Bangalore District Court
State By Rajagopala Nagar Police vs Srikantha @ Ambu on 14 March, 2017
THE COURT OF THE LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE CITY (CCH-55)
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2017
Present: SMT.RAJESHWARI.N.HEGDE, B.COM.LL.B[SPL.]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGLORE CITY.
SPL.C.C.NO.198/2013
COMPLAINANT State by Rajagopala Nagar Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED Srikantha @ Ambu,
Son of Javarappa,
Aged 21 years,
Residing at No.6, 1st Cross, 1st Main Road,
In front of Councillor Sharadamma's House,
Abbigere, Bangalore City.
Permanent Resident of :
Doddabaganahalli Grama,
Kattaya Hobli, Hassan District.
[By Advocate Sri. M.S.Subramanya]
1. Date of commission of offence 24.03.2013
2. Date of report of occurrence of 25.03.2013
the offence
2 Spl CC No.198/2013
3. Date of arrest of accused 25.06.2013
Date of release of accused 19.11.2013
[bail]
4. Period undergone in custody 4 Months and 24 Days
by the accused
5. Again the accused is in judicial 23.2.2017
custody [body warrant from
For 19 days
23.2.2017 to 14.3.2017]
Total: 5 Months, 13 days.
6. Date of commencement of 1.3.2014
evidence
7. Date of closing of evidence 13.2.2017
8. Name of the complainant Sri.Shivanna
9. Offences complained of Secs. 448, 323, 363, 366 and 376
of IPC and under Sec.4 of POCSO
Act, 2012
10. Opinion of the Judge The accused is found guilty
for the offences punishable
under Sec.448, 323 and 366 of
IPC.
The accused is acquitted of
the offences punishable under
Sec.376 of IPC and under Sec.4
of POCSO Act, 2012.
The accused is sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for
a period of 6 Months for the
offence punishable under
Sec.448 of IPC.
3 Spl CC No.198/2013
Further the accused is
sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 6
Months for the offence punishable
under Sec.323 of IPC.
Further the accused shall
under go Simple Imprisonment for
a period of 3 Years for the offence
punishable under
Sec.366 of IPC and shall pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of
payment of fine amount, the
accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period
of 3 Months
The substantive sentence
shall run concurrently and the
sentence in default of payment of
fine shall run consecutively.
The period of detention
undergone by the accused in
judicial custody shall be set-off
against the term of imprisonment
imposed on him, and the accused
shall undergo the remaining
sentence as provided under
Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector, Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bangalore, has submitted charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.144/2013 for the offences punishable Under 4 Spl CC No.198/2013 Secs. 448, 323, 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The prosecution case, briefly stated:
That the father of the victim girl lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 on 25.3.2013 alleging that, on 24.3.2013 at about 10 P.M., the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and by assaulting him kidnapped his[complainant] daughter aged 16 years and took her in a motorcycle and fled away.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered by the complainant police in Cr.No.144/2013 for the offences punishable under Secs. 448, 323, 366(A) r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Thereafter, criminal law was set in motion. The Investigating Agency commenced the investigation. On 25.6.2013, i.e., 3 months after the complaint lodged, the victim girl was traced out in the house of the accused at Abbigere, Bengaluru and on the same day i.e., on 25.6.2013 the accused was brought to the complainant Police Station, he was enquired and after the formalities of arrest was complied with, he was sent for medical examination. The victim girl was also enquired and she gave statement before the police with regard to the accused took her to Mysore, she was also sent for medical examination, spot mahazar conducted in the house of the complainant, from where his daughter/victim girl was kidnapped, and the articles seized were sent for FSL and after completion of the investigation formalities, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences 5 Spl CC No.198/2013 punishable under Secs. 448, 323, 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The accused was arrested on 25.06.2013 and he was enlarged on bail on 19.11.2013. He is represented by the counsel of his choice. After production of the accused, the copies of the prosecution papers [charge-sheet] was given to the counsel on behalf of the accused in-compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, my learned Predecessor-in- office has framed the Charge on 24.1.2014 for the offences punishable under Secs. 448, 323, 366 and 376 of IPC and under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and read over to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined in all 8 witnesses as PWs-1 to 8 and one Additional Witness is examined as PW9, out of the total 23 witnesses as shown in charge-sheet and got marked 11 documents at Exs.P1 to P11 and Material Objects at MOs-1 to 3.
7. At this stage it is necessary to mention that, though in the charge-sheet, there are 23 witnesses cited, the prosecution examined only 8 witnesses out of 23 witnesses. CW3, CW4, CW7 to CW14, CW17, CW19, CW20, CW22 and CW23 are not examined 6 Spl CC No.198/2013 by the prosecution. CW3 and CW4 are the spot mahazar witnesses as per Ex.P2, CW7 to CW10 are the neighours of the complainant, CW11 is the aunt of the victim girl, CW12 and CW13 are the panch witnesses, CW14 is the friend of the accused, CW17-Doctor who conducted medical examination of the accused, CW19 and CW20- Police constables who traced out the victim girl and the accused and produced them before the PSI, CW22- PSI who received the complaint, registered the FIR and conducted part of the investigation and CW23-Police Inspector who conducted further investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, were not examined by the prosecution.
8. On perusal of the order sheet, it discloses that, inspite of service of summons and warrants on CWs-3, 4, 7 to 14, CW17, CW19, CW20, CW22 and CW23 did not turn up. Hence, the prayer made by learned Public Prosecutor for reissue summons to CWs-3, 4, 7 to 14, CW17, CW19, CW20, CW22 and CW23 is rejected and they [CWs-3, 4, 7 to 14, CW17, CW19, CW20, CW22 and CW23] are dropped.
9. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. His defence is that of total denial of his involvement in the alleged incident and that he is totally innocent. Further the accused has stated that, he has not committed any sexual assault on the victim girl, as there was enmity between his [accused] family and the family of the victim 7 Spl CC No.198/2013 girl, because of that reason, false complaint is lodged against him. However, the accused did not choose to lead any evidence in support of his defense.
10. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that, the accused who was on bail since 19.11.2013, subsequently, that on 23.2.2017, Police Inspector has taken body warrant against the accused, as the accused is involved in some other crime. Therefore, that on 23.2.2017, this court has taken the accused to judicial custody and since 23.2.2017 till this date the accused has been in judicial custody.
11. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the records
12. After hearing the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and as per the Charge leveled against this accused, the following Points do arise for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 24.3.2013 at about 10 P.M, the accused along with his friend came in a pulsar bike and trespassed to the house of the complainant situated at No.68, 3rd Cross, Hegganahalli, Shivanandanagar, Bangalore and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.448 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant, when the 8 Spl CC No.198/2013 complainant tried to stop the accused from kidnapping his minor daughter and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.323 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused kidnapped the victim girl knowing that she is a minor, with an intent that she may be compelled to marry the accused or in order that, she may be seduced or forced to illicit intercourse and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl knowing that the victim is a minor girl against her will and committed an offence punishable under Sec.376 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the Victim girl and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012?
6. What Order?
13. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Negative 9 Spl CC No.198/2013 Point No.5: In the Negative Point No.6: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
14. POINT NO.1 TO 3:- Consideration of these Three Points are based on the same facts and evidence and therefore, to avoid repetition, these Three points are taken together for discussion.
15. According to the prosecution, that on 24.3.2013 at about 10 P.M, the accused along with his friend (CW14) came in a pulsar bike and trespassed into the house of the complainant situated at No.68, 3rd Cross, Hegganahalli, Shivanandanagar, Bangalore, in order to kidnap his [complainant] daughter and when the complainant tried to stop the accused, the accused caused hurt to the complainant and kidnapped the victim girl and fled away in the motor bike. Hence, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Secs. 448, 323, 366 of IPC, as per the aforesaid Points-1 to 3.
16. The initial burden is upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. In order to discharge the said burden, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 9. The nature of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are as under:
Pw.1 Shivanna-Father of the victim girl Pw.2 Gowramma-Mother of the victim girl Pw.3 Narasamma-WPC deposes about tracing out the victim girl and the accused 10 Spl CC No.198/2013 Pw.4 Dr.Vijayalakshmi deposes about conducting of examination of age estimation of the victim girl Pw.5 Pushpa.S.B-Headmistress of the School, deposes about issuing certificate attesting the date of birth of the victim girl as 17.8.1997 Pw.6 Dr.R.Leelavathi deposes about conducting of medical examination of the victim girl Pw.7 Pavithra-Sister of the victim girl Pw.8 Victim girl PW.9 Malathi.D deposes about issuing of FSL Report
17. Before appreciating the evidence, it is better to have a glimpse of the evidence given by all witnesses of the prosecution..
18. For the sake of convenience, the evidence of the victim girl is taken first for discussion. The victim girl is examined as PW8. The sum and substance of evidence of PW8 is that:
During the year 2013, she was aged 16 years, she has studied upto 7th standard, her father is a painter and mother is a house-wife, there is a petty shop next to her house and the accused used to come to the said shop and he used to talk to her, during the month of June-2013, at about 10 P.M., when she was in her house, at that time, the accused and his friend came to her house and took her in an autorickshaw and brought her to his friend's house and told her that, he [accused] is loving her, on the next day, he took her to Nimishamba Temple at Mysore in the auto, and later he brought her to Bangalore to his friend's house, herself and the accused were staying at Bangalore in the house of the 11 Spl CC No.198/2013 friend of the accused for one week, thereafter, the accused took her to his parents house at K.G.Halli, Bengaluru and told his parents that he is going to marry her [victim girl], but, they did not agree and they did not allow them to come to their house, again they went to his [accused] friend's house and stayed for one day, thereafter the complainant police came and told that, her parents have given complaint and took both of them to the Police Station and she has given her statement before the complainant police.
19. PW1-Father of the victim girl as well as the complainant deposes that, one year back [PW1 has given evidence on 1.3.2014] during the month of March, in the night at about 10.30 P.M., three persons holding longs opened the gate of his house and came inside his house, by hearing the galata, he [complainant] came outside, those 3 persons pushed him and kidnapped the victim girl, among those 3 persons, one of the person he has identified as the accused herein. He further deposes that, he went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1, thereafter the police came to his house and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. He further deposes that, after 3 months, the police told that, the victim girl was traced out, he went to the Police Station and enquired her, she told that, the accused on the pretext of marrying her kidnapped her and the parents of the accused performed her marriage with the accused in a temple, thereafter, the victim girl was traced out and she was admitted to girls hostel and she stayed for 3 months, at the time of incident, the victim girl was aged 16 years.
12 Spl CC No.198/201320. PW2-Mother of the victim girl deposes similarly to the evidence of PW1.
21. PW3-WPC deposes that, on 25.6.2013, she, CW19 and CW20 were deputed by the PSI to trace out the victim girl, as per the information given by the informant, they came to know that the accused and the victim girl were in Abbigere in the house of the accused, at about 5.40 P.M., they went to the house of the accused and saw that the accused and the victim girl were present in the house and they brought them to the Police Station and produced before the PSI. PW3 further deposes that, on 26.6.2013, as per the direction of the PSI, she took the victim girl to K.C.General Hospital, Malleswaram, for medical examination and after medical examination, she brought back the victim girl and produced before the PSI along with the seized articles and given Report as per Ex.P3.
22. PW4-Doctor deposes that, on 27.6.2013 Rajagopalanagar police brought the victim girl on the history of sexual assault along with the Requisition of Investigating Officer to determine the age of the victim girl. She [PW4] conducted dental examination of the victim girl and opined that, the victim girl was aged in and around 15 years and she has given Age Estimation Certificate as per Ex.P4.
23. PW5-Head Mistress of the School wherein the victim girl was studying deposes that, on 25.6.2013, Rajagopalanagar police sent a Requisition to issue Birth Certificate of the victim girl, as per 13 Spl CC No.198/2013 the Requisition, she [PW5] has issued Declaration Letter as per Ex.P5, certifying that, the victim girl was born on 17.8.1997.
24. PW6-Doctor deposes that, on 26.6.2013, the WPC of Rajagopalanagar police station had brought the victim girl aged 16 years for medical examination along with the Requisition of the Investigating Officer to examine the victim girl on the history of sexual assault. On medical examination, she [PW6] found that, the hymen was torn and there was no external injuries found on the body of the victim girl, accordingly she has issued Medical Certificate as per Ex.P6.
25. PW7-Sister of the victim girl deposes that, on24.3.2013, at 10.30 P.M., when she was sleeping, she heard the galata and awakened and her parents i.e, father and mother were fallen down near the gate of her house and when she enquired with her father, her father told that, the accused Srikantha came with sickle and long by threatening them, kidnapped her sister-Victim girl. Later she turned hostile to the prosecution case and the statement given by her [PW7] before the complainant police is marked as Ex.P7.
26. PW9-Scientific Officer, FSL deposes that, on scientific examination of 3 articles sent by the complainant police, she opined that, presence of seminal stains were not detected in Item Nos. 1, 2 14 Spl CC No.198/2013 and 3 articles sent by the complainant police, accordingly she has given FSL Report as per Ex.P10 and the sample seal as per Ex.P11.
27. On the basis of the evidence of the aforesaid Prosecution witnesses, learned Public Prosecutor submitted his arguments. He argued that, the accused along with his friend holding weapons, trespassed into the house of the complainant and kidnapped the daughter of the complainant- who is the victim girl herein, with an intention to marry her or to seduce her to illicit intercourse. Further, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, in so far as trespassing into the house of the complainant by the accused is concerned, it can be gathered from the evidence of the complainant-PW1, his wife-PW2, the victim girl-PW8 and the sister of the Victim girl-PW7 and the document Ex.P2- Spot Mahazar.
28. Further, learned Public Prosecutor argued that, in so far as the age of the victim girl is concerned, she is below the age of 18 years, for that the prosecution has examined PW5-Head Mistress of the school, wherein the victim girl was studying and she [PW5] has given Certificate as per Ex.P5 wherein, the date of birth of the victim girl is shown as 17.8.1997 and further the Doctor-PW4, she has also given Certificate as per Ex.P4 that, age of the victim girl may be 15 years and plus. Therefore, taking into consideration of the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 7 and 8, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the accused has committed the offences of house trespassing, assault and kidnapping punishable under 15 Spl CC No.198/2013 Secs.448, 323 and 366 of IPC and therefore he may be convicted for the said offences.
29. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued that, though PW1, PW2, PW7 and PW8 given evidence, in their evidences there are many contradictions and their evidence are not corroborated. He pointed out that, according to PW1-father of the victim girl, the accused kidnapped the victim girl in his motorbike. However, according to PW8-victim girl, she was taken in an autorickshaw. Therefore, learned defence Counsel argued that, the accused herein has not at all kidnapped the Victim girl and the prosecution has not placed reliable evidence to prove that, the accused kidnapped the Victim girl. I have gone through the evidence of PW1-father of the Victim girl. It is true that, PW1 deposed that, the Victim girl was dragged by the accused and had taken her on bike. It is also true that, as per the evidence of PW8-Victim girl, she deposed that, she was taken in an autorickshaw. Therefore, there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 and PW8 with regard to taking of the Victim girl from the house. However, it is pertinent to note that, during the course of cross-examination of PW1, it is suggested that, the accused did not come to the house of complainant [PW1] and the Victim girl herself left the house. The said suggestion denied by PW1. However, in so far as the taking of the Victim girl from the house of the complainant, by the accused is concerned, the Victim girl-PW8 herself deposed that, she was taken by the accused in an autorickshaw. On behalf of the accused, 16 Spl CC No.198/2013 no cross-examination done to PW8. As per Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012, presumption is available, which reads as under:
"Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence, under Secs..3,5, 7and 9 of this curt, the special court shall presume such person has committed or abetted or attempted toe commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved".
In this case, the charge is framed against this accused for the offence punishable under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 that means the accused has committed the offence as defined under Sec.3 of POCSO Act, 2012.
30. When the Victim girl being the minor stepped into the witness box and deposed that, she was taken by the accused from her house, on the night of June-2013, then, unless the contrary is proved, her evidence has to be accepted by this court, as per the provisions of Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012.
31. Though there is contradiction in the evidence of PW1, PW8 with regard to the taking of the Victim girl in the vehicle either on motorbike or in an autorickshaw, cannot be a material contradiction so as to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW8. Therefore, this court has accepted the evidence of PW1 and PW8 in so far as kidnapping the Victim girl by the accused, trespassing into the house of the complainant. Further, in so far as assault made by the accused while kidnapping the Victim girl is concerned, PW1 17 Spl CC No.198/2013 has deposed that, at the time of kidnapping the Victim girl, he tried to stop the accused at that time, the accused pushed him [PW1]. PW1 was cross-examined by the learned defence Counsel. During the course of his cross-examination, it is suggested to PW1 that, at the time of lodging the complaint, he did not stated that, the accused pushed him. The said suggestion denied by PW1.
32. I have gone through the complaint averments Ex.P1. In the complaint, it is specifically stated that, when the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and dragging the Victim girl, so as to take her along with him, the complainant tried to stop the same at that time, the accused assaulted the complainant. Added to it, PW7-sister of the Victim girl, she deposed that, the accused by bringing the weapons, kidnapped her sister-PW8. Further, PW3-WPC deposed that, on 25.6.2013, as per the direction of the Police Inspector, she went to the house of the accused in Abbigere, Bengaluru, wherein the Victim girl and the accused were there and she brought them and produced before the Police Inspector. Though she[PW3] was cross-examined by the learned defence Counsel, stating that, she has not at all gone to the house of accused at Abbigere and brought the accused and the Victim girl from the house of the accused, PW3 has denied the suggestion and no contradictory evidence elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW3. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that, the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused that he has committed the house trespass, assault on the complainant and kidnapped the Victim girl so as to marry her 18 Spl CC No.198/2013 or seduce her to illicit sexual intercourse. Accordingly, I answer POINT NOS. 1 TO 3 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
33. POINTS-4 AND 5:- Consideration of these Two Points are based on the same facts and evidence and therefore, to avoid repetition, these Two points are taken together for discussion.
34. According to the prosecution, that on 24.3.2013, the accused by kidnapping the Victim girl, took her to Mysore to his friend's house and they stayed there. On the next day morning i.e., on 25.3.2013 the accused took the Victim girl to Mysore, wherein he had sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the said fact was came to the knowledge of the parents of the accused and they came to Mysore and brought back them to their house at Kammagondanahalli, Abbigere, Bangalore.
35. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that, though the Victim girl turned hostile, as per the Complaint-Ex.P1, Medical examination report-Ex.P6, wherein it is mentioned that, hymen of the Victim girl was ruptured, her statement as per Ex.P8 and her further statement as per Ex.P9, this court can convict the accused. However, it is pertinent to note that, in this case, though there is medical report as per Ex.P6, as the Victim girl herself stepped into the witness box, deposed that, the accused did not have any sexual intercourse with her, and he did not make any sexual assault on her, therefore, only on the basis of Medical Report-Ex.P6, conviction cannot be based. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the 19 Spl CC No.198/2013 accused that, the accused has committed the offence of rape and penetrative sexual assault on the Victim girl, as per the charge/Point Nos. 4 and 5. Accordingly, I answer POINT NOS.4 AND 5 IN THE NEGATIVE.
36. POINT NO.6: In view of my aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.448, 323 and 366 of IPC.
The accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
MOs-1 to 3 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
To hear regarding Sentence by 14.3.2017.
[Dictated to the Stenographer partly and directly on the computer, corrections carried out then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10th day of March, 2017).
(RAJESHWARI.N.HEGDE) LIV Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
14.3.2017 Heard regarding sentence Accused produced before me from judicial custody under body warrant. The learned defence counsel also present before me and learned Public Prosecutor is also present before me. The accused submitted that, he has studied upto 9th Standard, he is 20 Spl CC No.198/2013 the only earning member in the family, he has aged parents, one sister and her marriage has to be performed, he has no property. Further, the accused has been in judicial custody for 6 months. Therefore, the accused submitted that, lenient view may be taken in imposing the sentence.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the accused is involved in other 2 cases, he has spoiled the life of the victim girl and therefore, no lenient view can be taken in imposing the sentence. .
In this case, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Secs. 448, 323 and 366 of IPC.
On going through the provisions of Sec.448 of IPC it provides punishment for house trespass- shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to One Year or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both.
The provisions of Sec.323 of IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt- shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to One Year or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both.
The provisions of Sec.366 of IPC- kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc. shall be punished with imprisonment for either description which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
21 Spl CC No.198/2013In this case, on going through the facts and circumstances of this case, i.e., the accused and the Victim girl loving each other, and they are of different castes, and further, looking into the background of the accused and his financial condition, and taking into the consideration all the factors, this court proceeded to pass the following Sentence:
SENTENCE The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 Months for the offence punishable under Sec.448 of IPC.
Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 Months for the offence punishable under Sec.323 of IPC.
Further the accused shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 Years for the offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 Months The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the sentence in default of payment of fine shall run consecutively.
The period of detention undergone by the accused in judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed 22 Spl CC No.198/2013 on him, and the accused shall undergo the remaining sentence as provided under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this Judgement to the accused forthwith.
VICTIM COMPENSATION: In so far as victim compensation is concerned, though the prosecution failed to prove the offence of rape against the Victim girl by the accused, as it is proved that, the accused kidnapped the Victim girl and she has suffered in the hands of the accused, and further on going through the financial background of the accused, this court is of the opinion that, the accused is not in a position to pay the compensation to the Victim girl and therefore, it is just and necessary to recommend the District Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the Victim girl of Rs.10,000/- .
Office is directed to write a Letter to District Legal Services, Bangalore, for awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Victim girl.
[Sentence dictated to the Stenographer in the open court, corrections carried out then signed by me on this the 14th day of March, 2017).
[RAJESHWARI.N.HEGDE] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.23 Spl CC No.198/2013
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1 Shivanna CW1 1.3.2014
Pw.2 Gowramma CW5 1.3.2014
Pw.3 Narasamma CW21 3.3.2014
Pw.4 Dr.Vijayalakshmi CW16 10.3.2014
Pw.5 Pushpa.S.B CW18 27.3.2014
Pw.6 Dr.R.Leelavathi CW15 13.6.2014
Pw.7 Pavithra CW6 7.12.2016
Pw.8 Victim girl CW2 9.1.2017
PW.9 Malathi.D Additional witness 13.2.2017
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint dated: 25.3.2013
Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar conducted in the house of the
complainant Sri.Shivanna at Hgegganahalli,
Shivanandanagar, 3 rd Cross, Rajagopalanagar, Bangalore Ex.P3 Report given by PW3 before the complainant police Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P4 Age certificate of the victim girl Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P5 Certificate issued by Head Miss, Nutan Kannada School, Hegganahalli, Bangalore, certifying the date of birth of the victim girl as 17.8.1997 Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P6 Medical Certificate of the victim girl 24 Spl CC No.198/2013 Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P7 Statement of PW7 given before the complainant police Ex.P8 Statement of PW8-victim girl given before the complainant police Ex.P8(a) Relevant portion of Ex.P8 Ex.P8(b) Relevant portion of Ex.P8 Ex.P8(c) Relevant portion of Ex.P8 Ex.P9 Further statement given by PW8-victim girl before the complainant police Ex.P10 FSL Report Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P11 Sample seal Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW9 Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-1 Finger Nails MO-2 Pubic hairs of the victim girl MO-3 Vaginal swab
Witness examined, documents and Material Objects marked for the accused: NIL LIV Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.25 Spl CC No.198/2013
10.3.17 Accused produced from judicial custody under body warrant.
Judgment pronounced in open court:[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] The accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.448, 323 and 366 of IPC.
The accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
MOs-1 to 3 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
To hear regarding Sentence by
14.3.2017.
[RAJESHWARI.N.HEGDE]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY
26 Spl CC No.198/2013
14.3.2017 Accused produced from judicial custody
under body warrant:
Heard and passed order regarding the
Sentence.
SENTENCE
The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 Months for the offence punishable under Sec.448 of IPC.
Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 Months for the offence punishable under Sec.323 of IPC.
Further the accused shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 Years for the offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 Months The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the sentence in default of payment of fine shall run consecutively.
The period of detention undergone by the accused in judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him, and the accused shall undergo the remaining sentence as provided under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
27 Spl CC No.198/2013Office is directed to supply free copy of this Judgement to the accused forthwith.
VICTIM COMPENSATION: In so far as victim compensation is concerned, though the prosecution failed to prove the offence of rape against the Victim girl by the accused, as it is proved that, the accused kidnapped the Victim girl and she has suffered in the hands of the accused, and further on going through the financial background of the accused, this court is of the opinion that, the accused is not in a position to pay the compensation to the Victim girl and therefore, it is just and necessary to recommend the District Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the Victim girl of Rs.10,000/- .
Office is directed to write a Letter to District Legal Services, Bangalore, for awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Victim girl.
[RAJESHWARI.N.HEGDE] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY 28 Spl CC No.198/2013 29 Spl CC No.198/2013