Bangalore District Court
State By Suddaguntepalya Police vs Nos. 1 A1: Syed Mujamil on 19 April, 2018
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2018.
Present: SMT.YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO., B.Com. LL.B.[Spl.]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55]
SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SPL CC NO.89/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Suddaguntepalya Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED NOS. 1 A1: Syed Mujamil,
AND 9: Son of Late. Syed Adam,
Aged 24 years,
Residing at No.136, 4th Cross,
1st Main, Gurappanapalya,
Bangalore.
A9: Afroz Pasha,
Son of Amjad Pasha,
Aged 34 years,
Residing at: House No.53, 1st Cross,
Besides Ayyappaswamy Temple,
1st Main, Guruppanapalya,
Bangalore.
[By Advocate Sri. A.S.Kulkarni]
1. Date of commission of offence 24.8.2014
2. Date of report of occurrence of 24.8.2014
the offence
2 Spl CC No.89/2015
3. Date of arrest of accused Nos. 1 26.08.2014
and 9
4. Date of release of accused Nos. 1 27.09.2014
and 9 [bail]
5. Period undergone in custody by 1 Month and 1 Day
the accused Nos. 1 and 9
6. Date of commencement of 17.8.2017
evidence
7. Date of closing of evidence 23.3.2018
8. Name of the complainant Sulthan Pasha, complainant as
well as the brother of victim girl
9. Offences complained of Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012,
Sec.376 of IPC and Secs. 9,10
and 11 of Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act.
10. Opinion of the Judge As per the final orders.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, MICO Layout police station police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 9 and other absconding accused Nos. 2 to 7, 11, 12 and untraced accused Nos. 8 and 10 for the offences punishable under Secs. 9,10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012. During trial stage, on the ground of fixing the 3 Spl CC No.89/2015 jurisdiction of Suddagunte Palya police station, the case records in SPl CC No.89/2015 have been transferred to Suddaguntepalya police station.
2. Gist of the prosecution case is that:
On 24.8.2014, at about 11.30 A.M., accused Nos. 1 and 9 with the help of absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 with a common intention, performed the marriage of CW2/victim girl who was aged about 14 years with accused No.1 in Guruppanapalya, Munavar Masjid, by screening her[victim girl] real age. On the same day of marriage i.e., on 24.8.2014 accused No.9 with other absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 left CW2/victim girl to the house of accused No.1 situated at No.36, 1st Main, 4th Cross, Guruppanapalya, and when the victim girl was in the said house at about 8 P.M., in the night, accused No.9 with absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 sent CW2/victim girl to the room of accused No.1 and accused No.1 had committed rape/penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl knowingly that she was minor. Hence, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant/ minor brother/CW1 of the minor victim girl, a case in Cr.No.598/2014 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. During the course of investigation, on tracing out the victim girl, and on her enquiry, the Investigating Officer has added Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and has arrested accused Nos. 1 and 9 and subjected them to the judicial custody. At the crime stage, accused Nos. 1 and 9 were granted with bail. After collecting the materials, the Investigating Officer has filed 4 Spl CC No.89/2015 charge-sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 9. Cognizance was taken and the case in SPL CC No.89/2015 was registered.
3. Initially this case was made over to this court CCH:55. As per the Notification, No. ADM-I (A)/ 614/2017, of the Office of the city Civil Court, Bengaluru, dated:4.8.2017 with effect from the afternoon of 5.8.2017, now, the case is before this Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District, for disposal.
4. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were granted with bail. They are represented by the counsel of his choice. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution papers [charge-sheet] was furnished to the counsel on behalf of the accused Nos. 1 and 9 in-compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 9, this court has framed the Charge on 25.8.2016 and read over to the accused in the language known to him. The accused Nos. 1 and 9 pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
6. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 10 witnesses, out of total 20 charge-sheet witnesses and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P12 documents and got marked the Material objects as MOs-2 to 8 [NOTE: Due to oversight, during the course of evidence, no Material objects are marked as MO-1 and hence, it is started from MO-2 to MO-8.] After completion of the evidence of the prosecution 5 Spl CC No.89/2015 witnesses, statement of the accused Nos. 1 and 9 under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. They [accused Nos. 1 and 9] have denied the incriminating evidence available against them, but, they have not chosen to adduce defence evidence on their behalf.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 9 Perused the oral and documentary evidence and the record on hand. Following Points are formulated for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt, on 24.8.2014, at about 11.30 A.M., accused Nos. 1 and 9 with the help of absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 with a common intention, performed the marriage of CW2/victim girl who was aged about 14 years with accused No.1 in Guruppanapalya, Munavar Masjid, by screening her[victim girl] real age, thereby accused No. 1 has committed an offence punishable under Sec.9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 accused No. 2 has committed an offence punishable under Sec.10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same day after of marriage i.e., on 24.8.2014 accused No.9 with other absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 left CW2/victim girl to the house of accused No.1 situated at No.36, 1st Main, 4th Cross, Guruppanapalya, and when the victim girl was in the room of the said house at about 8 P.M., in the night, the accused No.1 had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl knowingly that she was minor, aged about 14 years. thereby, the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012?
6 Spl CC No.89/20153) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same day of marriage i.e., on 24.8.2014 accused No.9 with other absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 left CW2/victim girl to the house of accused No.1 situated at No.36, 1st Main, 4th Cross, Guruppanapalya, and when the victim girl was in the room of the said house at about 8 P.M., the accused No.1 had committed rape on the victim girl knowingly that she was minor, aged about 14 years. thereby, the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under Sec.376(2) (i) of IPC?
4) What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the AFFIRMATIVE POINT NOS.2 AND 3: In the AFFIRMATIVE as against Accused No.1 only holding that, accused No.1 has committed offences punishable under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC. Point No.4: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NOS.1 TO 3:- As these Points are inter-linked to each other, they are taken up for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, "On 24.8.2014, at about 11.30 A.M., accused Nos. 1 and 9 with the help of absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 with a common intention, performed the marriage of CW2/victim girl who was aged about 14 years with accused No.1 in Guruppanapalya, Munavar Masjid, by screening her[victim girl] real age. On the same day of marriage i.e., on 24.8.2014 accused No.9 with other absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 left CW2/victim girl to the house of accused No.1 situated at No.36, 1st Main, 4th Cross, Guruppanapalya, and when the victim girl was in the said house 7 Spl CC No.89/2015 at about 8 P.M., in the night, accused No.9 with absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 sent CW2/victim girl to the room of accused No.1 and accused No.1 had committed rape/penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl knowingly that she was minor". As because the prosecution has come up with a case that, accused Nos. 1 and 9 who are before this court in this case faced trial that, on 24..8.2014 at about 11.30 A.M., accused No.1 has contacted marriage with the victim girl who was aged about 14 years, with the assistance of accused No.9 and absconded accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12, as they were participants and have promoted marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl and also on the same date, accused No.1 had physical contact with the minor victim girl assisted by their family member and hence, coming to know about these incidents, the minor brother of the victim girl i.e., CW1/complainant who was aged about 16 years, has lodged the complaint. Therefore, the prosecution has to discharge its initial burden to prove the guilt of accused Nos. 1 and 9 by leading the evidence and that only when it is discharged, the presumptions under Secs.29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012 can be raised. Therefore, whether the prosecution is able to discharge its burden is a question to be considered on the basis of the available evidence on record. If the prosecution is able to discharge the burden, then the onus would shifts on the accused No. 1 and 9 to rebut these presumptions that, accused No.1 has committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault on CW2/victim girl by getting her marriage by screening her age with the assistance of accused No.9 and other 8 Spl CC No.89/2015 accused and accused No.9 has only participated in performance of the marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl.
10. It is one of the peculiar case that the minor brother aged about 16 years of the victim girl aged about 14 years, has taken such a step that his minor sister to be protected , invoking the criminal proceeding by filing the complaint against the marrying party accused No.1 and the participants in solemnizing the marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl. Accused No.2 is the victim girl 's father, accused No.3 is the victim girl's mother, accused No.4 is the mother of accused No.1, accused No.5 is the elder sister of accused No.1, accused Nos. 6, 9, 11 and 12 are the relatives, accused Nos.7 and 8 are the maternal uncles of the victim girl and accused No.10 is the sister's husband of the victim girl. But by arresting accused Nos.1 and 9, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet after collecting material records as evidence against them showing accused Nos. 2 to 7 and 11 to 12 as absconding and that, as the whereabouts of accused Nos. 8 and 10 were not traced out. Hence, he has endorsed that, separate charge-sheet would be filed against them [Accused Nos. 8 and 10] at the later stage, and that the accused No.13 was given up as no incriminating evidence available against him and hence, he was not shown as accused in the charge-sheet. Thus, accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12 are absconding. With these observations, it is proceeded to consider the evidence placed on record by the prosecution whether the prosecution is able to discharge the initial burden to convict the accused.
9 Spl CC No.89/201511. It is pertinent to note that, CW1 i.e. the complainant/brother of the victim girl and CW2- the very victim girl are not traced out by the prosecution inspite of issuance of witness summons, warrants and also proclamation and considering it is old listed matter, they were dispensed with. However, the materials placed on record are to be evaluated with reference to the guilt of accused Nos. 1 and 9, as the case is also based on circumstantial evidence available in connection with the contacting the marriage by marrying party i..e, accused No.1 with the victim girl and participants in performance of the marriage as alleged, against accused No.9, respectively in connection with the penal provisions of Secs.9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. At this stage, it is relevant because the prosecution has brought on record the material evidence and also there is clear admission on the part of the accused Nos. 1 and 9 regarding performance of marriage of minor victim girl/CW2 with accused No.1, which is clearly made out during the course of cross- examination which is in the form of admission, as specific suggestions by the learned defence counsel made to the material witnesses-PWs-1 to 3 that, the marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl was with the consent of the parents of the victim girl. These witnesses are i..e, CW3 deposed as PW1, who is the President of Munavar Masjid; CW4 deposed as PW2 who is the Secretary of Munavar Masjid; and CW6 deposed as PW3 who is the Member of Munavar Masjid. These three are authorized persons from the said Masjid who have deposed about performance of the marriage in dispute of accused No.1 with the victim girl in the said Masjid by the parents and relatives and 10 Spl CC No.89/2015 others on the said date. They [PWs-1 and 2] have duly explained the procedure of marriage performed in the said Masjid by the Moulvi [Khazi/Mullah, who was given up- Accused No.13] of the said Masjid and stated that, there is specific condition which is specifically, pressed upon and explained by these authorized persons-PWs-1 and 2 that, the age of marrying female party should be completed 18 years of age. They [PWs-1 to 3] have stated about their acquaintance with accused Nos. 1 and 9 and also with other accused persons. Accused No.1 is marrying party with the victim girl.
(a) PW1 has stated that, he was the President of the Munnavar Masjid, situated at Guruppanapalya, since 1979. He was aged about 75 years at the time of giving his evidence before this court on 17.8.2017. However, he showed ignorance about the other accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 12. But, he can identify them if they are shown to him. He has identified accused Nos. 1 and 9 as they were attending the Masjid for Namaz. They [PWs-1 to 3] performed the marriage of accused No.1 with one girl. But, at that time, it was given impression that, the girl was 18 years of age. Hence, the marriage was performed in the said Masjid and he has referred the Marriage Certificate at Ex.P1 and he has identified the photographs affixed to the said Marriage Certificate as accused No.1 contacting the victim girl. [Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Marriage Register kept in the Masjid]. It is marked without objections. He further deposed that, as per the say of the police, he came to know that, the age of the victim girl was about 14 or 15 years, but, he showed ignorance what had happened after the marriage of this couple. Therefore, to the extent of marriage of 11 Spl CC No.89/2015 accused No.1 with the victim girl, his evidence is very important and relevant supported the prosecution case and child marriage.
Apart from this, during the course of cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, it is specifically denied that, he [PW1] did not see the girl. Next suggestion put to this witness was that, marriage of the victim girl was with the consent of her father and this witness admitted it. He [PW1] also he came to know about lodging of the complaint by CW1 in that regard. Thus, it is clear admission on the part of accused No.1 regarding performance of his marriage in the said Masjid with the victim girl. "Marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl" was not a disputed factor. His evidence is believed as true.
(b) PW2 who is also an important witness supported the version of PW1. He [PW2] was aged a 78 years at the time of giving evidence before this court on 17.8.2017. According to him, he was the Secretary of the Munnavar Masjid situated at Guruppanaalya and that since 15 years, he is the Secretary of the said Masjid. He has spoken about the Masjid that, in the said Majsjid, apart from offering of Namaz, other activities like performance of marriage and other social activities are undertaken. He had acquaintance with accused Nos.1 and 9. He has clearly spoken about the performance of marriage of accused No.1 with a girl [who is none other than the victim girl/CW2 of this case] with the participation of accused No.9 and other accused persons, as they requested this witness for performance of marriage and at the time of marriage, it was given impression to them [PWs-1 and 2] that the age of the bride [victim 12 Spl CC No.89/2015 girl] was 18 years. He spoken about the procedure that, the bride should be completed the age of 18 years and the bridegroom should be completed the age of 21 years, then only their marriage will be performed. In this case, both the family members of the bride and the bridegroom were assembled in the Masjid and the marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl was peformed by one Moulvi who had enquired the age of both the couples [victim girl and accused No.1]. At the time of marriage, the face of the girl would not be shown as per their custom. The said Moulvi/Khazi [given up accused No.13] was from North India who had performed the marriage of the victim girl with accused No.1 and that his duration was on the basis of contract and he was the Moulvi on that day and he was appointed on contract basis for one year. But, he worked for 2 or 3 months in the said Masjid as Moulvi and he went back to his place.
He [PW2] has stated about the Marriage Register kept in connection with the marriages performed in the said Masjid and he has identified the certified copy of the said Marriage Register Certificate for having performed the marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl, which is at Ex.P1 and he has identified his signature as per Ex.P1(a). He [PW2] has further specifically spoken that, after the marriage, copy of the Registered Certificate would be given to the bridegroom and another copy would be given to the parents of the bride and signatures of the bride, bridegroom and their respective witnesses would be taken in their Register. He [PW2] has identified the signatures of these respective witnesses and also the signature of the Moulvi in the 13 Spl CC No.89/2015 Marriage Certificate Register and he has also identified the photos of accused No.1 and the victim girl affixed to Ex.P1, of this case. But, according to him [PW2], he came to know about the age of the victim girl through the police, as they came for enquiry and he disclosed stating that, "they have performed the marriage of the minor girl". He told to the police that "the age of the victim girl disclosed as 18 years" . Therefore, they have performed the said marriage. Hence, according to him [PW2], he came to know that the age of the victim girl was 16 years, but, he do not know what had happened after the performance of the said marriage. He too also denied the suggestions put to by the learned defence counsel that, he did not see the victim girl. By putting suggestion that, marriage was performed with the consent of the father of the victim girl and the marriage was performed in the presence of relatives, elders and parents of both the victim girl and accused No.1, which is admitted, has been brought on record. It is nothing but, admission on the part of accused Nos.1 and 9 regarding performance of accused No.1's marriage with the victim girl.
He [PW2] came to know about filing of complaint and about the age of the victim girl as 16 years only through the police. It was suggestion by the defence counsel that the victim girl was bout 18 years, but, the witness stated that, on showing the Identity card of the victim girl, they [PW2 and other authorized persons of the Masjid] came to know that the age of the victim girl was more than 18 years, at the time of performing of her marriage. It is relevant to note that, the victim girl was studied upto 6th standard as it is revealed from the statement of the victim girl 14 Spl CC No.89/2015 recorded as per Ex.P11, which is not rebutted or disproved its contents and it is proof of her age which was about 14 years. Therefore, his [PW2] evidence is supported the prosecution case regarding the age of the victim girl that, it was not more than 18 years. Apart from this, he [Pw2] has specifically stated during the chief examination that, he came to know about the age of the victim girl through the police that, she [victim girl] had not attained the age of majority i.e. she was not more than 18 years. It is also statutory requirement as required under the provisions of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and also the procedural condition of the Masjid to perform the marriage, which is spoken to by PWs-1 and 2. Therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses [PWs-1 and 2], it is clear that, the age of the victim girl was below 18 years. She was not attained the marriageable age.
(c) PW3 is the Member of Munnavar Masjid. He was aged about 60 years as on the date of giving his evidence before this court on 17.8.2017. He deposed that, he used to offer Namaz in the said Masjid located in his area i.e, Guruppanapalya and he was one of the Members of the said Masjid since 2014 and PW1 as the President and PW2 as the Secretary of the said Masjid were holding their status at that time. In the said Masjid, they used to perform the marriage, give education and conduct social activities. He know about accused No.1, but, he did not identify the accused No.9. He has stated that, he knows about other accused persons, as they were residents of the said area i..e, Guruppanapalya. He has specifically stated about performance of marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl [CW2] during which, 15 Spl CC No.89/2015 parents and relatives of both couples were present and Khazi who was appointed by the Masjid Authority, had performed the marriage of the accused No.1 with the victim girl. He is specific that he came to know through the police that, complaint was lodged stating that, marriage of minor girl was performed and there was committing of cheating in that regard. He does not know what had happened after the marriage. Thus, he has spoken about the performance of the marriage by authorized persons Moulvi/Khazi of the marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl. There is no cross-examination to this witness.
12. Regarding performance of place of marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl, the prosecution tried to bring on record with reference to conducting of mahazar through mahazar witnesses i.e., CWs-9 and 10 who deposed as PWs-6 and 7 respectively. The Mahazar is at Ex.P7. It reveals that, the Investigating Officer has conducted spot mahazar during the investigation process specifically in connection with the spot where the marriage of the accused No.1 and the victim girl was performed. Of-course, these witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case, specifically the contents of Ex.P7, as PW6 deposed that, the police have taken his signature on Ex.P7 as per Ex.P7(a) when he was in the Munavar Masjid about 3 years back and it was written mahazar. PW7 deposed that, the police called him to the police station and took his signature therein as per Ex.P7(b). Both these witnesses have denied the contents of Ex.P7 that, the Investigating Officer has conducted the spot mahazar at Munavar Masjid from 10 A.M., to 11 A.M., on 25.8.2014, as CW1/complainant had 16 Spl CC No.89/2015 showed the place where the marriage of the victim girl with accused No.1 was performed. The contents of the spot mahazar are not known to them [PWs-6 and 7] and that the mahazar was not conducted in their presence. Thus, even after declaring these witnesses as hostile witnesses, with due permission of the court and putting suggestions by learned Public Prosecutor, these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in this connection. But, the versions of PWs-1 to 3, it is held to be a clear admission on the part of accused Nos. 1 and 9 about performance of marriage of accused No.1 with the minor victim girl/CW2 and participation of accused No. 9 in the said marriage. Thus, they are admitted facts. Hence, hostility of PWs-6 and 7 do not fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, much discussion is avoided.
13. It is pertinent to note that, there is no dispute regarding the age of the victim girl. Even the medical evidence specifically the evidence of Dr.Dakshayani-CW12-PW8, who has deposed about the age of the victim girl on examining her on 25.8.2017 at 11 P.M., on the requisition of the Investigating Officer and production of the victim girl through WPC of MICO Layout police station, along with her mother with the history of sexual assault. According to her [PW8] she has stated that, the age of the victim girl was 14 years. Thus, it is also supported the case of the prosecution that, the age of the victim girl was less than 16 years. In the Medical Report at Exs.P8 and P9, it is specifically referred the history that, the accused No.1 wedded the victim girl who was minor and had sexual intercourse after the marriage and it is referred that, accused No.1 was a divorcee and marriage was taken 17 Spl CC No.89/2015 place in Munavar Masjid, Guruppanapalya at 12.30 P.M., on 24.8.2014.
14. It is important to consider the undisputed version of CW14-Meenakshi i..e, SJPU Co-ordinator, who deposed as PW9, as she has deposed that, she was co-ordinator and called upon by the PSI of MICO Layout police station on 25.8.2014 , she went to the police station and made counseling of the victim girl aged about 14 years. There is no dispute regarding her[PW9] status and competency as she has been appointed as SJPU Co-ordinator, South-East Division and working at White Field. She has been appointed under the JJ Act, for counseling the children coming within the purview of JJ Act, as well as the POCSO Act. She has explained the statement given by the victim girl as per Ex.P11 about the incident and about the age of the victim girl as 14 years and that the victim girl was residing with her father, mother, 3 elder sisters and 3 younger brothers and all her sisters were married and she was studying in Urdu School at Bisimillahnagar and she studied upto 6th standard and left the school. On 24.8.2014, her [victim girl] parents and the relatives of accused No.1 specifically his elder sister and others performed her marriage in Munavar Masjid located in Guruppanapalya at 11.30 A.M., with accused No.1 and that, she came to know about the marital status of accused No.1, as he was already married, about 2 months back prior to the said incident and the married woman did not lead marital life with accused No.1 and left him. There is no cross-examination to this witness [Pw9] on the part of the defence. Inspite of giving reasonable time, they have not cross-examined this 18 Spl CC No.89/2015 witness. It is also notable point that after recording evidence of this witness [PW9], on 26.9.2017, subsequently also many more adjournments were given for recording of the evidence of other witnesses. Inspite of it, the evidence on record of this PW9, has not at all been taken into account by the defence side, to get the witnesses recalled for cross-examination. No doubt proclamation against the victim girl and her brother/CW1 was issued. There is no response from these witnesses; nor the prosecution has secured their presence. However, circumstantial evidence remained undisputed and thus, the evidence of PW9 and the contents of Ex.P11 are duly proved by the prosecution. At this juncture, the relevant factors are her[victim girl] age as 14 years and marriage in that Masjid and they are duly proved by the prosecution. Accused No.1 being male adult marrying the victim/CW2 is held to be guilty of contacting the child marriage. Accused No.9 has not at all rebutted by placing rebuttal and clinching materials/evidence that, he had reasons to believe that, marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl/CW2 was not a child marriage. So, accused No.9 is also held guilty of solemnizing a child marriage [CW2].
15. Therefore, at this stage, it is relevant to consider the law prevailing i.e., Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which has come into force on 10.1.2007. The object of the Act reveals that:
"An Act to provide for the prohibition of solemnization of child marriage and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto".19 Spl CC No.89/2015
Sec.2(a) of the Act has defined "Child" that, "Child" means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty one years of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age".
Sec.2(b) of the Act has defined "Child Marriage" that, "Child Marriage" means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child".
Secs.9 and 10 of the Act provides punishment for Child Marriage that:
"Sec.9-Punishment for male adult marrying a child- Whoever being a male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extent to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both".
"Sec.10- Punishment for solemnizing a child marriage-Whoever performs, conducts, directs or abets any child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall be liable to fine which may extent to one lakh rupees unless he proves that he had reasons to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage".
Therefore, it is clear on record regarding the performance of marriage between the victim girl and accused No.1 and participation of accused No.9 in the said marriage. Thus, ingredients of Secs.9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are proved by the prosecution to convict accused Nos.1 and 9 respectively, under Secs.9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
20 Spl CC No.89/201516. Now coming to the sexual assault on the minor victim girl by accused No.1; No doubt the direct and material witnesses did not turn up and the prosecution has not secured the presence of the victim girl and her brother/complainant who are the material witnesses. However, the circumstantial evidence placed on record by the prosecution has to be scrutinized. In this connection, PWs-1 to 3 have not supported the prosecution case in that regard; They have turned partially hostile to the prosecution case, as they have deposed that, they do not know what had happened after the marriage of accused No.1 and the victim girl. Even by putting suggestions to them after declaring them as hostile witnesses with the due permission of the court, by the learned Public Prosecutor, that, "after the marriage of accused No.1 with the victim girl, accused No.1 had committed sexual assault on the victim girl on the same day of marriage, during the night, as the other accused persons specifically the parents of the victim girl and also the sister of accused No.1, by taking her to the house of accused No.1 and sending her inside the room of accused No.1 and that accused No.1 had committed penetrative sexual assault/rape on the victim girl under the guise of marrying her and against her will". But, there is no supporting evidence that accused No.9 was also participant as abater for the offence of rape.
17. With regard to the place of incident where the accused had committed sexual assault on the victim girl, there is evidence of CWs-7 and 8 who deposed as PWs-4 and 5 and the spot mahazar in that regard is at Ex.P6. But, they [PWs-4 and 5] have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case, though they admitted 21 Spl CC No.89/2015 their signatures thereon. But, their hostility does not defeat the prosecution case, as because evidence of other material witnesses has to be evaluated.
18. Now coming to the apprehending of accused Nos. 1 and 9, the prosecution has placed the evidence of CW 17- Girish Babu- Police Constable of MICO Layout police station, who deposed as PW10. PW10 has deposed that, on 26.8.2014, as per the orders of the Police Inspector-CW20, himself [PW10] and CW16 went to trace out the accused persons. They contacted the informers who gave information that, the accused persons were at Guruppanapalya, 1st Main, 8th Cross, House No.53/2 and they went to the said house and found that, accused No.1 and accused No.9 were in the said house and by getting their names confirmed, they apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 9 at about 8.45 A.M., and produced them before the Police Inspector. He [PW10] has identified accused Nos. 1 and 9 in the 'closed accused platform' as the persons whom he [PW10] had apprehended. It is not in dispute.
19. He [PW10] further deposed that, on 27.8.2014, as per the direction of the Police Inspector-CW20, he went to the Victoria Hospital to get the articles from accused No.1 collected by the Doctor at the time of his medical examination and brought those articles and produced them before the Police Inspector and gave his Report as per Ex.P12. He has identified his signature on Ex.P12 as per Ex.P12(a). In his cross-examination made by the defence counsel, he has denied that, he was not deputed by the 22 Spl CC No.89/2015 Police Inspector to go to the hospital for getting the articles collected from accused No.1.
20. The prosecution has brought on record the evidence of the Doctor who has examined the victim girl i.e., CW12- Dr.Dakshayani has deposed as PW8. She has stated on oath that, on 24.8.2017 at about 11 P.M., the WPC brought the victim girl aged about 14 years, for medical examination on the history of the sexual assault. On physical examination, she found secondary sexual characters were present and there was no external injury. On genital examination, she found that hymen was not intact. She has collected the material objects at the time of examination of the victim girl and sent them for FSL examination. After examination of the victim girl, she opined that, there was evidence suggestive of act like sexual intercourse, neither refute, nor confirms the sexual intercourse/assault. She has issued Medical certificate in that regard as per Ex.P8 and the Extract of MLC is as per Ex.P9 and the sample seal regarding items collected with reference to the victim girl is as per Ex.P10. She has deposed specifically that "Hymen rupture noted in Ex.P8 may be caused due to sexual intercourse". The ejaculation is not necessary for sexual intercourse. The material objects collected from the victim girl is as per MOs-2 to 8. During the course of her cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, she has denied that she has not examined the victim girl in a proper manner. She denied the specific suggestion of defence side that, "no sexual intercourse was taken place on victim girl". Apart from this, she answered to the question that "Hymen rupture shown in Ex.P8 would be caused 23 Spl CC No.89/2015 due to sport activities and coming in contact with hard substances, she answered that, chances are very less. It is material to note about unrebutted contents of Ex.P9, as it has clearly noted by the doctor about the history in the MLC Report that, "having wedded the girl, who was a minor [CW2], with a major [Divorcee] at Munavar Masjid at Guruppanapalya at 12.30 P.M., on 29.8.2014 and sexual intercourse on the day of marriage. Thus, it has clearly supported that the accused No.1 had physical contact with the minor [CW2] on the same day of their marriage in the night. This supported the prosecution case in bringing the guilt of accused No.1 which comes within the penal provisions of IPC and POCSO Act, 2012. Thus, on this count, the prosecution case has to be believed that, accused No.1 has committed rape on the victim girl [CW2]
21. The prosecution has brought on record the evidence of CW14- Meenkashi-SJPU Co-ordinator who deposed as PW9. She has stated on oath about her authorization under JJ Act and contacted the victim girl in the police station as per requisition of the Investigating Officer in this case on 25.8.2014, as discussed supra. With reference to the sexual assault, she [PW9] deposed specifically in this regard, that, "The victim girl stated that, she studied 6th standard and she stopped the education about a year back. Her age was 14 years at that time. Her parents, accused No.1, sister of accused No.1 joined together and performed her [victim girl] marriage with accused No.1 in Munnavar Masjid against her will. After her marriage her parents, took her to the house of accused No.1 by 8 P.M., and left in the house of 24 Spl CC No.89/2015 accused No.1. When her parents left her in the house of accused No.1, she came to know that, accused No.1 was already married, 2 months prior to this marriage. The 1st wife of accused No.1 left him and went away. Accused No.1's sister sent her [victim girl] to the room of accused No.1. In the said room of the house, the accused No.1 had physical contact with her against her will. Her [victim girl] elder brother [CW1] came on 24.8.2014 at 10 P.M,, and lodged a complaint with the MICO Layout police station and that, at about 11 P.M., the police came to the house of accused No.1, where she [victim girl] and accused No.1 were staying and the victim girl was taken to the police station". She [PW9] got typed the statement of the victim girl in the computer and read over to the victim girl in the presence of the WPC and obtained the signature of the victim girl. The statement of the victim girl is marked as Ex.P11 and the signature of PW9 is as per Ex.P11(a) and the signature of the victim girl is as per Ex.P11(b). It is notable that, the accused Nos. 1 and 9 through the learned defence counsel have not cross-examined this witness. It is important to note that, inspite of there being ample opportunity to get this witness for cross-examination, but, it was not availed. When it is remained on record the chief examination being not controverted and rebutted by accused Nos. 1 and 9, it is held to be the admitted facts and that it has to be believed the version of PW9 and the contents of Ex.P11. These are corroborative and clinching evidence and proving of the incident of physical contact with CW2 the minor victim girl under the guise of marriage, which was prohibited by Law/Statute. It amounts to rape under IPC and penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act. Thus, viewed from these 25 Spl CC No.89/2015 circumstantial evidence i.e. of PWs-8 and 9 and the documents relied upon the prosecution [Exs.P9 and P11 specifically] and apprehending of accused Nos. 1 and 9, proved through PW10, they are having evidentiary value and upheld them as disclosures of true facts leading to the said offence, linking the accused No.1.
22. Therefore, the law prevailing with reference to the incriminating evidence, if found believable and true, which is circumstantial evidence, it is taken as supporting the prosecution case regarding the committing of the sexual assault by accused No.1 on the minor victim girl. Thus, the evidence of Doctor-Pw8 and SJPU-PW9 and their reports are relevant and to be considered as proved. Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 contemplates the punishment. So also it attracts Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC, as because, the victim girl was below the age of 18 years and coming within the purview of Sec.2(1) (d) of POCSO Act, 2012. Accused No.1 committed rape on her under the guise of marrying her, knowingly that she was minor, below the age of 16 years. Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC reveals that, "whoever" commits rape on a woman when she is under 16 years of age". Thus, in view of the above discussions, it is clear that, there is corroborative and clinching evidence against accused No.1 proved by the prosecution that, he had committed penetrative sexual assault/rape on the minor victim girl falling within the purview of Sec.3 of POCSO Act, 2012 punishable under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 as well as Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC. Hence, accused No.1 is liable for conviction under these Sections also.
26 Spl CC No.89/201523. But, the prosecution has not produced any clinching or cogent evidence against accused No.9 to hold him as abatter for sexual assault. Hence, accused No.9 is not liable for punishment for having abated/assisted accused No.1 to commit the penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC. . But, accused No.9 is liable for conviction under Sec. 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative, Point Nos.2 and Point No.3 are held in the Affirmative only against accused No.1 holding that, accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC.
24. POINT NO.4:- In the result, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C, accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sec.9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, under Sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC.
So, also acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C, accused No.9 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereby corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of April, 2018] [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.27 Spl CC No.89/2015
19.4.2018 ORDER ON SENTENCE:
The accused Nos.1 and 9/convicts are produced from the judicial custody. The learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 9 and the learned Public Prosecutor are present. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor on the Sentence. The accused No.1/convict through his learned counsel submitted that, his family members are depending on his earning and he is the only bread earner of his family. He is having poor family. He has no criminal antecedents. Hence, prayed that, leniency may be shown in imposing the sentence.
So, also accused No.9/ convict through his learned counsel has specifically sated that, he is also a poor person and a vegetable vendor and having family dependants and the only bread earner of his family. Hence, prayed that, leniency may be shown in imposing the sentence On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 and 9 has been proved and they are convicted. The nature of the offences is heinous in nature, as it was against the minor victim girl. Hence, they [accused Nos. 1 and 9] are not entitled for any leniency and maximum sentence and fine has to be imposed.
On the submissions made by accused Nos. 1 and 9 and their respective counsels and also the learned Public Prosecutor, it is proceeded to consider the penal provisos that, the guilt of the 28 Spl CC No.89/2015 accused Nos. 1 and 9 pertaining to their independent offences, have been proved and conviction order has been passed. Accused No.1 is held liable for the conviction under Sec.9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and it provides for maximum sentence or fine or with both and that the maximum sentence can be a upto rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. However, considering his [accused No.1] age, family status, and facts and circumstances of the case, in connection with the offence punishable under Sec.9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, it is just to award the sentence for a period of 6 months and with fine of Rs.2,500/- for the said offence. In connection with the punishment to be awarded for the offence under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.376(2) (i) of IPC are concerned, Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012, the minimum punishment shall be awarded i.e., 7 years an it may extend to life imprisonment, as because the age of the victim girl was 14 years i.e. more than 12 years and the sexual assault was that day of incident, only. Hence, Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 attracting and the imprisonment to be awarded is minimum for 7 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life. Whereas Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC contemplates that, whoever commits rape on a woman, who is under 16 years of age and the minimum punishment to be awarded, prescribed is 10 years, but, which may extend for life imprisonment. In the present case, the victim girl is held to be the child above 12 years of age and below the age of 16 years. Therefore, for minimum sentence, Sec. 376(2)(i) of IPC is attracting. Therefore, the application of Sec.42 of POCSO Act, 2012, regarding alternative punishment, shall be considered, which reads thus:29 Spl CC No.89/2015
"Where an act or omission constitute an offence punishable under this Act and also under Sections 166-A, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 370, 370-A, 375, 376, 376-A, 376-C, 376-D, 376-E or Section 509 of the Indian penal Code, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilt of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree".
In the present case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the non-securing of victim girl and the complainant, considering the prosecution case made out against accused No.1, with reference to the penetrative sexual assault/rape on the victim girl, under both POCSO Act and IPC, it is hereby held to award minimum sentence prescribed. So, invoking Sec.42 of POCSO Act, 2012, it has to be ordered for awarding the punishment under Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC the minimum sentence for 10 years. Therefore, imprisonment for 7 years minimum under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 has to be awarded. As because, the minimum sentence under Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC being higher in degree, than, as provided under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012, with fine of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by accused No.1.
In connection with accused No.9, as prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No.9 under Sec.10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, he has to undergo imprisonment for 40 days and accused No.9 is entitle for set off of the period undergone in the judicial custody and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
30 Spl CC No.89/2015SENTENCE
(a) Accused No.1/convict shall undergo imprisonment for a term of 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC, which is higher in degree than that of under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012. In case of default of fine amount, accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 3 months.
(b) Accused No.1 shall also undergo imprisonment for a term of 6 months with fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. In case of default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of One Month.
Both (a) and (b) sentences shall run concurrently.
The period of detention undergone by accused No.1/convict in judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him, and accused No.1 shall undergo the remaining sentence as provided under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
With regard to accused No.9, he shall undergo imprisonment for a term of 40 days and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.1,500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. In case of default of payment of fine amount, accused No.9 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of One Month. The period of detention 31 Spl CC No.89/2015 undergone by accused No.9/convict in judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him, and the accused No.9 shall undergo the remaining sentence as provided under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
As regard the victim compensation, if the fine amount of Rs.7,500/- [Rs.5,000/-+ Rs.2,500/-] is deposited by accused No.1, is subjected to victim compensation to be adjusted at the appropriate state in splited cases registered against accused Nos.2 to 8 and accused Nos. 10 to 12 and hence same shall be retained till disposal of the slip up cases registered against accused Nos. 2 to 8 and accused Nos.10 to 12 and same shall be taken into account for victim compensation to be awarded.
The fine amount of Rs.1,500/- if deposited by accused No.9, shall be confiscated to the Government.
Entire file should be preserved and kept in spilt up cases registered against accused Nos. 2 to 8 and accused Nos. 10 to 12, which includes the depositions, marked documents and also the Material Objects.
Copy of this Judgment and order on Sentence shall be supplied to the accused Nos. 1 and 9 forthwith.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereby corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of April, 2018] [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
32 Spl CC No.89/2015ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1 Ameer Jan CW3 17.8.2017
Pw.2 A.Sattar Khan CW4 17.8.2017
PW.3 Alla Bakash CW6 18.8.2017
PW.4 Sabrat Ulla Sharieff CW7 17.8.2017
PW.5 Tabrez Khan CW8 17.8.2017
PW.6 Asif Khan CW9 17.8.2017
PW.7 Waseem Akram CW10 17.8.2017
PW.8 Dr.Dakshayani CW12 25.9.2017
PW.9 Meenakshi CW14 26.9.2017
PW.10 Girish Babu CW17 23.3.2018
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Marriage Certificate of the victim girl with accused
No.1
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P2 Marked portion of Statement of PW1 given before
the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 Marked portions of Statement of PW2 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C 33 Spl CC No.89/2015 Ex.P5 Marked portion of statement of PW3 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P6 Spot panchanama conducted in the house of accused No.1 Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P6(b) Signature of PW5 Ex.P7 Spot panchanama conducted in Munavar Masjid Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P7(b) Signature of PW7 Ex.P8 Medical Examination report of CW2/ victim girl Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P9 MLC extract of CW2/victim girl Ex.P10 Sample seal regarding items collected from CW2/victim girl Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P11 Statement of CW2/victim girl given before the SJPU Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P11(b) Signature of CW2/victim girl Ex.P12 Report given by PW10 regarding taking of the articles belonging to accused No.1 from the Victoria Hospital and producing the said articles before the Investigating Officer of Complainant police station Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW10 34 Spl CC No.89/2015 Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-2 Blue colour Bra with white dots
MO-3 Blue colour panty with white dots
MO-4 Green colour pant of victim girl
MO-5 Cream colour nighty with black
colour flowers
MO-6 Nail Clippings
MO-7 Vaginal smear
MO-8 Vaginal Swab
[ NOTE: Due to oversight, during the course of evidence, no Material objects are marked as MO-1 and hence, it is started from MO-2 to MO-8.] Witness examined, documents and MOs marked for accused Nos.1 and 9: NIL [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
35 Spl CC No.89/201511.4.18 Accused Nos. 1 and 9 are present.
Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C, accused No.1 is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sec.9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, under Sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC.
So, also acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C, accused No.9 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
For hearing on quantum of sentence, call on [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO]] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.36 Spl CC No.89/2015
19.4.2018 Sentence pronounced in the open court:
[Vide separate detailed sentence]
(a) Accused No.1/convict shall undergo imprisonment for a term of 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.376(2)(i) of IPC, which is higher in degree than that of under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012. In case of default of fine amount, accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 3 months.
(b) Accused No.1 shall also undergo imprisonment for a term of 6 months with fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. In case of default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of One Month.
Both (a) and (b) sentences shall run concurrently.
The period of detention undergone by accused No.1/convict in judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him, and accused No.1 shall undergo the remaining sentence as provided under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
With regard to accused No.9, he shall undergo imprisonment for a term of 40 days and he shall pay fine amount of Rs.1,500/-
for the offence punishable under Sec.10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. In case of default of payment of fine amount, accused No.9 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of One Month.
37 Spl CC No.89/2015The period of detention undergone by accused No.9/convict in judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him, and the accused No.9 shall undergo the remaining sentence as provided under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
As regard the victim compensation, if the fine amount of Rs.7,500/-
[Rs.5,000/-+ Rs.2,500/-] is deposited by accused No.1, is subjected to victim compensation to be adjusted at the appropriate state in splited cases registered against accused Nos.2 to 8 and accused Nos. 10 to 12 and hence same shall be retained till disposal of the slip up cases registered against accused Nos. 2 to 8 and accused Nos.10 to 12 and same shall be taken into account for victim compensation to be awarded.
The fine amount of Rs.1,500/- if deposited by accused No.9, shall be confiscated to the Government.
Entire file should be preserved and kept in spilt up cases registered against accused Nos. 2 to 8 and accused Nos. 10 to 12, which includes the depositions, marked documents and also the Material Objects.
Copy of this Judgment and order on Sentence shall be supplied to the accused Nos. 1 and 9 forthwith.
[YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
38 Spl CC No.89/2015