Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shoukat Ali on 24 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 24th Day of March 2017
PRESENT: SMT. B.S.REKHA. B.A. Law., LL.M.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SPECIAL C.C. No.523/2015
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka
By Dandu Railway Police Station,
Bangalore.
[By learned Public Prosecutor-
Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED: Shoukat Ali,
S/o. Chunnumiya Shaikh, 41years,
R/at. New Goutham Nagar, Plat No.1,
Near Anuman School, Govandi,
Shivaji Nagar,
Mumbai-400 043.
[By-Sri.J.R.J-Advocate]
1 Date of commission of offence 05-06-2015
2 Date of report of occurrence 31-07-2015
3 Date of arrest of Accused 21-08-2015
Date of release of Accused 03-02-2016
Accused arrested under NBW 16-11-2016
Period undergone in custody 20 Days &
by Accused 09 months
2 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015
4 Date of commencement of evidence 15-02-2016
5 Date of closing of evidence 17-03-2017
6 Name of the complainant N. Salhotra
Dhiraj
7 Offences complained of Sec.354-IPC &
8-POCSO Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector attached to the Dandu Railway Police Station, Bangalore City, has filed this charge sheet against the accused person for the offences punishable under Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05-06-2015 the complainant-Cw.1 along with his family were traveling in Kurla Express-11013 in B-2 Bogi, Berth No.1 to 4 to Coimbatore. When the said train was moving within the jurisdiction of Byappana Halli Railway Station, at 01.30 a.m., when the victim-Cw.3, the daughter of Cw.1 was asleep the accused who was the bed roller entered the 3 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 Bogi No.2 on the pretext of changing the bed sheet and committed sexual harassment on the victim by way of molestation and there by the accused committed the aforesaid offences.
3. After submission of charge sheet before this Court, cognizance was taken and the case is registered as Spl.C.C.No.523/2015. Accused is in judicial custody and he engaged counsel in his defense. The copies of the charge sheet were furnished to him. After hearing both sides charge for the above offences were framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. On behalf of the prosecution Pw.1 to Pw.7 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 are marked.
5. Perused the records and heard the arguments. 6 The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
4 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 05-06-2015 the complainant-Cw.1 along with his family were traveling in Kurla Express-11013 in B-2 Bogi, Berth No.1 to 4 to Coimbatore and when the victim-Cw.3, the daughter of Cw.1 was asleep at 01.30 a.m., the said train was moving within the jurisdiction of Byappana Halli Railway Station, the accused who was the bed roller entered the Bogi No.2 on the pretext of changing the bed sheet and committed sexual harassment on the victim by way of molestation and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act?
2) What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final orders for the following
R E A S O N S:
8. Point No.1: In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined 7 witnesses.
9. Cw.6-Bachan Ram Yadav examined as Pw.1 has stated that he is working as Bed Roller Supervisor in Kalyan Eastern-Mumbai City, Tissue Traders. One Harish 5 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 Gupta was Manager, one Sajid was the Senior Supervisor, the accused was working as Bed Roller in Railway Coach. He will be deputed to any train. On 21-08-2015 as per the order of the Senior Supervisor, the accused was produced before Bangalore Dandu Railway Station. He is not aware about the reasons. He has given Ex.P1. According to him he did not enquire the Senior Supervisor about the incident. He is not aware anything. He has produced the accused as directed. He had written Ex.P1 as instructed by one Chandrasekhar-Police Officer.
10. Cw.9-N.Shivashanmuga Raju-retired P.S.I., examined as Pw.2 has stated that on 04-06-2015 and 05- 06-2015 at 1.30 a.m., Kurla Express came to Dharmapuri. Cw.8-Uma was the W.H.C., in Dharmapuri Railway Station. He came to know that the incident occurred in A.C. Coach B-3 Compartment and he called Cw.9. That Kurla Express will stop for 2 to 3 minutes in Dharmapuri Railway Station. Already the train was started moving. He came to know 6 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 that Cw.8 went in the train. On 05-06-2015 at 07.30 a.m., Cw.8 came back and handed over the complaint given by the father of the victim by alleging that the accused misbehaved with Cw.3, who was aged 15 years. He enquired the complainant over phone. He told that he is going to Coimbatore to a function and he had sent the complaint and it may be registered and he is going to contact the higher officers. Thereafter he registered the complaint in Cr.No.35/2015 under Section 12 of POCSO Act and sent the FIR to Woman Court in Dharmapuri. He had obtained the Kurla Express time chart from the Byappana Halli Railway Station and based on that, at the time of the incident it was within the limits of Karnataka State and Dandu Railway Station and handed over the records to them.
11. Cw.4-Shanmuga Sundaram-Railway Ticket Examiner examined as Pw.3 has stated that he was deputed to work as Ticket Examiner in Kurla Express 7 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 from 04-06-2015 to 05-06-2015 to B-2 Coach. That train was having Berth No.1 to 3. He was checking the ticket at 11.50 p.m., on 04-06-2015 in B-3 Coach. When he was checking the ticket and coming towards B-2 coach, one Dhiraj came and told that one Bed Roller misbehaved with his daughter aged 15 years and he did molestation to her. That person was also there near B-2 Coach and the father of the victim showed that person. On enquiry he told his name as Shoukath Ali and he identified the accused. His name is also shown as Bed Roller in the Coach. Immediately he had informed to Batch In-charge of the train and thereafter the matter was intimated to Commercial Controller. At that time they reached Hosur Railway Station. He had handed over the accused to one Maya Kannan-the Escort Police and he told to take action. He had given information as per Ex.P2.
12. There were five Ticket Examiners to Kurla Express on that day. The Investigation Officer has not 8 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 taken any documents that he was the Ticket Examiner to B1 to B3 Coach. Generally one Bed Roller will be deputed to two coaches. The list will be taken by B.A.C. He denied that as the complainant informed that the accused was that Bed Roller he came to know about him and there will be one note book, wherein the names of the Bed Rollers will be noted in that Rabjanal Book which was the with the Ticket Examiner and likewise he was also having the book, but the Investigation Officer has not taken that book. He admitted that he was not aware as to who will be deputed as Bed Roller and Mechanic to the A.C.Coach. According to him, the father of the victim showed the accused, but not the victim and he had not at all seen the victim on that day. The complainant had not permitted him to see the victim. He had given the information orally to B.A.C., but not in writing. He denied that he did not hand over the accused to Maya Kannan. There will be rest room to the Bed Rollers, but one seat will be provided to Bed Rollers outside the coach and he can sit and he can sleep. 9 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015
13. Cw.5-Ravi Kumar Sane-Bed Roller Staff examined as Pw.4 has stated that he is aware of the accused and the accused was working as Bed Roller for one year and their duty is to provide bed to the passengers and thereafter they have to take out the bed. He was deputed to duty from Mumbai Lokamanya Tilak Railway Station to Coimbatore to Coimbatore Express to B-4 Coach and the accused was deputed to B-3 Coach. He requires two days to come to Bangalore from Mumbai. He was sleeping in the place provided to him and at 11.30 p.m., to 12.00 mid- nights the T.C., called him and told to bring the mechanic and he brought the mechanic and he is not aware of anything. The police took the accused in Dharmapuri Railway Station and he is not aware of the incident.
14. He was working only as Bed Roller to B-3 Coach. He denied that he came to know that the accused has misbehaved with a girl. He admitted that the accused was arrested by the police. He is not aware as to who had 10 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 handed over the accused to Dharmapuri Police.
15. Cw.11-N.Manjunath-P.S.I., examined as Pw.5 has stated that on 31-07-2015 he received Tappal from Dy.S.P., Office that there was a POCSO case registered at Dharmapuri District. The incident occurred within the jurisdiction of Dandu Railway Station and he registered the same in Crime No.58/2015 and submitted the F.I.R., to the Court. Thereafter he handed over the case papers to P.S.I. Shanmuga.
16. Cw.12-M.S.Shanmuga-P.S.I., examined as Pw.6 has stated that he took up further investigation from Cw.11. He went to Bombay and met Peyush Traders Company Manager and requested to send the accused. Thereafter he recorded the further statement of the complainant. He came back as the Company Manager told that they will send the accused and thereafter the accused was sent with Supervisor-Bachan Ram on 21-08-2015 and he arrested and taken him to custody. He enquired the 11 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 T.T., and T.T., told that he had handed over the accused to Maya Kannan and Woman Constable-Uma. He submitted requisition to Railway Magistrate to record the statement of the victim and the same is at Ex.P8. Thereafter he produced the accused before the Court. He identified the accused. He came to know that the accused misbehaved with the victim. He recorded the statement of the victim's mother and staffs. He obtained documents-Ex.P9 about the age of the victim, Ex.P10-Aadhar Card, Ex.P11-Railway Passengers list, Ex.P12-Medical examination report of the accused and Ex.P13-the I.D. card of the accused showing that he was working in that train and he recorded the statement of one Ravi Kumar, who was the colleague of the accused and he recorded the statement of the victim regarding identification of the accused and submitted the charge sheet.
17. On that day four persons were working as Bed Rollers in Kurla Express. He is not aware of the names of 12 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 persons who were working in B-2 and B-3 Coach. He is not aware of their presence. He admitted that there was no necessity for the Bed Rollers to move in the compartment after they finish their work. But only when the passengers call, they have to come. He admitted that for any enquiry, the passengers have to contact T.T. He recorded the statement of the complainant on 18-08-2015 and the statement of one Ravi on the same day.
18. Cw.10-Dilip Kumar.K.B. Assistant Professor- B.M.C., examined as Pw.7 has stated that he examined one Shoukath Ali on 21-08-2015 as per the request of Cantonment Railway Police and he found that there is nothing to suggest that he is incapable of doing sexual intercourse.
19. Ex.P1 is the report of Pw.1, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P3 is the statement of Pw.3, Ex.P4 is the memorandum, Ex.P5 is the F.I.R., Ex.P6 is the first memorandum., Ex.P7 is the copy of the complaint, Ex.P8 13 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 is the letter given to the complainant to record 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim. Ex.P9 is the birth certificate, Ex.P10 is the Aadhar. Ex.P11 is the charge. Ex.P12 is the medical examination certificate of the accused. Ex.P13 is the I.D. card.
20. In this case neither the victim nor her parents have come before the Court to give evidence and they have given reply to the summons by saying that they are not interested and the Court may close the matter. Thus their evidence was not recorded by the Court. In this case except the victim there are no other witnesses to the incident. The victim is not before the Court and she has not stated anything against the accused. Even the parents of the victim are also not examined.
21. Pw.1 has produced the accused and he also not stated anything about the incident. Pw.2 who is the P.S.I., whose chief examination was not completed. Pw.3 is the Ticket Examiner, who had stated that the father of the 14 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 victim told that the accused misbehaved with his daughter and the accused was near B2 Coach and he showed him and thereafter on enquiry he told his name as Shoukath Ali. However no material documents regarding deputing of the accused to B2 coach is taken by the Investigation Officer. The victim was not examined by this witness for the confirmation of the information and the father of the victim avoided the victim to say anything and he did not see the victim at all on that day. Thus it is only the father of the victim who had given information and not the victim. Pw.4 is the Bed Roller who was deputed to the same train on that day and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Pw.5 is the Investigation Officer who conducted part investigation i.e., registered the case. Pw.6 is also the Investigation Officer who told the company to send the accused and thereafter he recorded the statement of the victim and the accused
22. In this case on perusal of the materials available 15 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 on record, I am of the opinion that when the material witness who is the only person who can say before the Court and they are not interested to prosecute the case and the other witnesses are also not supporting the case of the prosecution. When the complainant and the victim are not supporting the case by coming to the Court, the Court cannot say that the prosecution has proved its case, because the complaint itself is not established, mahazar is also not established. When this Pw.2 saw the accused, he was standing near the coach and the complainant has shown the accused and stated that he is the person who has committed the crime. That witness has not confirmed the same with the victim. Thus in my opinion the materials on record are not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
23. Point No.2:- In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
16 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act.
The accused is set at liberty if he is not required in any other case.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed, typed and also computerized to my dictation by her. It is then corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th Day of March 2017.) (B.S.REKHA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW 1 Bachan Ram Yadav Cw.6 15-02-2016 PW 2 N.Shivashanmuga Raju Cw.9 06-04-2016 PW 3 Shanmuga Sundaram Cw.4 06-04-2016 PW 4 Ravi Kumar Sane Cw.5 06-04-2016 PW 5 N. Manjunath Cw.11 28-02-2017 17 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 PW 6 M.S. Shanmuga Cw.12 28-02-2017 PW 7 Dr.Dilip Kumar.K.B. Cw.10 17-03-2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Report Pw.1 15-02-2016 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 15-02-2016 Ex.P 2 Report Pw.3 06-04-2016 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 06-04-2016 Ex.P 3 Statement of Pw.4 Pw.4 06-04-2016 Ex.P 4 Requisition Pw.5 28-02-2017 Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 28-02-2017 Ex.P 5 FIR Pw.5 28-02-2017 Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 28-02-2017 Ex.P 6 Carbon copy of FIR Pw.5 28-02-2017 Ex.P 7 Xerox copy of Pw.5 28-02-2017 complaint Ex.P 8 Statement of the Pw.6 28-02-2017 victim Ex.P 9 Birth certificate of Pw.6 28-02-2017 the victim Ex.P 10 Copy of Aadhar Pw.6 28-02-2017 Card Ex.P 11 List of Passengers Pw.6 28-02-2017 Ex.P 12 Medical examination Pw.6 28-02-2017 report of the accused Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 17-03-2017 18 Spl.C.C.No.523/2015 Ex.P 13 I.D.Card of the Pw.6 28-02-2017 accused LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-NIL-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED AND MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.