Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

SPL.C/31/2014 on 31 March, 2016

  IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
        SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE

  DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2016

                 - : PRESENT : -
       SMT.SHUBHA GOWDAR, B.A.LL.B,
    L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
                BANGALORE.


            SPECIAL C.C.NO. 31 / 2014


COMPLAINANT :

        The State of Karnataka by Kottanur
        Police Station, Bangalore.

        [Represented by learned Public
        Prosecutor, Bangalore.]

               / VERSUS /
ACCUSED :

        Shailesh Sharma S/o. America
        Sharma, 25 years, C/o. residence of
        Thomas, Church Street,
        Chikkabyrathi, Kottanur Post,
        Bengaluru, Native place: Akatawa
        village, Jainpura Post,

        [Represented by learned counsel Sri
        P.G.Rajath Gowda]

                      ***
                             2        Spl.CC.No. 31/2014



                   JUDGMENT

Kothanur Police, Bangalore City have charge sheeted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 376, 417 of I.P.C and Sec. 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :

CW2-the prosecutrix was of 17 years in the year 2013. The accused who was residing in a rented house belonging to ownership of father of prosecutrix fell in love with the prosecutrix. In the absence of family members of the prosecutrix he had physical relationship with her on the pretext of marrying her. On 10.4.2013 at 1.00 p.m. accused had taken away the prosecutrix from her house by promising to marry her. He took her to Hyderabad. When the prosecutrix insisted him to take back her to Bengaluru, on 12.04.2013 they had come back to Bangalore, left her 3 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 in Hennur Cross to go to her house. In the meanwhile on 10.4.2013 itself CW1 Albert, brother of the prosecutrix had lodged a complaint. After the prosecutrix returned home she was taken to Kothanur Police as the case was registered. The Investigating Officer recorded her statement. She was sent to hospital for medical examination and she was found 5½ months pregnant. Accused was apprehended.

Investigating Officer drew necessary mahazars and recorded the statement of other prosecution witnesses. The prosecutrix had given birth to a baby. The blood sample of the accused, prosecutrix and the baby was taken and sent to DNA Centre. By completing the investigation he submitted the Charge Sheet to the Court for the aforesaid offences.

3. The charge sheet was submitted to this Court. After taking cognizance the case was registered in Spl.C.C. After following the procedure laid down under Law the charge for the offences punishable under Section 366, 376 of I.P.C and Sec.5(l) R/w.Sec 6 4 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, framed and read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, posted for evidence on prosecution side.

4. On prosecution side got examined as many as 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W. 10 out of 21 charge sheet witnesses and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 the details of which are given in the annexure of this Judgment. On closure of evidence on prosecution side, it was posted for accused statement. Accused statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded against accused. Accused has denied the whole incriminating evidence against him and he has not chosen to lead evidence on his side. It was posted for arguments.

5. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused and posted for Judgment.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under :

1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed rape on CW3-

minor daughter of CW2-Thomas, 6-7 months prior to 10.4.2013 and subsequently in his house situated in Byrathi village, within the jurisdiction of Kothanur Police station punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sec 5(l) R/w. Sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had kidnapped CW3 on 10.4.2013 with intent that she may be compelled to marry him against her will punishable under Section 366 of IPC?

3) What order?

7. My findings on the above points are as under:-

Point No.1) : In the negative Point No.2) In the negative Point No.3) As per final orders for the following REASONS

8. Point No.1 & 2:- Both the points are taken together for common discussion as they overlap each other. Accused is alleged to have had kidnapped PW3 prosecutrix, minor daughter of PW4 Thomas on 10.4.2013 with intent that she may be forced to marry him against her will. It is also alleged that 6-7 months prior to that accused had committed rape on her in her house in the absence of her family members. Since the further allegation is made against him he had continued forcible sexual contact with the minor prosecutrix, the charge for the offence u/s 376 of IPC as well as u/s 5(l) R/w Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been framed. As per prosecution the rape committed by the accused is 7 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 at different dates, first time 6-7 months prior to 10.4.2013. The other rapes committed by the accused on her is subsequent to that date. In other words it was continuing offence. The first rape alleged to have been committed by the accused is dated back to the last week of October, 2012, if taken six months prior to 10.4.2013, it goes to last week of September, 2012 if taken 7 months before the 10.4.2013. Since it was alleged to have been continued by accused, the charge under the first head for the offence u/s. 376 of IPC and sec 5(l) R/w. Sec 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, have been framed. In view of section 2(d) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 the 'child' means any person below 18 years. Therefore, at the first instance the age of the prosecutrix shall have to be looked into.

9. As per prosecution prosecutrix was of 17 years. On this point the prosecution has got examined PW2-Albert, brother of the prosecutrix, PW3- prosecutrix, PW4-Thomas, father of the prosecutrix, 8 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 PW5-Anthoniamma, mother of the prosecutrix, PW8- Chandrashekar, then PSI who party investigated.

10. PW2-Albert is elder brother of the prosecutrix. He is the complainant. In view of his oral testimony, the prosecutrix was of 17 years as on the date of the alleged incident. Same is found in cross examination led by learned counsel for accused, the same is also stated by PW3-Prosecutrix. As per her say she was of 18 years at the time of recording of evidence. It was recorded on 12.8.2014. The offence of kidnapping took place on 10.4.2013. The first rape alleged to have been committed by the accused is in the last week of September, 2012 or in the last week of October, 2012. If this is taken she was above 16 years as on the date of alleged offences. In view of oral testimony of PW4-Thomas, the prosecutrix was studying in II PUC at that time. PW5 mother of the prosecutrix also stated the same thing as her husband. Except this they did not say anything about the age of the prosecutrix.

11. As per Ex.P1, the complaint lodged by PW2- complainant she was of 16 years. As per the charge sheet the age of the prosecutrix was 17 years as on that date. Thus there is no corroborative evidence on this point. The initial burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the age of the prosecutrix. There is no medical evidence as to age of the prosecutrix. No prescribed tests were conducted and her age was not assessed. Of course on prosecution side one document at Ex.P8 has been produced. PW8- Chandrashekar-then PSI had received this document. PW8 has stated that Ex.P8 is the true copy, which is always subject to proof. Ex.P8 does not contain any endorsement that it has been compared and verified with original SSLC marks card. It bears only the signature of PW8. The author of this document is not examined. Even this has not been confronted either to prosecutrix or to complainant or to parents of the victim girl. As per Ex.P8 the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 7.11.1996. But when the original 10 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 document or certified copy of the same is not before the court, the Xerox copy styled as true copy as per the say of the PW8 is very difficult to be based to appreciate the date of birth when it is very much contradictory to oral testimony of the complainant and prosecutrix. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the age of the prosecutrix. I have already discussed in supra since there is an allegation as to commission of the rape continued, the charge for offence u/s. 5(l) R/w. Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 along with Sec. 376 IPC has been framed. To establish the age of the prosecutrix is on the prosecution, for which the concerned authority has not been examined, referring to Ex.P8 no original document is produced. The oral testimony on record is inconsistent with that of the entry in Ex.P8. When on prosecution side failed to confront the same to the parents of the victim girl the entry in Ex.P8 is not safe to be relied to determine the age of the prosecutrix. It is not a conclusive proof. There is no other document 11 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 placed on prosecution side. At the first style itself, the prosecution has failed to establish the age of the prosecutrix was under 16 years.

12. Even if it is taken that victim was under 18 years the next question arises for my consideration whether the prosecutrix had kidnapped prosecutrix on 10.4.2013. According to prosecutrix accused was residing in a rented house adjacent to her house, which is belonged to the ownership of PW4 Thomas, father of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix studied first PUC. The parents of the prosecutrix have one son viz., PW2 the complainant and two daughters i.e., PW3-prosecutrix and her elder sister. The complainant was working in Mahaveer Jain hospital. PW4 was working as cook in one hotel, PW5 was working as Aayah in a school. The elder sister of prosecutrix was working as receptionist in one hospital. When other family members left the house for their work, the prosecutrix alone use to stay at home. By taking advantage of this situation the 12 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 accused who hails from Uttar Pradesh and who was residing in a rented house belonging to the ownership of PW4 used to visit her house, on the promise of marrying her had sex with her 6 to 7 months before 10.4.2013 first time and also thereafter he continued to have had sex once in a week or once in 15 days on the pretext of marry her. As the days were going on like this on 10.4.2013 he persuaded her to marry, he took away PW3 to Hyderabad, he had shown film city, on 11.4.2013 prosecutrix wanted to come back to Bengaluru. Because of her insistence he brought her back to Bangalore and left her in Hennur cross and she returned home. In the meanwhile on 10.4.2013 at about 11.30 p.m. PW2-Albert had lodged a complaint before Kothanur Police. Hence she was taken to Police Station where she had given statement reiterating the case of the prosecution as mentioned in supra. She was taken to Baptist hospital for medical examination where reported that she was found pregnant of 22 weeks. She underwent medical examination on 13 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 12.4.2013. Accused was apprehended and he was also subjected to medical examination in Ambedkar Hospital. Investigating Officer drew mahazar on 11.4.2013 as per Ex.P2 in the house of the prosecutrix. He also drew seizure mahazar on 12.4.2013 in police station with respect to seizure of the clothes of victim collected from hospital. After the prosecutrix gave birth to a baby, blood sample of the accused, prosecutrix and the baby was taken. The blood samples were sent to DNA centre. The articles seized at Ex.P7 were sent to FSL for chemical examination. Investigating Officer received DNA report as per Ex.P12 which refers to accused is the biological father of the baby of the prosecutrix. As per prosecution, prosecutrix has given statement as per Ex.P3 on 12.4.2013, accordingly PW4 and 5 had also given statement before Investigating Officer on the same day. This is the theory of the prosecution.

13. When there are charges for offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also u/s 5(l) 14 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 r/w Sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is there any material on record to show the offence of rape committed by him on the victim girl is to be seen. Of course in view of Sec. 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. Where any person has been prosecuted for the offence u/s. 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the special court shall presume that he has committed the offence unless contrary is proved. However, what is the evidence on record is to be seen at the first instance. As already discussed in supra as per allegations, the commission of rape was at intervals. The first rape was committed six / seven months before 12.4.2013, subsequently on the pretext of marrying her he continued to have sex once in a week or 15 days. However ongoing through the evidence of the prosecutrix, she has not at all supported case of the prosecution. So far as concerned to rape committed by the accused her whole evidence is read, would give a different picture. She 15 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 has partly supported the prosecution. In the chief examination itself she has stated that on 10/4/2013 she voluntarily left the house with accused and both of them got married in Hyderabad as they were loving each other. Since then they have been living as husband and wife and they have one baby. On going through the accused statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused did not dispute his marriage with the prosecutrix and they have one baby. From the evidence of prosecutrix, say of the accused during the course of recording 313 statement, oral testimony of PW2 complainant, PW4 and 5, the parents of the prosecutrix, accused and prosecutrix are husband and wife and they have one baby. As per Ex.P12 DNA report, accused is the biological father of the baby born to the prosecutrix. Accused admits that he is the father of baby of the prosecutrix, she is his wife. It is evident from the oral testimony of the aforesaid witnesses and say of the accused it is admitted that accused, who hails from Uttar Pradesh 16 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 was working as Carpenter and he was residing in adjacent house of the victim girl on rent basis taken from her father. It is also admitted that both of them were loving each other. As per evidence of the prosecutrix and the say of accused during the course of 313 Cr.P.C. statement both of them on 10.4.2013 got married in Hyderabad. The prosecutrix was found to be with 22 weeks of pregnancy on 12.4.2013. As per Ex.P9. Therefore the calendar of events is very material in the present case. On going through the entire evidence of the prosecutrix and even the evidence of other material witnesses i.e., PW2, 4 and 5 the accused had no forcible sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. Very particularly there are no materials on record with respect to continuation of the sexual activity by accused with the prosecutrix. I make it very clear that Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came into force on 14.11.2012. The allegations are made that accused had committed rape 6-7 months prior to 12/4/2013 for the first time and 17 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 he continued to have sex with her on the pretext of marrying her. Therefore the charge under Section 5(l) R/w. Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been framed. But there is absolutely no evidence available on the part of the prosecution to show that there was continuation of sexual activity. The whole evidence on prosecution side shall have to be carefully scrutinized with utmost care. In the absence of any piece of evidence as to continuation of sexual activity very particularly after commencement of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Section 29 of the Act hasn't come to the aid of prosecution. In the case like this nature the prosecutrix is the proper person to speak about the happenings. No evidence is brought on record as to continuation of offence. However, there is evidence as to their physical relationship in the month of September / October 2012. Whether it constitutes offence of rape is to be seen. In view of position of law then prevailed age of consent for sex is 16 years. 18 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014

14. As per prosecution, the accused is alleged to have had taken away the prosecutrix on 10.4.2013 on the pretext of marrying her. He had the intention that she may be compelled to marry him. After her return when she was subjected to medical examination it came to light that she was found to be pregnant of 5½ months. Therefore, if the offence of kidnapping is taken up, the essential ingredient of offence of kidnapping itself is not established by the prosecution. Taking away or enticing the minor girl is the essential ingredient of offence of kidnapping. Section 366 of IPC provides, whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she would be compelled, to marry any person against her will, is said to have committed the offence of kidnapping or abduction. In the present case as per the allegation, accused had persuaded the prosecutrix to leave the house and he had the intention to compel her to marry him against her will. In other words he 19 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 had induced her to leave the house, but after taking away the victim girl to Hyderabad when she insisted him to come back to Bengaluru, he brought her and left in Hennur cross. With this background on going through the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, there is absence of enticement in any manner. Accused has neither persuaded nor enticed the prosecutrix. Her oral testimony itself would speak that she had left her residence on her own free will, both of them got married in Hyderabad. There is substantial material on the record to establish that victim girl had not been persuaded or compelled to marry accused. There is express charge under Section 366 of IPC. But in the absence of persuasion, in the absence of inducement, in the absence of enticement, it is not safe to convict him for the offence of kidnapping punishable u/s 366 of IPC. On this point I have relied upon the decision reported in 2016 SAR (Criminal) 163 Supreme Court (Sat Parkash V/s. State of Haryana and another) In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court held, "that deceased 20 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 girl was of 15 years, she was alleged to have kidnapped by the appellant, committed rape on her and killed her - The appellant, his uncle and aunt were charged with offence u/s 363, 366-A, 376 and 302 R/w. Sec.34 IPC - Uncle and aunt of appellant have since been acquitted - Appellant has also been acquitted of the offence u/s 302 of IPC - Surviving charges against the appellant are relatable only to Sec. 363, 366, 366-A and 376 of IPC - In her suicide note the deceased clearly and unequivocally stated that she had left her residence by her own free will - It cannot be said that appellant had enticed the deceased to accompany him"

Further it is held at para 4 "that there is therefore substantial material on the record of this case to establish that the deceased had not been persuaded or compelled to marry the appellant, before she committed suicide - In fact, the culpability of the appellant under section 366 of 21 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 IPC has been considered even though there was no express charge against the appellant under the above provision - On the basis of the allegation leveled against the appellant, based on the evidence produced before the trial court, it would not have been possible to convict the appellant u/s. 366 of IPC."

15. The aforesaid ruling applies to the present case. In the case on hand also there is an allegation that accused had kidnapped her on the pretext of marriage. As already discussed in supra there is no proof with respect to her age under 16 years. There is also no evidence on record that she had been persuaded or compelled to marry him. As per the say of the prosecutrix herself she had left residence by her own free will and joined the accused and she got married him at her own will, since then they have been living together. In view of Hindu Marriage Act, marriage becomes voidable but so far as concerned to charge under Section 366 is taken for consideration 22 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 the conviction cannot be drawn against the accused for offence under Section 366 of IPC. On this aspect the aforesaid ruling applies to the present case. Under the circumstances the offence under Section 366 of IPC is not made out.

16. Now the question is whether the act of accused with the prosecutrix amounts to offence of rape. As per the evidence on record very particularly the oral testimony of the prosecutrix both of them fell in love and got married in Hyderabad after they left the house on 10.4.2013. According to prosecution 6-7 months before 12.4.2013 the date on which she had allegedly given statement as per Ex.P3, the accused had sex with her on the pretext of marriage. That was committed in the house of the prosecutrix. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came into force on 14.11.2012, 6-7 months prior to 12.4.2013 is taken, it is prior to coming into force the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Though there are allegations by the prosecution that 23 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 accused continued the forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix after he committed rape in the last week of October or in the last week of September, the charge under Section 5(l) R/w. Sec.6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been framed. On this aspect I have already discussed in supra that there is no piece of evidence, in the cases like this nature the evidence of the prosecutrix is very material, but her evidence does not disclose this aspect. Whereas as per Ex.P9 provisional certificate the prosecutrix was found to be pregnant of 22 weeks. She had undergone medical examination on 12.4.2013. If that is taken to be true they had physical relationship in the last week of October i.e., prior to coming into force of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. Therefore, there is no material on record to attract the ingredients of Sec. 5(l) R/w. Sec 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. At cost of repetition, as laid down under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from 24 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 Sexual Offences Act 2012 presumption cannot be drawn in favour of the prosecution. Apart from that from the evidence available on the part of the prosecution itself there was no such offence committed by the accused subsequent to the last week of October 2012. Viewed from any angle there is no strong piece of evidence to hold the guilt of the accused for offence under Section 5(l) R/w Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Of course as per Ex.P9 and DNA report accused and prosecutrix had physical relation in the last week of October. Now the question arise whether it constitute the offence of rape. Firstly, according to prosecution accused had sex with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, hence she cooperated. But that is not at all the say of the prosecutrix she had either been persuaded or forced. Even as per 'history' noted in Ex.P9 the provisional medical certificate it is consensual act. Secondly, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 does not apply to the 25 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 said act taken place on the last week of October, 2012 as it was not in force as on that date. As already discussed in supra there is no conclusive proof with respect to age of the prosecutrix that she was under

16 years as on that date. Even according to the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P8 there was only 10 to 12 days was less to complete 16 years. But that is not the conclusive proof in respect of which I have already discussed in supra. Therefore when there is no convincing and explicit evidence on this point and the variation found in the age of the prosecutrix, the benefit of the same shall be given to the accused.

When the case of the prosecution that she was under

16 years itself is not established by the prosecution, consensual act does not constitute the offence of rape.

17. PW10 Dr. Sathyaveni has spoken to Ex.P9.

PW6 Dr. Nagaraj has stated that he had subjected the accused to medical examination and issued medical report as per Ex.P6 that there is nothing to suggest that he is incapable of having sexual intercourse. PW1 26 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 Abdul Hamid-Police Constable had apprehended the accused on 8.12.2013. The evidence of these three witnesses is not of much helpful to the prosecution. As already stated in supra that the accused and the prosecutrix had sex in the last week of October, due to which she became pregnant and she was subsequently found with 22 weeks pregnant on 12.4.2013, but it is consensual act. The age of consent is 16 years in view of Sixthly of Section 375 IPC. Under these circumstances the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence of rape. Though PW8-PSI partly investigated i.e., he drew mahazar as per Ex.P2 and seizure mahazar as per Ex.P7. PW7-Naveen Kulkarni- PI had sent blood sample for DNA test. He received eight articles from the hospital as mentioned in Ex.P10 and they were sent to FSL for chemical examination. PW9 filed the charge sheet. They reiterated case of the prosecution. In view of oral testimony of PW3- prosecutrix it is a consensual act. The offence of rape is not made out. The prosecution has miserably failed 27 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by placing corroborative, sufficient and reliable evidence. The benefit of doubt should go to the accused. Hence I hold point 1 and 2 in the negative.

18. Point No.3: In view of my above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C and Sec. 5(l) R/w.

Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Item No.1 to 4 in PF No.12/2013 and Item No.1 to 3 in PF No.13/2013 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript computerized and print out taken by him and after correction signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of March, 2016.) (SHUBHA GOWDAR) L Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW 1 Abdul Hameed PW 2 Albert Anand PW 3 Victim girl PW 4 Thomas PW 5 Anthoniamma PW 6 B.M. Nagaraju PW 7 Navin Kulkarni PW 8 Chandrashekar M PW 9 Krishnappa V PW 10 Dr. Sathyavani C LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Ex.P 1(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P 2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P 2(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P 2(b) Signature of PW7 Ex.P 3 Statement of PW3 Ex.P 4 Statement of PW4 Ex.P 5 Statement of PW5 Ex.P 6 Medical report Ex.P 6(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P 7 Seizure Mahazar of clothes Ex.P 7(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P 8 SSLC Marks card 29 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 Ex.P 8(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P 9 Provisional Medical Certificate Ex.P 9(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P 10 Requisition for Laboratory examination Ex.P 10(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P 11 Medical report from Bengaluru Baptist Hospital Ex.P 11(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P 12 DNA report from FSL Ex.P 12(a) Signature of PW9 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- NIL -

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, AND MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

(SHUBHA GOWDAR) L Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

*** 30 Spl.CC.No. 31/2014 31.03.2014 State by Public Prosecutor Accused on bail - Sri PGR Judgment pronounced in the open court, operative portion of which reads as under:-

Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C and Sec. 5(l) R/w. Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Item No.1 to 4 in PF No.12/2013 and Item No.1 to 3 in PF No.13/2013 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.

(SHUBHA GOWDAR) L Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.