Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Chikkaraju @ Chikkanna on 14 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 14 th Day of January, 2020
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No.647/2018
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Peenya Police Station,
Bangalore
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED Chikkaraju @ Chikkanna
S/o. Ramesh, 20 years,
R/at. No.39, 6th Cross, 6th Main,
Sapthagiri Layout, Doddabidarakallu,
Bangalore
Permanent resident of:
Rangappanapalya,
Soladevanahalli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
[By Sri.M.K.C-Advocate.]
1 Date of commission of offence 30-06-2018
2 Date of report of occurrence 02-07-2018
3 Date of arrest of Accused 03-07-2018
Date of release of Accused 20-11-2018
Period undergone in custody 17 days & 4 months
by Accused
Spl.C.C.647/2018
2
4 Date of commencement of evidence 13-03-2019
5 Date of closing of evidence 02-12-2019
6 Name of the complainant Savitha
7 Offences complained of Sect.354-I.P.C. &
Sec.8-POCSO Act, 2012
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is convicted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
J U D GM EN T
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Peenya Police
Station-Bangalore against accused for the offences punishable
under Section 376 of IPC and Section 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act,
2012.
2. Since it is a case of sexual harassment 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:
Spl.C.C.647/2018
3
The accused knowing fully well that the daughter of
complainant-the victim girl was minor and when she was going
to school and coming to house, he was following and eve teasing
her. On 30-06-2018 when the victim girl came from school at
about 03.45p.m., and was alone in her house, the accused
came near her house, forcibly taken her to his house situated at
No.39, 6th Cross, 6th Main, Sapthagiri Extension, Nagasandra
Post, within the limits of Peenya Police station, closed the door
of his house, hugged the victim girl even though she expressed
her fear and requested to open the door, but he has not opened
the door. On the other hand he has not allowed her to go
outside, touched on her body, kissed on her lips and forcibly
sexually intercoursed on her and also sexually abused on her.
On the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant-Cw.1 , the
police registered the case against accused for the offences
punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 5(L), 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same
Spl.C.C.647/2018
4
and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 5(L), 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet, as
usual the accused was produced before the Court. The copy of
charge sheet furnished to him as contemplated under Section
207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing arguments from accused side before
framing charge and on perusing the entire charge sheet, there is
prima-facie materials available on record against accused,
charges were framed for the offences punishable under Section
354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. The contents of
the charge read over and explained to the accused in Kannada.
The accused pleaded not guilty and submit crimes to be tried.
In the mean time the accused was enlarged on bail. Thereafter
the case against accused was set down for prosecution
evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused has examined in all 14 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.14 and
got marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and closed its
Spl.C.C.647/2018
5
side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared
against accused, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
by recording his statement. He denied the alleged incriminating
evidence appeared against him as false. Earlier to that he has
complied the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., by
executing personal bond and producing surety. Thereafter
arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set
down for judgment.
6. 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. ಚಚಸಚ.2 ನನನನದ ಬಚಲಕ ಸಚಕಕ-1 ರವರ 13 ವರರದ ಮಗಳಚಗದದದ ಆಕನ ಶಚಲನಗನ ಹನನಹಗ-
ಬರದವಚಗ ಅರನನಹಪಯದ ಅಕನಯನದನ ಹನಬಚಲಸ ಚದಡಚಯಸದತತದದದ ದನಚನಕಕ30-06-2018
ರನದದ ಸಚಕಕ-2 ರವರದ ಶಚಲನಯನದ ಬನದ ನನತರ ಸನಜನ 03.45 ರ ಸಮಯದಲಲ
ಅರನನಹಪಯದ ಸಚಕಕ-2 ರವರ ಮನನಯ ಬಳ ಹನನಹಗ ನಮಮ ಮನನಗನ ಬಚ ಎನದದ ಕರನದಚಗ
ಸಚಕಕ-2 ರವರದ ಬರದವವದಲಲವನನದದ ಹನಹಳದರನ ಸಹಚ ಕನಹಳದನ ಬಲವನತವಚಗ ನಚಗಸನದದ
ಅನಚನ, ಸಪತಗರ ಬಡಚವಣನ, 6 ನನಹ ಕಚದಸಸ, 6 ನನಹ ಮಮನಸ, ಮನನ ನನ.39 ರ ಒಳಗನ ಕರನದದ
ಕನನನಡದ ಹನನಹಗ, ಮನನಯ ಬಚಗಲದ ಹಚಕ, ಸಚಕಕ-2 ರವರನದನ ತಬಬಕನನನಡದ ಅಕನ
ಭಯವಚಗದತತದನಯನದದ ಹನಹಳದರನ ಸಹಚ ಕನಹಳದನಹ ಹನನರಗನ ಹನನಹಗಲದ ಬಡದನಹ ಅಕನಯ
ಮಮ-ಕನಮ ಮದಟಟ, ತದಟಗಳಗನ ಮದತತಟದಟ, ಅಕನಯ ಮಹಲನ ಲನಮನಗಕ ದದರರನನ ಎಸಗ
¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.354gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß
J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-2 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ
ಬಚಲಕಯನದನ ತನನ ಮನನಗನ ಬಲವನತವಚಗ ಕರನದದಕನನನಡದ ಹನನಹಗ ಅಕನಯ ಮಹಲನ
ಲನಮನಗಕ ದದರರನನ ಎಸಗ ಕಲನ.8 ¯ÉÊAVPÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ C¢ü
¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 2012gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï
¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
Spl.C.C.647/2018
6
3. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: In the Affirmative.
Point No.3: As per the final orders for the following:
R EA S ON S
8. Point No.1 and 2: As these points are inter-related,
hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to
avoid repetition of reasonings.
9. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence
produced both at oral and documentary and arguments
canvassed by the learned advocate for the accused and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the
accused the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses as Pw.1
to Pw.14 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. As
per the prosecution case, Pw.1 and Pw.2 are the Panch
Spl.C.C.647/2018
7
witnesses, Pw.3 is the complainant, Pw.4 is the victim girl and
daughter of Pw.3. Pw.5 and Pw.6 are circumstantial witnesses,
Pw.7 and Pw.8 are the doctors, Pw.9 is the Head Master and
Pw.10 to Pw.14 are the police personnel and the Investigation
Officer. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the
available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing
the offences alleged against the accused.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against
accused the prosecution is required to prove that the accused
knowing fully well that the daughter of complainant, the victim
girl was minor and when she was going to school and coming to
house, he was following and eve teasing her. On 30-06-2018
when the victim girl came from school at about 03.45 p.m., and
was alone in her house, the accused came near her house,
forcibly taken her to his house situated at No.39, 6 th Cross, 6th
Main, Sapatagiri Extension, Nagasandra Post, within the limits
of Peenya Police station, closed the door of his house, hugged
the victim girl even though she expressed her fear and
Spl.C.C.647/2018
8
requested to open the door, but he has not opened the door. On
the other hand he has not allowed her to go outside, touched on
her body, kissed on her lips and forcibly sexually intercoursed
on her and also sexually abused on her and thereby the
accused has committed offences punishable under Section 354
of IPC and Section 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 accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available material
evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition
of offences under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO
Act, 2012.
Section 354 of I.P.C defines that:
Assault or use of Criminal force to woman
with intent to disrobe 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 two years or with
fine or with both.
Spl.C.C.647/2018
9
Section 8 of POCSO Act 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.
With this observation, now left with the available evidence
produced by the prosecution to consider whether the
prosecution proved the alleged offences against accused beyond
all reasonable doubt or it probabalises the defense of accused.
13. Now left with to know whether the victim girl was
minor at the time of the incident as per the prosecution case.
Pw.3-the complainant deposed that the victim girl is her
daughter and as on the date of incident the age of victim girl
was 13 years. On perusal of the evidence of Pw.4-the victim girl
she has deposed that she was born on 28-04-2006 and as on
the date of incident she was the student of 7 th standard. she
was the student of Nisarga Vidyavahini School. The incident
taken place as per the prosecution case on 30-06-2018.
14. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Ganesh-the
Spl.C.C.647/2018
10
brother of mother of victim girl, he has deposed the age of the
victim girl at the time of incident was 12-13 years and she was
the student of Nisarga School, Nelagadarana Halli and studying
7th standard. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Parmesh
the uncle of victim girl, he has deposed that at the time of
incident the age of victim girl was 12-13 years and studying 6 th
standard at Nisarga School of Nelagadarana Halli. Now left
with the evidence of Pw.9-B.Prashanth Kumar-Head Master of
Akshara Sri Vidya Public School, Thigalarapalya. He has
deposed that as per the request of Peenya Police on 09-08-2018
he has issued study and birth certificate of the victim girl as per
Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 and her date of birth is 28-04-2006 and she
joined school for 1st standard during academic year of 2012-
2013 as per available admission register.
15. On perusal of Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 it is mentioned
that she was born on 28-04-2006. The Admission Register
Extract also reveal similar entries of date of birth. In the cross-
examination the accused tested the veracity of evidence of this
Spl.C.C.647/2018
11
witness, except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited
favourable to the defense taken by him. At the same time in
order to dispute the age of the victim girl the accused has not
produced any corroborative oral and documentary evidence. As
such it is not safe to disbelieve the age of the victim girl that as
on the date of incident she was 13 years and studying 7 th
standard as per the case of prosecution. Even the evidence of
Pw.7 also discloses the age of victim girl was above 14 years and
below 17 years and this evidence remains assailed. As such it
is not safe to disbelieve the case of prosecution that as on the
date of incident the victim girl was minor. With these
observation, now left with to know whether the prosecution
proves the alleged offences against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-the victim girl
she has deposed the relationship of complainant as her mother,
Cw.9 is her mother's brother, Cw.7 is the cousin sister of her
mother, Cw.6 is her uncle and in her house her mother, herself,
Spl.C.C.647/2018
12
her mother's brother, her uncle and aunt are living. Her father
is not living with them, about 10 years back he deserted her
and her mother. Her mother is doing work in a garment at 8 th
Mile stone and every day she used to go to work at 9.00 a..m.,
and return to home at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. Further she has
deposed that her uncle and aunt are doing same work. She
used to go to school at 8.00a.m., and return to home at 4.30
p.m. On Saturday she used to return to home at about 1/1.30
p.m. She used to go to school in school van. She know the
accused.
17. Further she has deposed that: "DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæw¢£À ±Á¯ÉUÉ
ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ±Á¯Á ªÁå£ï ºÀvÀÄÛªÀªÀgÉ«UÀÄ »AzÉAiÉÄà §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, «µÀ¯ï ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¨ÁAiÀiï
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄw߸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£É £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½AiÉÄà EzÉ".
Further she has deposed that: "¢B 30.06.2018 gÀAzÀÄ JA¢£ÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 8.00
UÀAmÉUÉ ¸ÀÆ̯ïUÉ ªÁå£ï£À°è ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ªÁ¥À¸ï ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 1.30UÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÁå£ï£À°è §AzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
§AzÁUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß »AzÉAiÉÄà §A¢zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV®£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ
ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DvÀ ¨ÁV®£ÀÄß vÀnÖzÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ D ±À§ÝPÉÌ ¨ÁV®Ä vÉUÉzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß DvÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
£Á£ÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁr PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. DvÀ£À
Spl.C.C.647/2018
13
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è DvÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV®£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊPÉÊ J¯Áè ªÀÄÄlÄÖªÀÅzÀPÉÌ ±ÀÄgÀÄ
ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©qÀÄ ©qÀÄ JAzÀÄ JµÀÄÖ PÉýPÉÆAqÀgÀÆ DvÀ PÉüÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß
ªÉÄÊPÉÊ vÀÄnUÀ½UɯÁè ªÀÄÄvÀÄÛ PÉÆlÖ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß JzÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£É߯Áè ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É §¯ÁvÁÌgÀ
ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©lÄÖ ©qÀÄ JAzÀÄ eÉÆÃgÁV QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ DvÀ ©qÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ
QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀzÀÄÝ PÉý DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÁ¬Ä D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ §AzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ DgÉÆæ ¨ÁV®Ä vÉUÉzÁUÀ
DvÀ£À vÁ¬Ä DgÉÆæUÉ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ, DUÀ DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ºÉüÀ°®è £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉýzÉ. F
§UÉÎ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆr¹zÀgÀÄ". Further she has deposed that
she has given her statement as per Ex.P3 and her signature is
Ex.P3(b) She has shown the incident spot to the police, the
police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1 and her signature is
Ex.P1(d). Thereafter the police taken her to hospital for medical
check up. The doctor obtained her signature for medical check
up as per Ex.P4(b). She has also given her statement before
Magistrate as per Ex.P5 and her signatures are Ex.P5(a) and
Ex.P5(b).
18. On perusal of entire chief examination of victim girl,
she has supported the case of prosecution. The contents of her
Spl.C.C.647/2018
14
statement as per Ex.P3, Ex.P5 corroborates with each other.
On perusal of medical report of victim girl as per Ex.P7, the
contents of said document and medical report discloses that
there are no signs suggestive of sexual intercourse, hymen also
intact. Here it is relevant to note Ex.P7 not supports the sexual
intercourse on her by the accused. At the same time the
evidence of victim girl supports outrage of her modesty and
sexual abuse on her and it corroborates the case of prosecution
against the accused.
19. Now left with the cross-examination of victim girl.
By going through the cross-examination of victim girl, the
accused tested her veracity by elicitating some commission and
omission and she has also clearly deposed that: " ಆ ದನ ನಮಮ ಮನನ
ಬಳ ಬನದಚಗ ನಚನದ ಬಚಗಲನದನ ಹಚಕದತತದನದ. ನಮಮ ಮನನಯಲಲ ಯಚರನ ಇರಲಲಲ, ನನನ
ಅಮಮ ಕನಲಸಕನಕ ಹನನಹಗದದಳದ. ನಮಮ ಮನನಯ ಮದನದನ ರಸನತ ಇದದದ ಅಕಕ-ಪಕಕ ಮನನಗಳದ ಇವನ
ಎನದರನ ಸರ. ನನನ ಮನನ 3 ನನಹ ಅನತಸತನಲಲದನ. ಮದಲ ಮತದತ 2 ನನಹ ಅನತಸದಸಗಳಲಲ ವಚಸದ
ಮನನಗಳದದದ ರನ ವಚಸಮಚಡದತಚತರನ. ಆರನನಹಪಯದ ನನನನದನ ಅವರ ಮನನಯಳಗನ ಎಳನದದ
ಕನನನಡದ ಹನನಹಗ ನನನ ಕನಮ ಕಚಲದ ಹಡದದಕನನಳದಳವವದದ, ಮದತದತ ಕನನಡದವವದದ ಮಚಡದನದ.
Spl.C.C.647/2018
15
ನನನ ಮನನ ಎದದರದಭಚಗದಲಲ ರಸನತ ಇದದದ ರಸನತಯ ಆ ಭಚಗದಲಲ ಅರನನಹಪಯ ಮನನ ಇದದದ
ಸದಮಚರದ 500 ಅಡ ಅನತರವತದತ. ನಚನದ ಅರನನಹಪಯ ಕನಮಯನದ ಬಡಸಕನನಳಳಲದ ಅಗಲಲಲ
ಕಚರಣ, ನನನ ಕನಮಯನದನ ಬಲವಚಗ ಹಡದದಕನನನಡದದನದ". Further she has deposed
that: " ಆ ದನ ನಚನದ ಮಡ ಸಕಟರ ತನನಟಟದನದ . ಅರನನಹಪ ಎನತಹ ಬಣಣದ ಬಟನಟ ತನನಟಟದದ
ಎನದದ ಹನಹಳಲದ ನನಗಹಗ ಆಗದವವದಲಲ. ಈ ಘಟನನಗನ ಮದಲದ ನಚನದ ಅರನನಹಪ ಮನನಯನದನ
ನನನಹಡರದವವದಲಲ. ಅರನನಹಪಯ ಮನನ ಇರದವ ಕಟಟಡ ಸನಗಲಸ ಕಟಟಡವಚಗತದತ. ಅದಕನಕ
ಎರಡದ ಬಚಗಲದಗಳದ ಇತದತ". If the above said evidence at the cross-
examination is taken into consideration it corroborates the case
of prosecution against accused herein. Further this Court also
feels to observe that the evidence produced by the prosecution
through victim girl, even in the cross-examination also, the case
of prosecution is unshaken. As such this Court opines the
prosecution proved the offences punishable under section 354
of IPC and section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. Now left with the evidence of Pw.3-the mother of
victim girl and the complainant. Though she is not an eye
witness and she is an hear say witness, in her chief
Spl.C.C.647/2018
16
examination she corroborates the case of prosecution and also
the contents of complaint as per Ex.P2 and the statement given
by the victim girl as per Ex.P3. Further she has also given
consent for medical check up as per Ex.P4. The accused tested
her veracity and also elicited some commission and omission
and also she has given her evidence stating that:" ನನನ ಮಮದದನ
ದಕ30-06-2018 ರನದದ ನನಗನ ಫಹನಸ ಮಚಡದಚಗ ಸದಮಚರದ ಸನಜನ 5.00
ಗನಟನಯಚಗತದತ. ನನನ ಮಮದದನ ಮತದತ ಆತನ ಹನನಡತ ನಚನದ ಕನಲಸಕನಕ ಹನನಹಗದವ ಫಚನಕಟರಗನ
ನನನ ಮನನಯಲಲದದದಕನನನಡನಹ ಕನಲಸಕನಕ ಹನನಹಗದತತದದರದ. ಸಚಮಚನನವಚಗ ನಚವವ ಕನಲಸಕನಕ ಬನಳಗನಗ
9.00 ಗನಟನಗನ ಹನನಹದರನ ಸನಜನ ಮನನಗನ 7.00 ಗನಟನಗನ ಬರದತನತಹವನ. ಆ ದನ ನನನನದ ಬಚಲಕ
ಶನವಚರವಚಗದದ ಕಚರಣ ಬನಳಗನಗ 7.30 ಕನಕ ಶಚಲನಗನ ಹನನರಟಳದ. ನನತರ ಬನಳಗನಗ 9.00 ಗನಟನನಗನ
ನಚನದ ಮತದತ ನನನ ತನಗ ಮನನಯ ಬಹಗ ಹಚಕ ಕನಲಸಕನಕ ಹನನಹದನವವ. ನಚನದ ವಚಸವದದ ಮನನ
3 ನನಹ ಅನತಸತನಲಲದದದ ಕನಳಗನ ಅನತಸತನ ಮನನಗಳಲಲ ವಚಸವದದರದ. ನಚನದ ವಚಸಮಚಡದವ
ಮನನಯ ಪಕಕದಲನಲಹ ಮತನನತನದದ ಮನನಯದ ಇದನ. ಆ ಮನನಯಲನಲ ರನ ವಚಸವರದವರದ.
ಅವರದ ಸಹ ಕನಲಸಕನಕ ಹನನಹಗದವ ರನರಚಗದದರದ. ಆ ದನ ಅವರದ ಕನಲಸಕನಕ ಹನನಹಗದದರಚ
ಅಥವಚ ಇಲಲವಚ ಎನಬದದರ ಬಗನಗ ಹನಹಳಲದ ನಚನದ ಅದನದನ ನನನಹಡಲದ ಹನನಹಗರದವವದಲಲ.
ನಚನದ ಆ ದನ ಮನನಗನ ವಚಪಸಸಬನದಚಗ ಸಮಯ ಸದಮಚರದ ಸನಜನ 6.00 ಗನಟನಯಚಗತದತ".
21. Further she has deposed that when she went to the
Spl.C.C.647/2018
17
house of accused to question about his act on the victim girl,
for that he has told the victim girl came to take book from him,
at that time she scolded her daughter and brought her to the
home. This piece of evidence crystallizes that the victim girl was
in the house of accused. It is also an admitted fact that the
house of accused situated near the house of complainant at
opposite side, as such she know the accused. She has also
deposed that: "ಅರನನಹಪಯ ಮನನ ಪಕಕದಲಲ ರಸನತ ಇದದದ ಅಲಲ ರನರನಲಚಲ ಓಡಚಡದತಚತರನ
ಎನದರನ ಸರ. ನನನ ಮನನ ರಸನತಯ ಪಕಕದಲಲ ಸಸಲಲ ಕನಳಗನ ಹನನಹಗಬನಹಕದ ಅದರನ ನನನ ಮನನಯ
ಬಳ ನನತದ ನನನಹಡದರನ ಅರನನಹಪಯಮನನ ಕಚಣದತತದನ ಹಚಗನ ಆತನ ಮನನ ಬಳ ಹನನಹಗಲದ
ಒನದದ ನಮರ ಕಚಲ ಹಡಯದತತದನ". Through the evidence of this witness,
the prosecution proved about lodging of complaint against
accused. But at the same time regarding the incident told by
her daughter to her, not denied in her cross-examination, as
such this Court opines the prosecution proved the offences
alleged against accused punishable under section 354 of IPC
and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Ganesh an
Spl.C.C.647/2018
18
hear say witness he has also corroborates the case of
prosecution in his chief examination. In the cross-examination,
the accused tested the veracity of the evidence of this witness
but not denied whatever he has stated in his chief examination
by denial suggestion, as such though he is an hearsay witness,
but his evidence regarding prosecution case is not denied by the
accused. Hence, it is not safe to disbelieve the evidence about
commission of sexual abuse on the victim girl as per the case of
prosecution and the prosecution proved the same beyond all
reasonable doubt.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Pareemesh-
the uncle of victim girl he has deposed the admitted fact of the
complainant and the victim girl with regard to the relationship.
Further he has deposed that: " ದನಚನಕಕ30-06-2018 ರನದದ ನಚನದ
ಊರಗನ ಹನನಹಗದನದ. ಚಚಸಚ.1 ನನಗನ ಪಹನಸ ಮಚಡ ನನನನದ ಬಚಲಕ ಮನನಯಲಲ ದಚದಳನ,
ಹನನಹಗ ಮನನ ಕಹ ಅವಳನದ ಪಡನದದಕನನಹ ಎನದದ ಹನಹಳದರದ, ನಚನದ ಆ ದನ ಸನಜನ 4.30-
5.00 ಗನಟನಗನ ಮನನಗನ ಬನದಚಗ ನನನನದ ಬಚಲಕ ಮನನಯಲಲ ಇರಲಲಲ. ಈ ವರಯವನದನ
ಚಚಸಚ.1 ರವರಗನ ಪಹನಸ ಮಚಡ ತಳಸದನ. ಚಚಸಚ.1 ರವರದ ಕನಲಸದನದ ಮನನಗನ ಬನದರದ.
ಆ ವನಹಳನಗನ ನನನನದ ಬಚಲಕಯದ ಸಹ ಮನನಗನ ಬನದಳದ, ಆಗ ಫಯಚರದ ನನನನದ
Spl.C.C.647/2018
19
ಬಚಲಕಯನದನ ಅವರ ಮನನಗನ ಕರನದದಕನನನಡದ ಹನನಹಗ ವಚಚರಸದಳದ. ನನತರ ಸನನಹಮವಚರ
ಈ ಬಗನಗ ದನರದ ಕನನಟಟರದ". Further he has deposed that: ನನನನದ
ಬಚಲಕಯನದನ ವಚಚರಸದಚಗ ಅರನನಹಪಯದ ಅವರ ಮನನಗನ ಅವಳನದನ ಕರನದದಕನನನಡದ
ಹನನಹಗದದನನನದದ ಹನಹಳದಳದ. ಅರನನಹಪಯ ಮನನ ನಮಮ ಮನನಯ ಬಳಯಹ ಇದನ.
ಅರನನಹಪಯದ ಅವಳನದನ ಅವನ ಮನನಗನ ಕರನದದಕನನನಡದ ಹನನಹಗ ತನನನದರನ ಕನನಟಟರದವನನನದದ
ಹನಹಳದಳದ". The accused tested his veracity by eliciting some
commission and omission, except denial suggestion about to
give evidence he came to Court along with complainant.
Nothing has been tested regarding the incident and also facts
told by the victim girl to him as per the case of the prosecution.
As such it is not safe to disbelieve the evidence of this witness
regarding offences alleged to have caused on the victim girl as
per the case of prosecution.
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Dr. Sujatha,
she has deposed that after obtaining consent form the victim
girl on 02-07-2018, she has examined her and given her report
as per Ex.P7 and her evidence remains unassailed. But this
Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is formal
one. Here it is relevancy to note that when the victim girl has
Spl.C.C.647/2018
20
given her evidence in corroboration to the case of prosecution,
question of believing non-support of medical evidence with
regard to the outrage of modesty and sexual abuse on the victim
girl caused on the victim doesn't arises.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Dr.
Tyagaraju.M.R, he has deposed that on 02-07-2018 he has
examined the accused and issued medical report as per Ex.P8
and Ex.P9 and also stated that there is nothing to suggest that
the accused is incapable of performing an act like that of sexual
intercourse. His evidence also remains unchallenged. As such
it is not safe to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 at
this stage.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.13-Devika
Devi.N. P.S.I., she has deposed that on 02-07-2018 she had
made counselling on the victim girl and the victim girl stated
before her that: " ಆಕನ ನನನ ಸಮಕಕಮ ತಚನದ 7 ನನಹ ತರಗತಯಲಲ ನಸಗರ ಶಚಲನ,
ನನಲಗದರನ ಹಳಳಯಲಲ ವಧಚನಭಚನಸ ಮಚಡದತತದದದ ಪದತದನ ಶಚಲನಗನ ಹನನಹಗ ಬರದವಚಗ
ಅರನನಹಪ ಚಕಕರಚರದ ಎನಬದವವರದ ಅಕನಯನದನ ಹನಬಚಲಸಕನನನಡದ ಬರದತತದದದ ಶಳನಳ ಹಚಕ
Spl.C.C.647/2018
21
ಚದಡಚಯಸದವವದದ, ಹಚಗನ ರನಹಗಸದವವದದ ಮಚಡದತತದದನನನದದ, ಇದನಹ ರಹತ ಮದನದದವರಸ
ದಕ30-06-2018 ರ ಬನಳಗನಗ ಶಚಲನಗನ ಹನನಹಗ ಮಧಚನಹನ 1.30 ಗನಟನಗನ ಶಚಲಚ ವಚನನಸನನದ
ಇಳದದ ಮನನಗನ ಹನನಹಗದದದ ಅರನನಹಪ ಅಕನಯನದನ ಹನಬಚಲಸಕನನನಡದ ಹನನಹಗದದದ ಆಗ ಅಕನ
ಮನನಯ ಬಚಗಲದ ಹಚಕಕನನನಡದದದ ಮಧಚನಹನ ಸದಮಚರದ 3.45 ರ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಅರನನಹಪ
ಮನನ ಬಳ ಬನದದ ಬಚಗಲದ ಬಡದದ ಅಕನಯನದನ ಬಲವನತವಚಗ ಪಕಕದ ರಸನತಯಲಲದದ ತನನ
ಮನನಗನ ಕರನದದಕನನನಡದ ಹನನಹಗದದದ ಮನನಯ ಒಳಗನ ಹನನಹದ ನನತರ ಮನನಯ ಬಚಗಲದ
ಹಚಕದದದ ಮನನಯ ಒಳಗನ ಅರನನಹಪ ಅವಳನದನ ಬಲವನತವಚಗ ತಬಬಕನನನಡದದದ ಮಮ ಕನಮ ಮದಟಟ
ತದಟಗಳಗನ ಮದತತಟದಟ, ಬಲವನತವಚಗ ಅಕನಯ ಮಹಲನ ಮಲಗಕನನನಡದ ಅತಚನಚಚರ
ಮಚಡದನನನದದ ಇತಚನದಯಚಗ ಹನಹಳಕನ ಕನನಟಟರದವಳದ". This piece of evidence
corroborates the evidence of victim girl and also contents of
Ex.P3. In the cross-examination the accused tested her veracity,
except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourble to
the defense taken by him. At this stage this Court opines the
prosecution proved its case punishable under section 354 of IPC
and section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, through the evidence of this
witness beyond all reasonable doubt.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.14-V.T.Srinivas-
Police Inspector, he has deposed that on 02-07-2018 at about
09.30 a.m., when he was in-charge of station, the complainant
Spl.C.C.647/2018
22
came and lodged complaint as per Ex.P2. After perusal of Ex.P2
he has registered the case against the accused in Crime
No.342/ 2018 for the offences punishable under section 376 of
IPC, section 5(L) and 6 of POCSO Act, entered the Shara and
signed the same as per Ex.P2(b). Thereafter he has prepared
FIR as per Ex.P13 and submitted the same before Court. He
has also requested Cw.18 for recording of statement victim,
wherein she has made counselling and also recorded the
victim's statement as per Ex.P3, which corroborates through the
evidence of victim girl-Pw.4 and Pw.13. Further he has deposed
that he went to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1
and the incident spot shown by the victim girl. Here Pw.4 and
Pw.5 clearly deposed about showing of the incident spot to the
Investigation Officer and he has constructed mahazar as per
Ex.P1.
28. To substantiate the process of conducting Mahazar
by this witness the prosecution produced the evidence of Pw.1-
Manoj, he has deposed that Ex.P1(c) is his signature and he has
signed the same about six months back in the station and
Spl.C.C.647/2018
23
turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Further the
prosecution produced the evidence of Pw.2-Hemanth, except
admitting his signature at Ex.P1(b), he has also turned hostile
to the case of prosecution. The prosecution suggested each and
every word of Ex.P1-process of conducting Mahazar at the
incident spot, for that both the witnesses have denied the same.
Through the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 the prosecution failed to
prove the process of conducting Mahazar as per Ex.P1.
29. Here on perusal of evidence of Pw.3, in the cross-
examination, no such denial suggestion made by the accused
about process of conducting Mahazar as per Ex.P1 at the spot,
except testing her veracity regarding hand-writing of Ex.P1. On
perusal of evidence of Pw.4-the victim girl in the cross-
examination the accused elicited about obtaining of Ex.P1(d)
and she doesn't know the contents of Ex.P1, but at the same
time no such denial suggestion made on her about non-
conducting of Mahazar as per prosecution case. On the other
hand it is her definite answer that she has shown the incident
spot to the police.
Spl.C.C.647/2018
24
30. Now left with the further evidence of Pw.14-he has
deposed that he has prepared spot sketch as per Ex.P14. He
has sent the victim girl for medical check up. He has entrusted
the work of tracing of accused to Cw.14 and Cw.15, wherein
they have traced the accused and produced before him by giving
report as per Ex.P12.
31. To substantiate the said evidence, the prosecution
produced the evidence of Pw.10-Lakshminarayana -PC.3910.
He has deposed that he and Cw.14 were entrusted to trace the
accused and produce before the SHO, accordingly they
contacted the Bathimdars and came to know that the accused
is in his house, as such they went near the house of accused,
caught hold of him, brought him to the station and produced
before the SHO by giving report as per Ex.P12. In the cross-
examination except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited
favourble to the defense of accused.
32. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-S.Umesh-
H.C.9299, he has also corroborate the evidence of Pw.10 and
Spl.C.C.647/2018
25
given report as per Ex.P12 and identified the accused before
Court. In the cross-examination the accused tested his veracity
and denied the caught hold of accused and produced before
SHO as per denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same
and nothing has been elicited favourable to his defense.
33. Now left with further evidence of Pw.14, he has
deposed that he has arrested the accused and recorded his
voluntary statement as per Ex.P15 and also stated he is ready
to show the incident spot, after that he has sent the accused for
medical check up. In order to substantiate the said evidence the
prosecution produced the evidence of Pw.11-Ayyan-P.C.14200.
He has deposed that as per the instructions of Police Inspector
on 02-07-2018, he had taken the accused to Sapthagiri
Hospital for medical check up. The accused denied the same by
denial suggestion, but at this stage, this Court opines his
evidence is a formal one.
34. Now left with further evidence of Pw.14. He has
deposed that he has recorded statement of Cw.5 to Cw.9, Cw.15
Spl.C.C.647/2018
26
to Cw.17 and on 03-07-2018 he has produced the accused
before Court along with remand application, received medical
report of victim girl and accused from Sapthagiri Hospital as per
Ex.P4and Ex.P8 and also produced the victim girl on 03-08-
2018 before the Magistrate and she has given her statement as
per Ex.P5. He has also received study and age certificate from
Cw.18 as per Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 and filed charge sheet against
accused. Here the accused tested his veracity by elicitating
some commission and omission, except denial suggestion
nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by
him. Here, when ample evidence available through the victim
girl, the complainant and other witnesses, coupled with Pw.13,
question of disbelieving the evidence of this witness and his
investigation doesn't arises.
35. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the offence against
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the
accused not established by him through the cross-examination
of Pw.1 to Pw.14 and by way of production of his defense
Spl.C.C.647/2018
27
evidence. The facts and circumstances of the case including the
materials on record discussed above probablize the case of the
prosecution rather than the defense of the accused.
36. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.14 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P15 placed on record in respect of alleged offences is
sufficient to prove that the accused knowing fully well that the
daughter of complainant-the victim girl was minor and when she
was going to school and coming to house, he was following and
eve teasing her, on 30-06-2018 when the victim girl came from
school at about 03.45p.m., and was alone in her house, the
accused came near her house, forcibly taken her to his house
situated at No.39, 6th Cross, 6th Main, Sapthagiri Extension,
Nagasandra Post, within the limits of Peenya Police station,
closed the door of his house, hugged the victim girl even though
she expressed her fear and requested to open the door, but he
has not opened the door, on the other hand he has not allowed
her to go outside, touched on her body, kissed on her lips and
Spl.C.C.647/2018
28
forcibly sexually intercoursed on her and also sexually abused
on her and thereby the accused committed offences punishable
under Section 354 of IPC, and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 Act
beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1
and 2 in the "Affirmative".
37 Point No.3:- For the above said reasons and
discussions on Point No.1 and 2, I hold that the accused is
entitled for an order of conviction. Hence, in the final result, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
(Computerized to my dictation by the Judgment Writer. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14 th Day of January, 2020) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE Spl.C.C.647/2018 29 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the arguments from the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor regarding sentence.
2. The learned counsel for accused submits that the accused is the only earning member in his family. He has not committed any offences as alleged against him and requested to take lenient view in respect of imposing sentence on him. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submits that looking to the facts of the case, lenient view should not be taken regarding sentence.
3. It is not in dispute that the accused forcibly outraged the modesty of the victim girl knowing fully well that she is minor. This fact is deposed by Pw.3 to Pw.6 and Pw.13 When such being the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met by imposing the minimum sentence to accused for the offences punishable under section 354 of IPC and section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. Further, the punishment for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., fixed imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. In respect of offence under Section 8 of POCSPO Act, 2012, the punishment Spl.C.C.647/2018 30 prescribed is imprisonment 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. Thus in my opinion, if the Court has to impose sentence of imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go simple imprisonment for a period of two months in respect of offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., fixed to accused and imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of offence Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 is fixed to the accused no impediments will be caused to him. Hence, I proceed to pass the sentence as under:
ORDER The accused is sentenced to under go imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused is sentenced to under go imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, and in default of payment of fine, Spl.C.C.647/2018 31 he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Both the above sentences of accused shall run concurrently.
The accused is entitled for benefit of set off for the period for which he has already undergone imprisonment as under trial prisoner during the course of trial as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Out of deposit of fine amount of Rs.15,000/- by the accused, Pw.4-the victim girl is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- is considered as State expenses. Office is directed to return Rs.10,000/- to Pw.4-the victim girl as compensation in accordance with law.
Issue conviction warrant against accused in accordance with law.
Furnish free copy of judgment and order of Spl.C.C.647/2018 32 sentence to the accused forth with.
(Computerized to my dictation by the Judgment Writer. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th Day of January 2020) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE A NN E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Manoj Cw.3 13-03-2019 Pw.2 Hemanth Cw.4 13-03-2019 Pw.3 Savitha Cw.1 13-03-2019 Pw.4 Victim Cw.2 04-04-2019 Pw.5 Ganesh Cw.9 16-08-2019 Pw.6 Paramesh Cw.6 04-09-2019 Pw.7 Dr. Sujatha Cw.12 12-09-2019 Pw.8 Dr. Tyagaraju.M.R. Cw.13 25-09-2019 Pw.9 V. Prashanth Kumar Cw.11 25-09-2019 Pw.10 N. Lakshminarayan Cw.15 11-10-2019 Pw.11 Ayyanna Cw.17 11-10-2019 Pw.12 S. Umesh Cw.14 24-10-2019 Pw.13 Devika Devi.N. Cw.18 12-11-2019 Pw.14 V.T. Srinivas Cw.19 02-12-2019 Spl.C.C.647/2018 33 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Spot Mahazar Pw.1 13-03-2019 Ex.P 2 Complaint Pw.3 13-03-2019 Ex.P 3 Statement of victim Pw.3 13-03-2019 before police Ex.P 4 Consent for medical Pw.3 13-03-2019 examination of victim Ex.P 5 Statement of victim Pw.4 04-04-2019 before Magistrate Ex.P 6 Statement of Pw.6 Pw.6 04-09-2019 Ex.P 7 Medical report of Pw.7 12-09-2019 victim Ex.P 8 Consent for medical Pw.8 25-09-2019 examination of accused Ex.P 9 Medical report of Pw.8 25-09-2019 accused Ex.P 10 Study-cum-date of Pw.9 25-09-2019 birth document of victim Ex.P 11 Admission Register Pw.9 25-09-2019 Extract of victim Ex.P 12 Report of Pw.12 Pw.12 24-10-2019 Ex.P 13 FIR Pw.14 02-12-2019 Ex.P 14 Spot sketch Pw.14 02-12-2019 Ex.P 15 Voluntary statement Pw.14 02-12-2019 of accused Spl.C.C.647/2018 34 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE