Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dikshith @ Shabari Dikshith on 25 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY ( C.C.H.61 )
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2016
PRESENT :
Sri B.Jayantha Kumar, B.A.,Law, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.663/2013
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka,
By Indiranagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
( By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED . Dikshith @ Shabari Dikshith
S/o Ramaraju,
Aged about 22 years
R/at: No.19/5, 1st Cross
New Binnamangala
Indiranagara
Bengaluru
(By Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, Advocate)
Date of offence 09.06.2009
Date of report of offence 09.06.2009
Name of the complainant Smt.Varalakshmi
Date of commencement of 19.05.2016
recording of evidence
2 SC 663/2013
Date of closing of evidence 19.05.2016
Offences complained of U/s 366 I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri A.N.Radha Krishna,
Advocate
JUDGMENT
Accused is charged and prosecuted for the offence punishable U/s.366 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
CW1 Varalakshmi W/o Nagaraj gave written complaint to Indiranagara police station on 9.6.2009 alleging that she is residing with her three children. On 9.6.2009 at about 6.45 A.M, the accused Dikshith abducted her daughter in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing KA-53-226 by informing her over mobile phone on the same day at 4.00 a.m from his mobile No.9241115392 and she has alleged that the accused abducted her daughter Pavithra, who is aged about 15 years, to compel her to marry him even though accused already married.3 SC 663/2013
3. On the basis of said complaint, the police registered a case against accused in Cr.No.250/2009 and took up investigation and went to the spot of occurrence and drew up mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses and recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation formality, filed charge sheet against the accused alleging offence punishable U/Sec. 363 of IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused and produced before the learned Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody and subsequently, he was released on bail. During the pendency of the case before the committal court, learned Asst.Public Prosecutor filed an application U/s.323 of IPC stating that the ingredients of charge sheet allegations attracts offence U/s.366(A) of IPC, but the police filed charge sheet alleging offence punishable U/Sec. 363 of IPC and hence, the case may be committed to the Sessions Court. By allowing said application, learned 4 SC 663/2013 Magistrate has committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions court.
5. On receipt of the entire committal record, this case was numbered as S.C.No.663/2013 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt of the records, this court secured the presence of the accused by issuing summons. The matter was heard before charge. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that Sec.366(A) of IPC does not attract to the allegations made in the charge sheet. While passing an order, this court come to the conclusion that Sec.366 of IPC attracts and not Sec.366(A) of IPC and accordingly, as the reasonable grounds existed, charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused for the offence punishable u/s 366 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 02 witnesses as P.w.1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.3 and closed its side. After conclusion of 5 SC 663/2013 trial, since there is no incriminating evidence in the prosecution witnesses, recording of statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
7. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.
8. The following points arise for my determination;
1. Whether the prosecution proved that Pavithra daughter of CW1 being minor girl was abducted by accused on 9.6.2009 at about 6.45 a.m. in Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-53-226 with an intention to compel her to marry him even though he married earlier and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 366 of IPC?
2. What order?
9. My finding on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order, for the
following:
6 SC 663/2013
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- It is the case of the prosecution that Pavithra daughter of CW1 was aged about 15 years. CW1 is residing in Indiranagara with her children and accused used to put pressure on Pavithra that she should love him and on 09.06.2009 at about 6.45 a.m, when Pavithra went near tank to fetch water, the accused came in Tata Sumo bearing No.KA- 53-226 and abducted her by saying that he was taking her to shopping complex and he abducted Pavithra so as to compel her to marry him forcefully, even though he married earlier and he took her to Chamarajapete and wrongfully confined her for two days and on 11.6.2009 at about 7.30 p.m, when accused was sleeping in his Tata Sumo, she ran away. On these allegations, the complainant filed complaint as per Ex.P.1 and then the police took up investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.
11. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the 7 SC 663/2013 case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined all together two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Ex.P.1 is the written complaint lodged by CW1, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar and Ex.P.3 is the statement of PW2. CW1 Smt.Varalakshmi is examined as PW1. In her evidence, she has stated that CW2 Pavithra is her daughter and at the time of lodging the complaint, Pavithra was aged 14 years and studying in 8th standard. She has deposed that her daughter Pavithra went to her grand-mother's house and she had lodged missing complaint with the police. She has deposed that she has not stated before the police that accused Dikshith abducted her daughter to compel her to marry him. She has also identified her signature in Ex.P.1. She has also identified her signature in Ex.P.2 mahazar. But she has denied the contents of Ex.P.2 mahazar. In her evidence, she has not made any allegations against the accused. She has not stated that the accused abducted her minor daughter Pavithra so as to compel her to marry him. She has not stated that when she questioned Ramaraju, the father of accused, he told that he 8 SC 663/2013 intend to receive Pavithra as his second daughter-in-law. Absolutely, PW1 has not stated anything against the accused. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat this witness as hostile witness and for cross-examination. This court granted permission. Learned Public Prosecutor cross- examined PW1 in detail. But nothing has been elicited from her mouth regarding commission of offence by accused and finally, she has stated that she has compromised the matter with the accused. She has further stated that her daughter Pavithra married to her brother Manju and she is leading her marital life with Manju.
12. CW2 Pavithra is examined as PW2. In her evidence, she has not stated that the accused abducted her on 9.6.2009 so as to compel her to marry him and she has stated that she has not given any statement before the police alleging offence against the accused. This witness has also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Though the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined this witness, nothing has 9 SC 663/2013 been elicited from her mouth. During the course of cross- examination, she has deposed that she has compromised the case with accused and she married her uncle Manjunath about three years back and she is leading her marital life with him. Both PW1 and PW2 denied the suggestion that they are deposing falsely as they compromised the matter with accused. Since complainant as well as victim turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, this court declined to issue summons to CW3 to 8 even though learned Public Prosecutor requested for issuance of summons. Even if other witnesses were to be examined, no purpose would be served to the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and not proved the offence punishable u/s 366 of IPC. The prosecution has not proved the ingredients of Sec.366 of IPC. There is no evidence on record to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 366 of IPC. Therefore, this is a fit case to acquit the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 366 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 10 SC 663/2013
13. Point No.2:- In view of my reasons as stated in point Nos.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C.
The bail bond executed by Accused stands cancelled. However, Accused is directed to execute personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with a surety for like sum to the satisfaction of this court as required U/s.437(a) of Cr.P.C., to appear before the Higher Court as and when such court issue notice in respect of any appeal filed against the judgment, which bond shall be in force for a period of six months.
(Dictated to Judgment writer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of May, 2016) (B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
11 SC 663/2013: ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 Smt.Varalakshmi P.W.2 Smt.Pavithra
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1 (a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.2 (a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P3 Statement of P.w.2
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution :
Nil LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
RRT*