Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sunil Kumar on 23 March, 2020
Spl.C.C.341/2014
1
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 23 rd Day of March, 2020
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA. B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No. 341/2014
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka
By H.S.R. Layout Police Station,
Bangalore
[Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED: Sunil Kumar
S/o. Nagaraju, 22 years,
R/at. No.59,
Chaku Srinivasa Reddy Vatara
Kasavanahalli,
Bangalore.
[Sri.V.M-Advocate]
1 Date of commission of offence 28-04-2012
2 Date of report of occurrence 28-04-2012
3 Date of arrest of Accused 05-06-2012
Date of release of Accused 28-06-2012
Date of arrest of accused under 30-09-2019
warrant
Period undergone in custody 16 days &
by Accused 6 months
4 Date of commencement of evidence 09-02-2015
Spl.C.C.341/2014
2
5 Date of closing of evidence 19-02-2020
6 Name of the complainant Sunitha
7 Offences complained of Sec.366,376-IPC, 5(L)
6-POCSO Act, 2012
Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
J U D GM EN T
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector and SHO of
H.S.R. Layout Police Station-Bangalore against the accused for
the offences punishable under Section 366-A, 376 of IPC.
2. Since it is a case of kidnap and rape 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 complainant and her daughter-the victim girl are
residents of House No.3, Chaku Srinivasa Reddy Vatara,
Spl.C.C.341/2014
3
Kasavana Halli, Bengaluru, within the limits of H.S.R. Layout
Police Station. The accused was the resident of House No.59 of
same Vatara. On 28-04-2012 at about 08.30 a.m., the victim
girl who was minor went to her work to Leak Show Room
Apartment, Kasavana Halli, at that time the accused went there
and enticed her that he is going to marry her and kidnapped
her, got married in a temple, taken her to Marcoona Halli
Village, Tumkur District, kept her in a rented house of Cw.4-
M.K. Raju and also enticed her that he is her husband and got
sexual intercourse on her by way of committing rape. On the
basis of complaint lodged by the complainant, the police
registered missing complaint in Crime No.137/2012 .
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 366-A, 376 of IPC. Thereafter, after
filing of charge sheet the accused appeared before the
Committal Court. The copy of charge sheet furnished to him as
contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the
Spl.C.C.341/2014
4
committal court committed the case to the Court of Sessions-
Bangalore. Initially the said case was registered as S.C. No.
464/2013 and made over to FTC-15. Thereafter, the said case
transferred to this Court and registered as Spl.C.C. No.
341/2014 on 28-07-2014.
5. After receiving record by this Court, this Court issued
summons to the accused. The accused was present and he was
enlarged on bail by executing personal bond and producing
Surety. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused submitted
no arguments before framing charge. On perusal of charge
sheet there is prima-facie material available on record against
accused, hence the learned predecessor framed charge against
the accused for the offences under Section 366, 376 of IPC and
section 5(L) read with section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The
contents of charge read over and explained to the accused in
Kannada. He pleaded not guilty and submits crime to be tried.
Thereafter, the case against accused was set down for
prosecution evidence.
Spl.C.C.341/2014
5
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused has examined in all 9 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.9, got
marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and 5 material
objects as MO1 to MO5 and closed its side evidence. In the
mean time the accused appeared irregularly and the stage went
up to sending record for LPR, but the police by executing NBW
at that stage, secured him and produced before Court, since the
bail bond and surety bond already cancelled and he was
proclamined offender, he was remanded to judicial custody.
Thereafter, in view of incriminating evidence appeared against
accused, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by
recording his statement. He denied the alleged incriminating
evidence appeared against him as false. 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:-
Spl.C.C.341/2014
6
1. DgÀÉÆæಯಯ ದನನನಕಕ28-04-2014 ರನದಯ ಬಬಳಗಬಗ 08-30 ಗನಟಬಯ ಸಮಯದಲಲ
ಚನಸನ.1-ಶಶಶಮತ. ಸಯನಶತನರವರ ಅಪನಶಪಪ ವಯಸಸನ ಮಗಳನದ ಚನಸನ.2 ರವರಯ ಕಬಲಸಕಬಕನದಯ
ಹಬಚಚ.ಎಸಚ. ಅರಚ. ಲಬಶಔಟಚ ಪಲಶಸಚ ಠನಣನ ಸರಹದದಗಬ ಸಬಶರದ ಕಸವನಹಳಳಯ ಲಬಶಕಚ
ಶಬಶಶ ರಶನ ಅಪನಟಬರರನಟಚ ಬಳ ಹಬಶಶದನಗ ಅಲಲನದ ಚನಸನ.2 ರವರನಯನ ಮದಯವಬಯನಗಯವ
ಉದಬದಶಶದನದ ಅರಬಬಶಶಪಯಯ ಅಪಹರಣ ಮನಡ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.366 ರ
ಅಡಯಲಲ ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. ಆರಬಶಶಪಯಯ ಮಶಲಬ ಹಬಶಳದ ದನನನಕ, ಸಸಳ, ಮತಯಪ ಸಮಯದನದಯ
ನಬಶನದಬನಲಕಯನಯನ ಅಪಹರಣ ಮನಡದ ನನತರ ದಬಶವಸನಸನದಲಲ ಮದಯವಬಮನಡಕಬಶನಡಯ
ನನತರ ಅಲಲನದ ತಯಮಕಶರಯ ಜಲಬಲಯ ಮನಕಬಶಶರನಹಳಳ ಗನಶಮಕಬಕ ಕರಬದಯಕಬಶನಡಯ ಹಬಶಶಗ
ಅಲಲ ಚನಸನ.4-ಶಶಶ.ಎನ.ಕಬ.ರನಜಯರವರ ಮನಬಯನಯನ ಬನಡಗಬಗಬ ಪಡಬದಯಕಬಶನಡಯ ಆ ಮನಬಯಲಲ
ಸನಸನರ ಮನಡಕಬಶನಡದಯದ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ತನನಯ ಆಕಬಯ ಗನಡ ಎನದಯ ಹಬಶಳ ನಬಶನದ
ಬನಲಕಯ ಇಷಷಕಬಕ ವರಯದದವನಗ ಹಲವನರಯ ಬನರ ಹಠ ಸನಭಬಶಶಗ ಮನಡ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ
¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.376 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ಹನಗಶ ಕಲನ.5(ಎಲಚ), 6 ರ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À
¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ ಅಧನಯಮ, 2012gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ
¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3. ಯನವ ಆದಬಶಶ?
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: As per the final orders for the following:
RE AS ON S
9. Point No.1 and 2: 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 produced by the
prosecution and the accused and arguments canvassed by both
Spl.C.C.341/2014
7
sides.
11. In order to prove the alleged offences against the
accused the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses as Pw.1 to
Pw.9, got marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and 5
material objects as MO1 to MO5. As per the prosecution case,
Pw.1 is the victim girl, Pw.2 is the complainant, Pw.3 is the
doctor, Pw.9 is Head Mistress, Pw.4 to Pw.8 are the police
personnel and Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court shall
proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses
is sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against the
accused.
12. In order to establish the alleged offences against
accused the prosecution is required to prove that the
complainant and her daughter-the victim girl are residents of
House No.3, Chaku Srinivasa Reddy Vatara, Kasavana Halli,
Bengaluru, within the limits of H.S.R. Layout Police Station.
The accused was the resident of House No.59 of same Vatara.
On 28-04-2012 at about 08.30 a.m., the victim girl who was
Spl.C.C.341/2014
8
minor went to her work to Leak Show Room Apartment,
Kasavana Halli, at that time the accused went there and enticed
her that he is going to marry her and kidnapped her, got
married in a temple, taken her to Marcoona Halli Village,
Tumkur District, kept her in a rented house of Cw.4-M.K. Raju
and also enticed her that he is her husband and got sexual
intercourse on her by way of committing rape and thereby
committed offences punishable under Section 366, 376 of IPC
and section 5(L) read with section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
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 on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition
of offences under Section 366, 376 of IPC and section 5(L) read
with section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Spl.C.C.341/2014
9
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 376 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for rape-(1) Whoever, except in the cases
provided for by sub-section(2), commits rape shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than seven years but which may be
for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall
also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife
and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years or with fine or with
both:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.(2)
Whoever,-(a) being a Police Officer commits rape-(i) within the
limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or (ii) in
the premises of any station house whether or not situated in
the police station to which he is appointed; or (iii) on a
woman in his custody or in the custody of a Police Officer
subordinate to him; or (b) being a public servant, takes
advantage of his official position and commits rape on a
woman in his custody as such public servant or in the
custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or (c) being
Spl.C.C.341/2014
10
on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or
other place or custody established by or under any law for
the time being in force or of a woman's or children's
institution takes advantage of his official position and
commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place
or institution; or (d) being on the management or on the staff
of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and
commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (e) commits
rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or (f) commits
rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to
fine:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than
ten years.
Section 5(L) of POCSO Act defines that:
Aggravated penetrative Sexual assault: Whoever
commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than
once or repeatedly.
Section 6 of POCSO Act defines that:
Punishment for aggravated penetrative Sexual
Assault: Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual
assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine .
With these observations, now left with the available
material evidence produced by the prosecution to consider
whether it has proved the alleged offences against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt or it probabalises the defense of
Spl.C.C.341/2014
11
the accused.
14. Section 34 of POCSO Act defines about the age of
victim girl. On perusal of evidence of Pw.1-the victim girl, she
has deposed that her age as on the date of incident near to 18
and 18 years not yet completed. On perusal of evidence of
Pw.2-the complainant, she has also deposed that similar
evidence with regard to the age of victim girl. On perusal of
evidence of Pw.9-K. Anajala Devi-Teacher of Kallahalli Higher
Primary School, Mandya, she has deposed that as per request of
H.S.R. Layout Police, she has issued Ex.P10-study and birth
date certificate on 13-09-2012. According to her and available
material records in the school, the victim girl was born on 03-
07-1994 and she joined to the school for the year 2000-01 to 1 st
standard. As per the prosecution case, the alleged incident was
taken place on 28-04-2012. If this piece of evidence is taken
into consideration, at the time of alleged incident the victim girl
was aged about 17 years 9 months and 25 days. At this stage,
this Court feels to observe that as on the date of alleged
Spl.C.C.341/2014
12
incident, the victim girl was minor. With these, now left with
the evidence of Pw.1.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-the victim
girl, she has deposed that the complainant is her mother.
Earlier she doesn't know the accused. He was following her
when she was going to work, at that time she questioned the act
of the accused. The accused told her he wants to develop her
friendship, at that time she came to know his name. The
accused had taken her to his relative at Bengaluru, where for
two days they stayed in the relatives house. Thereafter he has
taken her to Mandya by that time her mother had lodged
complaint. He had taken her to his relatives village near to
Malavalli, kept her in the house of his relative for one month.
The said incident taken place during the year 2014. By that
time her age was near to 18 years. The relative of accused got
celebrated the marriage of accused and her in a temple,
thereafter both were lived as husband wife. Thereafter she
demanded him that she wants to see her mother, for that he
Spl.C.C.341/2014
13
had brought her to Bengaluru and left her in her house.
16. Further she has deposed that her mother taken her
to the police station, the police enquired her, made her
subjected to medical check up. Here the case of prosecution is
otherwise. According to the prosecution, the accused
kidnapped her, got married her before temple in Bengaluru and
taken her to Markona Village of Tumkur District, got rented
house of Cw.4 and kept her in the said house. Further by
stating that he is her husband and raped on her. But the victim
girl in her chief examination not whispered the case of
prosecution. When such being the case, there is doubt about
commission of offence by the accused.
17. In the cross-examination tested her veracity and
also elicited that: "ªÀļÀªÀ½îAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ¸ÀĤ¯ï PÀĪÀiÁgï£À ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
EzÀÝgÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĤ¯ï PÀĪÀiÁgï ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁV EzÉݪÀÅ CAzÀgÉ UÀAqÀ-ºÉAqÀw
vÀgÀºÀ EgÀ°®è C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj". If the above said admitted evidence is
taken into consideration, there is a doubt of commission of
Spl.C.C.341/2014
14
offence by the accused as per the case of prosecution and the
benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Through the
evidence of Pw.1, the victim girl the prosecution produced
inconsistent evidence and the same is not believable one.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-the
complainant, she has deposed that, she know the accused, he
was also resident of same Vatara, where she was residing and
the said accused residing along with his parents. About 2 ½
years back the victim girl missing, since she went for work to
the apartment, but she didn't return to home. On enquiry she
came to know that the accused had taken her, she enquired
with the parents of accused, but they showed their innocence
and given photo of the accused. As such she has lodged
complaint as per Ex.P1. After 20 days of missing the victim girl
called her over mobile phone of accused stating that they are in
Hunsur, near to Mysore, for that she has requested to come
over to the home, since she has suffering ill-health.
Immediately both accused and the victim girl return to home,
Spl.C.C.341/2014
15
she had taken them to the police station. On enquiry with the
victim girl, she told the accused himself had taken her to his
village. She demanded to return to Bengaluru, for that the
accused slapped on her cheek, along with accused a driver was
also accompanied with them. The police had taken the victim
girl to the hospital for check up. The doctor told nothing
happened on her. She has not given any statement before
police stating that the accused forcibly got married the victim
girl and raped on her.
19. Since this witness not corroborated the case of
prosecution, the prosecution treated her as hostile witness and
suggested that she has stated before police the accused got
married the victim girl in a temple of Bengaluru and taken her
to his brother's house at Kurampura, near Mandya. Thereafter,
he has taken her to Hassan and kept her at the house given by
the owner for workers' residence and both were stayed there as
husband and wife and also forcibly raped on her, for that she
has denied the same. Her definite answer is she has not given
Spl.C.C.341/2014
16
any statement as per Ex.P2. Through the evidence of material
witness-the complainant and mother of victim girl, the
prosecution produces inconsistent evidence and she turned
hostile to the case of prosecution. The accused tested her
veracity and suggested that at the time of alleged incident, her
age was 18 years, for that she has denied the same. At this
stage, this Court opines the prosecution failed to prove alleged
offences against the accused through the evidence of Pw.2
beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Dr.G.Babu
Rao, he has deposed about the medical examination of accused
on 04-06-2012 and issued Ex.P3, stating that there is nothing
to suggest that he is incapable of performing sexual intercourse
and collected articles and hand over to the police. At this stage,
the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-C.Shivalinge
Gowda, retired A.S.I., he has deposed that on 07-05-2012, at
about 11.00 a.m, he has received Ex.P1-complaint from the
Spl.C.C.341/2014
17
complainant and registered the case in Crime No.137/2012,
entered the Shara, signed as per Ex.P1(b), prepared FIR as per
Ex.P4, produced the same to the Court and higher officer,
thereafter handed over the same to Pw.6-Srinivasa Reddy, for
further investigation. The accused tested his veracity, except
denial suggestion nothing has been elicited, favourable to his
defense, at this stage, this Court opines the evidence of this
witness is a formal one.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Srinivasa
Reddy-Dy.S.P., he has deposed that on 02-06-2012, he has
received the record from Pw.4 and conducted further
investigation, recorded statement of complainant. Here it is
relevant to note Pw.2-clearly deposed she has not given any
statement as per Ex.P2, after obtaining permission as per
Ex.P7, he has inserted the offence under section 366-A, 376 of
IPC. He has sent the victim girl to Balakiyara Bala Mandira and
entrusted the police personnel for tracing of accused. Here the
evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2-the complainant, herself taken the
Spl.C.C.341/2014
18
victim girl and the accused to the police station and produced
them. If the said evidence is taken into consideration, question
of tracing of accused doesn't arises. Pw.6 further deposed that
on 02-06-2012, the victim girl undergone counselling from
APSA social worker-Cw.7. Here Cw.7 not stepped into the
witness box to corroborate about giving of statement by the
victim girl before her. As such the same is absolutely fatal to the
case of prosecution.
23. Further Pw.6 deposed that on 04-06-2012, he has
conducted Mahazar as per Ex.P8, before Cw.3, Cw.4 at
Markona Halli Village. But the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 is
otherwise. Cw.3 and Cw.4 not stepped into the witness box to
corroborate the process of conducting Mahazar a per Ex.P8 and
given statement before this witness. Further Pw.6 deposed that
on the very same day the accused produced before him. He has
arrested him and recorded his voluntary statement. He has
made the victim girl and the accused subjected to medical
examine and then produced the accused before the Court along
Spl.C.C.341/2014
19
with remand application. He has also recorded the statement
of Cw.9 and Cw.11.
24. In order to substantiate the production of accused
before Pw.6, the prosecution produced the evidence of Pw.7-
Ananda Kumari.M.-A.S.I., and Pw.8-Kiran Kumar-P.C.7469,
both corroborates the entrusting the work of tracing of accused
by Police Inspector on 04-06-2012 and after collecting
information from Bathimidars, they went near the house of
accused at Kasavana Halli Village, taken him to their custody
and produced before Pw.6 by submitting report as per Ex.P13,
by Pw.7. The accused tested their veracity, except denial
suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to his defense.
At this stage, this Court, opines her evidence is formal one.
25. Further Pw.6 deposed that again as per the
suggestion of doctor, he has made the victim girl subjected to
medical check up. Here the doctor who examined the victim girl
has not stepped into the witness box to give evidence. But
Ex.P9-medical report discloses hymen was ruptured and recent
Spl.C.C.341/2014
20
sexual intercourse was absent. At the same time the doctor
opined she is used to sexual intercourse. Here Pw.1 and Pw.2
not supported the contents of Ex.P9 against accused. Hence, it
is not safe to accept Ex.P9 to believe alleged offence against
accused.
26. Further Pw.6 deposed that he has received the
articles of accused on 23-06-2012 and articles of victim girl on
07-07-2012 along with medical report-Ex.P9 and also sent the
said articles to Mysore RFSL for chemical examination on 14-
08-2012. To substantiate the said evidence, the prosecution
produced the evidence of Pw.8-Kiran Kumar-Constable, he has
deposed about receiving of articles-MO1 to MO5 from Pw.3 and
produced the same before Police Inspector and submitted report
as per Ex.P14 and also he has produced the said articles to
Madiwala-FSL for chemical examination. Here there is
contradiction about sending of articles for chemical examination
through the evidence of Pw.6 and Pw.8. But, on perusal of FSL
report and model seal as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 it was issued
Spl.C.C.341/2014
21
by Madiwala FSL. Pw.6 further deposed that he has received
Ex.P10-study and birth certificate from Pw.9 on 14-09-2012
and also subsequent to the filing of charge sheet, he has
received FSL report as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. He has filed
charge sheet against accused.
27. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of Pw.6
and Pw.8, by eliciting some commission and omission, except
denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the
defense taken by him. Here the material witnesses the victim
girl as Pw.1, the complainant as Pw.2 not supported the case of
prosecution and they have given inconsistent evidence before
the Court. None of the independent witnesses stepped into the
witness box to give their evidence, question of believing the
evidence of Pw.6 to Pw.8 doesn't arises, and their evidence is a
formal one.
28. On perusal of entire record and charges framed by
the learned predecessor in office and also the age of the victim
girl, according to the case of prosecution, the incident was
Spl.C.C.341/2014
22
taken place on 28-04-2012, at that time the age of victim girl
was near 18 years, where as the POCSO Act, 2012 came into
enforcement on 14-11-2012, hence the POCSO Act for the
offences punishable under section 5(L) read with section 6 of
POCSO Act, not attracted to this case. In this case the evidence
of Pw.5 recorded when the case was set down of recording
evidence as per section 299 of Cr.P.C., for sending the record to
LPR, but now consideration of his evidence is not necessary in
view of secure of accused by the police and he was produced
before Court and now he is in J.C.
29. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the alleged offences
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of
the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case
including materials on record discussed above probabalises the
defense of the accused rather than the case of the prosecution.
30. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.9 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Spl.C.C.341/2014
23
Ex.P14 and MO1 to MO5, placed on record in respect of alleged
offences is insufficient to prove that the complainant and her
daughter-the victim girl are residents of House No.3, Chaku
Srinivasa Reddy Vatara, Kasavana Halli, Bengaluru, within the
limits of H.S.R. Layout Police Station, the accused was the
resident of House No.59 of same Vatara, on 28-04-2012 at
about 08.30 a.m., the victim girl who was minor went to her
work to Leak Show Room Apartment, Kasavana Halli, at that
time the accused went there and enticed her that he is going to
marry her and kidnapped her, got married in a temple, taken
her to Marcoona Halli Village, Tumkur District, kept her in a
rented house of Cw.4-M.K. Raju and also enticed her that he is
her husband and got sexual intercourse on her by way of
committing rape and thereby committed offences punishable
under section 366, 376 of I.P.C and section 5(L), 6 of POCSO
Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold
Point No.1 and 2 in the "Negative".
31. Point No.3:- For the above said reasons and
Spl.C.C.341/2014
24
discussions on Point No.1 and 2, 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 punishable under section 366, 376 of IPC and section 5(L) read with section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The accused is in judicial custody, the jail authority is directed to release him forthwith, if he is not required in any other criminal cases.
MO1 to MO5 are treated as worthless properties, office is directed to destroy MO1 to MO5 after appeal period is over. If an appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal in accordance with law.
(Computerized to my dictation by the Judgment Writer. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23 rd Day of March, 2020) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE Spl.C.C.341/2014 25 A NN E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Victim Cw.2 09-02-2015 Pw.2 Sunitha Cw.1 09-02-2015 Pw.3 Dr. G. Babu Rao Cw.5 08-04-2015 Pw.4 C.Shivalinge Gowda Cw.12 05-01-2019 Pw.5 Girish.N.M. Addl. 02-02-2019 Witness-1 Pw.6 Srinivasa Reddy Cw.13 02-02-2019 Pw.7 Anand Kumar. M. Cw.11 31-01-2020 Pw.8 Kiran Kumar Cw.9 19-02-2020 Pw.9 K. Anjala Devi Cw.8 19-02-2020 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.2 09-02-2015 Ex.P 2 Statement of Pw.2 09-02-2015 Complaint Ex.P 3 Medical report of Pw.3 08-04-2015 accused Ex.P 4 FIR Pw.4 05-01-2019 Ex.P 5 Proclamation Addl. 02-02-2019 Witness-1 Ex.P 6 Mahazar Addl. 02-02-2019 Witness-1 Ex.P 7 Requisition to Pw.6 02-02-2019 Court Ex.P 8 Mahazar Pw.6 02-02-2019 Spl.C.C.341/2014 26 Ex.P 9 Medial Pw.6 02-02-2019 examination report of victim Ex.P 10 Letter of Pw.7 Pw.6 02-02-2019 Ex.P 11 Report of RFSL Pw.6 02-02-2019 Ex.P 12 Model seal of RFSL Pw.6 02-02-2019 Ex.P 13 Report of Pw.7 Pw.7 31-01-2020 Ex.P 14 Report of Pw.8 Pw.8 19-02-2020 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION MO 1 Scalp Hair Pw.8 19-02-2020 MO 2 Pubic Hair Pw.8 19-02-2020 MO 3 Urethral swab Pw.8 19-02-2020 MO 4 Cervical swab Pw.8 19-02-2020 MO 5 Blood sample Pw.8 19-02-2020 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MAKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE