Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.3 on 6 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 6th Day of April 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No.8/2015
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka
By Subramanyapura Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.3:
Lakshman,
S/o. Channarayappa, 34 years,
R/at. White Field Road,
Mahadevapura, Cauvery Nagar,
Garudachar Palya
Bengaluru
[By Sri.K.H.A-Advocate.]
1 Date of commission of offence 06-05-1997
2 Date of report of occurrence 06-05-1997
3 Date of arrest of Accused
Date of release of Accused ON BAIL
Period undergone in custody
by Accused
4 Date of commencement of evidence 18-12-2017
2 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015
5 Date of closing of evidence 01-03-2018
6 Name of the complainant Lokesh
7 Offences complained of Section 448, 354,
506, 366-A r/w.
34 of IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.3 is
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the
final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Subramanyapura Police Station-Bangalore against accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Section 448, 354, 506, 366-A read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. On perusal of entire records and order sheet, before committal Court itself case against accused No.3 splitted up and registered as C.C.No.14536/2004. The committal Court-2nd A.C.M.M., Bengaluru committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. In turn the said case was made over to FTC-X in S.C.No.1159/ 2011. As per the notification of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka No. GOB (1)/585/2000 dated 26-12-2014, S.C.No.1159/2011 is transferred from FTC-X to this Court on 08-01-2015. Now this case is preceded against accused No.3 only. The case against 3 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 accused No.1-Ramesh was disposed off in S.C.No.253/2005 dated 27-10-2016. With these, now left with the available material evidence to consider against accused No.3 only for the offences punishable under Section 448, 354, 506, 366-A read with section 34 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
On 06-05-1997 at about 04.00 p.m., the accused No.3 along with other accused trespassed into the residential house of Cw.1-Lokesh and Cw.2-Chandramma, situated at Vaddarapalya within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police Station, with a common intention to kidnap minor girl-Cw.3, daughter of Cw.1-Lokesh, aged about 15 years and to perform her marriage with accused No.1. At that time Cw.2- Chandramma directed accused No.3 and other accused persons to go out of the house, but the accused No.3 along with other accused persons, forcibly brought the victim girl out of her house and while taking her in an auto, Cw.2-Chandramma came to resist the illegal act, at that time the accused No.1 torn her blouse with an intention to outrage her modesty, the 4 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 accused No.2 pushed Cw.2 with his hands and made her to fall down and accused No.3 also having common intention to do that act. The accused No.3 along with other accused persons threatened to kill Cw.1, Cw.2 and Cw.4 and also kidnapped the victim girl from her lawful guardian ship with common intention to perform her marriage with accused No.1. On the basis of complaint made by the complainant, the police registered the case against accused No.3 along with other accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 448, 354, 506, 366-A read with section 34 of IPC.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Section 448, 354, 506, 366-A read with section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet, as usual accused No.3 appeared before the Court, the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the victim girl is minor, the committal Court passed an order committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and in turn the said case was made over to this Court for further 5 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 proceedings.
5. After receiving the record by this Court, as usual the summon was issued to the accused No.3, he has appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail by executing personal bond and producing surety. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the accused No.3 submitted no arguments before framing charge. Hence, the contents of the charge read over and explained to him in Kannada. The accused No.3 pleaded not guilty and submit crimes to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.3 was set down for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused No.3 has examined in all 4 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.4 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against accused No.3, 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. Earlier to that he has complied the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, by executing personal bond and producing surety. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set 6 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 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:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 06-05-1997 at about 04.00 p.m., the accused No.3 along with other accused trespassed into the residential house of Cw.1-Lokesh and Cw.2-
Chandramma, situated at Vaddarapalya, within the limits of Subramanyapura Police Station with a common intention to kidnap a minor girl- Cw.3-Kumari.Manjula, daughter of Cw.1-Lokesh, aged about 15 years and to perform her marriage with accused No.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of I.P.C ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place of incident, the accused No.3 along with other accused trespassed into the house of Cw.1 with an intention to kidnap a minor girl-Cw.3 and to perform the marriage of Cw.3 with accused No.1, Cw.2-Chandramma directed him to go out of the house, the accused No.3 along with other accused brought Cw.3 forcibly out of her house and while taking her in an auto rickshaw Cw.2- Chandramma came to resist their illegal act, the accused No.1 torn her blouse with an intention to outrage her modesty and accused No.2 pushed w.2 with his hands and made her to fall down and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of I.P.C ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place of incident, the accused No.3 along with the other accused threatened to kill Cw.1, Cw.2 and Cw.4 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and 7 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 place of incident, the accused No.3 along with other accused kidnapped Cw.3-minor girl-Kum.Manjula, daughter of Cw.1-Lokesh, aged 15 years in an Autorickshaw from the lawful guardianship of her parents with an intention to perform her marriage with accused No.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 366-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C?
5. What Order?
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: In the Negative.
Point No.4: In the Negative.
Point No.5: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4: 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 and arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the accused No.3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.3 the prosecution examined in 8 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 all 4 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.4 got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and this Court perused the same. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the wife of complainant and mother of victim girl, Pw.2 is the victim, Pw.3 is eye-witness and Pw.4 is the Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the offences alleged against the accused No.3.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.3 the prosecution is required to prove that on 06- 05-1997 at about 04.00 p.m., the accused No.3 along with other accused trespassed into the residential house of Cw.1-Lokesh and Cw.2-Chandramma, situated at Vaddarapalya within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police Station, with a common intention to kidnap minor girl-Cw.3, daughter of Cw.1-Lokesh, aged about 15 years and to perform her marriage with accused No.1. At that time Cw.2-Chandramma directed accused No.3 and other accused persons to go out of the house, but the accused No.3 along with other accused persons, forcibly brought the victim girl out of her house and while taking her in an auto, Cw.2-Chandramma came to resist the illegal act, at 9 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 that time the accused No.1 torn her blouse with an intention to outrage her modesty, the accused No.2 pushed Cw.2 with his hands and made her to fall down and accused No.3 also having common intention to do that act. The accused No.3 along with other accused persons threatened to kill Cw.1, Cw.2 and Cw.4 and also kidnapped the victim girl from her lawful guardian ship with common intention to perform her marriage with accused No.1 and thereby the accused has committed offences punishable under Section 448, 354, 506, 366-A read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of the alleged offences against accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available materials evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 448, 354, 506, 366-A read with Section 34 of IPC.
Section 448 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for house-trespass.-Whoever, commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 10 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 Section 354 of IPC defines that:
Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
Section 366-A of IPC defines that:
Procuration of minor girl-Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced to seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 506 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
If threat to be cause death or grievous hurt, etc.- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire ,or to be cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchasity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. .
Section 34 of IPC defines that:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as it were done by him alone.11 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015
With this observation, now left with the available evidence produced by the prosecution to consider whether the prosecution proved the alleged offences against accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt or it probablizes the defense of accused No.3.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.1- Chandramma, wife of complainant-Lokesh, she has deposed that she got two sons and two daughters, out of them the victim girl was her 3rd daughter. The accused No.1 was resident of her village, his parents name is Lakshmaiah and she cannot remember the name of his mother. She has not seen the accused No.3 any where earlier and she has seen the accused No.3 today only before the Court. About 20 years back the accused No.1 caused trouble to her daughter, but she has not seen the accused No.3 at that time. She doesn't know what offence committed by the accused No.3. He was not involved in the earlier incident occurred on her daughter-the victim girl caused by the accused No.1. She doesn't know whether the accused No.3 was participated along with the accused No.1 and 2 or not. She has not given any statement before police against 12 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 accused No.3. No doubt it is true the accused No.1 faced conviction in the above said crime. But on perusal of evidence of this witness in the said case, she has deposed only against accused No.1, not against accused No.3. Here also she has not deposed anything to believe the alleged offences caused by the accused No.3 with common intention along with the accused No.1 and 2. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to prosecution case and suggested each and every word of Ex.P1- her statement, for that she has denied the same and deposed that she has not given any statement as per Ex.P1. Here on perusal of charge the complainant is reported to be dead, hence his evidence is taken as nil. The eye-witnesses i.e., Cw.4 and Cw.5 are also reported as dead. As such question of disbelieving the evidence of this witness at this stage doesn't arises.
14. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-the victim girl she has deposed that she doesn't know the accused No.3. The incident was taken place about 20-21 years back, when she was aged about 14 years. The accused No.1 along with 2-3 boys came to her house at Vaddarapalya and taken her by assaulting her mother in an auto to Ramanagar and thereafter the police 13 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 came and rescued her. She has not seen the accused No.3 at that time along with accused No.1. She has seen the accused No.3 today only that too before the Court and not seen him earlier to that. She has not given any statement before police against accused No.3. The victim also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Even the prosecution suggested each and every word of Ex.P2, for that she has denied the same and she has stated that no such statement given by her before police. Through this witness also the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused No.3.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.3- Munikrishnappa @ Kittappa, alleged to have been eye-witness, he has deposed that he doesn't know the accused No.3, Cw.2- Chandramma and the victim girl. He doesn't know the facts and circumstances of the case, he doesn't know the accused No.1 and 2. He has not given any statement before police stating that the accused No.3 along with the accused No.1 and 2 kidnapped the victim girl from her house by assaulting her mother in a auto and taken her to Ramanagara. The only eye- witness to the incident also turned hostile to the case of 14 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 prosecution. The prosecution treated him as hostile witness and suggested each and every word of Ex.P3, for that he has clearly denied the same. Through this witness also the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused No.3.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-J.C. Ramachandraiah-Retired P.S.I., he has deposed that he has received complaint from the complainant-Lokesh who is reported as dead on 06-05-1997 at about 05.00 p.m., as per Ex.P4 and registered the same in Crime No.112/1997 for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366-A of IPC. Thereafter he has prepared FIR as per Ex.P5 and his signature is Ex.P5(a) and sent the same to Court and to his higher officer. He has recorded statement of Cw.2, Cw.4 to Cw.6. But, out of them Cw.2 turned hostile to prosecution case, Cw.4 and Cw.5 reported as dead and Cw.6 also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Thereafter he went to the spot, conducted mahazar as per Ex.P6 and his signature is Ex.P6(a), for that Pw.1 has denied the same. Further he has entrusted the work of tracing out the victim girl and the accused persons. On 07-05-1997 he 15 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 has recorded the re-statement of complainant and Cw.4, but both are dead. Further on the very same day he has recorded the statement of Cw.7. On the very same day the police produced the accused No.3 before him. He has arrested him and also seized the auto as per Ex.P7 and subjected it to P.F.No.39/1997. He has recorded the statement of victim as per Ex.P3, but the victim girl turned hostile to prosecution case and deposed that she has not given any statement against accused No.3. He has received school certificate as per Ex.P8 and his signature is Ex.P8(a) to know at the time of alleged incident the victim girl was minor. After completion of investigation he has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 and also identified the accused No.3 before the Court.
17. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also suggested that Pw.1 to Pw.3 stated in statement as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and not seized Autorickshaw as per Ex.P7, for that he has denied the same. Since the mother of victim and wife of complainant, the victim girl and one of the alleged eye-witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, what ever evidence 16 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 produced before this Court through these witnesses, this Court feels to observe that it is a formal evidence of the Investigation Officer.
18. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.3 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablizes the defense of the accused No.3 rather than the case of the prosecution.
19. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, placed on record in respect of alleged offences is insufficient to prove that On 06-05-1997 at about 04.00 p.m., the accused No.3 along with other accused trespassed into the residential house of Cw.1-Lokesh and Cw.2-Chandramma, situated at Vaddarapalya within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police Station, with a common intention to kidnap minor girl-Cw.3, daughter of Cw.1-Lokesh, aged about 15 years and to perform her marriage with accused No.1. At 17 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 that time Cw.2-Chandramma directed accused No.3 and other accused persons to go out of the house, but the accused No.3 along with other accused persons, forcibly brought the victim girl out of her house and while taking her in an auto, Cw.2- Chandramma came to resist the illegal act, at that time the accused No.1 torn her blouse with an intention to outrage her modesty, the accused No.2 pushed Cw.2 with his hands and made her to fall down and accused No.3 also having common intention to do that act. The accused No.3 along with other accused persons threatened to kill Cw.1, Cw.2 and Cw.4 and also kidnapped the victim girl from her lawful guardian ship with common intention to perform her marriage with accused No.1 and thereby committed offences punishable under section 448, 354, 366-A, 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
20. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused No.3 is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
18 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.3 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 448, 354, 366-A, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.
His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th Day of April 2018) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Chandramma Cw.2 18-12-2017 Pw.2 Victim Cw.3 18-12-2017 Pw.3 Munikrishnappa @ Cw.6 28-12-2017 Kittappa Pw.4 J.C.Ramachandraiah Cw.13 01-03-2018 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Statement of Pw.1 Pw.1 18-12-2017 Ex.P 2 Statement of Pw.2 Pw.2 28-12-2017 Ex.P 3 Statement of Pw.3 Pw.3 28-12-2017 Ex.P 4 Copy of complaint Pw.4 01-03-2018 19 Spl.C.C.No.8/2015 Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 01-03-2018 Ex.P 5 Copy of FIR Pw.4 01-03-2018 Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 01-03-2018 Ex.P 6 Copy of spot Mahazar Pw.4 01-03-2018 Ex.P 6a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 01-03-2018 Ex.P 7 Copy of seizure Pw.4 01-03-2018 Mahazar Ex.P 7a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 01-03-2018 Ex.P 8 Copy of Transfer Pw.4 01-03-2018 certificate of victim Ex.P 8a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 01-03-2018 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE