Shaibya Saldana, on that day she examined the child and come to the conclusion that the father has committed sexual harassment on the child and also advised her to take the child to NIMHANS. On 12-06-2012 the complainant took the child to NIMHANS to Dr.Shobha Srinath and thereafter she was taken to regular counseling.
88. However in this case the particular incident is dated 13-06-2012. On that day it is alleged that this complainant went to R.T.O., Office to get the learning licence and she contacted Dr.Shaibya Saldanha who told that the report is ready. On the very day at about 01.30 p.m., her husband came home and at that time the victim and Joshua were with Nanny Geetha. The allegation is that during that period the accused has sexually harassed the child when he came to take food. However it is 55 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 contended that she came to the house on that day at 05.30 p.m., and she enquired with Nanny Geetha, who told that her husband has kept the food in the fridge and he took the child to his bed room and he closed the bed room and thereafter he left the home at 03.30 p.m. to the Office. Then that Geetha told that her daughter was crying and immediately she went to the room and her daughter told that her father has caused hurt and when she checked her private part, it was red in colour. Immediately she called Dr.Shaibya Saldanha, who told her to take the child to Baptist Hospital, wherein the doctors have examined i.e, Dr.Madhuri and Dr.Nalini have examined the victim and on 14th she had taken the report and it was found that the swab test was found positive for sperms.
89. In this case at this stage it is necessary to look into the statement of Geetha who was the person present at the time of the alleged incident, because she was the person who was looking after the house and she was 56 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 present at the time of the incident. However in this case both Geetha and Charles are not examined by the prosecution. But their statements are marked through the Investigation Officer. In the evidence of Investigation Officer, he has stated that in the statement of Geetha she has stated that the complainant used to go out at 11.00 a.m., and she used to back in the afternoon. In the mean time the accused used to visit the house and he used to tell her to keep the lunch ready, but he came home only on 3 days in 15 days of her stay. But he used to take the children for outings on Saturdays.
90. On 13-06-2012 he came at 01.15 p.m., and when he was taking the food, the victim was crying and he pacified her and left the food on the Dinning Table and took her to the bed room and he left the home at 03.15 p.m. When the complainant came at 06.00 p.m., she enquired whether Stella was crying, to which she stated that Stella was not crying. But the victim used to shout for simple 57 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 touch. According to her she had washed the clothes which were worn by the victim on that day and thereafter Stella was taken out by the complainant. She has specifically stated that the accused was not the person of that character. She did not hear any sound. She has specifically stated that the accused is not a person who can commit rape. Further with respect to the statement of Charles, who was the driver of the house, who is also an important witness, but he is also not examined by the prosecution.
91. The first and foremost person whom the complainant met is Pw.18-Sangeetha Unni. On perusal of her evidence it could be gathered that on 02-06-2012 in the phone the complainant was telling that she wanted to talk to her in relation to her daughter immediately. Further on 4th she told that father of the victim might have committed sexual harassment on the child and she requested her to contact the child, but she refused because she is not an expert in Child Psychology. Thereafter the complainant was 58 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 introduced to Pw.5- Dr.Shaibya Saldanha. This witness came to know about the filing of the complaint by the complainant only on 14-06-2012 through media. She has specifically admitted that she came on behalf of the complainant.
92. Thereafter this complainant met Pw.5- Dr.Shaibya Saldanha who has categorically stated that one Counselor called her in June Month of 2012 that she was upset and she wanted to send her for counseling as she was not having any information about the child sexual abuse and thereafter this complainant called her and she came and thereafter she examined the child. According to her the child used to tell that she wanted to sleep with her mother and when her father wanted to sleep with her, she used to push because he sexually abused her i.e., in words he was doing 'boo boo' to 'C.C'. When she shown buttock portion in the picture, the child told that it was 'C.C' and she identified male and female child. According to her the 59 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 child by showing the genital of that boy and by showing the action the child showed how the incident occurred. According to this witness she told that there was sexual harassment by the father and at that time the complainant told that from the last six months there are behavioural changes in the child and she wanted to sleep with her. Thereafter she referred the child to NIMHANS and also she told to take legal opinion.
93. However this witness is the founder member of Enfold Trust. But she is not an expert regarding child psychology and hence she cannot form opinion about child psychology. When she is not an expert in child psychology, her part of examination and her opinion about the sexual harassment is subject to proof of other evidence. Further this witness has stated that in her room itself they are giving interviews, because they are not having any special interview section. Further this witness has admitted that they are supporting the complainant on behalf of the Trust 60 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 to the case filed by her.
94. Thereafter the child was taken to NIMHANS i.e., to Pw.19, who had examined the victim on 12-06-2012. It is alleged that the mother told her that from its 1½ years the child is complaining about pain in her private part and on verification of the document she thought that there was sexual abuse by the father and she had sent the child to therapist. According to her that child used to remove the clothes of the dolls given to her and by touching its private part it used to go out and some times it was writing pictures. The child used to tell that I Love Papa, but he should not hurt me. She admitted that if proper interview is not made, there are chances of fixing the person in sexual abuse. This witness has categorically admitted that generally the children below 3 to 5 years will be under the influence of the mother and they used to tell what the mother teaches and they will not be aware of true or false in that age and in order to get sympathy or because of fear 61 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 of mother they used to behave in front of others as stated by the mother.
95. In this particular case Ms.Megha Roopa-Clinical Psychologist and thereafter Ms.Snigda have conducted the interviews, but they are not doctors and based on their report she had given Ex.P17, which is an incomplete document. However these two witnesses are not examined before the Court. She admitted that the child was referred by Dr.Shaibya Saldanha. Further this witness came to know that there was infection in the child from the month of May based on the document i.e., there was bacterial infection and treatment was given to infection and for worms. Further she cannot say that there was pain in the private part because of this problem. Further the complainant has stated about the dispute between her and the accused and the accused was transferred to other country. She shown ignorance of filing of the false case by the complainant. Further she has stated that if the child 62 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 shows any private part, that does not mean that it was a case of sexual harassment and if the child says that her parents have hurt that, does not mean that sexual harassment. She had given information to Premila Associates pertains to this treatment.
96. In this case then the Court has to see the medical evidence of the Dr.Madhuri, who is examined as Pw.6 and who has issued Ex.P7. According to this witness on 13-06-2012 evening Dr.Varsha called and told that there is case pertains to C.C.R.U and then she examined the child and the mother told that there is a doubt regarding sexual harassment to the child and thereafter she took her to the OPD and Dr.Nalini examined the child and told that there is spermatozoa visible in lab test. On the next day she found sperms present in the lab test and given information about the same. This swabs and slides were taken on 14th.
97. On perusal of Ex.P7 it could be gathered that 63 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 this complainant had given consent for medical examination as well as genital examination and collection of evidence for the same. This particular evidence shows that the complainant wanted to collect the evidence and she is not interested to involve the police at present. Her intention is only to collect the evidence. That consent was given on 13-06-2012 at 07.30 p.m., and Dr.Nalini and Dr.Madhuri have taken the consent in the presence of one Dr.Dhanalakshmi. Thereafter in this case the document i.e., Ex.P8-the genital examination report shows that there is external genitalia abrasions, Erytheiya, Tenderness, hymen absent, patulous, ½cm laceration, vaginal and anal swabs were sent for examination. Ex.P9 also shows that there is details of case-forceful penetrative sexual assault i.e., on 14-06-2012. Ex.P10 is the letter sent to Forensic Science Laboratory with vaginal and anal swab slides. Ex.P12 is the genital examination report of the child which shows that there is sexual assault present and hymen was not in tact and there is one finger admit and there is 64 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Erythematous. However Ex.P17 is the document which shows that Section 11 to 14 shows that she was uncomfortable and uneasy due to constipation and alleged fissures in the anal region. In this report also the observation made is that she used the word Papa not to hurt. Then the doctor came to the conclusion that it is a sexual abuse.
98. In this case the swabs slides were taken on 13th evening. In this case this doctor has shown ignorance that she had given statement to the police that on that day she cannot say about the sexual harassment, because there were no injuries over the genital and it was red in colour. Thereafter on confirmation of the same they wanted to inform to the police. Further she has stated that there was no cut or bleeding, but there was only redness and she found old injuries. If this evidence of the witness is believed, then it could be gathered that there is only redness and there were no injuries surrounding the genital 65 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 of the child.
99. One Dr.Nalini i.e., Pw.8 has stated that at about 06.30 p.m., to 07.00 p.m., Dr.Madhuri had brought the child and the mother and told that she is having doubt about the sexual harassment of the child and the child did not support her. On the next day she received lab report and told about the presence of sperms. Thereafter they have handed over the swabs to the police after two days. This doctor has not examined the child, but she has taken the swabs and sent for test. She did not give any final opinion. She shown ignorance that the child went to Masinagudi in 2012 last week of April and she sustained vaginal infection and she was not properly treated. But when Ex.D3 is shown to her she admitted and according to her it relates to urinary track infection. Further she shown ignorance that the child was taken to Dr.Roshni Rao with respect to vaginal infection and was given treatment for worms also. She shown ignorance that the victim was 66 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 suffering from constipation problem.
100. This doctor had given admission that there are chances of urethra inflammation could occur and if the genital are not kept properly there is irritation and scratching and injuries to genital. There are chances of reaching to Vulvo Virginities. She shown admission that the child was suffering from urinary infection. This child was suffering from pustules which could be caused due to bacterial infection or allergic reactions associated with redness and Erythema. Further she admitted that due to pin worms itching around anus could be possible and it may cause intestinal track infection. The side effect of Zental Syrup is skin redness or pruritis. She admitted that in case of hard stools it may cause anal gaping. She has not checked the earlier history of the hymen of the victim. She also admitted that the hymen could be ruptured apart from intercourse like insertion of sanitary tampons or other instruments can damage the hymen. She admitted that 67 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 collection of clothes is best evidence, but they did not collect the clothes worn by the child, because the child was not wearing the clothes which it was wearing at the time of the incident. According to this witness the clothes were changed by the father. She did not examine the finger nails of the child because; she had only examined the vagina. There is clear admission that there was no bleeding, semen discharge around the vagina. She admitted that she had not written the contents in Ex.P10.
101. Pw.9 is one of the doctors who was present when the child was examined. Pw.10 is the doctor who received the swabs for examination and she entrusted the work of examination to Senior Technician-Shalika.
102. Pw.7 is the doctor to whom Dr.Shaibya Saldanha has referred the child on 13-06-2012 and she has stated that there are chances of sexual harassment and she sent the child to the hospital. She referred the matter to Dr.Madhuri and Dr.Dhanalakshmi, but she did 68 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 not attend the child. She is not aware as to what happened to the child. She did not see the child. She has not written Ex.P8, but only she signed the document. However she admits that her handwriting in Ex.P9, but she is not aware of the contents written in Ex.P8. She has no personal knowledge of the contents of these two documents. Because she referred the case records written by Dr.Nalini and Dr.Madhuri and then she had issued Ex.P9 and Ex.D6 is confronted to this witness which is the portion of the statement wherein it is observed that she say that the sexual assault is not acute and no sign of bleeding or hymen tear. She admitted that generally they used to take two hours for examination of the child relates to sexual abuse.
103. Then comes the evidence of Dr.Prathima-Pw.11 who examined the child and it is stated that the mother told that there was redness from 1½ years at genitals and then she enquired she told that her father hurt her. The 69 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 hymen was not found, there was entry of one finger. She collected vaginal swab and anal swab. She had given report that there was sexual harassment on the child. She admitted that it is not possible to find out the true facts stated by a person who accompanied the victim and also if false information is given also that could not be find out. She admitted that in order to connect the persons to the case they can give false information. She had no information about the earlier injuries in May-2012. She admitted about the taking of treatment by the victim for Escherichia Coli i.e., Urinary Track infection from bacteria. It may cause itching to vagina and it will be more serious if not properly treated. She admitted that for Erythematous the given reason is infection. If the vaginal parts are not properly maintained, it may cause Erythematous, it will lead to itching and pruritis inching, vaginal discharge and it may cause damage to hymen also. She admitted that in some children hymen will not be there from birth. Even for other reasons also hymen could be damaged. She has not 70 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 collected nail scrapings of the child and also the photographs.
104. Pw.12 and Pw.13 are the pathologists who collected the blood samples and Pw.13 is the person who covered the slides and test tubes which were sealed and handed over to the police. Pw.14 is the Forensic doctor who examined the accused. He has stated that when he examined him, there was no a bloodstain or seminal discharge. There was abrasion on left fore arm which turned to brown colour. Pw.15 and Pw.16 are the doctors who have taken the blood samples for DNA tests.
105. In this case to come to proper conclusion the evidence of Pw.17 plays an important role. This doctor has examined the child on 05-06-2012 between 12.30 p.m., to 01.00 p.m., and she told that it is not a case of sexual harassment. She examined the child externally and found abrasion on the private parts of the child and there were pistols, but she did not find any sexual harassment on the 71 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 child. She had given treatment to worms and antiseptic cream and she had given Ex.D4.
106. She is not the family doctor and the child was not referred by any doctor to her. She has not written about history of sexual harassment because on examination she did not find any sexual harassment. She had not given information to the police. The mother of the child did not state about the infection. She admitted that there may be chances of burning sensation and itching and redness if T-Bact cream is applied. There may be chances of abrasion if the child scratches the portion. There may be chances that worms could move from anal to vagina. She had given the syrup for worms. The document issued by this doctor i.e., Ex.D-8 shows that they are the same documents shows that there is bacterial infection. If this evidence is considered then on 04-06-2012 itself the child was having the bacterial infection and T-Bact cream was given to the child.
72 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
107. Now the evidence of the child has to be considered at this stage because, that victim is examined as Pw.23 has stated that on the date of the alleged incident as she was not interested to have salad, she vomited and thereafter her father had given bath to her and he pinched to her leg, stomach and to her private part and thereafter the house maid told something to the accused and her father assaulted her with a stick to her back. On the next day her father thought that she was sleeping and had applied some liquid and on the next morning it was coming while passing urine and she was having pain. On the next day her mother told to her driver to bring a bottle and told her to give urine. Her father had hurt to her C.C. Thereafter her father taken her to the bath room and showed his private part.
108. In the cross examination version of this witness she is unable to say many things in her evidence and she cannot remember anything. However she 73 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 remembers that when she went to the picnic she had infection to her private part and she was having pain while passing urine. This witness has stated that if she says as instructed by her mother, her mother used give chocolates and takes her to picnic.
109. If this version of this witness is gathered, it could be seen that her father might have applied ointment which the doctor has given for infection. She has not stated anything about the sexual harassment by the father. But she has stated that on the date of the incident her father given bath and he pinched, but that cannot be considered as sexual harassment. Further the doctors have admitted that there are other reasons which lead to hymen rupture. However even the doctor says that there are no signs of any injury in the private part. If at all a man commits sexual harassment on the child of below 4 years, that might not have caused simple redness in the vagina, but there may be serious injuries to the vagina and also if at all the 74 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 hymen was ruptured due to the sexual harassment definitely there may be injuries and there may be chances of child crying. However the house maid did not notice any such thing.
110. Further at this stage, the statement of the victim recorded by the Investigation Officer is very much important because i.e., marked as Ex.D15. I have gone through the entire statement, wherein the child does not make any allegation against her father, but she stated that she likes her father, she had not seen him from last two days, she missed him, she loved her Papa, he is not seen and she liked him. He is good and this statement was recorded on 12-09-2012 by the Investigation officer. If at all the father of the victim had committed sexual harassment on her, why she has not stated that her Papa has committed sexual harassment on her and he hurt her where as the psychologists and the doctors says that the child told that her Papa hurt her. Why she has not stated 75 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 this particular aspect during her statement and also before the Court plays important role.
111. Then the Court has to see the evidence of D.N.A. Expert which also plays an important role in this case. Pw.25 is Dr.Purushotham who is D.N.A. Expert has stated that with respect to this case bed cover, bed sheet, full arm top, one nicker, vaginal swab, anal swab, vaginal smear, anal smear slide, vaginal swab and anal swab were sent for examination and another two articles were sent i.e., regarding the blood samples. According to him in item No.1 to 4 bed cover, bed sheet, full arm top, one nicker male seminal stains were found, whereas in vaginal swab and anal swab he found the seminal stains belong to male and female are found, with respect to vaginal swab and anal swab in item No.7 and 8, it belongs to a female. The D.N.A. profile of the accused was tallying with the D.N.A. profile of the child found in item No.1 to 4. Thereafter he conducted examination by bifurcation of male and female 76 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 seminal stains in item No.5 (1) and 5(2), it was found that D.N.A. profile of item No.9 and 10 belongs to the accused was tallying with the item No.1 to 4, with respect to item No.5(1) and 5(2) it was not tallying with item No.9 and 10 and he come to the conclusion that the seminal stains found on item No.1 to 4 is not tallying with the seminal stains of item No.5(1) and 5(2).
112. He admitted that there are every chances of vaginal discharge in the female during sexual intercourse. If it is smeared on clothes or bed sheet it may cause stains. He also admitted that sperms can be collected after sexual intercourse and it could be smeared on clothes. He admitted that if the sperms collected are spread on the clothes it cannot be identified by them and it may result the same. He admitted that in item No.5(1) and 5(2) the seminal stains does not belongs to the accused.
113. Pw.26 is another D.N.A. expert who has stated that the seminal stains found in item No.7 and 8 are of 77 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Stella and seminal stains found in 5(1) and 5(2) are not of Stella and item No.1 to 4 is also not of Stella.
114. In this case Ex.P7-oringal document is on record which shows that on 13-06-2012 when the child was examined there were no changes, because it was conscious talking about her siblings-Samson and Joshua and temperature was normal. There were injuries on left knee, right medial malleoles and other examinations were found normal. Thereafter she was examined by Dr.Nalini. She has narrated as redness and Erythematous, over upper aspect of labia, tenderness present, no bleeding to hymen absent, attenuated, anus padulous gapping. No bleeding, no discharge or semen seen around vagina or anus. Thereafter vaginal and anal swabs were taken for sperms detection. However she has given impression that there is suggestion of forceful penetration of vagina and anus. The vaginal and anal swabs shown spermatozoa.
115. On 14-06-2012 in the first sheet of the case 78 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 history, it is narrated that the child was examined at 07.00 p.m., on 13-06-2012 and she had complain of pain and burning sensation in the perineum and anal region and pain while passing urine since afternoon and the mother was away in the afternoon and on arriving home child had above complaints. As the father was alone with the child in the after noon the mother wants to rule out if there has been sexual abuse by the father. She was referred by Dr.Shaibya Saldanha and C.C.R.U. The mother says that the child had similar complaints before for which urine examination was done in April-2012.
116. In this case on perusal of the entire evidence on record, it could be gathered that this accused was employed in Embassy of France, married the complainant and it was a love marriage and they stayed in different countries, for some times they were residing separately due to work schedule. In this case the contention of the accused is that the behaviour of the complainant was 79 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 different as she was in the habit of going to night clubs and parties and spending huge money and her behaviour with friends including male and female are not adjusted to him. Even it is suggested that she had taken the nude photos when he was working in a different country and she was alone in France with her friends which is admitted by the complainant. To which the complainant has stated that as her husband was living in different country and on his request she has taken the photographs. However in this case the contention of the accused is that as he intended to give divorce because of her behaviour, the complainant told that let them take divorce in France because the children are French Citizens. In the mean time the accused was transferred to Cape Town and he was supposed to report during that period.
117. Further one important aspect in this case is that during the course of cross-examination this Pw.4 who is the complainant has stated that on 02-06-2012 she 80 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 called Sangeetha Unni which is the first step in this case and she contacted her again on 04-06-2012. She has stated that she and her family are going to leave India and she wanted to meet her and the accused who is her husband was transferred to South Africa. If this particular admission is considered, then the Court has to consider that on 02-06-2012 why she wanted to meet Sangeetha Unni, from whom the first step of the complainant was started in this regard.
118. It is the specific defense of the accused that he was transferred to South Africa and in order to avoid that he should not leave India, because he will give divorce and he will go away, the false complaint is filed. That particular defense of the accused is substantiated by this particular admission. Because, she has admitted that they are going to leave India and she wanted to meet her. Thereafter on 05-06-2012 she met Dr.Roshni Rao. This commencement of the incident shows that the complainant 81 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 hatched a plan to stop the accused from going away from her, which is also substantiated by another admission in the complaint that she met one Mr.Jewet of Ferina-NGO which relates to Labour rights, because she wanted to know the rights of the children who are French and what type of rights the children are having if they are sexually abused. Further the defense of the accused is that on the previous night they had sexual intercourse and this complainant with preplan had collected the semen in condom and she created all these things in order to connect him with the crime, so that she can avoid him going away from India. To which one suggestion is made that they are having regular sexual intercourse which was admitted by the complainant. However she refused that they are using condoms. It is also suggested that when he transferred to Cape Town, she collected information through friends and internet as to how to connect the accused, so that he should not go out of India. It is suggested that she had smeared semen on MO3 to MO6 82 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 and she handed over those articles to the police. Further she has admitted that she had appeared before the Court through advocates and she has given vide publicity in this matter. She also met Minister in this regard.
119. The Counsel appearing for the accused has filed written arguments and in the written arguments he has highlighted some points they are with respect to grant of bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to this accused, wherein he has highlighted that the Hon'ble High Court has considered the statement of Smt.Joythi, and others and also the D.N.A. report in order to enlarge the accused on bail and also with respect to the statement of Geetha and Charles, the prosecution has not attempted to contradict the finding given by Hon'ble High Court and he requested to acquit the accused.
120. The next point highlighted is with respect to the circumstantial evidence, wherein he highlighted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the 83 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 prosecution is relying only the evidence of Pw.4. It is also the duty of the prosecution to prove that since 2010, he is committing rape on the child and again in during 2012, since the entire allegation has to be proved. Further it is highlighted that the relationship between the accused and his wife was not cordial and it was on the verge of breaking his marriage and hence the evidence of Pw.4 has to be considered carefully and should be corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. The manner in which the F.I.R., is filed is also not reliable and it is thoroughly thought over and drafted by an advocate. Pw.4 is not a rustic villager. As on the date of the alleged incident, the son of the accused and the house maid were present in the house, but they are not examined by the prosecution. The medical evidence of Dr.Roshni Rao and other doctors proves that the accused has not committed the evidence. The D.N.A. report-Ex.P26 and Ex.P29 exonerates the accused, because the vaginal swab does not belong to the child and later there is no D.N.A. Profile of the accused by 84 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 the Bowring Hospital. Though the stain of the accused is found on the bed sheet and clothes of the child, it is in no way pointed out the offence of rape. Further the prosecution failed to prove that the MO5 and MO6 were the clothes worn by the child at the time of the incident and that Geetha has stated that she has washed the clothes which were worn by the child on that day and thereafter by putting other clothes to the child, the child was sent with Cw.4. It is further highlighted that the Pw.4 has preserved the sperms of the accused and smeared them on MO5 and MO6 and the doctors have admitted that smear is possible to get the result of the DNA. There is no final report submitted by the prosecution, but all the reports are provisional reports. Further no doctor has given any evidence that the child was subjected to rape. Further Pw.5, who interviewed the child, has admitted that she is only a gynecologist and not a psychologist. With respect to the evidence of Pw.19, she has specifically stated that the child underwent Therapeutic interview, but not forensic 85 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 interview and the therapists-Megha Roopa and Snigda are not examined.
121. The next point highlighted by the counsel is with respect to motive of Pw.4 to falsely implicate the accused, wherein he highlighted that the accused has decided to divorce Pw.4 and it was scheduled that the accused has to leave India by July-2012 and he informed that he is giving divorce and he is going to take the children away from India and hence she hatched a plan and implicated the accused. It is further highlighted that Pw.4 is a wayward wife and she was not looking after the children in proper manner and she was spending thrift. She was going to parties and continuing her behaviour with other which strained the relationship. Even prior to the marriage also he requested not to go to night clubs, pubs and when she was in U.S., she had abortion prior to the marriage. She was having both male and female friends. She was spending the money more than what the accused 86 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 was earning. The said Geetha and Charles have stated that she used to go out for shopping to expensive malls by leaving the children at home and return in the evening and thereafter she used to go to parties without her husband. Even her dress sense was also objected by the accused. She used to party at home and also taken inappropriate photographs of herself in 2005 itself and also she has taken nude photographs when her husband was not at home and the accused was not happy with her behaviour. In order to spoil his career, she has concocted this false proceeding. Even in 2005 itself she alleges that the accused has physically and emotionally abusive and she has been the victim of Domestic Violence, which shows that there was differences between them.
122. The next point highlighted is regarding preparation by Pw.4 to falsely implicate the accused. It is highlighted that she planned, searched, met several NGOs, Doctors, Advocates, read articles on internet and 87 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 thereafter has attempted to come up with a false story and he highlighted that in April-2012, the accused has taken his family to a picnic to Masinagudi and stayed in a resort and after coming from that place, the child was having problem while passing urine and there was redness in her genital area and thereafter he called Dr.Vidya Sagar, who advised urine test and she was taken to Fortis Hospital and treated by Dr.Roshni Rao. That doctor has opined that it is due to vaginal infection. Taking advantage of this, she hatched a plan to implicate the accused and she has taken the opinion of NGOs, Advocates and internet. She has collected the information and it is also suggested that she had physical intimacy with the accused and collected the sperms in condom and thereafter used the same to create a circumstance on MO3 to MO6. She has a friend by name Lakshmi @ Asha Basu who is an advocate and she had written letter to Government of India and France. She admitted that she met NGO-Parivarthana and met one Sangeetha Unni on 01-06-2012 and 02-06-2012. On 01- 88 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 06-2012 she met Dr.Shobha Managoli who is associated with SPACE Organization and she was Psychologist, but she is not examined. Thereafter she met Ms.Tarana Bhandari and Dr.Mamatha Shetty, who are also not examined. She took appointment with Sangeetha Unni stating that she has to meet her urgently as she and her husband are leaving India. Further this shows that she was in a hurry to falsely implicate the accused. On 05-06- 2012 she met Dr.Shaibya Saldanha and Kushi Kushalappa, who belongs to Enfold Trust. On 12-06-2012 she met Shobha Srinath. She met another NGO-Fedina in order to know about the rights of the child who under gone sexual assault. On 14-06-2012 she met advocates- Prameela Nesargi and Geetha Menon. Pw.5 referred her to Geetha Menon who is associated with Enfold. That Geetha Menon has prepared the complaint. She collected all the information and thereafter collected sperms of her husband and created false allegations. Her evidence proves that she was not with good terms with her husband and she is the 89 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 only witness of the prosecution.
123. The next point highlighted is regarding the F.I.R. This Pw.4 admits that she took the help of Pw.2 and Pw.5 who belongs to NGO-Enfold to prepare the complaint. The key witnesses are not examined. Pw.2 has stated that on 13-06-2012 itself she along with Pw.4 and Pw.5 went to High Ground Police Station and again went on 14-067- 2012 which shows that the FIR was concocted.
124. The next point highlighted is regarding delay in filing the F.I.R. Pw.4 has stated that the offence was commenced in the year 2010-April, but she initiated the proceedings on 14-06-2012 i.e., after lapse of two years and there is delay and there is no proper explanation offered for the same. Further Pw.4 is an educated person having doctors and lawyers as friends. The delay also falsifies the entire case of the prosecution. She admitted that she used to take the children for periodical checkups. She also met the doctor in connection with the treatment 90 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 with the genital infection. One Dr.Keerthi Vidya Sagar who is the neighbour since 2010, was also not intimated about this.
125. The next point highlighted is regarding the fact that Pw.4 is the sole witness to the incident. The same things are highlighted that the Pw.4 to wreak vengeance on the accused has carefully hatched a plan and also she contacted NGOs, Doctors, Lawyers and the relationship between her and the accused was strained and he was on a transfer. If at all she had doubt in the year 2010 itself she would have filed the case immediately, but she waited till his transfer as well on the brink of breaking of the marriage. Her house is surrounded by the hospitals. Further if at all the conduct of the accused was such, no mother will let alone the child with such a person who allegedly committing sexual abuse on the child. Further she left the child with him and gone out of India for the delivery of third child. Even on 13-06-2012 she left the 91 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 child with the accused and later as soon as she returned, she asked question to the maid servant in a manner that what would sexual abuse by the accused on the child. The conduct of Pw.4 proves that she was trying implicate the accused. She is having contact with Enfold right from the inception in June-2012 and also she met the Advocates who belong to the same organization. Except the evidence of this witness there is no evidence of a single witness to corroborate her evidence.
126. The next point high lighted is improbability of the allegation on 13-06-2012. It is alleged that the accused came home at 01.30 p.m., and committed rape on the child, but there is no evidence to that effect. If at all she had suspicion, she would not have left the child alone in the house. On that day her son-Joshua and Nanny were present. They are residing in quiet locality. Even if a person speaks in a low tone, it can be heard as stated by Police Officer-Shobha. Further that child is very sensitive 92 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 and she would cry very loudly for a simple touch and hence it is highly improbable for the accused to commit offence in the presence of his son and Nanny, if at all he would have intended to do so.
127. The next point is regarding seizure of MO3 to MO6 which is already discussed in other points. Regarding non-examination of the material witnesses also i.e., Geetha and Charles which is also discussed with respect to high lighted points in other heads. Further the next point high lighted is non-production of the material documents i.e., lab report of Baptist Hospital which shows the presence of spermatozoa on the vaginal and anal swabs, but that report is not produced. The provisional report given Dr.Prathima is produced, but no final report is produced. The interview records are also not produced.
128. The main high light is the role of Enfold, which is the other point high lighted by the defense. It is high lighted that the persons whom this Pw.4 met are all 93 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 belongs to Enfold and there is CCR Unit in the Baptist Hospital which is also looked after by Baptist Hospital even in NIMHANs, they have their own contacts. This Dr.Shaibya Saldanha who is the founder of ENFOLD. It is also admitted that there was vide publication given in media, press, magazines and it is also admitted that the NGOs are receiving funds from Government also and from other organizations also. It is also admitted that she had contact with Malini Sridhar of NGO-Parivarthana and she also admitted that the advocate-G.V.Ashok is also associated with the NGO-ENFOLD.
129. There are points highlighted that the persons who are involved in this case are in one way or the other way are associated with ENFOLD and other NGOs. Further Pw.4 is residing next to the house of Pw.2 who is also the NGO staff. Further these points shows the role played by ENFOLD in this case makes it clear that the accused is falsely implicated in this case. 94 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
130. The next point highlighted is with respect to the evidence of prosecutrix. The statement of this child is narrated in the written arguments and it is highlighted that there is no allegation made, but she was suffering from infection in the genital area. She does not remember anything when she was in the age of 4 years. She does not remember photographs of her brother, her school, her friends and her teacher. She is unable to remember her visit to France and her birth day performed there and going to Masinagudi. She admitted that her mother had informed her about the questions to be put to her on the date of evidence.
131. With respect to the medical evidence, the next point highlighted is regarding the evidence of doctors who have given statements, but none of the doctors have stated about the commission or rape on the child.
132. The next point high lighted is with respect to hymen. In that regard he highlighted about the medical 95 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 evidence in that regard that of Dr.Nalini and Dr.Prathima as per Ex.P8 and Ex.P12. Pw.8-Dr.Nalini examined the child on 13-06-2012 and Pw.11-Dr.Prathima examined the child on 15-06-2012. This shows that there are two different opinions by two doctors with respect to the nature of the hymen of the child. He highlighted Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Dr.K.S.Narayana Reddy, 4th Edition regarding explanation as to what are all the circumstances under which there are chances of hymen tear. He also relied upon Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology of Modi 24th Edition which is also on the same point. In the book of Modi and Narayana Reddy there is observation that persistent puritis due to worm infestation leads to injury to hymen and also there is ulceration from diphtheria, fungus or other diseases, scratching due to irritation can cause hymen rupture.
133. In the present case the child was suffering from E-Coli disease which is undisputed as stated by 96 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Dr.Roshni Rao and that doctor has given treatment for that particular disease and the child had redness and Erythema around the anal margin with tenderness.
134. It is also observed that Dr.Prathima also stated that there was Erythematous in the child's labia minora. Further Dr.Roshni Rao observed that the child had few pustules. Even it is also observed that pin worms were present in the child. Even it is admitted that there is side effect of T-Bact cream. Even the doctor admitted that E-Coli can cause ultimately damage to the hymen. Even Dr.Nalini also admitted that E-Coli cause urinary infection also with burning while passing urine and severe itching. She also admitted that the hymen can be damaged apart from intercourse.
135. Pw.11-Dr.Prathima admitted that due to scratching hymen can be damaged. None of the doctors have stated that the rape is committed on the child. Dr.Roshani Rao who examined on 05-06-2012 had 97 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 categorically stated that there is no opinion of sexual abuse on the child. Dr.Prathima, Dr.Varsha, Dr.Nalini have not aware as to who is the author of said Ex.P8 issued on 15- 02-2012.
136. The counsel also stressed upon the opinion regarding D.N.A. report. He has stressed on the points that Dr.Purushotham admitted that the sperms can be stored and later smeared on the clothes. However it is proved that the D.N.A. of the child is not found on any of MO5. Pw.25 has stated that there will be vaginal discharge during sexual intercourse and there is nothing of such nature in MO3 to MO6. The next point stressed is psychologist evidence. The counsel has stressed upon the evidence of Dr.Shaibya by saying that there is no medical report given by her and only based on some drawings, she came to the conclusion, which cannot be relied upon. It is also observed that she is Gynecologist and not psychologist. In such case forensic interview is must and it has to be 98 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 conducted in Therapist interviews. The examination conducted by Megha Roopa and Snigda who are not experts in Forensic interviews. Further it is observed that if the child says hurt, it cannot be said that it is a sexual abuse.
137. It is the contention of the counsel that it is E-Coli disease the child has suffered which damaged the hymen and the doctors did not have the history of the hymen of the child in the earlier. No final medical report is produced. Dr.Roshni Rao deposes that the child was not sexually abused and based on all these things he requested the Court to acquit the accused.
138. He had pointed out 20 points and requested the Court acquit based on those points.
139. The defense counsel has relied upon the following citations reported in:
1. 2002(1) SCC 702 between Subhas Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan.99 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
2. 2010(14) SCC 534 between Jai Krishna Mandal & another Vs. State of Jharkhand.
3. 2015(7) SCC 272 between Mohd. Ali @ Guddu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. 2013 Cri.L.J. 2062 between Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand.
5. 2003 (8) SCC 202 between State of Karnataka Vs. Mapilla.P.P.Soopi.
6. 2014 Cri.L.J. 4789 between Phool Chand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
7. 2007 (12) SCC 57 between Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
8. ILR 1995 KAR 2266 between Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka.
9. 2009 (15) SCC 566 between Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State (NCT Delhi).
10. 2015 Cr.L.J. 68 between Deny Bora Vs. State of Assam.
11. 2008 (14) SCC 411 between Gowri Shankara Swamigalu Vs. State of Karnataka & Another.
12. 2006 (10) SCC 92 between Sadashiv Ramrao Haadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another.100 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
13. 2014 Cr.L.J. 107 between State of Gujarat Vs. Popatbhai Bhalabhai @ Bharabhai Bharwad.
14. 2006(9) SCC 713 between Yerumalla Latchaiah Vs. State of Andra Pradesh.
15. 2013 (4) SCC 206 between State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Meena.
16. 1996 (9) SCC 766 between Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Another
17. 2012 Cr.L.J. 3033 between Narendra Kumar Vs. State (NCT Delhi).
18. 2003 (3) SCC 175 between Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinke Apal & Another.
19. 1972 (3) SCC 393 between Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu.
All these citations relied upon by the defense are aptly applicable to the case on hand.
140. In this case it is undisputed that one Geetha was the house maid at that time and Charles was the driver. That Geetha has specifically stated that there was no such incident occurred. Further in the evidence of 101 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Investigation Officer i.e., Pw.22, he has specifically stated that on 21-07-2012 he recorded the statement of One Geetha and on 22-07-2012 he recorded the statement of driver-Charles. In her statement that Geetha has specifically stated that after the accused goes to work, the complainant used to go out of the house at 11.00 a.m., and she was coming in the afternoon and the accused come to dinner only 3 days in 15 days. On 13-06-2012 also he came at 01.15 p.m., and the victim was started crying and he took her to the bed room and he left the house at 03.15 p.m. At 06.00 p.m., the complainant came and asked whether she the victim was crying and she did not tell that Stella was crying in the room. Because generally she used to shout for simple touch. On that day she removed the clothes which Stella was wearing and put those clothes to washing machine and thereafter Stella was taken out by the complainant. This particular statement goes to show that the dress which was worn by the victim at the time of the alleged crime was not the dress which was given to the 102 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 police. This shows that the clothes which were worn by the victim were washed by Geetha.
141. Further it could be gathered from her statement that even he has not misbehaved with the house maid. He loved his children, how he has taken such a worst decision to have sexual intercourse with his own child, who was aged 1½ years which is the commencement of the incident, according to the complainant is a doubtful matter. Further she is the best person whose evidence the Court has to rely. Because she was present at the time of incident and she did not hear any such sound. The victim was behaved normally and this Geetha has stated that the accused is not such a person who can commit sexual harassment on his own daughter.
142. Further with respect to the statement of Charles, the Investigation Officer has stated that Charles has given statement that he used to take the complainant for shopping to Garuda Mall, Mantri Mall, Life Style, 103 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Commercial Street, Forum Mall, One M.G. etc. On 14-06- 2012 he took the complainant with her children to one Merlee and the child was normal and he also stated that the accused is a nice gentle man and he was not going to any parties. He was also shocked to know that the accused has committed sexual harassment on the victim. Further this witness has stated that when he was recording the statement of Geetha, NGO staffs were also there. When he wanted to record the statement of Suja, she told that she wanted to give the statement before Geetha Menon and Premila Nesargi. Further this witness has stated that Dr.Madhuri has given statement that they subjected the victim for examination and they cannot certify that there was sexual harassment on the child and they did not find any injuries on the genital, but there was redness and hence after confirmation they want to give information to the police.
143. Further it is pertinent to note that the 104 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 complainant was not agreeing to take the blood sample of the child and only after issuance of notice, she co-operated. She admitted that as per the first D.N.A. test, the sperms found on vaginal swab and anal swab are not of accused. He is not aware that somebody had done something to the child and the accused had given complaint in that regard.
144. Pw.24 is the Investigation Officer who has stated that Dr.Varsha has stated that on seeing the case sheet I say that the sexual assault is not acute and no sign of bleeding or hymen tare and Dr.Madhuri stated that I notice only old abrasions and noticed nothing and Dr.Nalini stated that the provisional medical certificate is written by Dr.Madhuri and the final opinion was not written by me in the case sheet nor in the certificate. He admitted that as per Ex.P29 the case against accused is not proved. He admitted that the house maid-Geetha or driver-Charles have not made any allegation against the accused. 105 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
145. Further there is a material witness who recorded the statement of the victim. His evidence goes to show that when he was recording the statement of the victim, the complainant was not by her side and he has recorded what the child has stated.
146. In this case the natural tendency of a mother if such things are happened, is to get the child treated first and no mother will approach any NGO for the first time and thereafter consulting many people they will file the complaint. Further if the child is not secured in the house, no mother will leave the child so that if at all the accused is such a person to make sexual harassment with the child. Further there was a maid in the house, who was present at the time of the alleged incident.
147. In this case on perusal of the materials available on record, it could be gathered that on 02-06- 2012 itself this complainant hatched a plan to frame allegations against the accused so that he is not supposed 106 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 to go out of India. Because, when she met Sangeetha Unni, she told that they are going out of India and her husband is transferred to South Africa and she wanted to meet her in urgency. What was the urgency for her is doubtful matter. Further she contacted her on 4th and that Sangeetha Unni referred her to Dr.Shaibya Saldana, who is the founder member of NGO-Enfold and this meeting with Dr.Shaibya Saldana on 05-06-2012. Further it is pertinent to note that on 05-06-2012 itself she took her daughter to Dr.Roshni Rao, who is no way connected with any N.G.O. and also she is not her family doctor. When that Doctor saw the child, she had given treatment for bacterial infection and also for worms. This doctor who treated the victim for the first time and she has specifically stated that there was no sexual harassment on the child. This shows that she met Dr.Roshni Rao and she attempted to get some material from her, but she did not written anything about any sexual abuse. According to her due to infection there was redness and abrasions in the private part of the child 107 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 because of itching. Further it is undisputed that the victim and her family went to Masinagudi, wherein she had urinary infection and also stool was hard to the child. That particular doctor might not have given the certificate as requested by the complainant. On the same day she met Dr.Shaibya Saldana who told to bring the child on the next day. When the child was taken on the next day, she examined and she came to the conclusion that on her examination that some pictures and toys that father had sexually abused the child. Further that Dr.Shaibya Saldana is not child psychologist and thereafter she referred the child to NIMHANS to Dr.Shobha Srinath. That Dr.Shobha Srinath also examined the child and came to the conclusion that sexual harassment is done on the child. In the mean time the complainant was contacting the NGOs i.e., one Parivarthana and Ferina in order to know the rights of the child who is sexually abused in case if it is a French Citizen. If these things are observed what was the intention of the complainant can be gathered. 108 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
148. Further in the Baptist Hospital the medical records i.e, Ex.D7, she has specifically stated that she wanted that the child to be examined in order to collect the evidence. She was active in social media, she was having all access to internet to know the material information which was required.
149. In this case it is undisputed that because of the behaviour of the complainant, the accused was not willing to continue the marital relationship and he wanted to take divorce and also he wanted to take the custody of the children. Further he was transferred to Cape Town. In the mean time the complainant has hatched a story that he is not supposed to leave India and she made such a serious allegation against him. If at all she being a dutiful mother she ought not to have left the home by leaving the responsibility of the children on her husband for shopping. Further on the date of alleged incident she was not in the home. If the accused is of such a nature, why she allowed 109 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 the children to be in contact with him. Further in the presence of maid, how can a father sexually harass the child that too of that tender age.
150. Further the behaviour of the accused is appreciated by the house maid and also the driver because they told that the accused is of good behaviour and he was not going to parties, whereas this complainant used to go to night party and she herself admitted that she was attending the parties and she was arranging the parties in the absence of the accused. All these behaviour of the complainant made the accused to take divorce. Thus in this case in order to connect the accused with the crime, she had intercourse with the accused on the previous night as alleged by the accused and she might have collected the spermatozoa and spread on the clothes and the articles because D.N.A. Expert has stated these things could be possible and it will give positive result. Thus on Item No1 to 4 seminal stains were found, whereas in item No.5(1) 110 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 and 5(2) the seminal stains of the accused were not found. This shows that there is probable defense taken by the accused which cannot be ruled out.
151. In this case the conduct of the complainant itself shows that her intention was not to take care of the child or the husband, but to connect the accused with the crime and she went to that extent of using the child as a weapon. Further these doctors have stated that the child had showed some pictures and stated that her father has hurt her. But in the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer that the child has stated that she loves her Papa and he is very good and at that part particular time the complainant was not with the child when the statement was recorded. This shows that the child has not suffered any sexual harassment by the father, whereas this complainant with the assistance of the people around her, had made plan and preparation to connect the accused with the crime, so that he can be detained in India and he 111 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 should not take her children out of India.
152. Further in this case the entire episode is supported by the N.G.O., and they have helped the complainant in all aspects including financial assistance for conducting her case filed in Family Court. If at all the mother was having responsibility of the children, she should not have allowed the child to be with the father. Further before making these allegations, the complainant has contacted as far as possible all the NGOs and the doctors, so that she can prepare a case. Even prior to the incident she contacted Dr.Shaibya Saldana and thereafter she made these allegations. Further when the clothes worn by the child at the time of the alleged incident were not given to the doctor, then how she can get the presence of seminal stains and the spermatozoa is also doubtful. Further if at all such an incident has occurred, then naturally the victim would have sustained bleeding injuries in her private part or in anus, but it is not forthcoming. 112 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 Further there are no injuries found on the private parts of the victim. If a person of such a nature who can sexually abuse on the child, definitely one cannot expect his behaviour in handling his child with such a manner. Further it is undisputed that the accused and the complainant were having regular sexual intercourse. Then what was the necessity for the accused to have sexually abuse on his own child is also throws doubt on the case of the complainant.
153. With respect to absence of hymen, the doctor has stated that in some children from birth itself the hymen will not be present, whereas in this case this particular child was playing and there are many reasons for hymen tear and sexual harassment is not only act which could cause hymen tear and in this case as the other circumstances not supporting and further if this accused has committed sexual harassment on the child, definitely the victim would have sustained severe injuries to her 113 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 vagina and anus. According to the complainant she has immediately taken the victim to the hospital, then definitely the doctors would have noticed serious injuries. If there are injuries on the vagina, question of this accused sexually abusing the child and caused hymen tear does not arise. With respect to the statement of the victim regarding pouring of white liquid, as the mother was not taking care of the children properly, he might have applied the ointment which was given to her for bacterial infection by Dr.Roshni Rao as she was crying and child might have misunderstood the same.
154. Further looking from all angles, I am of the opinion that it is a case wherein the complainant intentionally with the help of N.G.O. and doctors has made the accused as scapegoat in order to restrain him from going out of India. Thus in my opinion, viewed from all angle, the prosecution has not made out prima-facie case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence there is a serious 114 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 doubt arises in this case and the Court has to give the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Hence, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
155. Point No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and 377 of IPC.
The bail bond and that of surety bond of accused stands cancelled.
MO1-Personal passport and MO2-Service Passport are ordered to be returned to the accused after the expiry of appeal period.
MO3 to MO10 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed, typed and also computerized to my dictation on computer. It is 115 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013 then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th Day of April 2017.) (B.S.REKHA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 Nataraj Cw.6 23-01-2015
Pw.2 Kushi Kushalappa Cw.4 06-03-2015
Pw.3 Kallesh Cw.5 06-03-2015
Pw.4 Suja Jones Mazurier Cw.1 06-05-2015
Pw.5 Dr.Shaibya Saldana Cw.8 22-01-2016
Pw.6 Dr.Madhuri Murali Cw.10 23-01-2016
Pw.7 Dr.Varsha Cw.9 09-02-2016
Pw.8 Dr.Nalini Cw.11 09-02-2016
Pw.9 Dr.Dhanalakshmi Cw.12 15-04-2016
Pw.10 Dr.Nina Joan Joseph Cw.13 15-04-2016
Pw.11 Dr.Prathima Cw.23 06-08-2016
Pw.12 Dr.Vani Ravikumar Cw.24 06-08-2016
Pw.13 R.Vimal Raj Cw.17 12-08-2016
Pw.14 Dr.K.V.Satish Cw.22 12-08-2016
Pw.15 Dr.Latha.B. Cw.5 14-09-2016
116 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
Pw.16 Mohan Kumar Addl. 14-09-2016
Cw.3
Pw.17 Dr.Roshni.P.Rao Cw.10 28-09-2016
Pw.18 Sangeetha Unni Cw.9 28-09-2016
Pw.19 Dr.Shobha Srinath Cw.11 29-09-2016
Pw.20 Hanumantharaya Cw.36 22-10-2016
Pw.21 Shobha.G. Cw.34 16-11-2016
Pw.22 D.Devaraju Cw.37 08-12-2016
Pw.23 Victim Cw.2 08-12-2016
Pw.24 H.K.Venkataswamy Cw.38 09-12-2016
Pw.25 Dr.Purushotham Cw.30 16-12-2016
Pw.26 Vinod G.Lakkappa Cw.29 16-12-2016
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Seizure Mahazar Pw.1 23-01-2015
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 23-01-2015
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 06-03-2015
Ex.P 1c Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 2 One cover Pw.1 23-01-2015
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 23-01-2015
Ex.P 3 Seizure Mahazar Pw.2 06-03-2015
Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 06-03-2015
Ex.P 3b Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 06-05-2015
Ex.P 3c Signature of Pw.21 Pw.21 16-11-2016
Ex.P 4 Complaint Pw.4 12-06-2015
Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 12-06-2015
117 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
Ex.P 4b Signature of Pw.21 Pw.21 16-11-2016
Ex.P 5 Letter Pw.4 06-05-2015
Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 06-05-2015
Ex.P 6 4-Drawing sheets Pw.5 22-01-2016
Ex.P 7 Ccase sheet Pw.6 23-01-2016
Ex.P 7a Copy of case sheet Pw.6 23-01-2016
Ex.P 8 Provisional Medical Pw.7 09-02-2016
certificate
Ex.P 9 Report Pw.7 09-02-2016
Ex.P 10 Letter Pw.8 09-02-2016
Ex.P 10a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 09-02-2016
Ex.P 10b Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 11 Report Pw.8 09-02-2016
Ex.P 11a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 11b Signature of Pw.21 Pw.21 16-11-2016
Ex.P 12 Medical examination Pw.11 06-08-2016
report of the victim
Ex.P 12b Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 13 OPD card Pw.11 06-08-2016
Ex.P 13a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 06-08-2016
Ex.P 14 Prescription Pw.11 06-08-2016
Ex.P 14a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 06-08-2016
Ex.P 15 Medical examination Pw.14 12-08-2016
report of the accused
Ex.P 16 Identification Form Pw.15 14-09-2015
Ex.P 16a Signature of Pw.15 Pw.15 14-09-2015
Ex.P 16b Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 14-09-2015
Ex.P 17 Case summary copy Pw.19 29-09-2016
118 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
Ex.P 18 Letter Pw.19 29-09-2016
Ex.P 19 P.F.No.63/2012 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 20 P.F.No.64/2012 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 20a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 21 P.F.No.65/2012 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 21a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 22 Report Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 22a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 23 Letter Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 23a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 22-10-2016
Ex.P 24 FIR Pw.21 16-11-2016
Ex.P 24a Signature of Pw.21 Pw.21 16-11-2016
Ex.P 25 P.F.No.62/2012 Pw.21 16-11-2016
Ex.P 26 DNA Report Pw.22 08-12-2016
Ex.P 27 Requisition Pw.24 09-12-2016
Ex.P 27a Signature of Pw.24 Pw.24 09-12-2016
Ex.P 28 Requisition Pw.24 09-12-2016
Ex.P 28a Signature of Pw.24 Pw.24 09-12-2016
Ex.P 29 DNA Report Pw.24 09-12-2016
Ex.P 29a Signature of Pw.24 Pw.24 09-12-2016
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1 Personal Passport Pw.1 23-01-2015
MO2 Service Passport Pw.1 23-01-2015
MO3 Bed Sheet Pw.2 06-03-2015
MO4 Blanket Pw.2 06-03-2015
119 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
MO5 Under wear Pw.2 06-03-2015
MO6 T-Shirt Pw.2 06-03-2015
MO7 Vaginal Swab 16-12-2016
MO8 Vaginal Smear 16-12-2016
MO9 Vaginal Swab 16-12-2016
MO10 Anal Swab 16-12-2016
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENCE
Ex.D 1 Bank Letter Pw.4 30-07-2015
Ex.D 1a Translated copy Pw.4 30-07-2015
Ex.D 2 E-Mail-03-01-2000 Pw.4 30-07-2015
Ex.D 3 Fortis Hospital Pw.4 11-11-2015
Medical report
Ex.D 4 Prescription Pw.4 11-11-2015
Ex.D 4a Signature of Pw.17 Pw.17 28-09-2016
Ex.D 5 FIR Pw.5 23-01-2016
Ex.D 6 Statement of Pw.7 Pw.7 05-03-2016
Ex.D 7 Statement of Pw.8 Pw.8 30-03-2016
Ex.D 8 Prescription of Pw.17 28-09-2016
Dr.Roshni. P.Rao
Ex.D 9 Prescription of Pw.17 28-09-2016
Dr.Roshni P.Rao
Ex.D 10 Letter Pw.19 29-09-2016
Ex.D 11 to Photos Pw.23 08-12-2016
14
Ex.D 15 Statement of victim Pw.23 08-12-2016
120 Spl.C.C.No.178/2013
Ex.D 15a Signature of Pw.24 Pw24 09-12-2016
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & M.O.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
(B.S.REKHA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ***