Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs N.V.Yogish on 12 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 12th Day of March 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
SPECIAL C.C. No. 535/2015
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka
By Banashankari Police Station,
Bangalore
[Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
N.V.Yogish,
S/o.Varadaraju, 25 years,
R/at. Nalkundi Village,
Haradanahalli Post,
Devalapura Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District. [By Sri.B.S.G. Advocate]
1 Date of commission of offence 23-10-2014
2 Date of report of occurrence 03-11-2014
3 Date of arrest of Accused 15-11-2014
Date of release of Accused 19-12-2014
Period undergone in custody 05-05-2016
by Accused 18-08-2016
4months &
17 days
2 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015
4 Date of commencement of evidence 02-12-2016
5 Date of closing of evidence 22-02-2018
6 Name of the complainant H.N.Rekha
7 Offences complained of Section 363,
366 & 368-IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is
Acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the
final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector, Banashankari Police Station-Bengaluru against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 368 of IPC.
2. Since it is a case of kidnap of minor girl, as such the name of the victim girl is no where shown in the course of judgment as mandated under Section 227(A) of Cr.P.C. However her name is referred to as 'victim girl' wherever her name is necessary.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused and Cw.2-the victim girl were fell in love with each other since three years and Cw.2-the victim girl was minor, aged about 16 years, born on 05-04-1998. On 23-10-2014 at 3 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 about 09.00 a.m., the victim girl went to milk booth situated at 27th Cross, B.S.K.2nd Stage, Bengaluru. At that time the accused induced her stating that if she comes with him, he is going to marry her. At that time the victim girl refused to accompany with him stating that her mother is going to scold her, but the accused forcibly holding her hand kidnapped her and taken her towards Mandya, kept her in the house of Cheluva Raju, thereafter he took her to Dharmastala, Kukke Subramanya, Bhadravathi, Sigandur and Thirupathi. On the basis of complaint lodged by Cw.1-the mother of the victim girl, the police registered the case against accused for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 368 of IPC. Thereafter, after coming to know about the victim girl the police rescued her from the hands of the accused and handed over to the complainant.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 368 of IPC. Thereafter, after filing charge sheet, as usual the accused appeared before the Court. The committal Court furnished free copy of charge sheet 4 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the victim girl is minor, the committal Court passed an order committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for further proceedings. In turn the said case was made over to this Court.
5. After receiving the record by this Court, as usual the summons was issued to the accused, he has appeared before this Court and he was enlarged on bail by executing personal bond and produced surety. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused submitted no arguments before framing charge. On perusal of charge sheet, the learned predecessor in office framed charge under section 363, 366 and 368 of IPC on 04-10-2016. Hence, the contents of the charge read over and explained to the accused in Kannada, he has pleaded not guilty and submit crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused was set down for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined in all 12 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.12, got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and closed its side 5 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 evidence. During the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. In view of available incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him. Earlier to that he has complied the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, by executing personal bond and surety. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
7. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. ¢£ÁAPÀB23-10-2014gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 9.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-
2 gÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÁ®Ä vÀg® À Ä ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ §£À±A À PÀj 2£Éà ºÀAvÀ, 27£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°g è ÀĪÀ «Ä¯ïÌ §Ævï §½ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-2gÀªg À ° À U è É §AzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ¨Á, £Á«§âgÆ À J°èUÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÉÄÁîÃtªÉAzÀÄ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ºÀÄqÀÄV JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛzg ÝÀ ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀŸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, DPÉAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄw E®èzÃÉ DPÉAiÀÄ PÉÊAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV C¥Àºg À tÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 363 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
2. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Þ ,À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë2-
£ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ C¥Àºg À t À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¸ÁQë-9 gÀªg À À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªjÀ UÉ UÉÆvÁÛUzÀ A À vÉ §aÑlÄÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀª s ÀÄð¸À¼ Ü ,À PÀÄPÉÌ, ¨Àz s ÁæªÀw, ¹UÀAzÀÆgÀÄ, wgÀÄ¥Àw HgÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV 6 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä ¥ÉæÃgɦ¹ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 366 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀªs £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
3. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Þ À, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë2- £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §®ªÀAvÀªÁV DPÉAiÀÄ EZÉáUÉ «gÀÄzÀª Þ ÁV ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ C¥Àºg À Àt ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-9 gÀªg À À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªj À UÉ w½AiÀÄzÀAvÉ CPÀæªÀĪÁV §aÑlÄÖ, ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 368 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3: As these points are inter-related, hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasonings.
10. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence produced both at oral and documentary and arguments canvassed from both sides.
7 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015
11. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.12 got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and this Court perused the same. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant and mother of the victim girl, Pw.2 is the victim girl, Pw.3 is the Manager of Manapuram Finance-Bhadravathi, Pw.4 is the senior aunt of the accused, Pw.5 and Pw.6 are the doctors, Pw.7 is Scientific Officer of FSL, Pw.8 to Pw.11 are the police personnel including the Investigation Officer and Pw.12 is the mahazar witness. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the offences alleged against the accused.
12. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused the prosecution is required to prove that the accused and Cw.2-the victim girl were fell in love with each other since three years and Cw.2-the victim girl was minor, aged about 16 years, born on 05-04-1998. On 23-10-2014 at about 09.00 a.m., the victim girl went to milk booth situated at 27th Cross, B.S.K.2nd Stage, Bengaluru. At that time the accused induced 8 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 her stating that if she comes with him, he is going to marry her. At that time the victim girl refused to accompany with him stating that her mother is going to scold her, but the accused forcibly holding her hand kidnapped her and taken her towards Mandya, kept her in the house of Cheluva Raju, thereafter he took her to Dharmastala, Kukke Subramanya, Bhadravathi, Sigandur and Tirupathi and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 368 of IPC. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence produced by the prosecution and the defense taken by the accused, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 363, 366 and 368 of IPC.
Section 363 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for kidnapping-Whoever, kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardian ship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.9 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015
Section 366 of IPC defines that:
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, (and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority to any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.
Section 368 of IPC defines that:
Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person- Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement..
14. By going through the facts, circumstances, evidence both at oral and documentary, it is just and proper to mention the common contention of the prosecution with regard to the victim girl and complainant. As per the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2, complainant is the mother of the victim girl, the victim girl was born on 05-04-1998, the complainant was working as 10 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 Dy.S.P., at Excise Department. As on the date of alleged incident the victim girl was studying in 1st PUC at B.L.N. College and on 23-10-2014 it was holiday. It is also not in dispute that the victim girl's father was dead. It is also not in dispute that up to S.S.L.C., the victim girl was studying at Prathana School and was accommodated school van, wherein the accused was the driver of the said van. With these now left with the available material evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt or it probablise the defense of the accused.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-the complainant, she has deposed with regard to the admitted facts and also deposed that on 23-10-2014 due to holiday her daughter went to milk booth at about 09.00 a.m., to bring milk and as usual this witness went to office, since she was working in Excise Department. At about 11.00 a.m., or 12.00 noon she called her daughter over phone, but her daughter not received the said phone call, she thought that her daughter was slept. At about 03.00/03.30 p.m., she had return to home and found her daughter was not in the house, thinking that she went to 11 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 friends' house and called her over phone, but the victim girl not received the said phone call and not called her mother over phone. This fact was discussed with relatives as a sensitive matter, but her daughter also not went to her relatives' house. She was hesitated to lodge complaint about missing of her daughter for 4-5 days and on 03-11-2014 she has lodged missing complaint of her daughter.
16. Pw.1 further deposed that she know the accused who was the driver of the school van and the victim girl having contact with him since from 8th standard. After coming to know the said fact, she called the accused and also advised him not to talk with her daughter and even she called the owner of the van and told the fact to him. As such she has doubted about the accused that he had taken her daughter. As a result she lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and her signature is Ex.P1(a). After lodging of compliant she used to contact the police and was enquiring about her daughter, whether she was traced or not. On 14-11-2014 she has received a phone call from Banashankari Police Station stating that they have brought the accused along with the victim girl. Earlier to that her daughter 12 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 called this witness over phone and told that she went along with the accused. Thereafter the police sent her daughter to house along with her and on enquiry with her daughter she told that the accused had taken her for just talks, as such she accompanied with him. Further she has also disclosed that her gold chain was pledged at Bhadravathi and taken money and then visited to Dharmastala and other places. Except that she has not stated anything about the facts and circumstances. Her daughter was subjected to medical examination after two days of taking custody of her from the accused. The doctor given medical report as per Ex.P2 and her signature is as per Ex.P2(a). She had also taken her daughter to Court to give evidence before the Magistrate.
17. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omissions. She has also admitted that the victim girl is the only daughter to her. She got plot at No.102, Hanumagiri, Chikkalasandra. Her husband-Basavaraju is no more. The accused elicited the date of birth of the victim girl as 05-04-1998 and that her husband died during the year 2008 due to heart attack. Further she was 13 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 elicited that she had engaged a van owned by one Satish for the purpose of taking the child to the school and bring her back to home and the school hours was 07.45/08.00 a.m., to 03.45/ 04.00 p.m. She has admitted that when her daughter was studying in 8th standard, the accused was the van driver of the school van. Further she has shown ignorance about the fact that:
"£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÁ®£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÉ DzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ®Ä PÀÄrAiÀÄÄwÛg° À ®è. MAzÀÄ ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÁ®Ä PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è SÁgÀªÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÄÝ £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄ£À¸ÀÄì £ÉÆêÁV DPÉ ªÁå£ï£À°è C¼ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ DPÉUÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ªÀiÁr DPÉUÉ zsÉÊAiÀÄð vÀÄA© »jAiÀÄgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÉ £ÉÆêÀÅ ªÀiÁr PÉƼÀî¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ §Ä¢Ý ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÝ JAzÀgÀÉ £À£U À É UÉÆwÛ®.è "
Further she was elicited that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥sÉÆãï£À°è DgÉÆæAiÀÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛz¼ ÀÝ ÀÄ."
Again she was elicited that:
"MªÉÄä £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ¹éZïD¥sï DVzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ D£ï ªÀiÁrzÀ vÀPÀët DgÉÆæ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀ£ Ý ÀÄß PÉý¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §AzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgɹ DvÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢Ý ºÉýzÉ. "
Further she has denied the suggestion that:
"MAzÉà ¥sÉÆÃ£ï «ZÁgÀ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ã£ÀÄ EµÀ×¥q À ÀÄwÛ¢AÝ iÀiÁ JAzÀÄ »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÀÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ ªÁå£ï ZÁ®PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ D jÃw K£ÀÄ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÀÃÉ ½zÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÅà PÀ®£ à É ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ C¼ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÀ£Ý ÀÄß ©lÖgÉ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀqÀÄªÉ K£ÀÆ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ PÉüÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ E®è ¤«Ää§g â À £ÀqÄÀ ªÉ ¦æÃw EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."14 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015
The above said evidence crystallizes that in order to get her daughter in right way, she has also made some ill-treatment to her daughter. Here there is a doubt that due to ill-treatment caused by the mother, the victim girl had gone along with the accused or not or the accused voluntarily induced the victim girl and taken her from the custody of complainant with an intention to marry her and kept her under detention have to be looked into.
18. Further she was elicited that:
"DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ F ªÁå£ï ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ £Á£Éà PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ±Á¯ÉUÉ ©qÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë DPÉ lÆå±À£ïUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÄÀ z Ý jÀ AzÀ ªÁå£ï ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÀÄz Ý j À AzÀ ªÁå£ï©r¹zÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛg.É "
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, no such contact taken place after this witness stopped the van facility to her daughter. It is also the defense and suggestion of the accused that:
"DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉëêÀĪÁV zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À¢AzÀ PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ ©lÖ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAzÀÄ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆÃ¥À §AvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ eÉÆvÉ AiÀiÁPÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÀÉ ¨ÉÊzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.."
If the above said suggestion is taken into consideration, the accused had taken the daughter of the complainant to the 15 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 temple and brought her to her house, though she has denied the same. In order to consider the geniunity of alleged offences, it has to be looked into the evidence of the victim girl. Further the accused tested about the ill-treatment caused to the victim girl and by giving supari to one Krishna Murthy-a Politician and P.S.I. Renukamma for killing the accused, but she has denied the same. Further the evidence also discloses about the victim girl was kept in remand home twice as per the instruction of this witness. It is also the admission of the complainant that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £Á£ÀÄ £ÁUÀªÀÄAUÀ®zÀ PÀȵÀª Ú ÀÄÆwð CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦J¸ïL gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄä gÀªj À UÉ ¸ÀÄ¥Áj PÉÆlÖ ¨UÉÎ ¥ÉÇðøï PÀ«Ä±À£g À ïgÀªj À UÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ §£À±AÀ PÀj ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ §A¢zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, there is a doubt whether the complainant having grudge with the accused, lodged the complaint against him or not, for that except the evidence of this witness and the victim's evidence, no such any other corroborative, cogent, oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. Unless and until the evidence of this witness supports through the evidence of victim girl, it is not sufficient to accept the evidence of this witness for the alleged offence against accused.
16 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015
19. Now left with the available material evidence produced by the prosecution through Pw.2-the victim girl. She has deposed her date of birth was 05-04-1998 and the complainant is her mother. She know the accused, he was the school van driver. Further she has deposed that she and the accused are friends. When she was studying 1st PUC, she had requested her mother to take her to temple, for that her mother told that she is having work and directed her to go along with her friends. As a result she had requested the accused to accompany her to the temple, for that the accused told that if he accompanied with her, her mother is going to scold her, for that the victim girl told that she had already informed to her mother about the same. Further she has deposed that she went along with the accused in a bike to Dharmastala in the morning 06.00 a.m., and return on the next day evening from Dharmastala, as a result her mother lodged missing complaint. After returning to home, her mother enquired with her and she told that she accompanied with the accused to go to Dharmastala. Thereafter, after mother brought her and the accused to police station and the police told her to return to home and two days after the 17 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 incident, she as taken to medical check-up and then she was taken before the Magistrate to give statement. She has not given any statement before police. Ex.P3 is her S.S.L.C. Marks card. She has admitted that on 23-10-2014 she went to Dharmastala along with the accused, but he has not given any trouble to her. She has given statement as per Ex.P4 before the Magistrate.
20. The accused cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that she know the accused since from when she was studying 8th standard and he was the school van driver. Further she has admitted that:
"DgÉÆæ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 7.30 UÀAmÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÁå£ï£À°è PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀAeÉ 4.55 UÀAmÉUÉ eÉÆÃ¥Á£ÀªÁV PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ 8£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è NzÀÄwÛzÁÝV¤AzÀ 9£Éà vÀgÀUÀw ªÀÄzÀsåzÀªgÀ ÉUÉ ¸Àzj À ªÁå£ï qÉçʪg À ï £À£ÀߣÀÄß ±Á¯ÉUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ. DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ M¼Éî ¸ÉßûvÀgÁVzÀg Ý ÀÄ. £À«Ää§g â À £ÀqÀÄªÉ PÉêÀ® M¼ÀîÉ ¸ÉßúÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ EvÀÄ.Û "
Further she has admitted that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ ¨Éqï PÁ¦ü PÀÄrzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ±Á¯ÉUÉ gÉrAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛz.ÝÉ D «ZÁgÀz° À è £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä PÉ®ªÉǪÉÄä ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉøÀgª À ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. PÉ®ªÉǪÉÄä PÀbÃÉ jAiÀÄ°è DUÀÄwÛzÀÝ vÉÆAzÀgÉU½ À AAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸À®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸ÀÄwÛg° À ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr®è. £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÉÄà £À£ÀߣÄÀ ß £ÉÆÃr PÉƼÀÄîwzÛ gÀÝ ÀÄ. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä MªÉÄä £Á£ÀÄ ºÁ®Ä PÉýzÁUÀ MAzÀÄ ¢£À PÀÄrAiÀÄ¢zÀg Ý É K£ÁUÀÄvÀz Û É, J£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀÅ¢®è CA¢zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉøÀgªÀ ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ ¨ÉøÀgÀªÁzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ §½ ºÉýPÉƼÀÄîwz Û ÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ºÉüÀÄwÛzgÝÀ ÄÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÉßúÀ EµÀתÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉøÀgª À ÁzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ eÉÆvÉ ¥sÉÆãï£À°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."18 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015
Again she has admitted that:
"PÉ®ªÉǪÉÄä £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÊzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉøÀgª À ÁVzÀÄÝ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ ¥sÀÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV zsÉÊAiÀÄð ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D jÃw £Á£ÀÄ MªÉÄä DgÉÆæ eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛ¢ÃÝ AiÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀg Ý ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¥sÉÆãï PÀmï DVzÀj Ý AzÀ £À£ßÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÉÄà £À£Àß ¥sÉÆãï vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÉÄà ªÁ¥À¸ï PÁ¯ï ªÀiÁrzÀg Ý ÄÀ , DUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ®Ä ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä DvÀ££ À ÄÀ ß ¤Ã£ÀÄ ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢ÃÝ AiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ, DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ D jÃw K£ÀÆ E®è £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉýzÉ. DUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £À£U À É ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢ÃÝ AiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄzÉÝ PÉÆð¤AzÀ £À£Àß vÀ¯A É iÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzg À ÀÄ."
Further she has deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¨Áj £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢ÃÝ gÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀqÀÄªÉ ©Ãd ©wÛzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä. £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ DgÉÆæ ¸Àzj À ªÁå£ï ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ ¸ÀwñïgÀªg À À eÉÆvÉ §AzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä vÁ¬Ä ¤«Ã§âgÀÆ ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢ÃÝ gÁ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èg¨ À ÃÉ qÀ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÀ½îzg À ÀÄ, DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À«Ää§gâ ° À è K£ÀÄ E®è PÉêÀ® ªÁå£ï qÉçʪg À ï ªÀiÁvÀæ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ£ÄÀ , DUÀ ªÁå£ï ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÁ®PÀ£ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ.."
Further she has deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¦AiÀÄĹUÉ ©J£ïJAJ¸ï PÁ¯ÉÃeïUÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÉ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£PÀ ÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ CAzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÄÀ ä vÁ¬ÄUÉ PÉýzÉ. DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä £À£ÀUÉ mÉÊA E®è ¥sÉæAqïì eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£P À ÌÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ. £À£ßÀ vÁ¬Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃUÀ §gÀzÃÉ EzÀÄz Ý j À AzÀ PÁuÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ D «µÀAiÀÄ UÉÄÁwÛg°À ®è. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï PÉëêÀĪÁV §AzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ, £Á£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ¸ÉßûvÉAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹zÉÝ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ §UÉÎ ºÉýzÉ. £À£ßÀ vÁ¬Ä DvÀ£À eÉÆvÉ AiÀiÁPÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ JAzÀÄ PÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. DgÀÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ M¼Éî ¸ÉßûvÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ DvÀ¤UÉ ªÁºÀ£À ZÁ®£ÀÉ §gÀÄvÀz Û A É zÀÄ PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ.Ý "
The above said evidence clinches the issue unequivocally points out, no doubt it is true that the accused had taken the 19 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 victim girl to Dharmastala and other places, but her evidence in cross-examination discloses no such coercion or inducement caused by the accused to take the victim girl to said places. On the other hand the victim girl herself accompanied with him as per the permission of her mother.
21. Here the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 disclose that no such cordiality between mother and daughter. Further the evidence of Pw.2-the victim girl also disclose about harassment of her mother to her, but not the harassment of the accused to the victim girl. Further it is her evidence that:
"£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ï vÉUz É ÀÄPÉƼÉÄîÁÃt JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß oÁuÉUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ¦J¸ïL gÉÃtÄPÁgÀªg À À eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ C°è EzÉ.Ý DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ï ¥ÀqA É iÀÄÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÄÀ . DUÀ gÉÃtÄPÁgÀªg À ÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV £Á£ÀÄ FPÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ, DUÀ DgÉÆæ C¯Éè EzÀ.Ý DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ £ÀªÄÀ ä vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦J¸ïL gÉÃtÄPÁgÀªg À ÀÄ DgÉÆæ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛg° À ®è, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀ¸ÀÛVj ªÀiÁr eÉÊ°UÉ PÀ¼ÄÀ »¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄ PÀÆqÀ UÉÄÁwÛg° À ®è. £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÀgz É ÁUÀ¯ÃÉ £À£ÀUÉ F J¯Áè «µÀAiÀÄ UÉÄÁvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. DUÀ ¦J¸ïL gÉÃtÄPÀªÄÀ ägª À g À ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýPÉÆlÖ jÃw ºÉýzÀgÉ ªÀÄÁvÀæ DgÉÆæ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §gÀÄvÁÛ£A É zÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ, DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ¦J¸ïL ºÉýzÀAvÉ PÉüÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÄÀ . ¦J¸ïL gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄägª À g À ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ 20 ¢£ÀU¼ À À PÁ® DgÀÉÆæ eÉÆvÉ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£P À ÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÀgz É ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £À£ßÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ mÉÊ¥ï ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÀÄ. ªÉÆzÀ®Ä CzÀð s ºÉýPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÇwð ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, 20 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 whatever the statement given by the victim girl before the Magistrate is on the force of her mother and the PSI but not on her voluntary against accused. Further it is the evidence of Pw.2 that:
"DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß §®ªÀAvÀªÁV C¥Àºj À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝ£A É zÀÄ DvÀ££ À ÀÄß eÉÊ°£À°n è ÖzÀÝ «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÉÌ DvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉüÀÄ ºÁQ¢Ýà JAzÀÄ PÉýzÉ. DUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄä gÀªg À ÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£Ý ÀÄß PÉüÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÄÀ . DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀ¢vÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀP Ý ÉÌ PÉøÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVzÉ ¦J¸ïL gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄä ºÉýzÀAvÉ PÉüÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ eÁ«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀ£A À vÀgÀ £À£ÀUÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ¤UÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA§AzÀs EgÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁr¸À¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄä ºÉüÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ CzÀgA À vÉ PÉüÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ."
Even the said evidence also discloses about the harassment by the mother to the daughter and the accused is scapegoat of the alleged incident.
Further it is the evidence of Pw.2 that:
"DUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £Á£ÀÄ M¥Àz à ÃÉ EzÁÝUÀ ¦J¸ïL gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄägª À gÀ £ À ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgɹzÀgÝ ÀÄ. DUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¹«¯ï qÉæ¸ï£À°è §A¢zÀg Ý ÀÄ. DUÀ gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄägª À g À ÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ °AUÁAiÀÄvÀgÀÄ, DgÉÆæ J¸ï¹ d£ÁAPÀzª À g À ÀÄ, CªÀgÀÄ ¸Àj E®è, DvÀ£À ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉüÀ¨ÃÉ qÀ DvÀ D¹ÛUÁV F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÀÄ DvÀ¤UÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀPð À E®è, AiÀiÁPÉ ªÀÄvÉÆAÛ zÀÄ PÉøÀÄ ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄägª À gÀ ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀÆr ºÁQzÀgÄÀ . £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÃÉ nAiÀiÁUÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzA À vÉ CªÀgÃÉ CAzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄägª À g À ÀÄ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆlÖ ZÉÊ£ï¤AzÀ £À£ßÀ £ÄÀ ß PÀnÖºÁQzÀgÀÄ. D ZÉÊ£ï£À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉ ºÁQ £À£ÀߣÀÄß gÀÆA£À°è PÀÆr ºÁQzÀgÄÀ . D jÃw ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÁvÀÄ PÉüÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ."
Again she has deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀÄvÉÆA Û zÀÄ PÉøÀÄ ºÁQ eÉÊ°UÉ ºÁPÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ 21 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£ÀߣÀÄß gÀÆA£À°è PÀÆrºÁQ DvÀ C¥Àºj À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝ£A É zÀÄ PÉøÀÄ ºÁPÀÄvÁÛgA É zÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. D PÉøÀ£ÄÀ ß eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÆÌøÀÌgÀ ¸É± à ¯ À ï ¹¹ 299/2016 ¥ÀæPÀgt À ªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÁ¯ÉÃeïUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV gÀÆA¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ©lÖgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃeïUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛz.ÉÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀߣÄÀ ß gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆr¸À®Ä oÁuÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ."
Further she has deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà ¥sÉÆãï PÁAmÁPïÖ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ D Hj£À°è £ÁªÀÅ Ezɪ Ý ÀÅ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ JAzÀÄ gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄä gÀªg À ÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ºÁQ ¹ÖPï£À°è PÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ eÁ£ÀÄ ¨Á¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉÃtÄPÀªÄÀ ägª À gÀ ÀÄ PÉʤAzÀ £À£Àß PÀ¥Á¼ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzg À ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀAvÀgª À ÀÇ PÉüÀzÃÉ EzÁÝUÀ gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄägª À g À ÀÄ §Æqïì PÁ°¤AzÀ £À£Àß JzÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉzg À ÀÄ. ºÉÆqÉzg À É §Ä¢Ý PÀ°AiÀÄÄvÁÛ¼É JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä JzÀÄÝ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÄÀ . £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß jªÀiÁåAqï ºÉÆÃAUÉ 15 ¢£À PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ.."
Again she has also deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ 18 ªÀµð À vÀÄA© £Á®ÄÌ ¢£À DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ ¥Àqz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. JgÀqÄÀ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß QqÁß¥ï ªÀiÁrzÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. ¦J¸ïL gÉÃtÄPÀªÀÄägªÀ g À ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ ºÉüÀ¢zÀg Ý É E£ÀÆß 15 ¢£À jªÀiÁAqï ºÉÆÃA£À°q è ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ gÉÃtÄPÀªÄÀ ä ºÉýzÀAvÉ ºÉýzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èz.ÉÝ DgÉÆæ eɹAiÀÄ°èz.ÀÝ "
The above said evidence clinches the issue unequivocally points out that there is no participation of the accused in the alleged offence of inducing and kidnapping of victim girl and on alleged assurance of marriage kidnapped her and kept her under detention. On the other hand the evidence of victim girl is against the mother and P.S.I., who is the investigation Officer of the case.
22 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015
22. Again she has also deposed that:
"2£Éà ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä §AzÁUÀ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. DgÉÆæ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ §AzÀ£ s z À ° À zè ÀÝ «µÀAiÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D §UÉÎ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ gÉÃtÄPÁ ªÉÄÃqÀAgÀªg À ÀÄ ºÁQzÁÝgÉ £À£ÀUÃÉ £ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ eÁ«Ää¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ºÉýzÀgÄÀ . £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÀÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr®è. DgÉÄÁæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¨ÀÃsÉ n ªÀiÁr®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr®è. DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¦æÃw EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, DzÀgÉ £ÁªÀÅ PÉêÀ® ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÄÀ ß AiÀÄÁªÀvÀÄÁÛ ºÉzjÀ ¹®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªA À vÉ »A¸É ªÀiÁr®è."
If the above said evidence coupled with complaint lodged by the victim girl against her mother and the P.S.I., as per Ex.D3 clearly disclose that a false case has been foisted against accused by misusing the friendship of the victim girl and the accused by the mother of the victim girl and the Investigation Officer. She has also deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ £À£Àß §½ AiÀÄÁªÀvÀÆÛ PÉlÖzÁV £Àqz É ÀÄPÉÆAr®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ PÉlÖjÃw ªÀvð À £É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À«Ää§g â À ªÀÄzÀså AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæ £À£ßÀ M¼Éî ¸ÉßûvÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. F ¥ÀæPÀgt À zÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀéEZɬ á ÄAzÀ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄwÛzÃÝÉ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
The above said evidence also crystallizes that no such offence caused by the accused to the victim girl and the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Except the evidence of mother of the victim girl and of the victim girl's evidence, no such any other eye-witness or circumstantial witness evidence produced 23 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 by the prosecution to believe the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Srinivas-the Manager of Manapuram Finance-Bhadravathi, he has deposed that one Bhojamma came to Finance Corporation on 07-11- 2014 and pledged 10 grams gold chain for a sum of Rs.18,500/- and Ex.P5 is the pledge slip and condition slip is at Ex.P6 and also he has identified Bhojamma who had come to pledge the gold chain in the Finance Corporation. Except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused. On the other hand he has admitted that the accused has not come to his Corporation to pledge the gold chain. It is also his evidence that a mahazar as per Ex.P7 was conducted and police seized the gold chain and his signature is Ex.P7(a).
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Bhojamma, she has also deposed that the accused is her younger sister's son and he came and told that he want money since he wants to go to temple. As a result she has pledged the gold chain and given money to him. Therafter the police came and taken the 24 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 said gold chain. Ex.P7(b) is her signature. The accused cross- examined this witness and elicited that:
"D ¢£À £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¥sÉÊ£Á£ïì §½ AiÉÆÃUÉÃ±ï §A¢gÀ°®è. AiÉÆÃUÀÃÉ ±ï §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¨sÃÉ n ªÀiÁr®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀt PÉÆr¹ JAzÀÄ PÉý®è. £À£ÀUÀÆ DgÉÆæUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA¥ÀPð À E®è."
The above said evidence creates doubt about the participation of the accused in pledging the gold chain. Here it is relevant to note that the Investigation Officer has not recovered any documents in relation that the said gold chain belongs to the complainant and her daughter and no such documentary evidence placed by the Investigation Officer. As such there is a doubt about the alleged ownership of gold chain by the complainant and her daughter-the victim girl and the said benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Dr.C.Ramesh, he has deposed that after examining the accused, he has given report as per Ex.P8 and his signature is Ex.P8(b) and Ex.P8(c) and Ex.P8(a) is the signature of the accused. His evidence remains unassailed.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Dr.Reethu, 25 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 she has deposed that on 18-11-2014 as per the request of police she has examined the victim girl who was accompanied with her mother and after taking their consent. Further she has deposed that:
"£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉÌ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ DPÉAiÀÄ PÀ£Áå¥ÉÇgÉ ¸ÀĹÜwAiÀÄ°èvÀÄÛ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉÆgÀ¸ÀégÆ À ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀ°®è."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, it is very clear that no such sexual intercourse taken place with the victim girl from the accused. At this stage the evidence of this witness is a formal one. Through this witness the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offence against accused in respect that he has sexually harassed the victim girl.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-D.Malathi- Scientific Officer-FSL, Bengaluru, she has deposed that she has issued scientific opinion and sample seal as per Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 and hers signature is Ex.P9(a) and Ex.P10(a) and she has also opined that:
"ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 1 CAqÀgïªÉÃgï, ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå 2 ¥ÀÇå©Pï ºÉÃgï, ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸AÀ SÉå 3 AiÀÄÄgÀAvÁæ¯ï ¸Áé¨ï, ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 4 £Éʯï Qè¦A à Uï, ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå5 ¥ÀÇ©Pï ºÉÃgï, ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå6 ªÉe£ É ¯ À ï ¹äAiÀÄgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 7 ªÉe£ É ¯ À ï ¸Áé¨ï DVzÀª Ý ÀÅ. £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸A À SÉå 1 jAzÀ 5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 7 gÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É «ÃAiÀiðzÀ PÀ¯É PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ªÀ¸ÄÀ ¸ Û A À SÉå 7 gÀ°è «ÃAiÀiÁðtÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
Through this witness also the prosecution fails to establish that the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
28. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-Byataraju, he has deposed that on 14-11-2014 he was near the milk booth at 27th Cross, Banashankari and at that time the police called upon him and obtained his signature stating that the accused caused injustice to a girl. Except that he does not know anything about the alleged offences against accused and also the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P13. At this stage this Court opines that the evidence of this witness is a formal one and his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution against accused.
29. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-B.Prema Kumari-P.S.I., she has deposed that on 03-11-2014 when she was the SHO, at about 03.00 p.m., the complainant came and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. She has perused the same 27 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 and registered a case in Crime No.286/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and her signature is Ex.P1(b). On the basis of said complaint she has prepared FIR as per Ex.P12 and her signature is Ex.P12(a). In the cross- examination, except the denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused. Here, as per the complaint averments the alleged incident taken place on 23-10-2014, the complaint was lodged on 03-11-2014 i.e., after lapse of nine days the complainant has lodged this complaint. But no such sufficient reasons stated for the delay caused in lodging the complaint by the complainant. At this stage the evidence of this Court opines that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
30. By going through the evidence of Pw.8- Kumar.S.Itagi-Head Constable, he has deposed that on 11-12- 2014 he has received seven articles from SHO and went to Madiwala FSL, handed over the same and received Ex.P11- acknowledgement. The evidence of this witness is also a formal one.
28 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015
31. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-Shiva Kumaraiah -A.S.I., he has deposed that on 14-11-2014 the SHO entrusted him to trace out the accused and the victim girl along with Cw.18 and accordingly they made Gastu at Jaya Nagara, Mico Layout, contacted Bathmidars and came to know that the accused is at Nagamangala Taluk, Dondemarana Halli in the house of his grand mother. He went to that place, taken the accused and the victim girl to their custody at that place, brought them and produced before the SHO. But in order to substantiate the above said facts and circumstances, the prosecution has not produced any evidence of the grand mother of the accused or the Investigation Officer has not conducted any mahazar at that time and produced the evidence of Panch witnesses to believe that the accused was arrested at that time at that place. At this stage the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
32. By going through the evidence of Pw.11-A.V.Renuka- P.S.I., she has deposed that she has received record from Cw.20 on 13-11-2014 and conducted further investigation. She went along with Cw.18 and Cw.19 to Dondemadana Halli, 29 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 Nagamangala Taluk on 14-11-2014 and taken custody of the accused and the victim girl in the house of grand mother of accused, thereafter brought them to the station, arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary statement, but no recovery taken place through the alleged voluntary statement of accused. According to this witness the accused gave voluntary statement stating that he has induced the victim girl and taken her for the purpose of marrying her. But neither the evidence of Pw.1 nor the evidence of Pw.2, the said evidence is deposed by them in order to attract the ingredients of alleged offences.
33. Pw.11 further deposed that she has counseled the victim girl and recorded her statement before the social worker of BOCSO institute viz., Basavaraj, but the said Basavaraj has not stepped into the witness box to give his evidence with regard to the counseling and genuinity of the alleged statement of the victim girl that she went to the spot. At the same time she has not conducted any mahazar at the spot where she has taken the custody of the accused and the victim girl. Even she has not recorded any statement of the neighbours of the house of the grand mother of the accused. Even the grand mother's 30 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 statement is also not recorded by her to believe arrest of the accused and the process of conducting mahazar at Dondemadana Halli, Nagamangala.
34. Pw.11 further deposed that she went to the spot and conducted mahazar at about 04.30 p.m., to 05.00 p.m., and the spot shown by the victim girl, whereas the victim girl turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in respect of process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P13 in respect of alleged incident. She has further deposed that she had taken the victim girl before Magistrate and the Magistrate has recorded her statement, but the evidence of Pw.2-the victim girl discloses that she has given statement before Magistrate as per Ex.P4 under threat of this witness and not on her voluntary.
35. Pw.11 further deposed that she has sent the victim girl for medical examination, but no such report received by her in respect of alleged misuse of the victim girl by the accused and sexual harassment to the victim girl by the accused. On 17-11- 2014 she went to Bhadravathi and got released the gold chain alleged to have been pledged by the accused at Manapuram 31 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 Gold Loan. On the other hand, the evidence of Pw.3 and Pw.4 is very clear that the accused has not participated in pledging of said gold chain. In order to prove the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P7, the mahazar witness not stepped into the witness box. After closing of investigation she has filed charge sheet against accused person.
36. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also suggested the harassment caused to the victim girl by this witness, for that she has denied the same. Here the evidence of the victim girl is very clear about the harassment caused by this witness to her in the station, even on say of the mother of the victim girl. Viewing from the available material evidence on record produced by the prosecution through this witness this Court feels to observe that though she has conducted further investigation and filed charge sheet, but at the same time, the evidence of victim girl at her cross-examination, she has clearly stated about threat given by this witness to her and recorded her statement. When such being the case, question of considering the alleged evidence against accused doesn't arises. 32 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 Further the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and their cross- examination is also very clear that the mother harassed the victim girl, so also permitted Pw.11 to ill-treat the victim girl in the station as well as in the house of the complainant. When such being the case, question of considering the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt does not arise. No doubt it is true that as per the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 the accused accompanied with the accused to go to Dharmastala and other places, whereas in the cross-examination the victim girl clearly stated that she herself went along with the accused to the temple, even she herself forced him to take her to the temple and not by the accused voluntarily.
37. At this stage, it is worthwhile to emphasis on the decisions reported in:
1. In Criminal Law Journal 2017, Volumn-4 (NOC) 757 (Raj), wherein it had been observed that:
"S.375, Sixthly (Prior to amendment of 2006)- Kidnapping and rape- Consent-At time of incident, prosecurtrix aged more than 16 years-Prosecurtrix leaving with accused at her free will in absence of her parents, showing her consent-Prosecurtrix found to be consenting party as no hue and cry raised against alleged acts despite opportunities-Accused having prior acquaintance and intimacy with prosecurtrix-Prosecurtrix and accused living at several places as married couple, 33 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 till her recovery-Guilt of accused not established-Accused, acquitted
2. 2011 Cr.R. Page 582(Kant.), wherein it had been observed that:
"Penal Code, 1860-Sections 366-A and 376- Kidnpping and rape-Seven years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000 awarded-All through 16 days, when victim was with accused, neither she tried to escape nor complained to anybody saying that she has been forcibly taken by accused-Victim is in borderline of 16 years when alleged incident happened-Love letters produced by accused and belonging to victim showing that victim was in love with accused and wanted to go along with him-It cannot be said that accused has either used physical or mental force to induce victim to come with him or to participate in sexual intercourse-Benefit of doubt can be extended to accused-Appeal allowed ."
3. 2003 Crl.L.J. 4914, wherein it had been observed that:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.366, S.376-Charge for kidnapping woman to compel her to marry and for rape- Sequence of events showing that prosecurtrix accompanied accused willingly-Father of prosecurtrix stating in FIR that prosecurtrix accompanied accused willingly-Father of prosecurtrix stating in FIR that prosecurtrix went away by taking clothes and gold chain and some cash showing that there was no threat or inducement-Accused not liable to be held guilty under S.366 or 376 in absence of proper appreciation of evidence in regard to consent of prosecurtrix which is mandatory requirement before finding a person guilty under S.366 or 376."
4. 2006 Crl.L.J. Page 3276, wherein it had been observed that:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), S,.366, S.506-Abdction and criminal intimidation-Proof-Allegations that accused appellant along with other accused at point of a weapon 34 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 gave threats to prosecurtrix and abducted her against her wishes-Evidence of prosecurtrix that accused persons entered in her house where she was sleeping with her husband who woke up due to commotion and yet they forcibly took her-Is not consistent with story of prosecution as alleged in FIR-Delay in lodging FIR-Evidence of prosecurtrix not showing that accused had abducted her with intention to forcibly marry her against her will or that she may be forced to illicit intercourse-Place of incident and motive of accused in taking away prosecurtrix under a threat is doubtful-Conviction of accused persons, not proper."
5. 1997 Crl.L.J. Page 1018, wherein it had been observed that:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), S,.361-Kidnapping-Proof- Girl accompanying accused by her own volition without any compulsion of accused-Said facts established from evidence of girl-Does not constitute offence of kidnapping- In absence of any other evidence ot establish guilt of accused for having committed said offence-Order of conviction of accused for offence of kidnapping, not proper.
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), S,.376-Rape-Proof- Accused alleged to have had sexual intercourse with prosecurtrix by promising to marry her-However prosecurtrix not stating that accused had committed rape on her but stating that she did not know what happened to her-Questions put to her elicited from statements made before police and not from facts-Cannot be relied on-Thus no material found to establish guilt of accused-Order of conviction set-aside ."
6. 2009 Crl.L.J. Page 3255, wherein it had been observed that:
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), S,.366-a-Procuration of minor girl-Allegation that accused kidnapped daughter of informant when she had gone to accompany mother of accused to attend nature's call-Evidence by informant as to manner of occurrence was very weak-No explanation offered for delay of 2½ years in filing FIR- Fact that victim did not raise hue and cry when she was being taken by 35 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 accused in bus also made prosecution story doubtful-None of the villagers had seen accused with victim-Further story put forth by victim that she was sold to truck driver by accused also could not be believed in view of various inconsistencies in evidence-Victim was not medically examined after she returned back after 8/9 months-It cannot be said that accused was responsible for kidnapping victim-Conviction of accused liable to be set- aside.."
Though the facts and circumstances of the above case decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one but the ratio of principle is applicable to the present case on hand.
38. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record is not sufficient to prove the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case including the materials on record discussed above probabalises the defense of the accused, rather than the case of the accused.
39. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.12 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P13, placed on record in respect of alleged offences is insufficient to prove that the accused and Cw.2-the victim girl were fell in love with each other since three years and Cw.2-the 36 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 victim girl was minor, aged about 16 years, born on 05-04-1998. On 23-10-2014 at about 09.00 a.m., the victim girl went to milk booth situated at 27th Cross, B.S.K.2nd Stage, Bengaluru. At that time the accused induced her stating that if she comes with him, he is going to marry her. At that time the victim girl refused to accompany with him stating that her mother is going to scold her, but the accused forcibly holding her hand kidnapped her and taken her towards Mandya, kept her in the house of Cheluva Raju, thereafter he took her to Dharmastala, Kukke Subramanya, Bhadravathi, Sigandur and Thirupathi and thereby committed offences punishable under section 363, 366 and 368 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 3 in the "Negative".
40. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences 37 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 punishable under Section 363, 366 and 368 of I.P.C. His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
The properties subjected to P.F.No.149/2014 dated 27-11-2014 and P.F.No.150/2014 dated 27- 11-2014 are treated as worthless, office is directed to destroy the said properties in accordance with law after appeal period is over. If an appeal is preferred, office is directed to dispose off the properties as per the result of the appeal and in accordance with law.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th Day of March 2018) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Rekha H.N. Cw.1 02-12-2016 Pw.2 Victim girl Cw.2 09-01-2017 Pw.3 Srinivasa Cw.3 28-02-2017 Pw.4 Bhojamma Cw.6 28-02-2017 38 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 Pw.5 Dr. C.Ramesh Cw.13 03-11-2017 Pw.6 Dr. Reethu Cw.12 17-11-2017 Pw.7 D. Malathi Cw.14 17-11-2017 Pw.8 Kumar.S.Itagi Cw.17 17-11-2017 Pw.9 B. Prem Kumari Cw.20 12-12-2017 Pw.10 Shivakumaraiah Cw.19 17-01-2018 Pw.11 A.V.Renuka Cw.21 17-01-2018 Pw.12 Byataraju Cw.10 03-02-2018 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 02-12-2016 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 02-12-2016 Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 12-12-2017 Ex.P 2 Medical report of Pw.1 02-12-2016 victim girl Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 02-12-2016 Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 17-11-2017 Ex.P 2c Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 3 Copy of S.S.L.C. Pw.2 09-01-2017 Marks card Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 4 Victim's statement Pw.2 09-01-2017 before Magistrate Ex.P 4a, Signatures of Pw.2 Pw.2 09-01-2017 4b Ex.P 4c Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 5 Pledge Slip of Pw.3 28-02-2017 Manapuram Finance Ltd-Bhadravathi 39 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 6 Terms & Condition Pw.3 28-02-2017 slip Ex.P 7 Mahazar Pw.3 28-02-2017 Ex.P 7a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 28-02-2017 Ex.P 7b Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 28-02-2017 Ex.P 7c Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 8 Medical report of Pw.5 03-11-2017 accused Ex.P 8a Signature of accused Pw.5 03-11-2017 Ex.P 8b, Signatures of Pw.5 Pw.5 03-11-2017 8c Ex.P 9 FSL Report Pw.7 17-11-2017 Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 17-11-2017 Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 10 Model Seal Pw.7 17-11-2017 Ex.P 10a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 17-11-2017 Ex.P 11 FSL Pw.8 17-11-2017 acknowledgement Ex.P 11a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 12 FIR Pw.9 12-12-2017 Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 12-12-2017 Ex.P 13 Mahazar Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 13a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-01-2018 Ex.P 13b Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 03-02-2018 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION NIL 40 Spl.C.C.No.535/2015 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Ex.D1 Copy of FIR in Pw.1 30-03-2017 Cr.No.47/2016 Ex.D2 Copy of remand Pw.1 30-03-2017 application Ex.D3 Copy of complaint Pw.2 21-04-2017 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MAKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU