Bangalore District Court
State By Srirampura Police vs A.Vinod on 20 March, 2018
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the 20th day of March, 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.437/2014
COMPLAINANT: State by Srirampura Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: A.Vinod,
Son of Armugam,
Aged 22 years,
Residing at No.78, 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Kirishnanda Nagar,
Nandini Layout Post,
Bangalore City.
[By Advocate Sri. P.R.Bhat]
1. Date of commission of offence 4.5.2014
2. Date of report of occurrence of 5.5.2014
the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 02.07.2014
4. Date of release of accused 07.06.2017
5. Period undergone in custody by 2 years, 11 months and
the accused 5 days
6. Date of commencement of 15.7.2015
evidence
2 Spl CC No.437/2014
7. Date of closing of evidence 6.3.2018
8. Name of the complainant Sri.Chamundeshwari-
complainant as well as the
mother of the victim girl.
9. Offences complained of Secs. 363, 366, 344 and 376
of IPC and under Sec.6 of
POCSO Act, 2012
10. Opinion of the Judge The accused is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malleswaram Sub-Division, Bangalore has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366, 344 and 376 of IPC and under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Gist of the prosecution case is that:
The accused on 4.5.2014 at 11.45 A.M., kidnapped the victim girl/CW2 who was aged about 16 years 6 months from her house No.J168, 2nd Cross, Hanumanthapura, Srirampura, Bangalore from her lawful guardian without such consent, with an intent that she may be compelled to marry and seduce her to illicit intercourse with the accused and took her to his native place at PP Moturu Village, Arakonam District, Tamilnadu State and wrongfully confined her upto 2.7.2014 and on 1.6.2014 he [accused] got marriage with the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, without her consent 3 Spl CC No.437/2014 repeatedly, which is coming within the purview of Sec.5(l) of POCSO Act, 2012, punishable under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and provisions invoked are Secs. 363, 366, 344 and 376 of IPC and also Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012. But, the offences as alleged is certainly falls within the purview of Sec.5(l) of POCSO Act, 2012 punishable under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and not under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, it is considered the penal provision i..e, Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012, as prosecution and also the defence side have proceeded with leading evidence on the basis of the materials placed. However, they are subject to trial and final hearing.
3. On receiving of the missing complaint lodged by the mother of the victim girl[aged about 16 yeas 6 months], a case has been registered in Cr.No.127/2014 and then criminal proceedings against the accused has been set in motion. The Investigating Officer has took up the case for investigation and then criminal proceedings against the accused has been set in motion. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused. Since the date of his arrest, the accused is in the judicial custody. Cognizance was taken. After completion of the investigation, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malleswaram Sub-Division, Bangalore has filed charge-sheet against the accused.
4. 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 4 Spl CC No.437/2014 the afternoon of 5.8.2017, now, the case is before this Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District, for disposal.
5. After production of the accused, the copies of the prosecution papers [charge-sheet] was furnished to the counsel on behalf of the accused in-compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this court has framed the Charge on 15.5.2015 and read over to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
7. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 10 witnesses, out of total 35 charge-sheet witnesses and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P18 documents and Material Objects as per MOs-1 to 11. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence available against him, but, he has not chosen to lead defence evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel. 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, the accused on 4.5.2014 at about 11.45 A.M., kidnapped the victim girl/CW2 who was aged 5 Spl CC No.437/2014 about 16 years 6 months from her house No.J168, 2nd Cross, Hanumanthapura, Srirampura, Bangalore from her lawful guardian without such consent, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused on the same date, time and place, kidnapped the victim girl/CW2 with an intent that she may be compelled to marry the accused or seduce her to illicit intercourse, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused on the same date, time and place after kidnapping the victim girl/CW2 took her to his native place PP Moturu Village, Arakonam district, Tamilnadu and wrongfully confined her in a house upto 2.7.2014, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.344 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused on the same date, time and place after kidnapping the victim girl/CW2 took her to his native place PP Moturu Village, Arakonam district, Tamilnadu and wrongfully confined her in a house upto 2.7.2014, and on 1.6.2014, the accused got marriage with the victim girl/CW2 and committed rape on her , without her consent, knowingly that she was minor, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.376 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused on the same date, time and place after kidnapping the victim girl/CW2 took her to his native place PP Moturu Village, Arakonam district, Tamilnadu and wrongfully confined her in a house upto 2.7.2014, and on 1.6.2014, the accused got marriage with the victim girl/CW2 and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly from 1.6.2014 upto 2.7.2014 without her consent, knowingly that she was 6 Spl CC No.437/2014 minor, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012?
6) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 5: In the NEGATIVE Point No.6: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NOS.1 TO 5:- 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, "The accused on 4.5.2014 at 11.45 A.M., kidnapped the victim girl/CW2 who was aged about 16 years 6 months from her house No.J168, 2nd Cross, Hanumanthapura, Srirampura, Bangalore from her lawful guardian without such consent, with an intent that she may be compelled to marry and seduce her to illicit intercourse with the accused and took her to his native place at PP Moturu Village, Arakonam District, Tamilnadu State and wrongfully confined her upto 2.7.2014 and on 1.6.2014 he [accused] got marriage with the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, without her consent repeatedly i.e., from 1.6.2014 upto 2.7.2014, knowingly that she was minor ,". Hence, the prosecution has to discharge its initial burden and only when it is discharged, the presumption 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 7 Spl CC No.437/2014 basis of the available evidence on record. If the prosecution has discharged the burden, then it would shifts on the accused to rebut these presumptions.
11. The prosecution has examined the material witnesses i.e., the very victim girl/CW2 as PW6 and her mother/CW1 as PW8 The victim girl and the complainant have stated about their relationship as daughter and mother. The father of the victim girl CW12 was died during the trial. Her [victim girl] mother is the first wife of her father and one Darshini is the 2nd wife of her father and her father was doing finance business. She [victim girl] knows the accused, as he was her friend. She was studying in 10th standard during the year 2014 and she was aged about 17 years. Herself, her mother and father and her father's 2nd wife were residing in the house and her younger brother died in the year 2009. Since, she was in the house after completing her SSLC Examination, in the year 2014, and that her father was abusing her mother and herself and also assaulting them and giving torture, because of such behavaiour and torture, she [victim girl] went to the house of her paternal aunt at Vellore, Tamil Nadu and requested her aunt not to disclose her arrival to her house. Thereafter, she [victim girl] came to know that her mother had lodged the missing complaint and she talked with her mother on phone. Thereafter her [victim girl] mother and father came and took her back to their ho use. Thereafter, she was taken to Malleswaram police station and the police sent her to hospital for medical examination and then she was sent to the Magistrate court for recording of her statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C.
8 Spl CC No.437/2014Thereafter, she [victim girl] was sent to State Home and she has specifically stated that, the accused did not kidnap her nor got marriage with her nor he committed rape/sexual assault on her. With reference to the Mahazars [Exs.P9 and P10], she admits her signature, but, she states that, those signatures were taken in the police station. Thus, she [victim girl] has totally turned hostile to the prosecution case. During the cross-examination, on declaring her as hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor has tried to bring on record by putting suggestion about the alleged incident, as per the prosecution case that, as she had failed in the 10th standard and her mother and father had scolded her, getting annoyed, she went to the house of the accused and the accused convinced her to go back to her house, since, she was not completed 18 years of age and that, after getting consent of her parents, he would marry her, but, she [victim girl] insisted him stating about the problems and told the accused that, if he did not marry her, she would die. Hence, they came to the Satellite Bus stop and went to Vellore, and the grandmother of the accused resisted their arrival and she [victim girl] convinced her and got the marriage with the accused by making them to agree for marriage and in the presence of relatives and villagers, they got marriage. Thereafter, she [victim girl] intimated the same to her mother and her mother told that she is coming there for taking her. But, she [victim girl] told falsely that she was in Bommanhalli. Thereafter, Srirampura police came to their place, but they escaped and went to the house of the brother of the accused. The Malleswaram police have traced out them and brought them [victim girl and the accused] to Bangalore and then the victim girl gave Statement before the Child 9 Spl CC No.437/2014 Welfare Committee and also before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. But, these suggestions have specifically been denied by the victim girl. She has denied the statement given by her under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C, recorded by the Learned Magistrate, as per Ex.P18. She expresses ignorance about the contents of Ex.P18. She has voluntarily stated on her own that, after attaining her age of majority i.e., after 18 years, her parents and the parents of the accused and other relatives have performed her marriage with the accused according to rituals and they both are leading marital life. Therefore, she [victim girl/PW6] has not supported the prosecution case. For that reason itself, at this stage, it can be gathered that, the prosecution has not discharged the initial burden, so as to attract the provisions of Secs. 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012.
12. So, also the complainant/mother/CW1/PW8 has deposed that, as she had scolded her daughter/victim girl, her daughter left the house one day and she did not return back to the house. Hence, she [PW8] lodged a complaint as per Ex.P13. After lodging the complaint, the police had come to their house and conducted Spot Mahazar as per Ex.P6 and after 2 months of lodging the complaint, her daughter returned back to the house and on enquiry she [victim girl] disclosed that, she had been to the house of her paternal aunt at Tamil Nadu. She [PW8] has identified the accused after removal of the slide in the "accused platform" in the open court. But, she has denied that, the accused neither kidnapped her daughter/victim girl nor he got her marriage nor he had physical contact with the victim girl. She has 10 Spl CC No.437/2014 voluntarily stated on her own that, after attaining age of majority by the victim girl i.e., after 18 years, herself [PW8] and her husband and the parents of the accused and other relatives have performed the marriage of the victim girl with the accused according to rituals and they [victim girl and the accused] both are leading marital life. Therefore, she [PW8] also turned totally hostile to prosecution case and she has not supported the prosecution case. During the cross-examination, on declaring her as hostile, she has denied the Statement given by her before the complainant police as per Ex.P14. Thus, both these material witnesses [PWs-6 and 8] have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and not supported the prosecution case about the kidnap of the victim girl by the accused, and marriage of the victim girl with the accused and committing of sexual assault on the victim girl by the accused.
13. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of CW22-Anitha Shivakumar, President of Child Welfare Committee, Bangalore, as PW3. She has deposed that, she is doing the work of protecting the children under the JJ Act. On 4.7.2014, the SPJU Smt.Arogya Mary produced the victim girl of this case who was aged about 16 years 6 months before her [PW3]. She enquired with her victim girl. But, the victim girl was not in a position to give any information as such, she [victim girl] was kept in Balamandir and done counseling. On 11.7.2014, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malleswaram Sub-Division, Bangalore had sent a requisition to her [PW3] to write down the Statement of the victim girl. The said Requisition is marked as Ex.P4. She has 11 Spl CC No.437/2014 recorded the statement of the victim girl under Sec.29 of JJ Act and the said Statement as per Ex.P5. It shall be consistent to the version of the victim girl. But, the victim girl has not supported the prosecution case.
14. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of the spot mahazar witnesses CW4-Joseph as PW4 and CW3-Soundari as PW5. They both have deposed that, during the year 2014, one day, the complainant-Srirampura Police had called them to the police station and obtained their signatures on the Spot Mahazar (Ex.P6) in the police station. They have denied that, the police have conducted the spot mahazar in their presence i.e., house No.J 168, Hanumanthanagar, the place where-from the victim girl was kidnapped, in their presence. They both also turned hostile to the prosecution case. During the cross-examination, on declaring them as hostile, PW4 has denied that he has given his statement before the complainant police as per Ex.P7 and PW5 has denied that she has given her statement before the complainant police as per Ex.P8. Thus, these [PWs4 and PW5] have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the prosecution case.
15. Now coming to the Doctors' Evidence brought on record by the prosecution:
(a) CW20 Dr.Ramesh Chandra Reddy deposed as PW1. He has stated on oath that, on 2.7.2014, at about 4.55 P,M., the Srirampuram police produced the accused before him [PW1] for conducting his medical examination. After obtaining his consent, 12 Spl CC No.437/2014 he examined the accused. On examination, he found that there were no external injuries on his [accused] body. He has collected the articles and sent for FSL Examination. He has issued the OPD chit with reference to the accused as per Ex.P1. On medical examination, of the accused, it is found that, "there is nothing to say that he [accused] is unable to perform sexual intercourse'. He got marked the MLC Register of the accused as per Ex.P2[ original Ex.P2 was returned back to the Doctor/PW1] and the extract of Ex.P2 is produced and marked as Ex.P3. He has given his opinion Report as per Ex.P12. He has got marked the Swab semen stain as per MO-1, pubic hair as perMO-2, inner wear [bref] as per MO-3, Shirt as per MO-4 and pant as per MO-5 with reference to the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has given false report as per Ex.P12.
(b) CW21 Dr.Veena who deposed as PW2 has stated on oath that, on 2.7.2014, at about 7.20 P.M., the victim girl was brought by the WPC of Srirampura police station, with a requisition for medical examination on the history of alleged sexual assault. The victim girl was accompanied by her mother. She [PW2] has obtained the consent of the victim girl for her medical examination As per the say of the victim girl, the accused is known to her. On 4.5.2014, the victim girl left the house willing with the accused to Vellur. She stayed with him for 2 months. On 1.6.2014, she got married with the accused and on 21.6.2014 there was first sexual contact with the accused. Three days prior to her medical examination, the victim girl had sexual intercourse with the accused. She had taken bath after the sexual intercourse and 13 Spl CC No.437/2014 changed the under garments. On physical examination, her body was moderately built and nourished, she was conscious, oriented.
No external injuries were found on the body of the victim girl. On examination of genitalia, 'No external injuries found over the genitalia, hymen not in-tact'. She [PW2] opined that, act like that of sexual intercourse taken place, there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. According to the victim girl, she was aged about 16 years.
(c) PW10- Dr.Chandrashekar, Asst. Director, RFSL, Mysore, deposed about the issuance of FSL Report as per Ex.P16. He has got marked the Nail Clippings as per MO-6; Pubic Hair as per MO-7; Vaginal swab as per MO-8; Cervical swab as per MO-9, Vaginal Smear as per MO-10 and Cervical smear as per MO-11. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has issued false certificate as per Ex.P16.
The evidence of these witnesses [ PWs-1, 2 and 10] cannot be considered as corroborative supporting the prosecution case, as the material witnesses i..e, PW6 and PW8 [victim girl and her mother] have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution that, the accused had kidnapped the victim girl and committed rape on her, knowingly that she was a minor. .
16. Now coming to the official witnesses:
(a) CW31-M.D.Shivashankarappa- the then Head Constable of the complainant-Srirampura police station deposed as PW7 has 14 Spl CC No.437/2014 stated on oath that, as per the direction of CW35, on 25.7.2014, he took sealed 11 articles to FSL, Madivala and obtained Acknowledgement and produced the same before CW35 and given his statement. The said Acknowledgement issued by FSL, Madivala is marked as per Ex.P11. He has assisted the Investigating Officer in the investigation process.
(b) CW28-Radha.N.- the WPC of the complainant-Srirampura police station deposed as PW9. She has stated on oath that, on 1.7.2014, CW35-the Investigating Officer had deputed her, CWs-27, 29 and 32 to trace out the accused and the victim girl as per the information received by the Investigating Officer that, the accused and the victim girl were staying at Arakonnam, Tamil Nadu. As per the orders of CW35-Investigating Officer, they reached Arakonnam, Tamil Nadu on 2.7.2014 and traced out the accused and the victim girl and brought them to Bangalore and produced them before CW-35-Investigating Officer. Again as per the order of the Investigating Officer, on 3.7.2014, she [PW9] took the victim girl to the Learned Magistrate for getting recorded her statement and after getting recorded her statement, she [Pw9] brought back the victim girl and produced before CW35-Investigating Officer. He has assisted the Investigating Officer in the investigation process.
The evidence of these witnesses [ PWs-7 and 9] also cannot be considered as corroborative supporting the prosecution case, as the material witnesses i..e, PW6 and PW8 [victim girl and her 15 Spl CC No.437/2014 mother] have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution.
17. As the material witnesses PWs-6 and 8 [victim girl and her mother] have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and hence, it is considered that, there is no cogent or clinching evidence to link the accused with the alleged crime and to hold that, he was guilty to convict him for the said offences. Because of the turning of hostile of the material witnesses i.e., the very victim girl and her mother, no purpose would be served by issuing summons to the other charge-sheet witnesses. Hence, issuance of summons and warrants to the other charge-sheet witnesses have been dispensed with and their evidence was dropped.
18. Therefore, from the available materials on record, as discussed above, and in view of non-supporting the case of the prosecution by PWs-6 and 8 the material witnesses and in the absence of clinching and cogent evidence to link the accused for conviction, holding him guilty of the alleged offences, it is hereby held that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, by discharging the initial burden. Hence, presumption under Secs.29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012 to be raised, does not arise. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of the accused and he is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, Point Nos.1 to 5 are answered in the Negative.
16 Spl CC No.437/201419. The victim girl [PW1] and her mother [PW8] has totally turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. It seems that, after attaining the age of majority by the victim girl, the parents of the victim girl and the parents of the accused and their relatives, have performed their [victim girl and the accused] marriage and that they both are leading marital life. Apart from this, the victim girl and her mother [PWs-6 and 8] have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the prosecution case. Hence, the victim girl is not entitled for any victim compensation, as provided under law.
20. POINT NO.6:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Secs. 363, 366, 344 and 376 of IPC.
His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
MOs-1 to 11 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrections carried out, and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of March, 2018] [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.17 Spl CC No.437/2014
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1 Dr.Ramesh Chandra Reddy CW20 15.7.2015 Pw.2 Dr.Veenka.K CW21 15.7.2015 PW.3 Anitha Shivakumar CW22 11.8.2015 PW.4 Joseph CW4 29.8.2015 PW.5 Soundari CW3 29.8.2015 PW.6 Victim girl CW2 17.11.2015 PW.7 M.D.Shivashankarappa CW31 26.10.2017 PW.8 Chamundeshwari CW1 16.2.2018 PW.9 Radha.N CW28 17.2.2018 PW.10 Dr.Chandrashekar Additional 6.3.2018 witness Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 OPD chit issued by CMO
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P2 MLC Register of the accused [Ex.P2 returned to the
Doctor-PW1-CW20]
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P3 Certified extract of Ex.P2
Ex.P4 Requisition sent to PW3 by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Malleswarm
Sub-Division, Bangalore dated: 11.7.2014 for recording the statement of the victim girl.
Ex.P5 Letter sent by PW3 dated: 18.7.2014
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P6 Panchanama conduced on the spot from where
CW2/ victim girl was kidnapped
18 Spl CC No.437/2014
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P6(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P6(c) Signature of PW8
Ex.P7 Statement of PW4 given before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P8 Statement of PW5 given before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P9 Spot Panchanma of the marriage of the victim
girl and the accused
Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW6/victim girl
Ex.P10 Panchnama of the house where the victim girl
and the accused had resided in Araknonam
District, Tamil Nadu State
Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW6/victim girl
Ex.P11 Acknowledgement issued by the FSL, Madiwala,
Bangalore for having received the articles for chemical examination Ex.P12 Final opinion regarding the sexual assault by the accused Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P13 Complaint dated: 5.5.2014 given by the complainant/PW8/mother of the victim girl/Pw6 with reference to missing of the victim girl/PW6 Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P14 Marked portion of the statement of PW8 given before the complainant police Ex.P15 Further statement of PW8 given before the complainant police 19 Spl CC No.437/2014 Ex.P16 FSL Report Ex.P16(a) Signatures of PW10 and P16(b) Ex.P17 Sample seal Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P18 Statement of the victim girl/CW2/PW6 recorded by the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P18(a) Signatures of the victim girl/CW2/PW6 and P18(b) Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-1 Swab for semen stain MO-2 Pubic hair MO-3 Innerwear [bref] MO-4 Shirt MO-5 Pant MO-6 Nail clippings MO-7 Pubic Hair MO-8 Vaginal swab MO-9 Cervical Swab MO-10 Vaginal smear MO-11 Cervical smear
Witness examined, documents and MOs marked for the accused: NIL [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.20 Spl CC No.437/2014
20.3.2018 Accused is present.
Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Secs. 363, 366, 344 and 376 of IPC.
His bail bond and surety bond stand
cancelled.
MOs-1 to 11 being worthless are
ordered to be destroyed after the appeal
period is over.
[YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO]]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.21 Spl CC No.437/2014