Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Naveen S/O Raju on 15 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH-71)
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2018
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions & Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C.NO. 1221/2015
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Hanumantha Nagar Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
v/s
ACCUSED:
1. Naveen S/o Raju, 21 years,
C/o Anitha, Manjunatha Colony,
Chennammanakere Achhukattu,
Bengaluru.
2. Venkatesh S/o Muruli, 26 years,
R/at No.19, 3rd Cross, 3rd Block,
Tyagaraja nagar, Bengaluru.
3. Radha W/o Srinivasa, 32 years,
4. Srinivasa S/o Late
Ramachandrappa, 38 years,
5. Gangamma Late Muniyappa, 65
years,
2 S.C.NO. 1221/2015
A.3 to A.5 are r/at No.19, 3rd
Cross, 3rd block, Tyagaraja nagar,
Bengaluru.
6. Sharada W/o Late Ramesh, 35
years, R/o No.3040, 8th Main, 15th
Cross, Raghavendra colony, BSK 2nd
Stage, Bwengaluru.
(By Sri M.D.S. for A.1, 2 & 4 & Sri.
M.S.L. for A.3, 5, 6, Advocates)
1. Date of commission of offence: 04-03-2013
2. Date of report of occurrence : 02-09-2013
3. Date of commencement of : 01-02-2018
recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 18-07-2018
5. Name of the Complainant : Venkatesh
6. Offences Complained of : Sec. 366, 376, 506 of IPC &
Sec. 5(L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act,
Sec. 3(xii) of S.C. & S.T.
(P.A.) Act, 1989, Sec. 9, 10 of
Prevention of Cild Marriage
Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are Acquitted.
3 S.C.NO. 1221/2015
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chamarajpete Sub- Division of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused no.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections Sec. 366, 376, 506 of IPC & Sec. 5(L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, Sec. 3(1) (xii) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989, Sec. 9, 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
C.W. 1/P.W. 1 is the complainant and victim in the present case. Based on the first information statement lodged by C.W. 1 Hanumanthanagar police registered the case in Crime No.261/2013. It is the case of the prosecution is that when C.W. 1 was minor the accused no.3 to accused no.6 have performed her marriage with accused no.2 on 4.3.2013 at Yadiyur Samudaya Bhavana, Bengaluru. Knowing very well that C.W. 1 was minor they have performed the child marriage. It is further case of the prosecution is that when C.W. 1 was leading marital life with accused no.2 and residing at BSK 1st Stage, 4th Cross, in a rented house, at that time, the accused no.1 kidnapped C.W. 1 in Autorikshaw and then he took her to Thirupura of Tamilnadu and in the house no.32 E 24 he has 4 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 committed forceful sexual intercourse 4 to 6 times and thereafter he took her to Om Shakthi temple of Thirupura and tied 'thali'. Thereafter they came to Bengaluru and accused no.1 kept C.W. 1 in the house situated at Manjunatha colony of Channammanakere Achhukattu. The father of C.W. 1 Venkatesh has lodged missing complaint on 2.9.2013 regarding missing of C.W. 1. Based on the same case in Crime No.261/13 registered. After tracing out C.W. 1, the police have added Sections 366A, 376, 506 of I.P.C. and u/s 9 and 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act, Sec. 5(L) r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and Sec 3(1)(xii) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act.
3. The I.O. has took up the investigation and visited the place of incident and conducted the mahazar. The I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses. After collecting all the materials on completion of investigation, I.O. has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused no.1 to 6. In this case, accused no.2 to 6 are all released on bail, the accused no.1 is in judicial custody.
4. After filing the Charge Sheet, cognizance of the offences punishable u/s 366, 376, 506 of IPC and u/s 5(L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act and u/s 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Child Marriage Act had taken 5 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 and case came to be registered as Spl.C.C.o.99/2014. Thereafter the case is re-numbered as S.C.No. 1221/2015. This case which was pending before II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court transferred to this court after establishing this exclusive Special Court.
5. Charge Sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. is duly complied with. After hearing on both sides, on 19.12.2017 charge came to be framed for the offences punishable u/s 366, 376, 506 of IPC and u/s 5(L) r/w sec. 6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) and Sec. 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act and u/s 9 and 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 3 witnesses have been examined as P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 and documents Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P. 6 and M.Os.1 to 6 are marked. Despite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined C.W.3 to C.W.20 and C.W.22 to 27. After closure of the evidence on the 6 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 side of the prosecution, statement of the accused as required u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused persons have denied all the incriminating evidence. The accused have not led any defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused.
8. The following points arise for my consideration :-
POINTS Point No.1:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 20.8.2013 at about 2.30 P.M. the accused no.1 kidnapped C.W.1 child from her house at 4th cross, 1st stage, BSK, Banashankari and then took her to Thirupura town, Tamilnadu and kept her in house No.32 E 24 situated at Nallur village and gave life threat to her and had committed the sexual assault by committing forceful sexual intercourse 4 to 5 times and the accused no.1 knowing very well that C.W. 1 belongs to schedule caste committed the offence and thereby the accused no.1 has 7 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 committed the offence punishable u/s 366, 376, 506 of IPC and u/s 5(l) and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act.
Point No.2:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused no.3 to 6 have got C.W. 1 child victim married to accused no.2 on 4.3.2013 at Yadiyur Samudaya Bhavana, Bengalure and thereby the accused no.2 to 6 have committed the offence punishable u/s 9 and 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act. ?
Point No.3:- What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the negative Point No.2:- In the negative Point No.3:- As per final order for the following REASONS
10. POINTS No.1 & 2:- These points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience, and in order to avoid repetition of facts.
8 S.C.NO. 1221/2015
It is the specific case of the prosecution is that in the year 2013 C.W. 1 was minor, aged about 17 years. At that time, on 4.3.2013 the accused no.3 to 6 have performed the marriage of C.W. 1 child victim with accused no.2 at Yadiyur Samudaya Bhavana, Bengaluru. It is further case of the prosecution is that after the marriage of C.W. 1 with accused no.2 when the accused no.2 and C.W. 1 were residing in the rented house at BSK Ist Stage, 4th Cross, at that time, accused no.1 who was residing near by that house kidnapped C.W. 1 who belongs to schedule caste and then he took her to Thirupura in Tamilnad and kept her in house bearing No.32 E 24 situated at Nallur village and by giving life threat to her committed sexual assault by committing forceful sexual intercourse 4 to 6 times. Thereafter he brought her to the Bengaluru and kept her in the house situated at Manjunatha colony of Chennammanakere Acchukattu. But quite contrary to the case of the prosecution, C.W. 1 who is examined as P.W. 1 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that no such incident of kidnapped or rape taken place.
9 S.C.NO. 1221/2015
11. P.W.1 has deposed that accused no.2 is her husband. She states that accused no.6 Sharada is her mother and Ramesha is her father. She states that she knows accused no.1, and 3 to 5. She states that when she was married to accused no.2 she was 18 years old. At the time of marriage, she was not studying in school. In the year 2013 her mother had decided to get her marriage to proper person. She states that her marriage has taken place one year back. The accused no.3 to 6 got her marriage done in Annamma temple, Majestic. She states that in 2013 her marriage had not taken place. She states that her date of birth is 2nd December. She states that she was not minor in the year 2013. She has deposed that the accused no.1 living near the house of her grand mother in Chennammanakere Achhukattu, Bengaluru. She states that the accused no.1 has not taken her any where. The accused no.1 has not proposed her. The accused no.1 has not taken her any where and not done anything to her. She has deposed that the accused no.1 has not committed any sexual assault on her. She states that she has not given complaint against any one. 10 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 She states that the police have took her signature on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 in the Police Station. She states that she has not given any further statement to the police about sexual assault. She states that the police have not conducted any mahazar as per Ex.P. 3 in Thirupura, Tamilnadu. She has not shown any spot to the police. She has denied the Wedding Card dated 4.3.2013. She states that she has not given any further statement before the police. She has not identified the accused no.1. She states that she do not know the caste of accused no.1.
12. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W. 1 in detail. During the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1 she has denied all the suggestions made to her. She has denied the suggestion that accused no.3 to 6 have performed her marriage on 4.3.2013 in Samudaya Bhavana near Yadiyuru lake when she was just 16 years old. She has denied the suggestion that accused no.1 has forcefully kidnapped her on 20.8.2013 at 2.30 p.m. from Tyagaraja nagar and took her Thripura, Tamilnad and sexually assaulted her by committing sexual intercourse 5-6 11 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 times and thereafter tied Mangalasootra in Om Shakthi temple near by. She has denied the suggestion that accused no.1 brought her to Bengaluru and kept her in a house at Manjunatha colony and from there on 27.12.2013 at about 5.30 p.m. she escaped. P.W. 1 has denied all the contents of the document Ex.P. 1. She has denied the contents of document Ex.P. 4 wedding card. She has admitted the document Ex.P. 5 Birth Certificate. She has denied all other suggestions made to her nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W. 1 to support the case of the prosecution.
13. P.W. 2 Smt. Padma is the grand mother of the P.W. 1 has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 2 has deposed that P.W. 1 is her grand-daughter and accused no.6 is her daughter. She states that she knows accused no.3 to 5 and does not know the accused no.1. She has deposed that the marriage of P.W. 1 with accused no.2 performed at about 1 ½ years back when P.W. 1 was aged 18 years. She states that the marriage of P.W. 1 performed with accused no.2 in Annamma temple. She states that she does not know anything 12 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 about the incident. She has deposed that the accused no.1 was not kidnapped P.W. 1. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W. 2 in detail.
14. During the course of her cross-examination P.W. 2 has denied all the suggestions made to her. She has denied of giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P. 6. She has denied the suggestion that the marriage of P.W. 1 was performed with accused no.2 on 4.3.2013 when P.W. 1 was minor. She has denied the suggestion that accused no.1 kidnapped P.W. 1 and took her to the Tamilnad and committed rape on her. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W. 2 to support the case of the prosecution.
15. P.W. 3 Vijayakumar G is the H.C., has deposed that on 17.1.2014 as per the instruction of Police Inspector C.W.26 he has carried six sealed items to the FSL Madiwala. He has identified M.O.1 to M.O.6. The oral evidence of P.W. 3 is formal in nature.
13 S.C.NO. 1221/2015
16. In this case, P.W. 1 is the important witness. P.W. 1 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that the accused persons have not committed any offence. P.W. 1 has deposed that the accused no.1 has not kidnapped her and not committed sexual assault by committing forceful sexual intercourse. She has deposed that her marriage with accused no.2 performed at the age of 18 years. Eventhough the Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W. 1 in detail nothing is elicited from her mouth to support the case of the prosecution. P.W. 2 who is the grand mother of P.W. 1 also completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that no such incident of kidnapped and sexual assault taken place. In this case, despite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined C.W. 3 to C.W. 20, C.W. 22 to C.W. 27. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. There is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that accused no.1 on 20.8.2013 kidnapped C.W. 1 from her house situated at 1st stage, Banashankari and took her to the Thripura in Tamilnad and committed sexual assault by committing forceful 14 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 sexual intercourse to her in house No.32 E 24. There is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused no.3 to 6 have performed child marriage of P.W. 1 with accused no.2 on 4.3.2013 at Yadiyur Samudaya Bhavana. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused no.1 for the offences punishable u/s 366, 376, 506 of IPC and u/s 5(L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3(1)(xii) and Sec. 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act and against the accused no.2 to 6 for the offences punishable u/s 9 and10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered points no.1 and 2 in the negative.
17. Point No.3:- In view of my findings on points no.1 and 2 and for the foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused persons are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec. 366, 15 S.C.NO. 1221/2015 376, 506 of IPC & u/s 5(L) r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. and u/s 9 and 10 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused no.2 to 6 stand cancelled.
It is hereby ordered to release the accused no.1 forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other cases.
M.Os.1 to M.O.6 being worthless are hereby ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 150th day of September, 2018.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
16 S.C.NO. 1221/2015ANNEXURE
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Yashashwini
P.W. 2 : Padma
P.W. 3 : Vijaykumar
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P. 1(a) : Signature
Ex.P. 2 : Apot Mahazar
Ex.P. 2(a) : Signature
Ex.P 3 : Mahazar
Ex.P. 3(a) : Signature
Ex.P 4 : Marriage Invitation Card
Ex.P. 4(a) : Signature
Ex.P 5 : Bieth Certificate
Ex.P 6 : Statement of P.W. 2
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1 to 6 : Sealed articles
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bangalore.
17 S.C.NO. 1221/2015
18 S.C.NO. 1221/2015
Judgment pronounced
in the open court vide
separate judgment.
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and Sec. 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the
accused and their surety bonds stand
cancelled.
(
LXX A.C.C & S.J. &
Spl.J, Bangalore.
19 S.C.NO. 1221/2015
20 S.C.NO. 1221/2015