Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Bhaskar Reddy Son Of Munireddy on 28 January, 2020
Spl.C.C.163/2013
1
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 28 th Day of January, 2020
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No.163/2013
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By CCB(H & B), N.T. Pete,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED 1 Bhaskar Reddy son of Munireddy,
43 years,
Residing at No.1/142, Chinnagottigolla,
Bhakrapet Mandal, Chittur District,
Andhra Pradesh,
At present residing at No.102,
2nd floor, Venkateshwara Apartments,
Munnekolala, Bangalore 37.
2 Mallikarjuna Reddy,
S/o Sadashiva Reddy, Aged 37 years,
R/at No.12, Lakshminarasimha Layout,
1st cross, Behind Syndicate Bank,
K.R.Puram, Bangalore
Native place: Paluvillage, Vayupal Taluk,
Chittur District.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
2
3. Pani Split up in Spl.C.C.125/2017
4. Chandrashekar Split up in Spl.C.C.125/2017
5. T.K. Mahesh Reddy Split up inSpl.C.C.940/2019
6. Abhinay @ Bharath Kumar Split up in
Spl.C.C.125/2017
7. Dr. Sunitha, Stayed
(A1- By Sri.S.B. and A-2 by Sri.K.V.Advocate)
1 Date of commission of offence 18-11-2012
2 Date of report of occurrence 05-12-2012
3 Date of arrest of Accused-1
Date of release of Accused-1 ON BAIL
Period undergone in custody
by Accused-1
Date of arrest of Accused-2 30-01-2013
Date of release of Accused-2 30-12-2014
Period undergone in custody 11 months & 1 year
by Accused-2
4 Date of commencement of evidence 25-10-2017
5 Date of closing of evidence 12-09-2019
6 Name of the complainant Ramadevi
7 Offences complained of Sec.143, 147, 354, 376,
377, 504, 506 read with
149- I.P.C., sec.23- J.J.
Act & sec.3, 4, 7,8-
POCSO Act, 2012.
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 and 2
are acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
Spl.C.C.163/2013
3
JU DG ME NT
This charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector, CCB (H& B)
N.T. Pete, Bangalore, against the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 354, 376, 377,
504, 506 read with 147 of I.P.C., section 23 of J.J. Act and
section 3, 4, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Since it is a case of rape, criminal outrage of modesty
and threat 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:
That from November-2011 to September-2012 within the
limits HAL Police Station, in the house of Cw.2-the victim girl,
the accused No.6-Abhinaya @ Bharath Kumar came to her
house often and often. When she was alone in the house, by
Spl.C.C.163/2013
4
keeping cloth in her mouth, dragged on the bed, removed her
inner garment, put his penis on her genetic part and slept on
her and also put his penis on her mouth and committed rape on
her, likewise the accused No.1 also raped on her in his house.
Further the accused No.1, 3 to 7 having common intention
taken Cw.2-victim girl and Cw.3-victim boy Nisarga Lodge of
K.R. Puram, kept in a room, made Cw.2 forcibly to drink brandy
caused criminal outrage of her modesty, burn on her body,
hands and legs through cigar. The accused No.3 to 7 also raped
on her and sexually abused on her. Further the accused No.1, 3
to 7 has cornily intercoursed on Cw.3 against the order of
nature and sexually harassed him. On the basis of complaint
lodged by the complainant-Cw.1, the police registered the case
in Crime No.472/2012 for the offence punishable under section
354 of I.P.C.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences
punishable under Section 143, 147, 354, 376, 377, 504, 506
Spl.C.C.163/2013
5
read with 147 of I.P.C., section 23 of J.J. Act and section 3, 4, 7
and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, after filing charge sheet
as usual the accused persons appeared before the committal
Court, the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to
them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the
victims are minors, the committal Court passed an order for
committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore, for further proceedings. In turn the
said case was made over to this Court.
5. After receiving the record by this Court, as usual the
summons was issued to the accused persons. Here, the accused
No.3, 5 to 7 remained absent, as such the case against them
was split up by registering case separately and proceeded
against accused No.1, 2 and 4. Thereafter, the accused No.1, 2
and 4 were enlarged on bail by executing personal bonds and
producing surety. The learned advocate for the accused No.1, 2
and 4 submitted no arguments before framing charge. There is
prima-facie material appeared against No.1, 2 and 4 for the
Spl.C.C.163/2013
6
offences under Section 143, 147, 354, 376, 377, 504, 506 read
with 149 of I.P.C., section 23 of J.J. Act and section 3, 4, 7 and
8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, this Court framed charge against
accused No.1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section
143, 147, 354, 377, 504, 506 read with 149 of I.P.C., section 23
of J.J. Act and section 3, 4, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and
also framed additional charge under section 376 read with 149
of IPC. The contents of the charge read over and explained to
accused No.1, 2 and 4 in Kannada. The accused accused No.1,
2 and 4 pleaded not guilty and submits crime to be tried.
Thereafter the case against accused accused No.1, 2 and 4 was
set down for prosecution evidence
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused No.1, 2 and 4 has examined in all 15 witnesses as Pw.1 to
Pw.15, got marked 25 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and closed
its side evidence. In the mean time the accused No.4 remained
absent, a separate Special case registered against him and this
case proceeded against accused No.1 and 2 only. During the
Spl.C.C.163/2013
7
course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the
accused No.1 and 2 produced Ex.D1 to Ex.D12 and got marked
Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. In view of incriminating evidence appeared
against the accused No.1 and 2, they were examined under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording their statement. They have
denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against them
as false. Earlier to that they have 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. The learned advocate for accused No.1 and 2 and learned
Public Prosecutor filed written arguments. The learned advocate
No.2 relied on the decisions reported in LAWS (KAR) 2018 6 500
in Athais @ Athain Pasha Vs. State of Karnataka 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:-
1. DgÉÆæ 1, 2 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-3 ರರದ 5 ಮತತತ 7 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-2
Spl.C.C.163/2013
8
gÀªÀjUÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¨ÁæA¢ PÀÄr¹ ªÉÄÊPÉÊ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹UÀgÀÉÃlÄ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ
CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ
PÀ®A 143 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï
¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
2. DgÉÆæ 1, 2gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ- 3 ರರದ 5 ಮತತತ 7 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3
gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-2
gÀªÀjUÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¨ÁæA¢ PÀÄr¹ ªÉÄÊPÉÊ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹UÀgÀÉÃlÄ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ
CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ
PÀ®A 147 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï
¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
3 DgÉÆæ 1, 2 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-3 ರರದ 7gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3
gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-2
gÀªÀjUÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¨ÁæA¢ PÀÄr¹ ªÉÄÊPÉÊ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹UÀgÀÉÃlÄ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ
CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ
PÀ®A.354 ಸಹವವಚಕ ಕಲರ.149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ
¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
4. DgÉÆæ 1, 2 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ- 3 ರರದ 5 ಮತತತ 7 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3
gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-3
gÀªÀjUÉ ಅಸವಸಭವವಕವವಗ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ಹರಸಸ ನನಡ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ
PÀ®A.377 ಸಹವವಚಕ ಕಲರ. 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ
¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
5. DgÉÆæ 1, 2gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ- 3 ರರದ 5 ಮತತತ 7 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3
gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-2
gÀªÀjUÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¨ÁæA¢ PÀÄr¹ ªÉÄÊPÉÊ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹UÀgÀÉÃlÄ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ
CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ
PÀ®A 504 ಸಹವವಚಕ ಕಲರ. 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ
¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
6. DgÉÆæ 1, 2 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-3 ರರದ 5 ಮತತತ 7 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3
gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-2
gÀªÀjUÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¨ÁæA¢ PÀÄr¹ ªÉÄÊPÉÊ PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹UÀgÀÉÃlÄ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ
CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ
PÀ®A.506 ಸಹವವಚಕ ಕಲರ.149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ
¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
7. DgÉÆæ 1, 2gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ- 3 ರರದ 5 ಮತತತ 7 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3
gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-3
gÀªÀjUÉ ಅಸವಸಭವವಕವವಗ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ಹರಸಸ ನನಡ PÀ®A.3, 4, 7 ಮತತತ 8
Spl.C.C.163/2013
9
ಪಕಸಕಕನ ಕವಯಯಯಡAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï
¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
8. DgÉÆæ 1, 2gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-3 ರರದ 5 ಮತತತ 7 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3
gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-3
gÀªÀjUÉ ಅಸವಸಭವವಕವವಗ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ಹರಸಸ ನನಡ PÀ®A.23 ರ ಜಸ.ಜಸ.
ಕವಯದಸಯಡiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
9. ನವಸರಬರರ 2011 ರರದ ಸಸಪಸಪರಬರರ 2012 ರ ನಡತವಸ DgÉÆæ-1 ಸವಕಕ-2 ರವರ ಮನಸಗಸ ಹಸಕನಗ
ಸವಕಕ-2 ರವರ ಮನಸಯಲಲ ಅತವತಚವರ ಮವಡ PÀ®A.3, 4, 7 ಮತತತ 8 ಪಕಸಕಕನ
ಕವಯಯಯಡAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
ಅಧಕ ದಸಕನಷವರಸಕನಪಣಸ ಸರಖಸತಖ1 DgÉÆæ 1, 2 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-3 ರರದ 5
ಮತತತ 7 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA£À ¤¸ÀUÀð ¯ÁqïÓUÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀjUÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¨ÁæA¢ PÀÄr¹ ªÉÄÊPÉÊ
PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹UÀgÀÉÃlÄ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ
ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 376 ಸಹವವಚಕ ಕಲರ. 149
gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
10. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
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: In the Negative.
Point No.6: In the Negative.
Point No.7: In the Negative.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
10
Point No.8: In the Negative.
Point No.9: In the Negative.
Additional Point No.1
framed on 03-01-2020: In the Negative.
Point No.10: As per final orders for the following:
R E A S ON S
9. Point No.1 to 9 and additional charge dated 03-01-
2020: 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 the arguments
canvassed from both the sides and coupled with written
arguments and relied on decisions.
11. In order to prove the alleged offences against the
accused the prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses as Pw.1 to
Pw.15, got marked 25 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and also
the accused No.1 and 2 produced 15 documents as Ex.D1 to
Spl.C.C.163/2013
11
D15 and Court documents Ex.C1 and C2 and this Court
perused the same. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the
complainant, Pw.2 is the victim girl, Pw.3 is the victim boy, Pw.4
is SJPU Co-ordinator, Pw.5, Pw.6, Pw.10, Pw.13 and Pw.14 are
the doctors, Pw.7 is the Head Mistress, Pw.8 is Panch witness,
Pw.11 and Pw.12 are the circumstantial witnesses and Pw.8,
Pw.9, Pw.15 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 No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. In order to establish the alleged offences against
accused the prosecution is required to prove that That from
November-2011 to September-2012 within the limits HAL Police
Station, in the house of Cw.2-the victim girl, the accused No.6-
Abhinaya @ Bharath Kumar came to her house often and often
when she was alone in the house, by keeping cloth in her
mouth, dragged on the bed, removed her inner garment, put his
penis on her genetic part and slept on her and also put his penis
Spl.C.C.163/2013
12
on her mouth and committed rape on her, likewise the accused
No.1 also raped on her in his house. Further the accused No.1, 3
to 7 having common intention taken Cw.2-victim girl and Cw.3-
victim boy Nisarga Lodge of K.R. Puram, kept in a room, made
Cw.2 forcibly to drink brandy caused criminal outrage of her
modesty, burn on her body, hands and legs through cigar. The
accused No.3 to 7 also raped on her and sexually abused on her.
Further the accused No.1, 3 to 7 has cornily intercoursed on
Cw.3 against the order of nature and sexually harassed him
and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 143,
147, 354, 376, 377, 504, 506 read with 149 of I.P.C., section 23
of J.J. Act and section 3, 4, 7 and 8 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 the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
13. Before venturing into scan the available materials
produced by the prosecution and the defense taken by the
Spl.C.C.163/2013
13
accused No.1 and 2, it is necessary to mention the very
definition of offences under Section 143, 147, 354, 376, 377,
504, 506 read with 149 of I.P.C., section 23 of J.J. Act and
section 3, 4, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Section 143 of IPC defines that:
Punishment -Whoever is a member of an unlawful
assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine, or with both.
Section 147 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for rioting.-Whoever is guilty of rioting,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.
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 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
Spl.C.C.163/2013
14
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
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 377 of IPC defines that:
Unnatural offences- Whoever voluntarily has carnal
intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term
Spl.C.C.163/2013
15
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Section 504 of IPC defines that:
Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of
the peace.-Whoever, intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely
that such provocation will cause him to break the public
peace, or to commit any other, offence, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 506 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for criminal intimidation-Whoever
commits the offence or 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.
Section 149 of IPC defines that:
Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of
offence, committed in prosecution of common object -If
an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to
be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every
person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 23 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Punishment for cruelty to juvenile of child:-
Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a
juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully
neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be
assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner
likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental
or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with
both.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
16
Section 3 of POCSO Act defines that:
Penetrative Sexual Assault: A person is said to
commit "penetrative sexual assault" if_(a) he penetrates his
penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus
of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other
person; or (b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of
the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or
anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any
other person; or (c) he manipulates any part of the body of the
child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra,
anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do
so with him or any other persons; or (d) he applies his mouth
to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the
child to do so to such person or any other person.
Section 4 of POCSO Act defines that:
Punishment for penetrative Sexual Assault:
Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than seven years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine.
Section 7 of POCSO Act defines that:
Sexual assault.-Whoever, with sexual intent touches
the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the
child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person
or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent
which involves physical contact without penetration is said
to commit sexual assault.
Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 defines that:
Punishment for sexual assault-Whoever, commits
sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than
three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
17
Now, left with the available material evidence produced by
the prosecution to consider whether the prosecution proved the
alleged offence against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt or it probablize the defense of the accused
No.1 and 2.
14. Before venturing the available material evidence on
record, it is necessary to mention the facts and circumstances
as mentioned in the complaint, coupled with evidence given by
Pw.1 to Pw.3, not come with the purview of the present case on
hand i.e., this case registered on the basis of complaint-Ex.P4
and Ex.P5 lodged by the complainant-Ramadevi-the grand
mother of Cw.2-victim girl and Cw.3-victim boy. Now left with to
know the contents of Ex.P4 in brief. Admittedly the said
complaint lodged by the complainant addressed to the
Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road-Bangalore and as per
Shara of Pw.8, it was received on 27-01-2013 in the station and
registered in Crime No.472/2012 under section 354, 376, 504,
506 read with section 34 of IPC, section 23 of J.J. Act and
Spl.C.C.163/2013
18
section 3, 4, 7, 8 of POCSO Act, but receiving time was not
mentioned.
15. In the complaint she has stated regarding her
marriage with P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, they got two
children through their wedlock., viz., Gireesh and Geetha Devi
@ V. Lavanya, her husband died in the year 1983, Geetha Devi
was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 04-04-2001 at
Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapa, Tirupathi, by spending huge
amount as mentioned in the complaint. Initially the accused
No.1 was unemployed, subsequently he got job, but his salary
was meager, as such the complainant allowed him and his wife
to stay in her house at Chennai for almost 7 years, during that
stay they got two children-Cw.2 and Cw.3 in the year 2002 and
2003 respectively. Thereafter the accused No.1 got job in
Bangalore and shifted his family to Bangalore, purchased a Flat
at Venkateshwara Apartment, but he used to always quarrel
with his wife Geetha @ Lavanya on flimsy grounds and used to
demand money to clear the loan raised towards said flat.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
19
Subsequently he started to consume alcohol and having in illicit
relationship with other woman.
16. Further she has stated that on 18-10-2012 when she
was at Hyderabad on her personal work, Cw.2 and Cw.3
informed her over phone that their mother had fallen,
immediately she contacted the accused No.1 and asked him as
to what had happened, he told her that her daughter has been
taken in an ambulance and admitted to Yashomathi Hospital in
nearby area and as such she rushed to Airport and reached
Bangalore. On the same day in the evening she went to the
hospital and her daughter's condition is very critical and her
daughter is being treated there in ICU. Since even after two
days of treatment there was no improvement in health condition
of her daughter. As such, she has consulted with the accused
No.1 and her family members and also well wishers and on 20-
10-2012 the complainant shifted her daughter to Manipal
Hospital, aiming for good treatment, but her daughter not
responded to the said treatment and died on 27-10-2012
Spl.C.C.163/2013
20
around 10.00a.m. The dead body was taken to Bhagrapet and
conducted funeral ceremony on the request of accused No.1.
After some days of death of her daughter on 18-11-2012 she
visited to the house of accused No.1 at Bangalore to see and
care for her grand children and to know how they are brought
up by the accused No.1 in the absence of her daughter, but she
found something fishy from the face of her grand children and
inferred something is going wrong. Her grand children having
affection towards her and also whenever she visited their house
at Bangalore, they used to sleep with her in the adjacent
bedroom of her daughter.
17. Here the accusation against accused No.1 is that
from November-2011 to September-2012, the Cw.2-victim girl
was subjected to sexual abuse and also the accused No.1 raped
on her. But in the complaint as stated above, it is not subject
matter of this case, as such whatever the evidence in support of
the above said facts and circumstances given by Pw.1 to Pw.3,
cannot be looked into, since another complaint registered by the
Spl.C.C.163/2013
21
complainant on the same day of filing and the same was
registered in Crime No.58/2013 and also the police submitted
B-report in the said case and the complainant challenged the
said B-report before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the
same is pending for consideration. Now this Court has to
consider only with regard to accusation made against accused
No.1 in respect of allegation that he has sexually abused the
victim girl from November-2011 to September-2012 and in
Nisarga Hotel, the accused No.1 along with accused No.3 to 7
caused criminal outrage of modesty of Cw.2, ill-treating her by
burning through Cigar and also sexually abused in unnatural
way with cw.3. In this regard now left with the evidence of
Pw.1.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-the
complainant she has deposed in respect of her daughter given
in marriage with accused No.1, payment of dowry, performance
of marriage in grand manner, death of her husband, stay of
accused No.1 along with his wife and children in her house at
Spl.C.C.163/2013
22
Chennai for a period of seven years. Thereafter after securing
job at Bangalore he has shifted his family to Bangalore. Further
she has deposed after one year in Bangalore he has surrounded
to bad vices, he has been assaulting, abusing his wife and
causing cruelty to his children who are Pw.2 and Pw.3. He has
been providing all the luxurious life by demanding more money
from his wife. On 17-10-2012, her daughter-the deceased
informed about the birthday of Pw.3 on 18-10-2012, but on 18-
10-2012 her grand children called her over phone stating that
their mother has fallen in bathroom, at that time she was in
Hyderabad.
19. Pw.1 further deposed that immediately she came to
Bangalore and after coming to know the health condition of her
daughter, she has shifted her daughter to Manipal Hospital
from Yeshomathi Hospital. She has deposed about what was the
alleged act done by the accused No.1 when her deceased
daughter was at Yeshomathi Hospital and also deposed her
daughter died in Manipal Hospital on 27-10-2012. Thereafter
Spl.C.C.163/2013
23
the dead body was shifted to Bhakrapet by the accused No.1
herein, which is his native place and buried the same and
thereafter, after obsequies ceremony, the accused No.1 took his
children Pw.2 and Pw.3 to Bangalore.
20. Pw.1 further deposed that she went to Bangalore to
see her grand children and came to know through her grand
children that the accused No.1 is not looking after their welfare,
he is sexually harassing them, as such she took her grand
children to Chennai and after few days, she came back to
Bangalore and came to know the accused No.1 has filed
complaint against her about kidnap of Pw.2 and Pw.3.
Thereafter on the next day she has filed complaint as per Ex.P4.
Further she has also deposed about filing of second complaint
as per Ex.P5 on 05-12-2012 at about 19.41hours and the same
was registered in Crime No.472/2012 under section 354 of IPC.
21. Here on perusal of Ex.P5, she has stated that she
visited Bangalore on 18-11-2012 to see her grand children, at
that time her grand daughter told that the accused No.1
Spl.C.C.163/2013
24
touching her private part and at other places and molested her.
She shocked and took the children to Chennai with the
permission of her son-in-law on 20-11-2012, without telling
anything to him about this matter. Further she has stated in
case of child sexual abuse, it may continue if she lived with the
custody of her son-in-law and requested to allow her to have the
custody of her grand children without any disturbance of her
son-in-law and also requested to take action against her son-in-
law. Here it is relevant to note she has filed this complaint only
against accused No.1 that too after filing of complaint by
accused No.1 against her in respect of kidnap of his children.
Thereafter she has lodged another complaint on 27-01-2013 as
per Ex.P4 and the said complaint registered in same number by
inserting accused No.2 to 7 and also inserting the other offences
against the accused No.1 to 7. With these, now left with to
consider the cross-examination of Pw.1 whether she has
corroborated the case of prosecution or it contradicts with the
case of the prosecution.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
25
22. On perusal of the cross-examination of Pw.1, the
accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of evidence of this
witness by eliciting some commission and omission. Here it is
relevant to note, this Court has to consider whether the accused
No.1 committed sexual abuse and rape on victim girl from
November-2011 to September-2012 and accused No.1, 3 to 5
have committed criminal outrage of modesty, sexual abuse and
rape on victim girl and unnatural sexual abuse on victim boy
and also burning the body of victim girl with cigar at Nisarga
Hotel.
Here the accused persons elicited that:
"d£ÀªÀj 2012 jAzÀ ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï 2012 gÀªÀgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
d£ÀªÀj 2011 jAzÀ r¸ÉA§gï 2012 gÀªÀgÉV£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ²æÃPÁPÀļÀA, ZÉ£Éß Ê ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉÊzÀgÁ¨Ázï
F PÀqÉUÀ¼À°è £Á£ÀÄ NqÁrzÀÄÝ MªÉÄä ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ DzÀgÉ D §UÉÎ
¤RgÀªÁV ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ YõÁÕ¥ÀPÀ«®è. F CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è MªÉÄä £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ
PÁgÀtªÉAzÀgÉ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ CªÉÄÃjPÁUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð MzÀV §A¢zÀÄÝ D §UÉÎ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀªÁV
£Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, no
such difference of opinion arouse between the accused No.1
with the complainant and they are cordial in nature during
January-2012 to September-2012 and also January-2011 to
December-2012. When such being the case, it is not safe to
Spl.C.C.163/2013
26
accept the allegation of commission of rape on victim girl as per
the case of prosecution.
23. Further she was elicited that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ VÃvÁ zÉë §zÀÄQzÁÝUÀ fªÀiï vÀgÀUÀwUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹é«ÄäAUïUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ.
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹é«ÄäAUïUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ vÀ£Àß E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß eÉÆvÉAiÀįÉèà ¹é«ÄäAUïUÉ PàgÉzÀÄ
PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉüÀ®Ä ¸ÁQë D §UÉÎ vÀ£ÀUÉ w½¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß
C½AiÀÄ DgÉÆæ1 vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀw CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀªÁVAiÉÄà fªÀiï vÀgÀUÀwUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¹é«ÄäAUï vÀgÀUÀwUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
Though she shown her ignorance about the same, but the
above said evidence reveals providing education to the victim
boy and victim girl by the accused No.1 and looking after his
wife and children well. Further it is the admission of Pw.1 that:
"¢B 15.11.2012 jAzÀ 26.11.2012 gÀªÀgÀ«UÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À
ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ, £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ DgÉÆæ1 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°èAiÉÄà EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
She has also admitted that:
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ±ÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢B 28.10.2012 gÀAzÀÄ wgÀÄ¥ÀwAiÀÄ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°ègÀÄ ¨ÁPÁæ¥ÉÃmÉAiÀÄ°è
zÀs¥Às£ï ªÀÄÁrzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¨ÁPÁæ¥ÉÃmÉ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£À HgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä
PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj wêÀiÁð£À ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ±ÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁPÁæ ¥ÉÃmÉAiÀÄ°è zÀs¥Às£ï
ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁ𤹠D ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è zÀs¥Às£ï ªÀÄÁrzɪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À wyAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¢B 08.11.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÁPÁæ¥ÉÃmÉAiÀįÉèà ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¢B28.10.2012 jAzÀ 08.11.2012
gÀªÀgÉ«UÀÄ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ DgÉÆæ1 ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁÉĪÀÄäPÀ̼ÀÄ ¨ÁPÁæ¥ÉÃmÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ
D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è wgÀÄ¥ÀwAiÀÄ ¯ÁqïÓ£À°è G½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Àæw¢£À ¨ÁPÁæ¥ÉÃmÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÀÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Further she has admitted that:
"¤.¦.5 gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¢B 26.011.2012 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß
C½AiÀÄ£À C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ZÉ£Éß ÊUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ JA§ÄzÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß
ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß D ¢£À ZÉ£Éß ÊUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£À£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉýzÀ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DvÀ RĶ¬ÄAzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆlÄÖ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ£Á CxÀªÁ zÀÄBR¢AzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw
Spl.C.C.163/2013
27
PÉÆlÖ£Á JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀVÃUÀ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÁªÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ZÉߣÉß ÊUÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ¢AzÀ¯Éà EzÉÝ. D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ZÉ£Éß ÊUÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£À C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ËºÁzÀð
jÃwAiÀįÉèà EzÉݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Further it is her evidence that:
" £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£À C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ , £À£Àß ªÀÉĪÀÄäPÀ̼ÀÄ,
C½AiÀÄ DgÉÆæ2 ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À gÉrØ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ5 ªÀĺÉñÀ gÉrØ EzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5
gÀªÀgÀÄ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À PÉDgï¥ÀÅgÀA ¤AzÀ C°èUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
£À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼ÀÄ ZÉ£Éß ÊUÉ §¸ï£À°è ºÉÆÃVzÉÝêÉ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è
DgÉÆæ2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 gÀªÀgÀÄ EzÀÄÝ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár §®ªÀAvÀ¢AzÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ JAzÀÄ
ºÉýgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀĽî¤AzÀ PÀÆrzÉ".
Again she has also admitted that:
"¤.¦.5 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»w £À£ÀUÉ RÄzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Here it is relevant for the first time the complainant alleges
against accused No.1 with regard to the molestation of her
grand daughter by the accused No.1 on 18-11-2012. But on
that day, she has not taken any action against accused No.1,
Even she kept quite up to 25-11-2012 and on 26-11-2012 she
had taken her grand children to Chennai and kept them along
with her. On all these days she didn't taken any action against
accused No.1. Even as per the above said admission it doesn't
discloses the alleged act of the accused No.1, on the other hand,
it discloses the cordiality between the accused No.1, his
children and the complainant. Further the admission of this
Spl.C.C.163/2013
28
witness that:
"2012 gÀ r¸ÉA§gï 1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ZÉÃvÀ£ï
EAlgï£Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉÆmÉïï£À°è vÀAVzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
But at the same time she has shown her ignorance she
cannot say that she herself and her grand children whereabouts
from 26-11-2012 up to 30-11-2012 and also earlier from 15-11-
2012 to 26-11-2012. If this piece of evidence taken into
consideration, the very conduct of Pw.1 discloses she goes on
changing her evidence, according to her whims and fancies.
24. Further the accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of
the evidence and elicited at the time of loddging-Ex.P5, she was
accompanied with an advocate from Chennai and also she has
visited Police Commissioner Office. She has also admitted that:
"¤.r.4 £ÀÄß ¢B 27.01.2013 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ ¤.r.4
zÀÆjUÉ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ © CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.4
¦üAiÀiÁðzÀ£ÀÄß ¢B 27.01.2013 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ zÀÆgÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.4 ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀ£ÀÄß
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À £À£Àß ªÀQîgÀÄ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀgÀÄ. ¤.¦.4 ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¤.r.4
¦üAiÀiÁðzÀ£ÀÄß MAzÉà ¢£À MAzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÀQîgÀ ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÉÝãÉ
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.r.4 ¦üAiÀiÁð¢£À°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¤.¦.4 ¦üAiÀiÁð¢£À°è EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è
ºÁUÀÆ ¤.¦.4 ¦üAiÀiÁð¢£À°ègÀĪÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¤.r.4 ¦üAiÀiÁð¢£À°è E®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Further she has deposed that:
"¤.r.4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤.¦.4 ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä ¢B 27.01.2013 gÀ »A¢£À 20 ¢
£ÀUÀ¼À°è F zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¤±ÀѬĹzÉÝ. F zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß
PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ZÀað¹zÉÝãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ±ÀªÀ¸ÀA¸ÁÌgÀ DzÀ
Spl.C.C.163/2013
29
£ÀAvÀgÀ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÊPÀÄAoÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁgÁzÀs£É ¢B 08.11.2012 gÀAzÀÄ dgÀÄVzÀÄÝ C°èAiÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÄ EAvÀºÀ
zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ AiÉÆÃZÀ£É ªàiÁrgÀ°®è".
If the above said evidence taken into consideration,
lodging of complaint as per Ex.P4 against accused No.1 and 2 is
after thought. Admittedly the complaint lodged as per Ex.D4 on
27-01-2013 regarding death of her daughter-police filed "B"
report and the same was accepted by the trial Court and
against that order revision petition is pending as per the
submission of the prosecution.
25. Further it is her evidence that:
"CPÉÆÖçgï 2012gÀ°è £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀ°®è.
£ÀªÉA§gï 2012gÀ°è ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃV¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë qÉÃn£À §UÉÎ YõÁÕ¥ÀPÀ«®è DzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøï
oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÉA§gï wAUÀ¼À 2012 gÀ°è
¤£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøïoÁuÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀgÁ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ §UÉÎ YõÁÕ¥ÀPÀ«®è DzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ
oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ".
Here it is relevant to note though she has ignored in
deposing about lodging of complaint against accused No.1
during November 2012, but no such complaint lodged by her,
having received alleged information from the victim girl against
accused No.1and it creates doubt about genuinity of existence
Spl.C.C.163/2013
30
of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Here Ex.P5 lodged on 05-12-2012 but the
evidence of PW.1 is that, at that time Mallikarjuna Reddy,
Mahesh Reddy also accompanied with her and at the same she
has filed complaint as per Ex.P4 by inserting their names as
accused No.2 and 5. Having contact with them it creates doubt
whether they have committed sexual abuse with Pw.2 and Pw.3
and inspite of it why she has not lodged complaint on 05-12-
2012 itself against them and she was accompanied with them, it
shows the very conduct of the complainant in lodging complaint
as per Ex.P4.
26. Further the accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity
of evidence of this witness and elicited that:
"¢B 18.11.2012 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀ GzÉÝñÀªÀÉAzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß
£ÉÆÃqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ §A¢zÉÝ. D ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ
EgÀ°®è. ¤.¦.5 gÀ ¥ÁågÁ 10 gÀ ªÉÆzÀ® ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸Á®ÄUÀ¼À°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ. ¢B
19.11.2012 jAzÀ 25.11.2012 gÀªÀgÉ«UÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À eÉÆvÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà EzÉÝ.
¥Àæw¢£À D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ DvÀ£À PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
C½AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̽UÉ CqÀÄUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ CªÀjUÉ Hl §r¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝ ºÁUÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä
¸ÀA§AzÀs ¸ËºÁzÀð jÃwAiÀÄ°èvÉÛAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, it
crates doubt about genuinity of existence of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5
against accused No.1 and 2. It is also the evidence of Pw.1
Spl.C.C.163/2013
31
that:
"ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV DgÉÆæ1 £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÉƪÀÄäPÀ̽UÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ
§rAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
The above said evidence also creates doubt about
commission of alleged offences by accused No.1 as per the case
of prosecution. Further the accused No.1 and 2 also elicited the
admitted fact through the victim girl about filing of similar type
of criminal cases by this witness at Chennai and other places.
She has also facing several criminal cases as admitted by her in
her cross-examination and she has also admitted that:
"ºÉÊPÉÆÃmïð£À°è £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À ¸À®ÄªÁV £Á£ÉÆAzÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¸À°è¹zÉÝ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝAvÀºÀ J®Áè ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
£Á£ÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ JAzÉgÀ ¸ÁQë £À£ÀUÉÆøÀÌgÀ C®è £À£Àß ªÀÉÄÁªÀÄäPÀ̽UÉÆøÀÌgÀ
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæ1gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝAvÀºÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
£Á£ÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ DgÉÆæ1 gÀªÀgÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÁ JA§
¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë £Á£ÁåPÉ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̽UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ
ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ©ÃUÀzÀ
PÉÊAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÁªÀÄäPÀ̼À PÉÊAiÀÄ°è PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀgÀÄ. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¨ÁåAPï£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¹Ãeï ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ ¹Ãeï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄ£ÀߪÉà £À£Àß
ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̽UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝãÉ. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
K£É¯Áè ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄļÀî ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ½zÀݪÉÇà DªÀÅUÀ¼É¯Áè £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̽UÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ
ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀiÁVvÉÛAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Further she has deposed that:
"¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¸ÁQë D d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÉƪÀÄäPÀ̽UÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ DqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå «µÀAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÀÉÆæ1 gÀªÀgÀ §½ EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£É §AUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
d«ÄãÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̽UÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§ D¸É EzÉAiÀiÁ CxÀªÁ E®èªÁ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë CAvÀºÀ
Spl.C.C.163/2013
32
D¸É EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ J®èjUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÉà JAzÀÄ £Àär¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ".
At the same time she denied about talks taken place with
regard to jewelry, house property and landed property
demanded by this witness with accused No.1 for her grand
children and the said talks was failed. The above said evidence
if taken for consideration, coupled with lodging of complaint as
per Ex.P5 on 05-12-2012, that too after lodging of kidnap case
by the accused No.1 against this witness and also after lapse of
1½ months again lodging of complaint as per Ex.P4, it
crystallizes the complainant lodged the said complaint with
malafide intention.
27. Now left with the evidence of Pw.2 the victim girl,
she has deposed in her chief examination in corroboration of
prosecution case in respect of alleged harassment of accused
No.1 to her mother-Geetha Devi and she died due to cruelty of
accused No.1. Further she has deposed that the accused No.1
behaved with her rashly and he used to hold her neck and
tighten the same and used to hold her hair, pushing head to
Spl.C.C.163/2013
33
wall. He used take her to hotel to do wrong thing, he used to
say to remove her cloths to do wrong and in order to wrong on
her, he fall upon her. At that time accused No.2 to 4 and 7 were
present and accused No.7 was recording the scene in video in
respect of her father doing wrong and then accused No.2 and 4,
one after the other doing wrong. The first accused used to
touch his private part to her private part and accused No.2 to 4
done the same at Nisarga Hotel, situated at K.R. Puram from
August-2012 to September-2012 and at that time she was
studying 4th standard.
28. Further she has deposed that on 17-10-2012 she
has told the said fact to her mother, her mother questioned the
same to the accused No.1 and accused No.1 started to ill-treat
her. The accused No.1 brought accused No.3-Pani and his
relatives-Janardhan Reddy and third persons, entered their
house. On question by her mother, the said persons and
Janardhan Reddy closed her mouth and Pani beaten on her
head in iron rod. They have taken her mother to bathroom and
Spl.C.C.163/2013
34
after two minutes they left and accused No.1 came to home and
started blackmailing her stating that if the said fact is disclosed
to anybody, he will show the video of victim girl and victim boy.
Thereafter in the morning on that day the mother of victim girl
fell down in bathroom, immediately she was shifted to
Yeshomathi Hospital, they called their grand mother over phone
and the grand mother came to Bangalore, on seeing serious
condition of her daughter she shifted her to Manipal Hospital,
wherein she died due to removal of oxygen mask by the accused
No.1.
29. Further Pw.2 also deposed during the year 2010 the
accused No.1 and his wife-deceased Geetha Devi went to
relatives marriage, at that time accused No.6 and this victim girl
are only at home. At that time the accused No.6 forcibly
removed her clothes, done wrong by putting his private part on
her private part and kept his urine part in her mouth and he
has done like that 2-3 days and also threaten her if she
disclosed the same to anybody, he will finish her family. The
Spl.C.C.163/2013
35
same was informed to the accused No.1, instead of taking
action against the accused No.6, he has appreciated the act of
the accused No.6 and also he did the same on her and she
received oozing bleeding in her private part. The same was
informed to her mother and her mother taken her to
Yeshomathi Hospital, where accused No.7 was working at that
time also. The accused No.1 was blackmailing her that he is
going to commit suicide if she discloses the same to anybody,
but she has told the same to her mother and her mother
questioned the same, having grudge with that he has killed her
mother. Further the accused No.1 also burnt her both the
hands with cigar and even he has continuously blackmailing
and harassing her. She has shown Nisarga hotel and spot
mahazar has been done by the police. She has also given
statement stating that she was also subjected to medical
examination.
30. The accused No.1 and 2 always kept on her
blackmailing her. They are also harassing her mentally,
Spl.C.C.163/2013
36
physically and sexually. Here it is relevant to note the Pw.2 in
her chief examination corroborates her evidence as mentioned
above. The accused No.1 and 2 tested her veracity by eliciting
some commission and omission and also elicited that:
"Prior to joining school at Chennai I had studied at
Bengaluru in Chaitanya School at Munekolala, Marathhalli.
It is true to suggest that, there I had studied 3 rd and 4th
standard. It is true to suggest that, prior to joining
Chaitanya school I had studied at Vagdevi Vilas School,
Munekolala in U.K.G. 1st and 2nd slandered. In Bengaluru
while I was going to school everyday I used to bus by going
to school. In all these five years while I was studying in
Bengaluru my father along with my mother had taken my
care in respect of school expenses, bus transportation
expenses and other expenses for my livelihood".
She has also admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that, till death of my mother my
life was happy and pleasant in Bengaluru".
The above said evidence is taken into consideration, it
establishes that the accused No.1 was looking after the victim
girl and victim boy very well and it contradicts with the evidence
given by this witness in her chief examination in respect of
alleged harassment caused by accused No.1.
She has also admitted that:
Spl.C.C.163/2013
37
"It is true to suggest that, my mother was died on
27.10.2012. It is true to suggest that, after death of my
mother her body was taken to Bakrapet near Tirupathi for
burial and the obsequies ceremony was taken place at 11 th
day of my mother death till then I was with my father at
Bakrapet".
31. Further she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that, at Bakrapet my father and
his relatives taken care of me and my younger brother for
all these 11 days and the 11th day ceremony was also
conducted in good manner. It is true to suggest that, after
completion of 11th day ceremony of my mother death myself
and my younger brother decided to come over to Bengaluru
along with my father from Bakrapet".
Further she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that, after returning to Bengaluru
I was continued my studies in Bengaluru at Chaitanya
School of Munekolala of Marathahalli. It is true to suggest
that, while I was going to Chaitanya School I used to travel
in a bus by taking lunch box from my house prepared by
my father. It is true to suggest that, after death of my
mother while I was residing in Bengaluru and studying in
Chaitanya School it was comfortable for me".
The above said evidence crystallizes that after death of her
mother, her dead body was taken to Bakrapet by the accused
No.1 and conducted obsequies ceremony and then brought his
children-the victim girl and victim boy to Bangalore and both
were going to school as usual and they were comfortable with
accused No.1. If the above said evidence is taken into
Spl.C.C.163/2013
38
consideration, it is not safe to accept the alleged offences as per
the case of prosecution against accused No.1.
32. Further she has admitted that on 26-11-2012 her
grand mother-the complainant came to her house in Bangalore.
She has also admitted her grand mother had taken her and her
brother-the victim boy to Chennai. Further she has admitted
that:
"It is true to suggest that, I wants to continue my
study in Chaitanya School, Bengaluru but my grand mother
decided to stay along with her at Chetan Lodge in
Bengaluru. It is true to suggest that, my grandmother had
taken me and my younger brother to Chetan lodge of
Bengaluru when my father was at work spot".
Further she has admitted that:
"My grandmother decided to take me and my brother to
Chennai while we were staying at Chetan Lodge in
Bengaluru for 10 days. It is true to suggest that, we have
not informed the stay of ourselves at Chetan Lodge in
Bengaluru to my father and also not informed to him in
respect of vacating the said lodge room and went to
Chennai. It is true to suggest that, I know about lodging of
complaint by my father in respect of without informing him
my grand mother had taken myself and my younger brother
to Chennai. It is true to suggest that, after some time when
we were Chennai my grandmother came to know about
lodging of complaint my father and then my grand mother
brought me and my brother to Bengaluru."
The above said evidence taken into consideration, it is very
Spl.C.C.163/2013
39
clear on the instigation of the complainant, she has deposed in
her chief examination against accused No.1 and 2 falsely with
regard to alleged sexual, physical and mental harassment, as
such there is a doubt of commission of offence by the accused
No.1 and 2 as per the case of prosecution.
33. She has also admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that, after lodging complaint by
my father my grand mother also lodged complaint against
my father".
The above said admission also crystallizes that Ex.P5
came into existence, only after filing of complaint by the
accused No.1 against the complainant with grudge. Further it
is her evidence that:
"If it is put to me at that time whether my father was
happy and pleasant and cordial in nature while giving
consent to my grandmother to take me and my brother to
Chennai? my answer is yes he was happy and every one in
the family was also happy to take me and my brother by my
grandmother to Chennai".
If this piece of evidence taken into consideration, coupled
with lodging of complaint by the accused No.1 against the
complainant on 04-12-2012, regarding kidnap of Pw.2 and
Spl.C.C.163/2013
40
Pw.3, it is very clear the complainant having taken the custody
of said children brought them and kept in Chetan Lodge at
Bangalore on 02-12-2012 and 03-12-2012 without informing
accused No.1, even though having house of accused No.1 in
Bangalore and it creates the malafide intention of the
complainant, as such the complaint of accused No.1 came into
existence.
34. Now left with the alleged sexual harassment caused
by accused No.1 and 2 as per the case of prosecution to
consider whether the defense of accused No.1 and 2
probabalises through the cross-examination of this witness. As
per the case of prosecution, the accused No.1 sexually abuses
and raped the victim girl from November-2011 to September-
2012 and at Nisarga Hotel, so also accused No.2 at Nisarga
Hotel. In the cross-examination Pw.2 admitted that lastly she
was sexually harassed by the accused persons on 18-10-2012
at the time she was studying at Bangalore in Sri. Chaitanya
School and she deposed for the first time before Court and not
Spl.C.C.163/2013
41
before any person. Here as per Ex.P5-the complaint lodged by
the complainant on 05-12-2012, it is mentioned the victim girl
told her, that her father- accused No.1 raped on her on 18-10-
2012, but she has not stated anything against accused No.2.
35. Here the case of prosecution is that on 18-10-2012
in the morning the mother of victim girl at bathroom fell down
and immediately she was shifted to Yeshomathi Hostel, when
such being case, it is not believable about lastly the accused
persons raped on her. Even on perusal of Ex.P1-the Mahazar
conducted on 25-03-2013 at Nisarga Lodge Hall, wherein she
has stated that during 2012, from May to August, one day the
accused No.1 to 4 raped on her and the same was recorded
through video by accused No.7-Dr. Sunitha. If this piece of
content is taken into consideration, there is doubt of
commission of offence on 18-11-2012 as per the case of
prosecution and the evidence of this witness.
Further she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that for the first time I had
Spl.C.C.163/2013
42
deposed before court in respect of, ". He used to holding my
neck and tighten the same and he used to holding my hair
pushing my head to the wall", and not stated in Ex.P2".
Further she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that, neither I had taken
treatment for head injury nor sustained any head injury. It
is true to suggest that for the first time I had deposed before
court in respect of, "On 17.10.2012 I told my mother that
my father is not good, he has taken me to hotel making me
to drink and done the wrong similarly A2 to 4 also done the
wrong and the lady who know my mother also taken video
of the scenery", and not stated in Ex.P2".
Admittedly up to 18-10-2012 the mother of victim girl was
conscious and she was active in looking after her family
members, but the victim girl not stated anything about alleged
sexual harassment of her father and other accused persons to
her and no action taken against the accused persons, it is taken
only after the death of her mother and when the victim boy and
victim girl went to the custody of complainant, that too after
filing of complaint of kidnap by the accused No.1 against the
complainant on 04-12-2012. At the same time she has admitted
that she has deposed falsely in respect of lastly she was
sexually harassed by the accused persons on 18-10-2012 and
at that time she was studying at Bangalore in Sri. Chaitanya
Spl.C.C.163/2013
43
School.
36. Further she has deposed that:
"It is true to suggest that I had deposed falsely in
respect of, after came back from Hospital to the house when
I was sleeping along with my mother at that time
Mallikarjuna Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy came and Bhaskar
Reddy woke up me and took me to the room, Mallikarjuna
Reddy opened my mouth and poured Brandi to my mouth
at that time I was getting giddiness and fell down, when I
wakeup in the morning Bhaskar Reddy blackmailing me
stating if I told yesterday incident to anybody he is going to
kill whole family, as such I was fear and I was not told the
said incident to anybody, in the next day I tried to wakeup
my mother but my father told me he has given sleeping
tablet to my mother and she is not wakeup later she
wakeup".
Further she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that when I was studying in a
school at Bengaluru in the year 2010, my cousin brother
Abhinaya also studying in a school at Tirupathi. I do not
remember to say whether I had been to Bhakrapet to see my
senior uncle and his son Abhinaya in the whole year of 2011
and 2012".
Further it is her evidence that:
"If it is put to me whether you met your senior uncle
and his son Abhinaya at Bakrapet in the year 2010? my
answer is no. I do not remember to say whether Abhinaya
met me in my house at Bengaluru any day of whole year of
2011".
It is also her evidence that:
"If it is put to me whether you met Abhinaya any day
Spl.C.C.163/2013
44
in the year 2012? my answer is I met Abhinaya in the year
2012 but I don't remember to say when and where I met
him."
Further Pw.2 admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that for the first time I had
deposed before court in respect of during the year of 2010
my father and my mother went to attend the marriage of my
relatives at that time myself and Abhinaya only in the house
and never told the same before police".
37. Further she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that during the year of 2010. I
was baby and I don't know the meaning of sex and sexual
intercourse. It is true to suggest that if any persons gives
trouble to me either in the house or in the school I know the
same is to be reported to class teacher and principal of the
school. It is true to suggest that at that time I was
comfortable to write my examination in the school and
therefore I didn't report any cause to my school teacher or to
my principal".
Further it is her evidence that:
"If it is put to me who was cooking lunch for me and
sending lunch for me at that time? my answer is Abhinaya
was cooking lunch for me and sending lunch for me at that
time".
Again she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that at that time Abhinaya was
also a small boy and he was attending school examination
at Tirupathi".
Further it is her evidence that:
"If it is put to me if any one touches my body and
touches my undergarments I am capable to slap on their
Spl.C.C.163/2013
45
face and capable to report the same to my teacher and
elders".
It is also her admission that:
" It is true to suggest that during the year of 2010 and
2011 and till the death of my mother during the 2012 she
never took me to the police station to lodge complaint on
anybody because there was no necessity for her".
38. Further she has admitted that:
" It is true to suggest that till the death of my mother I
had not complained against Abhinaya before anybody or
went police station to lodge complainant against him".
Again she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that because of there was no
necessity to complaint against Abhinaya either to my family
members or to the police".
It is also her admission that:
"It is true to suggest that till 05.12.2012 I had not named
Abhinaya to anyone. It is true to suggest that because of there
was no necessity to name Abhinaya. It is true to suggest that
in the complaint dated 27.01.2013 as per Ex.D4 I had not
mentioned or named Abhinaya anywhere in that complaint".
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, it
creates doubt of commission of sexual abuse and rape on victim
girl by accused No.6-Abhinaya and the accused No.1 as per the
case of prosecution and the benefit of doubt is to be given to the
Spl.C.C.163/2013
46
said accused No.1 and 6. If really the above said incident as per
the case of prosecution from November-2011 to September-
2012 happened on victim girl-Pw.2, definitely during the life
time of the mother of victim girl would have taken action
against the accused No.1 and 6 or the present complainant
taken action against them, but the complainant shown her
ignorance and the deceased mother has not taken any action
and it creates doubt that the complainant after the death of her
daughter she has created story against accused No.1 only
having grudge against him, that as per the defense of the
accused No.1. The produced evidence by the prosecution
through this witness contradicts, inconsistent and corroborated
with each other, as such it is not safe to accept the evidence of
this witness to believe alleged offences against accused No.1
and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
39. Now left with the allegation of prosecution against
accused No.1 and 2 in respect of they taking the victim girl and
the victim boy to Nisarga Hotel, sexually abused them, raped
Spl.C.C.163/2013
47
the victim girl and unnatural way on victim boy and also ill-
treated them by burning through cigar. The accused No.1 and
2 tested the veracity of Pw.2 and elicited that though she has
stated the Party Hall near K.R. Puram, but she cannot say what
is the party hall, where it is situated.
Further she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that for the first time I had
deposed before court in respect of, "My father used to take
me to hotel to do wrong with me, in the said hotel he used
to say to remove my cloths to do wrong and in order to do
wrong on me he fell upon me" and not stated in Ex.P2".
Further she was elicited that:
"My father took me to the hotel from august 2012 to
September 2012 earlier to my mother death but I cant
remember to say the exact date on which day my father
took me to the hotel. If it is put to me did you informed by
me to my mother in the august month?, my answer is no I
didn't inform to my mother. Likewise I didn't inform the
same to my mother in the month of September also. In the
month of October I informed the same to my mother. If it
is put to me whether my father had taken me to the hotel in
the month of October of 2012?, my answer is he had not
taken me to the hotel in the month of October 2012".
Further she has admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that for the first time I deposed
that " my father took me to the said hotel from August 2012
onwards till September 2012 and at that time I was
studying at 4th standard" and not stated anywhere earlier to
Spl.C.C.163/2013
48
deposing before court".
At the same time she has deposed voluntarily that:
"She know about writing of Ex.P1 and the same is
written by the police in the police station. It is true to
suggest that I myself signed Ex.P1 as Ex.P1(a) after its
writing. It is true to suggest that in Ex.P1 not written in
respect of my father took me to the said hotel from August
2012 onwards till September 2012".
If the above said evidence coupled with Ex.P1-Mahazar
taken into consideration, it was drawn on 25-03-2013, that too
after lapse of three months of lodging of alleged complaint. At
this stage this Court feels to observe that the concerned police
on the instigation of complainant has manipulated this theory
and it is not safe to accept the alleged offences against accused
No.1 and 2.
40. Further the accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of
evidence of this witness and elicited that:
"It is true to suggest that when I attained Puberty I
was with my grand mother in Chennai in the year 2013. It
is true to suggest that before attaining puberty I don't know
the meaning of sex and sexual intercourse. I didn't discuss
with my grand mother at any time about the meaning of
sex and sexual intercourse. As such I don't know the
meaning of sex and sexual intercourse".
Spl.C.C.163/2013
49
The above said evidence of this witness discloses that the
complainant for gain used the innocence of this victim girl even
though no such criminal act taken place against victim girl, the
complainant produced the evidence used this witness and it
contradicts with the case of the prosecution. Further she has
admitted that the information mentioned in Ex.P5 is defers with
that of the information mentioned in Ex.P2, so also the
information mentioned in Ex.P5 is differs with that Ex.P4.
Further she has also admitted that the information as
mentioned in Ex.P5 is defers with that of Ex.D4.
41. Further she has admitted that she doesn't know to
say the contents as mentioned in Ex.P5 not informed while
preparing Ex.P2 and she don't know the contents of Ex.P2 at
the time of preparing Ex.P5, which is hand written document.
Here Ex.P2 drawn without mentioning the date, but the said
document produced before Court on 28-01-2013 in respect of
the statement of victim girl. Ex.P5 is the complaint lodged on
05-12-2012.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
50
She has admitted that it is true to suggest that:
"It is also true to suggest that till the death of my
mother I was provided good food like break fast, lunch and
dinner every day. It is also true to suggest that till the death
of my mother my travel, dress, footwear are comfortable to
me. Further it is also true to suggest that till the death of
my mother was provided good education in good school at
Bengaluru".
She has also admitted that she is good girl and therefore
she never undergone sexual intercourse with any one else. If
the above said evidence taken into consideration, there is a
doubt of commission of offence by accused No.1 and 2 on the
victim girl as per the case of prosecution and the benefit of
doubt is to be given to them. Viewing from available evidence
produced by the prosecution through Pw.2, it is not safe to
accept the prosecution proved the alleged offences through the
evidence of Pw.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
42. Now left with the evidence of Pw.3-the victim boy and
the younger brother of victim girl. He has deposed similar facts
and circumstances as per the case of prosecution and evidence
of Pw.2 in his chief examination in respect of death of his
mother. Further he has deposed that his father ill-treated his
Spl.C.C.163/2013
51
mother and sister by beating them with chapathi making roller
and also belt. But he has not deposed anything about the
alleged sexual harassment caused on him by the accused
persons as per the case of prosecution at Nisarga Hotel.
43. It is his further evidence that on 18-09-2012 his
father called him outside to purchase something, when he was
accompanied him, his father taken him to Hotel Blazer next to
Spice Garden. There accused No.2, 5 and 7 came, they booked
rooms in the hotel and then took him in the said room. The
accused No.2 and 4 forcibly opened his mouth, his father
poured brandy on his mouth, when he drunk the brandy he
became unconscious and subsequently the other persons
beaten him, for that he was crying and shouting. They have also
threaten him not to disclose this act to anybody and if he
disclose to anybody they are to going kill him. They have done
like this continuously for three days. At that time the lady
Sunitha laughing and stating very good very good. Thereafter
his father brought him to home. Again they took him to same
Spl.C.C.163/2013
52
hotel again and they were acted wrongly as that of earlier for six
days continuously. On 08-10-2012 he told the said fact to his
mother and his mother questioned the same to his father. Here
it is relevant to note the investigating officer has not
investigated the same in respect of Hotel Blazer next to the
Spice Garden.
44. The accused No.1 and 2 tested his veracity by
eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that:
" If I shown my photos and I hear my voice through
video or any electronic device I am able to say whether the
said photos and voice pertains me. If it is put to me now I
shown the video graph photo is pertains to me and the voice
recorded is also my voice. It is true I had stated my father is
good man and he has not committed any wrong against me
and my sister ".
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration on the
instigation of the complainant, victim girl-Pw.2 and victim boy-
Pw.3 acted against accused No.1, even though they liked their
father and after going to the custody of the complainant their
stand is that their father brainwashed at that time, as such
Pw.3 told like that. But the evidence of Pw.2 is very clear that
the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences against
Spl.C.C.163/2013
53
accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
This witness also admitted that:
"It is true to suggest that I was comfortable to go to
my school and returned to my home at that time. It is true
to suggest that I was provided school uniform, Civil dress,
school bags, shoes and everything was comfortable at that
time".
If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, there is a
doubt of commission of offences by the accused No.1 and 2, as
per the case of prospection. Further the accused No.1 and 2
tested his veracity and elicited that:
"I don't know to say the main door of Hotel Blazer
situated on which side and I forgotten the same. Don't
know to say the boundaries of the said hotel places what
was situated. I don't know to say what the colour of the
building of hotel places was. I can't say about how many
floors are there in Hotel Blazer. It is true to suggest that
Hotel Blazer is not a hotel".
The above said evidence also clearly reveals doubt about
commission of offences by the accused No.1 and 2 as per case
of prosecution on victim boy-Pw.3.
45. Viewing from available material evidence produced
by the prosecution through this witness, this Court feels to
observe that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences
Spl.C.C.163/2013
54
against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
At the same of time through the evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 the
accused No.1 and 2 established by producing Ex.D1 to Ex.D12-
documents, regarding the complainant facing several criminal
cases in the different places, lodging of three similar complaints
through victim girl in different places by the complainant and
also opinion of the doctor on the death of mother of Pw.2 and
Pw.3 as per Ex.D3(a) and also due to lodging of similar
complaint against three persons at Chengalpattu, wherein two
accused persons committed suicide due to complaint lodged
against them falsely.
46. Now left with whether the prosecution produced
medical evidence to establish the alleged offences against
accused No.1 and 2. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Dr.
P.S. Chikkanarasa Reddy, he has deposed that on 02-02-2013
he has examined victim boy who was aged about 9 years and
submitted report as per Ex.P6. The doctor mentioned few well
circumscribed healed scars present on both inner thighs-left
Spl.C.C.163/2013
55
side to right side one, right upper leg on external surface of
thigh linear scar and alleged by belt.
47. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 tested his
veracity and also elicited that at the time of examination of
victim boy the complainant was present and told about alleged
incident. Further he has admitted that:
"¸ÀzÀj CA±ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ZÁ.¸Á.3 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÁUÀ D¬ÄvÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ
£Á£ÀÄ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉý w½zÀÄPÀÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤.¦.6 gÀ°è £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. JgÀqÀÄ vÉÆqÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É DVgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ vÀgÀazÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ
D¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ «ZÁj¹ D UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀAiÀĹ£À §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj, CzÉÃ
jÃw §®UÁ°£À ºÉÆgÀ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ vÉÆqÉAiÀÄ ZÀªÀÄðzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀtÚ J¼ÉAiÀÄ 4 ¸ÉAn«ÄÃlgï vÀgÀazÀ
UÁAiÀÄzÀ ªÀAiÀĹì£À §UÉÎAiÀÄÆ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Again he has admitted that:
"¤.¦.6 gÀ°è ¨É¯ïÖ¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀĪÀgÉAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ZÁ.¸Á.3 gÀªÀgÀ CfÓ
ºÉýzÀ ºÉýPÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ §gÉ¢zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, there
is doubt of receiving of injuries as per Ex.P6 by Pw.3 at the time
of alleged incident as per the case of prosecution and the benefit
of doubt has to be given to the accused No.1 and 2.
48. Now left with evidence of Pw.6-Dr. S.Pushpalatha,
she has deposed in respect of examining victim boy on 02-02-
Spl.C.C.163/2013
56
2013 as per the instructions of H.A.L. Police and her signature
is Ex.P6(b). Further she has deposed that on the very same day
she has also examined the victim girl-Pw.2 along with lady
doctor-Dr. Savitha, Dr. Shoibha Saldana and recorded the
statement given by the victim girl in respect of ill-treatment of
accused No.1 as per the case of prosecution and also they have
given report as per Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. On perusal of Ex.P7 it
clearly shows that on physical examination of Pw.2, they found
round well circumscribed healed scars on the outer aspect of
both upper limbs, healed scar on the outer aspect of the left
arm, old multiple healed bruises on the both the buttocks, scar
on left back of thigh, old healed scars on the medial aspect of
the right thigh, multiple well circumscribed old healed scars of
different ages on the dorsum of both the legs and foot, old
healed bruises on the inner aspect on both thighs-left healed
bruises on the inner aspect on both side, old healed bruise on
the mons pubis.
49. Further on perusal of the entries regarding genetic
Spl.C.C.163/2013
57
examination, it is mentioned that:
" 1. Inflamed lacerations on the inner aspect of labia
minora, bilaterally with tenderness. 2.Hymen torn
irregularly. 3.Foul smelling infected discharge from the
vagina".
She has also deposed that the victim Pw.2 was subjected to
sexual abuse and at the same time she opined that:
"DzÀgÉ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå £ÀqɹgÀĪÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä
DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É JµÀÄÖ ¢£ÀUÀ½AzÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå £ÀqÉ¢zÉ JA§ ¤RgÀªÁzÀ
CªÀ¢üAiÀi£ÀÄß ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀnÖzÉÝãÉ".
50. The accused No.1 and 2 tested her veracity and
elicited some commission and omission and also she has
admitted that:
"¤.¦.8 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ºÁUÉ ZÁ.¸Á.2 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DVgÀĪÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 05.04.2013
gÀ 3 jAzÀ 4£Éà ªÁgÀzÀ »AzÉ JA§ÄzÁVzÀÄÝ ¢B 07.12.2012 gÀ M¼ÀV£À UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ
CxÀð §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£ÀåzÀ ¥ÀzÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ CxÀð
PÉÆqÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Again she has admitted that:
"¤.¦.8gÀ°è ¸ÉPÀÄëAiÀįï C¸Á¯ïÖ JA§ÄzÁV £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¸ÉPÀÄëAiÀįï
EAlgïPÉÆøïð JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÉPÀÄëAiÀįï EAlgïPÉÆøïð
DVzÀÝgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ D §UÉÎ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV D ¥ÀzÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹ §gÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀgÉ ¤.¦.8 gÀ°è
¸ÉPÀÄëAiÀįï EAlgïPÉÆøïð JA§ ¥ÀzÀ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.".
She has also admitted that:
"¤.¦.8 C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß qÁ. ¥Àæw¨sÁ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ §gÉzÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁr PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Further she has admitted that:
Spl.C.C.163/2013
58
"¤.¦.8 gÀ°è AiÀiÁªÁUÀ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹zÀgÀÄ, WÀl£É
§UÉÎ AiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆlÖgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉAiÀÄ°è PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀAvÀºÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÉãÀÄ
JA§ÄzÀgÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÀÉ ¸Àj".
She has also admitted that:
"¤.¦.8PÉÌ qÁ. ¥Àæw¨sÁgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ ¸À» ºÁQzÉÝãÉ. ¤.¦.7
gÀ°è ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ªÉÊzÀågÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ qÁ. ¥Àæw¨sÁgÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£ÉAiÀiÁV®è
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Further it is her admission that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÉ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ
ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
51. She has also admitted that:
"¤.¦.7 gÀ°è ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ CfÓ ¦. gÀªÀiÁzÉë PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀgÀÄ
JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉUÉ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß M¼À¥Àr¹zÀ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£ÀVgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q E£ÀÆß ಖತ
ಋ vÀĪÀÄwAiÀiÁVgÀ°®è".
Again it is her evidence that:
"¤.¦.7 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ EwºÁ¸ÀzÀ°è ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ
d£ÀgÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ ªÀÉiÃ¯É ¥É£ÉmÉænªï ¸ÉPÀÄëAiÀįï EAlgïPÉÆøïð ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀgÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ
DzÀgÉ £Á£ÁUÀ°, qÁ. ¥Àæw¨sÁgÀªÀgÁUÀ° £ÀªÀÄä C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥É£ÉmÉænªï
¸ÉPÀÄëAiÀįï EAlgïPÉÆøïð §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
It is also her admission that:
"£ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥É£ÉmÉæÃnªï ¸ÉPÀÄëAiÀįï EAlgïPÉÆøïð DVzÉAiÀiÁ E®èªÁ
JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ w½zÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¹ÛçÃgÉÆÃUÀvÀYÕjAzÀ D §UÉÎ w½zÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ".
Further it is her admission that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV DlDqÀĪÁUÀ, ¸ÀÉÊPÀ¯ï vÀĽAiÀÄĪÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PɼÀUÉ ©zÁÝUÀ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄgÀ
PÀ£Áå¥ÉÇgÉ ºÀjAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢ ¤.¦.7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ
£ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ PÀ£Áå¥ÉÇgÉAiÀÄÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ ºÀj¬ÄvÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀuÉ §gÉ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj ".
Spl.C.C.163/2013
59
The above said admission coupled with admission of Pw.2
in her cross-examination it clearly shows that the alleged sexual
assault on the victim girl by the accused No.1 and 2 not
established by the prosecution. It is also the evidence of this
witness whether the victim girl was subjected to penetrative
sexual intercourse or not is to be considered only on the report
of the OBG doctor.
52. Now left with the evidence of Pw.13-Dr. Savitha, she
has deposed in respect of examining of victim girl on 02-02-
2013 along with Pw.6. She has also deposed similar facts with
that of evidence of Pw.6 in her chief examination in respect of
history of incident told by the complainant and also told that
the victim girl was subjected to sexual harass after the death of
her mother, where as the case of prosecution is otherwise. She
has also deposed that the genital part was smelling having
brown colour and hymen was torn. She has also admitted
Ex.P7 and Ex.P8.
53. The accused No.1 and 2 tested her veracity and also
Spl.C.C.163/2013
60
elicited that:
"ಯವವವದಸನ ಗವಯವವ 24 ಗರಟಸ ಒಳಗಸ ಕಡತ ಕಸರಪನರದ ಕಕಡದತಯ 24
ಗರಟಸಯ ನರತರ ಕರದತ ಬಣಣಕಸಕ ತರತಗ ಸತಮವರತ 4 ದನಗಳ ಕವಲ ಇದತಯ ನರತರ
ಕಪವಪ ಬಣಣಕಸಕ ತರತಗತತತದಸ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ತಪವಸಣವ ಕವಲದಲಲ ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕಯ
ಮಮಮನಲಸ ಕಸರಪವ ಬಣಣದರದ ಕರದತ ಬಣಣಕಸಕ ತರತಗದ ಗವಯ ಕರಡತ ಬರದರಸ ಆ
ಗವಯವವ ಪರನಕವಕ ಕವಲದ ಹರದನ 10 ದನಗಳಲಲ ಆದರತಹ ಗವಯಗಳರಬಹತದತ
ಎರದರಸ ಸವಕಕ ಇರಬಹತದತ ಎರದತ ನತಡದರತತವತರಸ.
Question: If the Bruis mark is in black colour it could
have been caused within 20 days prior to the examination
what do you say?
Answer: My answer is it depends upon size of the
wounds. If it is bigger one it will takes more time to heal
and if it is smaller it will takes lessor time.
Question: If it is the age of the injury with in 20 days
the colour must be black in colour?Ans: My answer is Yes it
is true.
Question: If the bruise mark is in small in nature it
could disappear with in 20 days, my answer is yes it is true.
ಸವಮವನತವವಗ ಗವಯವಳತವನತನ ಚಕತಸಕಗವಗ ಕರಸತರದವ
ಗ ಆತನ ಮಮಮನಲಸ ಬಸಲಪಲ ನರದ ಹಸಕಡಸದ ಗತರತತತ ಕರಡತ ಬರದರಸ ಆ ಗವಯದ
ಉದಯಗಲ ಮತತತ ಯವವ ಬಣಣದರದ ಕಕಡದಸ ಹವಗಕ ಇದತ ಸವಮವನತ
ಸಸರಕಪದವಯಗ ಅಥವವ ತನವರರ ಸಸರಕಪದವಯ ಎರದತ ನಮಕದನಸ
ಮವಡಬಸನಕವಗರತತತದಸ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ ".
Further she has admitted that:
"ಈಗ ನಸಕನಡದ ನ.ಪ.7 ಮತತತ 8 ರಲಲ ಬಸಲರಪ ನರದ ಹಸಕಡಸದರತವರತ
ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ಗವಯದ ಅಳತಸ ಮತತತ ಬಣಣವನತನ ನಮಕದನಸ ಮವಡಲಲ ಎರದರಸ
ಸರ. ಅದಸನ ರನತ ನ.ಪ.7 ಮತತತ 8 ರಲಲ ಸಗರಸನಟನರದ ಆಗರತವ ಗವಯಗಳಸರದತ
ಹಸನಳದತಯ ಆದರಸ ಆ ಗವಯಗಳ ಆಳತಸ ಮತತತ ಬಣಣವನತನ ನಮಕದನಸ ಮವಡಲಲ ಎರದರಸ
ಸರ."
She has also admitted that:
"ಸವಮವನತವವಗ ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕ ವಸಮದತಕನಯ ತಪವಸಣಸಗಸ ನಮಮ ಬಳ
ಬರದವಗ ಅಕಸಗಸ ಲಸಮರಗಕ ದದರರನತ ಯವವ ದನದರದತ ಯವವ ಸಮಯದಲಲ
Spl.C.C.163/2013
61
ಆಯತಸರದತ ಅಕಸಯನತನ ಕಸನಳ ತಳದತಕಸಕಳತಳತಸತನವಸ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನ.ಪ.7 ರಲಲ
ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕಯ ಮನಲಸ ಯವವಗ ಲಸಮರಗಕ ದದರರನತವವಗದಸ ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ
ದನವರಕ ಮತತತ ಸಮಯ ನಮಕದನಸ ಮವಡರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ".
54. It is also her admission that:
"ಸವಮವನತವವಗ ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕ ವಸಮದತಕನಯ ತಪವಸಣಸಗಸ ನಮಮ ಬಳ
ಬರದವಗ ಅಕಸಗಸ ಲಸಮರಗಕ ದದರರನತ ಯವವ ದನವರಕದತ ಯವವ ಸಮಯದಲಲ
ಆಯತಸರದತ ಹವಗಕ ಇತರಸ ಗವಯಗಳವಗದಯರಸ ಅವವಗಳತ ಯವವವಗ ಆಯತಸರದತ
ಅಕಸಯನತನ ಕಸನಳ ತಳದತಕಸಕಳತಳತಸತನವಸ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನ.ಪ.7 ರಲಲ ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕಯ
ಮನಲಸ ಯವವವಗ ಲಸಮರಗಕ ದದರರನತವವಗದಸ ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ದನವರಕ ಮತತತ
ಸಮಯ ನಮಕದನಸ ಮವಡರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ."
If the above said admission coupled with admission of
Pw.6 is taken into consideration, this Court feels to observe that
it creates doubt on the commission of the offences by the
accused No.1 and 2 as per the case of prosecution, since Pw.6
and Pw.13 told the history of incident was given by Pw.1-
Ramadevi and also the entries in Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and as per
admission of Pw.6 and Pw.13 in their cross-examination the
injuries sustained by the victim was caused after 07-12-2012
and there was no penetrative sexual assault and also the
admission of the colour of injury also very clear that the colour
of injury within 24 hours must be red, after 24 hours, reddish
brown and after 4 days it would turn into black and also
admitted the injury found on vagina could have been caused
Spl.C.C.163/2013
62
within 10 days prior to the date of examination. At the same
time the examination of the victim girl was on 02-02-2013, if
the said date is taken into consideration within 10 days, the
said injuries might have received by the victim girl i.e., on 21-
01-2013 or 22-01-2013. Whereas at that time the victim girl
was in the custody of complainant and not in the custody of the
accused No.1. Further she has admitted that if the age of injury
is within 20 days, the colour must be black. She has also
admitted that if the bruise mark is small in nature, it would
disappear within 20 days. She has also admitted there is no
injury corresponding to assault with belt and burning with
cigar. In view of non-furnishing the date of incident, both Pw.6
and Pw.13 not mentioned the same. Now left with the evidence
Pw.14.
55. By going through the evidence of Pw.14-Dr.
Shoaibha Saldana, she has deposed that she also accompanied
with the Pw.6 and Pw.13 at the time of examination of victim
girl-Pw.2 and also deposed that she had found the assault
Spl.C.C.163/2013
63
through belt and burns through cigar marks on the body of
victim and also corroborates the chief examination of Pw.6 and
Pw.13.
56. The accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of
evidence of this witness and also elicited that she know the
changes of colours of injury. She has deposed that the primary
information given by complainant -Ramadevi. The injuries
sustained by the victim on the date of examination was dark
red and reddish brown. The date of injury of the victim also not
furnished. Further it is her evidence that if the injuries received
within four days, it is not reddish brown. Further she has
admitted that she has not produced any supporting document
to show that she was present at the time of examination of
victim girl on 02-02-2013.
57. Here it is relevant to note that the case of
prosecution is that till 26-11-2012, Pw.2 and Pw.3 are residing
with accused No.1, from that date onwards they have been
residing with Pw.1-Ramadevi, both were subjected medical
Spl.C.C.163/2013
64
examination on 02-02-2013. As per the evidence of Pw.6, Pw.13
and Pw.14 and Ex.P7 and Ex.P8, the injuries sustained on the
vagina of Pw.2 was reddish brown. The colour of the blood could
be dark red, within 24 hours, reddish for another four days,
then the change in colour would be black. As per doctors
opinion the vaginal injures caused within 24 hours prior to her
medical examination. It is not in dispute Pw.2 is residing along
with Pw.1 since 26-11-2012 as such it is not safe to accept the
alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 as per the case of
prosecution.
58. Now left with the evidence of Pw.4-Meenakshi SJPU.
She has deposed regarding counselling made on the victim girl
as per the instruction of HAL police on 06-12-2012 and
recording statement of victim as per Ex.P2 and the statement of
Pw.3 as per Ex.P3 and she was one of the Panch witness as per
Ex.P1 at Nisarga Hotel.
59. The accused No.1 and 2 tested her veracity and
elicited the commission and omission. She has also stated that
Spl.C.C.163/2013
65
she has recorded the statement of victim girl on 06-12-2012,
where as there is no mentioning of date in Ex.P2 and the same
was admitted by this witness. Further she has deposed that in
Ex.P3 she has mentioned date as 27-01-2013. Again it is her
evidence that she has prepared Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 on the very
same day. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration,
it creates doubt of recording of statement of victim girl on 06-
12-2012. Further she has admitted about non-mentioning of
Nisarga lodge in Ex.P2. She has shown her ignorance about
K.R.Puram party hall and its boundaries. She has also admitted
she has signed-Ex.P2 which was got typed by the police. It is
also her evidence at the time of recording of statement, Pw.1-
complainant was present. At this stage this Court opines in
view of non-mentioning of date in Ex.P2 and also her admission
that she has recorded statement of victim girl on 06-12-2012,
Ex.P2 got prepared by police, it creates doubt of genuinity of
Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the
accused No.1 and 2.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
66
60. By going through the evidence of Pw.7- Roopa
Karunakar-the teacher of Chaitanya Techno school, she has
deposed that Pw.2 and Pw.3 are students of Sri. Chaitanya
Techno School- Marathhalli and also she has issued Ex.P9 and
Ex.P10-the study and birth certificates and also Ex.P11-
Attendance Register Extract. Here the studies of Pw.2 and Pw.3
in Bangalore at Sri. Chaitanya Techno School is not in dispute.
61. The accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of the
evidence of this witness by elicitating some commission and
omission and she has admitted that Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 obtained
by Pw.1-Ramadevi, but not by the police. At this stage this
Court opines the evidence of this witness is a formal one, but at
the same time this Court feels to observe at the instance of Pw.1
Ex.P9 to P11 are issued.
62. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-Jyothi-WPC,
she has deposed that she was accompanied with the
Investigating Officer for conducting mahazar on 25-03-2013
and also she corroborates the process of conducting mahazar
Spl.C.C.163/2013
67
as per Ex.P1 in her chief examination and her signature is
Ex.P1(c).
63. In the cross-examination she has admitted about
availability of the receptionist and maintaining of register by the
receptionist. She has shown her ignorance about non
mentioning the name of the accused persons and victim girl in
the said register. She has also admitted she has signed Ex.P1(c)
in the station. If this piece of evidence taken into consideration,
it creates doubt of participation of this witness at the time of
conducting mahazar as per Ex.P1.
64. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-Dr.K.V.
Satish, he has deposed that on 21-01-2013 as per request of
Police Inspector-H.A.L., he has examined, Mallikarjuna Reddy,
Chandrasekhar, T.K. Mahesh Reddy and issued certificate as
per Ex.P15 to Ex.P17. His evidence remains unassailed and the
accused No.1 and 2 not disputed the said evidence.
65. By going through the evidence of Pw.11-H.M.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
68
Dayananda, he has deposed that during 2016 when he left the
job, earlier to 2-3 months CCB police came to Nisarga lodge and
obtained his signature, except that he doesn't know anything
about the case of prosecution. The prosecution treated him as
hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every
word of Ex.P18, for that he has denied the same.
66. The accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of
evidence of this witness and also elicited that :
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV £ÀªÀÄä ¯ÁqïÓ£À°è gÀÆA PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀgÉ CAvÀºÀ UÁæºÀPÀjAzÀ CªÀgÀ
DzsÁgïPÁqïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw£À aÃnUÀ¼À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹
£ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀjUÉ gÀÆA PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ, ºÀÄqÀÄV eÉÆvÉAiÀiÁV gÀÆA
§ÄPï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §AzÀgÉ CªÀj§âgÀ UÀÄgÀÄw£À zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÉà «¼Á¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀj§âgÀÆ
UÀAqÀºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÁVzÀÝgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÁªÀÅ gÀƪÀÄÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV E§âjUÉ
MAzÀÄ gÀÆA PÉÆlÖgÉ CªÀj§âgÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀæªÉà D gÀÆA£À°ègÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑUÉ d£ÀgÀÄ MAzÉÃ
gÀÆA£À°ègÀ®Ä £ÁªÀÅ CªÀPÁ±À PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ gÀÆA §ÄPï ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÖ UÁæºÀPÀgÀ
ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãï£ÀA§gï ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, the
police not obtained any extracts or xerox documents along with
Ex.P1 to believe about taking of a room in Nisarga Lodge and
commission of offence by the accused No.1 and 2 along with
other accused persons as per the case of prosecution. At this
stage, this Court opines the prosecution failed to prove the
Spl.C.C.163/2013
69
alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
67. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-K.
Shivaprasad, he has deposed that he is working as a
receptionist of K.R.Puram Nisarga lodge from 2012 and also
deposed Room No.101 is situated at 1 st floor, Ex.P1(d) is his
signature. During the year 2013 or 2014 the police obtained
the said signature, except that he doesn't know anything about
the contents of said document.
68. The prosecution treated him as hostile to the case of
prosecution and suggested the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P19,
for that he has denied the same and his definite answer is that
no such Mahazar as per Ex.P1 was conducted by the police and
he has not given any statement before police. In the cross-
examination of the accused No.1 and 2 he has admitted that he
has not seen the accused No.1 and 2 earlier in any where.
Through the evidence of this witness, the prosecution failed to
prove the genuinity of process of conducting Mahazar as per
Spl.C.C.163/2013
70
Ex.P1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
69. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-T.
Balakrishna-Police Inspector he has deposed that on 05-12-
2012 when he was SHO at about 07.41p.m., he has received
complaint as per Ex.P5 and registered the case in crime No.
472/2012 for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC,
thereafter prepared FIR as per Ex.P12 and submitted the same
to the Court. On 06-12-2012 he has conducted Mahazar as per
Ex.P13 near the house of accused No.1. On 07-12-2012 the
accused No.1 brought and produced before him in the station
by the police personnel. He has arrested the accused No.1,
recorded his statement and produced before Court along with
remand application after medical check up.
70. On 27-01-2013 he has received statement of Pw.2 as
per Ex.P2 through SJPU and also sent the victim girl for
medical check up to Bowring Hospital. He has also received
another complaint on the very same day as per Ex.P4 and
inserted the offences under section 376, 504, 506 read with 34
Spl.C.C.163/2013
71
of IPC, section 23 or J.J. Act and section 3, 4, 7 and 8 of
POCSO Act, 2012 and also requested to the Court for insertion
the said offences by giving requisition as per Ex.P14. He has
also appointed the police personnel to trace out other accused
persons on 20-01-2013. On that day the police personnel
produced accused No.2, 4 and 7. He has arrested them and
recorded their statement.
71. The accused No.1 and 2 tested his veracity by
elicitating some commission omission and also denied the
process of conducting investigation by this witness and also
elicited about lodging of complaint by accused N0.1 on 03/04-
12-2012 as per Ex.D12 and the same was registered in NCR
No.238/2012. Further it is his evidence that there is possibility
of appearance of accused No.1 before station at the time of
lodging of complaint as per Ex.D12.
Further he has admitted that:
"¢B 05.12.2012 jAzÀ 26.01.2013 gÀªÀgÀÉ«UÀÄ ¤.¦.5 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ
¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgɹ D §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Spl.C.C.163/2013
72
If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, there is
doubt of counselling made by Pw.4-SJPU Meenakshi on 06-12-
2012.
Further he has admitted that:
"¢B 06.12.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¤.¦.13 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ D ¸ÀܼÀªÀ£ÀÄß
£ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Here Ex.P13 reveals about the spot shown by the victim
girl, but if the said answer is taken into consideration, it creates
doubt of genuinity of existence of Ex.P13.
72. He has also further deposed that:
"¢B 05.12.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 06.12.2012 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀqɹzÀ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è
£ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë vÁªÀÅ
vÀA¢gÀĪÀ ¹rAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAr®èªÉAzÀÄ GvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
This piece of evidence crystallizes that from 05-12-2012 to
20-07-2013 he has not taken any action to summon the victim
girl and victim boy.
Further it is his evidence that:
"¢B 05.12.2012 gÀ ¸ÀAeÉ 7.00 UÀAmɪÀgÉ«UÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1 M§â ªÀÄÄUÀÞ£ÁVzÀÄÝ F Pɹ£À
¦üAiÀiÁð¢ gÀªÀiÁzÉë ªÉÄÃ¯É DgÉÆÃ¥À«vÉÛAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÀªÀiÁzÉë D ¢£À ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÁÆgÀÄ 7.00
UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ oÁuÉUÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ".
Spl.C.C.163/2013
73
Again it is his evidence that:
"¢B 26.11.2012 gÀªÀgÉU, £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q vÀ£Àß
vÀAzÉ ¨sÁ¸ÀÌgÀ gÀÉrØ CAzÀgÉ DgÉÆæ1 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ EzÀݼÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½zÀħAvÀÄ. £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q vÀ£Àß
vÀAzÉ ¨sÁ¸ÀÌgÀ gÉrØAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉVzÀÝ §UÉÎ ¢B 26.01.2013 gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw
£ÉÆÃrPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ CªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁj¹ D
§UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, there
is latches on the part of the investigating officer in non taking
steps., immediately that too in a case of heinous offence.
73. He has also admitted that:
"¢B 16.02.2013 gÀªÀgÀÉUÉ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ §UÉÎ PÉÃ¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PËAlgï PÉøï CAzÀgÉ vÀAzÉ
£ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ C¥ÀºÀgÀtªÁVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ CfÓAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ ºÁUÀÆ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ
C¥ÀºÀgÀtªÁVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ CfÓ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÀåxÀðPÉÌ G½¢zÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ
¸Àj".
He has also admitted that:
"¢B 05.12.2012 jAzÀ 26.01.2013 gÀªÀgÉ«UÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è WÀl£É £ÀqɬÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ
zÀÆj£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀvÁå¸ÀvÀåvÉ §UÉÎ w½zÀÄPÀÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR
¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÉǧ⠸ÁQëAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
The above said evidence also crystallizes about non-taking
of any steps by this witness regarding enquiry of material
witnesses. He has also admitted that he has not subjected the
victim girl and victim boy for medical examination on 20-06-
2013 and on 20-07-2013. He has also admitted that in Ex.P5-
complaint lodged only against accused No.1 and as per Ex.P4
Spl.C.C.163/2013
74
dated 20-07-2013 the complainant mentioned the other
accused persons name, even though she had taken active
support of accused No.2 and 4 who are her relatives. He has
also admitted that at the time of conducting mahazar as per
Ex.P13 he has not seized any document.
74. He has admitted through out the investigation the
complainant was present. He has also admitted Ex.C1-the
wound certificate of victim girl who was subjected medical check
up on 07-12-2012, wherein it is mentioned multiple abrasion on
both upper and lower limbs. Here the investigating Officer not
made this witness as charge sheet witness. If really as per the
complaints-Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, the accused No.1 and 2 along with
other accused persons, committed sexual abuse and rape on
victim girl and victim boy, here the question arouse why the
Investigating Officer not subjected the victim girl for medical
check up on the same day instead of subjecting her for medical
check up as per Ex.C1. But the prosecution has not given
sufficient answer to that effect.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
75
75. Further he has admitted that the contents of Ex.C1,
wherein he has not asked the doctor for the examination of the
victim girl to know whether she was subjected to sexual abuse
or not. Further he was tested the veracity of evidence of this
witness in respect of genuinity of existence of Ex.P2 to Ex.P4.
Further he has admitted that:
"£À£Àß vÀ¤SÁ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄÄ CvÁåZÁgÀPÉÆ̼ÀUÁVzÁÝ¼É JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ
ªÉÊzÀågÀ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÁ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÉgÀ ¸Àj. ¢B 06.12.2012
gÀAzÁUÀ° ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢B 07.12.2012 gÀAzÁUÀ° £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ºÁdgÁzÁUÀ DPÉ £À£Àß
§½ vÀ£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀªÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¢B 26.01.2013
gÀªÀgÉ«UÀÄ £À£Àß vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀªÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ CA±À £À£ÀUÉ PÀAqÀÄ
§A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¢B 26.01.2013 gÀªÀgÉ«UÀÆ DgÉÆæ1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹
G½zÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà D¥ÁzÀ£É §A¢gÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Again he has admitted that:
"¢B 27.01.2013 jAzÀ ¢B 16.02.2013 gÀªÀgÉ«UÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ
vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉUÉ AiÀiÁPÉ M¼À¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ DPÉ vÀ£Àß vÀAzɬÄAzÀ¯Éà vÀ£ÀUÉ CvÁåZÁgÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ
zÀÆj£À°è PÁtô¹zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆj£À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É CzÀÄ UÀA©üÃgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt JAzÀÄ
w½zÀħAzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ M¼À¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉUÉ
M¼À¥ÀqÀ®Ä vÀAiÀiÁjgÀ°®è DPÁgÀt DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä DUÀ°®è JAzÀÄ
GvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀ®Ä vÀAiÀiÁj®è JAzÀÄ
ºÉýzÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è CzÀ£ÀÄß gÉPÁqïð ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
He has also admitted that:
"¤.¦.5 gÀ°è ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼À£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EzÀPÉÌ
vÀ£Àß C½AiÀĤAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ DUÀPÀÆqÀzÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀ¤SÉ
ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
He has also admitted that:
"¢B 03/04.12.2012 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ1 F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ gÀªÀiÁzÉë
vÀ£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q ºÁUÀÆ ZÁ.¸Á.3 »vÉñï£À£ÀÄß C¥ÀºÀgÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃVzÁݼÉAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Spl.C.C.163/2013
76
The above said evidence clinches the issue unequivocally
points out in respect of lodging of false complaint by the
complainant against accused No.1 and 2 if really alleged sexual
abuse and rape caused on victim girl and victim boy as per the
case of prosecution, definitely this witness could have taken
action immediately but he has not done so. At the same time
the evidence of this witness at that time the victim girl not given
consent to under go medical check up in respect of alleged
sexual abuse. Through the evidence of this witness this court
feels to observe that it is not safe to accept the alleged offences
against accused No.1 and 2.
76. By going through the evidence of Pw.15-V.L.Ramesh-
Police Deputy Superintendent, he has deposed that after
receiving record from Pw.8, he has conducted further
investigation and also conducted Mahazar as per Ex.P1.
Whereas the said document not proved by the prosecution
through the evidence of Pw.11 and Pw.12. He has produced
Pw.2 and Pw.3 before the Magistrate for giving statement under
Spl.C.C.163/2013
77
section 164 of Cr.P.C. Here it is relevant to note when serious
contradictions arose through the material evidence of Pw.2 and
Pw.3 in respect of alleged incident, it is not safe to accept the
contents of Ex.P24 and Ex.P25. Further he has subjected the
victim boy and victim girl to medical checkup and received
Ex.P15 to Ex.P17. He has given requisition to doctor Ex.P21.
Further he has received Ex.P8 from the doctor. He has received
Ex.P9 to Ex.P11-study-cum-birth certificates and attendance
register extracts of the victim girl and the victim boy from
Sri.Chaitanya Techno School. He has also received Ex.P22 and
Ex.P23-age estimation certificates from the doctor. He has
recorded further statement of the complainant and filed charge
sheet against accused persons.
77. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 and 2
elicited some commission and omission and also he has
admitted that:
"ನ.ಪ.1 ಸಸಳ ಮಹರರರ ಕಕಮ ರರತಗಸದ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ನಸಗರ ಲವಡರಡ
ನಲಲ ರಕಮತ ಪಡಸದ ಬಗಸಗಯವಗಲ ಹವಗಕ ಆ ರಕಮನಲಲ ತರಗದಯರತ ಎರಬತದರ
ಬಗಸಗಯವಗಲ ನವನತ ಆ ಲವಡರಡ ನಲಲ ಯವವವದಸನ ದವಖಲವತಗಳನತನ ಮತತತ ರಜಸಪರರ
ಗಳನತನ ರಪವತ ಮವಡರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ಆ ರಕಮನಲಲ ಅವರದಯರತ
ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ಹವಗಕ ರಕರನರ.11 ನತನ ಪಡಸದತಕಸಕರಡದಯರತ ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ
Spl.C.C.163/2013
78
ಯವವವದಸನ ದವಖಲವತಯನತನ ಲವಡರಡ ನವರತ ಸಹ ಹವರರತ ಪಡಸರತವವದಲಲ
ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನಸಗರ ಲವಡರಡ ಎರಬ ಅರಶ ದಕರನಲಲಯಕ ಸಹವ ಕರಡ
ಬರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನ.ಪ.5 ಮದಲನಸ ದಕರನಲಲ ಸಹ ನಸಗರ ಲವಡರಡ
ಎರಬ ಹಸಸರತ ನಮಕದನಸ ಅಗರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನ.ಪ.2 ರಲಲ ಸಹ ನಸಗರ
ಲವಡರಡ ಹಸಸರತ ಬರಸದರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನಸಗರ ಲವಡರಡ ಗಸ ಭಸನಟ
ಕಸಕಡತವ ಮತನನನ ನವನತ ಯವವವದಸನ ಸವಕಕಗಳ ಹಸನಳಕಸಯನತನ ಪಡಸದತ
ಕಸಕರಡರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ".
Further he has admitted that:
"ನವನತ ಈ ಪಕಕರಣವನತನ ತನಖಸ ಕಸಮಗಸಕರಡ ನರತರ ನ.ಪ.2 ಹಸನಳಕಸಯನತನ
ಯವವ ದನವರಕದರದತ ಪಡಸದತಕಸಕರಡರತವರಸರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ದನವರಕ ನಮಕದನಸ
ಹಸನಳಕಸಯನತನ ಯವವ ದನವರಕದರದತ ಪಡಸದತಕಸಕರಡರತವರಸರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ದನವರಕ
ನಮಕದನಸ ಅಗರದ ಕವರಣ ಆ ಬಗಸಗ ನವನತ ತನಖಸ ಮವಡಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ".
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, there is
doubt of commission of offence by accused No.1 and 2. Further
it is his evidence that:
"ನನನ ತನಖವ ಕವಲದಲಲ ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕ ಸಸಪಸಸರ ಗವಡರನರ ಹಸಕಟಸನಲರ
ಎಲಲದಸ ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ಗತರತತತಪಡಸಲಲಲವವದ ಕವರಣ ಆ ಹಸಕಟಸನಲರ ಎಲಲದಸ
ಎರದತ ಪತಸತ ಹಚಚಲತ ಅಗಲಲಲ. ಸಸಮಸಸರ ಗವಡರನರ ಹಸಕಟಸನಲರ ಅನತನವವದತ ಇಲಲ
ಎರದರಸ ಸವಕಕ ಆ ಬಗಸಗ ಮವಹತ ನನಗಲಲವಸರದತ ನತಡದರತತವತರಸ . ಸಸಮಸಸರ
ಗವಡರನರ ಹಸಕಟಸನಲರ ಪತಸತ ಮವಡಲತ ಯವವತಕತ ಯವರನಕನ ಎಲಲಗಸ
ಕರಸದತಕಸಕರಡತ ಹಸಕನದಸ ಎರಬತದರ ವವರಣಸಯನತನ ಕಸನಸರ ಡಸಮರಯಲಲ
ನಮಕದಸರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ".
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration,
there is a doubt of existence of Spice Garden Hotel as per the
evidence of Pw.3. He has also admitted that he has not
conducted investigation in respect of Ex.D8. He has also
admitted that the victim girl was not subjected to medical check
Spl.C.C.163/2013
79
up from 05-12-2012 to 27-01-2013. He has also admitted about
non-seizing of cloths of the victim girl. He has also admitted
about non-recording of further statement of victim girl and
victim boy.
78. Further he has admitted that none of the persons
recorded the statement of victim girl from 05-12-2012 to 27-01-
2013. He has also admitted filing of B-report in Crime No.58/
2013 as per Ex.D5 in respect of complaint. He has also
admitted that:
"ನ.ಪ.7 ರಲಲ ನಮಮ ಠವಣಯರದ ಕಳತಹಸದ ಮನವ ಪತಕದ ಬಗಸಗ
ರಸಫರನರಕ ಗವಗ ನಮಕದನಸ ಆಗರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕಯ
ಹಸನಳಕಸಯನತನ ಕಳತಹಸ ಕಸಕಡದ ಕವರಣ ನ.ಪ.7 ರಲಲ ಆ ಬಗಸಗ ಉಲಸಲನಖ ಇಲಲ
ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನ.ಪ.7 ರಲಲ ಸಗರಸನಟರ ಮತತತ ಬಸಲರಪ ಎರಬ ಪದಗಳತ ಇರತವವದಲಲ
ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನ.ಪ.7 ರಲಲ ರನನವರಗದ ಪರನಕಸಕ ಎರಬ ಕವಲರನಲಲ
ನಮವದನಸಯವಗರತವ ಟಸರಡರರ ನಸಸರ ಎರಬ ಪದದ ಅಥರ ಹಸಕಸತವದ ಗವಯ
ಎರಬ ಅಥರ ಬರತತತದಸ ಎರದರಸ ಸವಕಕ ವಸಮದತಕನಯ ಪದದ ಬಗಸಗ ಹಸನಳಲತ ನನಗಸ
ಅಷವಪಗ ಆ ಬಗಸಗ ಮವಹತ ಇಲಲ ಎರದತ ನತಡದರತತವತರಸ. ಯವವವಗ ಟಸರಡರರ
ನಸಸರ ಅಯತತ ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ತಳದತಕಸಕರಡತ ದಸಕನಷವರಸಕನಪಣಸ ಮವಡಲತ ಅತ
ಮತಖತವವದ ಅರಶ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನ.ಪ.7 ರಲಲ ನಮಕದನಸ ಮವಡರತವ ಅರದರಸ
ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕಯ ಗತಪವತರಗದಲಲ ಕರಡತ ಬರದದಸ ಎರದತ ಹಸನಳರತವ ಟಸರಡರರ ನಸಸರ
ಬಗಸಗ ಯವವವಗ ಅಕಸಯ ಮನಲಸ ಅದತ ಮಕಡತತ ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ಸಪಷಷನಕರಣ
ನವನತ ಕಸನಳರತವವದಲಲ, ಅದರಸ ನ.ಪ.21 ರ ಪಕಕವರ ವಸಮದತರಗಸ ಸಪಷಷನಕರಣ ಕಸಕನರ
ನವಸನದನಸ ನನಡದಸಯನನಸ ಎರದತ ನತಡದರತತವತರಸ".
Further he has admitted that:
"ನ.ಪ.8 ರಲಲ ನಮಕದನಸ ಮವಡರತವ ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕಯ ಮನಲಸ
ಮಕನವರಲತಕ ವವರದ ಹರದನ ಹಳಸಯ ಗವಯದ ಕಲಸಗಳತ ಇವಸ ಎರಬತದವಗ
ಹಸನಳರತವ ವಷಯಕಸಕ ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕಯತ ಆ ಮಕನವರಲತಕ ವವರದ ಹರದಸ ಯವರ
Spl.C.C.163/2013
80
ಜಸಕತಸ ವವಸವವಗದಯಳತ ಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗ ನವನತ ತನಖಸ ನಡಸಸರತವವದಲಲ. ಆ
ಮಕನವರಲತಕ ವವರದ ಹರದಸ ಅಕಸಯ ಮನಲಸ ಯವರತ ಅ ಗವಯಗಳನತನ
ಮವಡದರತಎರಬತದರ ಬಗಸಗಯಕ ನವನತ ತನಖಸ ನಡಸಸರತವವದಲಲ. ನ.ಪ.7 ರ
ಒಕಕಣಸಯಲಲ ನಸಕರದ ಬವಲಕಯನತನ ಲಸಮಮಗಕ ಕಕಯಗಸ ಒಳಪಡಸದವಯರಸ ಎರಬತದರ
ಒಕಕಣಸ ಇರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ನನನ ಸರಪಪಣರ ತನಖವ ಅವಧಯಲಲ ಹವಗಕ
ನನನ ಹರದನ ತನಖವಧಕವರ ಮವಡದ ತನಖಸಯಲಲ ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕಯತ ಋತತಮತ
ಅಗರವಳವ ಇಲಲವವ ಎರಬ ಬಗಸಗ ತನಖಸ ಅಗರತವವದಲಲ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ".
The above said admission also creates doubt of commission
of offence by the accused No.1 and 2 as per the case of
prosecution.
79. He has admitted that:
"ನವನತ ತನಖಸಗವಗ ಬವಕವಕಪಸನಟಸಗಸ ಹಸಕನಗದಸಯ ಎರದರಸ ಸರ. ತಸಸರಸದ
ನವತಯವಲಯದಲಲ ನ.ಡ.1 ಸಡಯನತನ ಲವತಪರ ಟವಪಸಗ ಹವಕ ಸವಕಕಗಸ ತಸಕನರಸ
ನಸಕರದಬವಲಕ ನನನ ಮತರದಸ ಬವಕವಕಪಸನಟರ ನಲಲ ಹಸನಳಕಸ ಕಸಕಡತವವಗ ತನನ ತರದಸ -
ಅರಸಕನಪ-1 ಒಳಸಳಯವನಸರದತ ಹಸನಳರತವನತ ಎರಬ ಪಕಶಸನಗಸ ಸವಕಕ ಅಲಲ ನವನದಸಯನನಸ
ಹವಗಕ ಆ ಹತಡತಗ ತಸಲತಗನಲಲ ಹಸನಳರತವ ಕವರಣ ನನಗಸ ತಸಲತಗತ ಅಷವಪಗ
ಅಥರವವಗತವವದಲಲ ಎರದತ ನತಡದರತತವತರಸ.( ಮವ ನನನ ಜಸಕತಸಲನಸನ ಉರಟವನತ, ಮವ
ನನವನ ಮರಚತವವಳತಳ, ಮವ ಅವಸ ಅಪದಯರ ಚಸಪರ ಮನ ಚಸಪಪರದ, ಮವ ನವನ ಚಸಮಲಕ
ಎಲವತಡತ, ಮವ ಅಕಕ ಕಕಡ ಅಪದಯರ ಚಸಪಪರದ)".
The above said evidence also crystallizes that the prosecution
failed to prove the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2
beyond all reasonable doubt. He has also admitted that
accused No.2 is the relative of accused No.1 and his name not
mentioned in Ex.P5. Since this witness is an investigating
officer and no such corroborative and cogent material evidence
produced by the prosecution to believe the alleged offences
Spl.C.C.163/2013
81
against accused No.1 an 2 and whatever evidence available on
record contradicts with each other. Hence, the question of
believing this witness evidence doesn't arises and this Court
opines the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
80. The learned advocate for accused No.2 relied on
decisions reported in LAWS (KAR) 2018 6 500 in Hassain @
Hassain Pasha, S/o. Chand Pasa Vs. State of Karnataka. In
order to arrive at just conclusion that the prosecution failed to
prove the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2, this
Court also followed the ratio of principles as stated in the said
decision.
81. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the alleged offences
against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
The defense of the accused No.1 and 2 and the facts and
circumstances of the case including materials on record
discussed above probabalises the defense of the accused No.1
and 2 rather than the case of the prosecution.
Spl.C.C.163/2013
82
82. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.15 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P25, placed on record in respect of alleged offences is
insufficient to prove that from November-2011 to September-
2012 within the limits HAL Police Station, in the house of Cw.2-
the victim girl, the accused No.6-Abhinaya @ Bharath Kumar
came to her house often and often, when she was alone in the
house, by keeping cloth in her mouth, dragged on the bed,
removed her inner garment, put his penis on her genetic part
and slept on her body and also put his penis on her mouth and
committed rape on her, likewise the accused No.1 also raped on
her in his house, further the accused No.1, 3 to 7 having
common intention taken Cw.2-victim girl and Cw.3-victim boy
Nisarga Lodge of K.R. Puram, kept in a room, made Cw.2
forcibly to drink brandy caused criminal outrage of her
modesty, burn on her body, hands and legs through cigar, the
accused No.3 to 7 also raped on her and sexually abused on
her, further the accused No.1, 3 to 7 has cornily intercoursed
on Cw.3 against the order of nature and sexually harassed him
Spl.C.C.163/2013
83
and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 committed offences
punishable under Section 143, 147, 354, 376, 377, 504, 506
read with 149 of I.P.C., section 23 of J.J. Act and section 3, 4, 7
and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 9 and additional charge dated
03-01-2020 in the "Negative".
83. Point No.10:- For the above said reasons and
discussions on Point No.1 to 9 and additional charge dated 03-
01-2020, I hold that the accused No.1 and 2 are 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 No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 143, 147, 354, 377, 504, 506, 376 read with section 149 of IPC, section 3, 4, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act and section 23 of J.J. Act. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
(Computerized to my dictation by the Judgment Writer. It is then Spl.C.C.163/2013 84 corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th Day of January, 2020.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AN NE XU RE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Ramadevi Cw.1 25-10-2017 Pw.2 Victim girl Cw.2 25-10-2017 Pw.3 Hitesh Cw.3 14-11-2017 Pw.4 Meenakshi Cw.6 19-12-2018 Pw.5 Dr. P.S. Chikkanarasa Cw.12 09-01-2019 Reddy Pw.6 Dr. S. Pushpalatha Cw.13 09-01-2019 Pw.7 Roopa Karunakar Cw.10 09-01-2019 Pw.8 C. Balakrishna Cw.17 09-01-2019 Pw.9 Jyothi Cw.16 09-01-2019 Pw.10 Dr. K.V. Satish Cw.14 29-01-2019 Pw.11 H.M. Dayanand Cw.4 02-05-2019 Pw.12 K. Shivaprasad Cw.12 02-05-2019 Pw.13 Dr. Savitha Addl. 26-08-2019 Wit-1 Pw.14 Dr. Shobha Saldana Addl. 26-08-2019 Wit-2 Pw.15 V.L. Ramesh Cw.18 12-09-2019 Spl.C.C.163/2013 85 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Spot Mahazar Pw.2 14-11-2017 Ex.P 2 Statement of victim Pw.2 14-11-2017 girl before SJPU Ex.P 3 Statement of victim Pw.3 14-11-2017 boy Ex.P 4 Complaint dt.27-01- Pw.1 17-03-2018 2013 Ex.P 5 Complaint dated 05- Pw.1 17-03-2018 12-2012 Ex.P 6 Medical report of Pw.3 Pw.6 09-01-2019 Ex.P 7 Medical report of Pw.6 09-01-2019 Pw.2 Ex.P 8 Requisition Pw.6 09-01-2019 Ex.P 9 Study certificate of Pw.7 09-01-2019 Pw.2 Ex.P 10 Study certificate of Pw.7 09-01-2019 Pw.3 Ex.P 11 Admission Register Pw.7 09-01-2019 Ex.P 12 FIR Pw.8 09-01-2019 Ex.P 13 Mahazar Pw.8 09-01-2019 Ex.P 14 Requisition Pw.8 09-01-2019 Ex.P 15 Medical certificate of Pw.10 29-01-2019 accused No.2 Ex.P 16 Medical certificate of Pw.10 29-01-2019 Spl.C.C.163/2013 86 accused No.5 Ex.P 17 Medical certificate of Pw.10 29-01-2019 accused No.4 Ex.P 18 Statement of Pw.11 Pw.11 02-05-2019 Ex.P 19 Statement of Pw.12 Pw.12 02-05-2019 Ex.P 20 Requisition to Court Pw.15 12-09-2019 Ex.P 21 Requisition to Court Pw.15 12-09-2019 Ex.P 22 Age estimation Pw.15 12-09-2019 certificate of Pw.2 Ex.P 23 Age estimation Pw.15 12-09-2019 certificate of Pw.3 Ex.P 24 Statement of Pw.2 Pw.15 12-09-2019 before Magistrate Ex.P 25 Statement of Pw.3 Pw.15 12-09-2019 before Magistrate LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Ex.D1 Copy of complaint Pw.1 09-05-2018 dt.29-10-2004 Ex.D2 Copy of FIR Pw.1 09-05-2018 Ex.D3 Copy of medical Pw.1 09-05-2018 report of Manipal Hospital Ex.D4 Copy of complaint Pw.1 13-06-2018 dt.24-01-2013 Spl.C.C.163/2013 87 Ex.D5 Copy of B-report in Pw.1 13-06-2018 Crime No.58/2013 Ex.D6 Copy of final report Pw.1 07-07-2018 in Cr.No.12/2015 Ex.D7 Copy of medical Pw.1 07-07-2018 report Ex.D8 Marked portion in Pw.1 07-07-2018 Ex.P4-complaint Ex.D9 Copy of No.31/17 Pw.1 07-07-2018 Ex.D10 Copy of T.C. Pw.1 07-07-2018 Ex.D11 C.D. Pw.8 02-10-2018 Ex.D12 Copy of NCR Pw.8 29-01-2018 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COURT Ex.C1 Requisition to doctor Pw.8 15-03-2019 Ex.C2 Wound certificate of Pw.8 09-05-2019 Pw.2 L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE