Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Do-Wong Choy on 9 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 9th Day of January 2019
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 449/2014
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Kottanoor Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Do-Wong Choy,
S/o. Wan Zun, 73 years,
R/at. Amith Ashish Residency,
No.1/1, 3rd A Main Road, 101, 1st Floor,
Ramaiah Layout, Kacharkanahalli,
Bengaluru-560 084.
Permanent resident of:
South Korea
ACCUSED No.2 Manual Jaysingh,
S/o. V. Shekaran, 31 years,
R/at. No.8, New Colony,
Doddanna Nagar,
Kaval Byrasanra, R.T. Nagar,
Bengaluru.
Sri.L.S.for Accused No.1 &
Sri.Z.H. for Accused No.2-Advocates
2 Spl.C.C.449/2014
1 Date of commission of offence 09-09-1996
2 Date of report of occurrence 17-07-2013
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1 20-07-2014
Date of release of Accused No.1 26-08-2014
Period undergone in custody 6 days & 1 month
by Accused No.1
Date of arrest of Accused No. 2 27-07-2013
Date of release of Accused No. 2 21-08-2013
Period undergone in custody 24 days
by Accused No.2
4 Date of commencement of evidence 14-12-2015
5 Date of closing of evidence 28-11-2018
6 Name of the complainant Victim
7 Offences complained of Sec.376(2)(d),(f),(g),
292, 506-r/w.34 IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 & 2 are
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Chikkajala Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 376, 354, 506 of I.P.C.
2. Since it is a case of sexual abuse against 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 3 Spl.C.C.449/2014 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:
The accused No.1 running Ashram in No.77, Byrathi Bande in the name and style of 'Peace House'. The victim girl-
Cw.1 joined the said Ashram in the year 1996 for her food, clothing and shelter. The accused No.2 is the worker of said Ashram. When the complainant was aged about 10 years, at that time the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and the said act was videographed by the accused No.2. The accused No.2 has also further threatened the victim girl not to disclose about the videos taken by him to anybody with dire consequences. On the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant, the police registered the case against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 376, 354, and 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C.
4. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the 4 Spl.C.C.449/2014 offences punishable under Section 376, 354 and 506 of I.P.C. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet, as usual the accused No.1 and 2 appeared before the Committal Court, the Committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Committal Court passed an order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bengaluru, since the victim was minor and the said case is exclusively triable by the Child Court and in turn the said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
5. After receiving the record by this Court, as usual the summons was issued to accused No.1 and 2. In pursuance of the said summons, the accused No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and they were enlarged on bail executing personal bond and producing surety. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused No.1 and 2 submitted that there is no argument before framing charge and requested to frame charge. On perusal of charge sheet, the learned predecessor in office framed charge under section 376(2)(d), (f), and (g), 292 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC on 21-08-2015. Hence, the contents of charge 5 Spl.C.C.449/2014 read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in English by translating Kannada version to them. The accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and submit crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.1 and 2 was set down for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 has examined 19 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.19, got marked 34 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P34 and 13 material objects as MO1 to MO13 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the accused No. 1 and 2, they are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording their statement. The accused No.1 and 2 denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against them as false. The accused No.1 and 2 complied the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. by executing personal bond and surety bond. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides 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 6 Spl.C.C.449/2014 that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÉÆvÀ£ Û ÀÆgÀÄ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À ¢ À £Ý À ¨ÉÊgwÀ §AqÉAiÀÄ £ÀA.77, ¦Ã¸ïºË¸ï JA§ D±ÀæªÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ£ÁVzÀÄ,Ý 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸Àzj À D±ÀæªÀÄzÀ°è D¦üÃ¸ï ¨ÁAiÀiï JAzÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄ,Ý EªÀj§âgÀÆ KPÉÆÃzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ¸Àzj À D±ÀæªÀÄPÉÌ ZÁ¸Á.1-²æêÀÄw.ªÀÄAdÄgÀªÀgÀÄ 8 ªÀµð À zÀªg À ÁVzÁÝUÀ CAzÀgÉ 1996£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è ¸Àzj À D±ÀæªÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ¥Àq¢ É zÀÄ,Ý ZÁ¸Á.1 gÀªg À ÀÄ 10 ªÀµð À EzÁÝV¤AzÀ®Æ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄ®UÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀŸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ DvÀ£À gÀÆ«ÄUÉ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Ézj À ¹ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ©nÖzÀÄ,Ý 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ZÁ¸Á.1 gÀªj À UÉ ªÀiÁvÉæUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £ÀÄAV¹ vÁ£ÀÆ ªÀiÁvÉæUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £ÀÄAV ¸Àzj À D±ÀæªÀÄzÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝ vÀ£Àß gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ZÁ¸Á.1 gÀªg À À EµÀÖPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀª Ý ÁV ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj ºÀoÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄ,Ý CzÀ£ÀÄß 2£Éà DgÉÆæ «rAiÉÆà PÁåªÀÄgÁªÀ£ÀÄß ¦üPïì ªÀiÁr «rAiÉÆà awæÃPÀgt À ªÀiÁr, 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 376(2) (r), (J¥sï) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (f)gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
2. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ZÁ¸Á.1 gÀªg À À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀoÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ gÀÆ«Ä£À°,è 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ «rAiÉÆà PÁåªÀÄgÁªÀ£ÀÄß ¦üPïì ªÀiÁr, 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ZÁ¸Á-1gÀªg À À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀoÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÄÁÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß «rAiÉÆà awæÃPÀgt À ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.392gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉÀ JAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgAÉ iÉÄ?
3. 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ZÁ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀoÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ Ý ÀÄß 2£Éà DgÉÆæ «rAiÉÆà awæÃPÀgt À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÄÀ ß AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉýzÀgÉ ¥Áæt vÉUA É iÀÄÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-1 gÀªjÀ UÉ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzjÀ PÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 506 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
7 Spl.C.C.449/2014 Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3:- As these points are inter-related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasons.
10. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence produced both at oral and documentary and the documents produced by the accused No.1 and 2 for reference coupled with arguments canvassed from both the sides.
11. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.19, got marked 34 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P34 and MO1 to MO13.
12. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the doctor, Pw.2 is the Assistant Engineer, Pw.3, Pw.7, Pw.8, Pw.10 and Pw.15 are the police officials and Investigation Officer. Pw.4 is the complainant and victim, Pw.5, Pw.6, Pw.9, Pw.11 to Pw.14,
8 Spl.C.C.449/2014 Pw.16 to Pw.19 are the independent witnesses. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2.
13. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.1 running Ashram in No.77, Byrathi Bande in the name and style of 'Peace House'. The victim girl-Cw.1 joined the said Ashram in the year 1996 for her food, clothing and shelter. The accused No.2 is the worker of said Ashram. When the complainant was aged about 10 years, at that time the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and the said act was videographed by the accused No.2. The accused No.2 has also further threatened the victim girl not to disclose about the videos taken by him to anybody with dire consequences and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 376(2)(d), (f), and (g), 292 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. Hence this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the above said 9 Spl.C.C.449/2014 ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 376(2)(d), (f), and (g), 292 and 506 of IPC.
Section 376(2)(d), (f) and (g) of IPC defines that:
Punishment for rape-(2) Whoever,-
(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
(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 392 of IPC defines that:
Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.-(1)For the purposes of sub-section(2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure of any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest of if its effect or (where it comprises two or 10 Spl.C.C.449/2014 more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is if taken as whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
(2)whoever-(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces, or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or (b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or (c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are for any of the purposes aforesaid, made produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or (d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or (e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment 11 Spl.C.C.449/2014 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 of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
If threat to be cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to be cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchasity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. .
With these observations, now left with available material evidence produced by the prosecution to consider whether the prosecution proved the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt or not or the defense to probablise the defense of the accused No.1 and 2.
15. Before venturing into scan, the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to consider as per the case of prosecution, as on the year of 2013 or as on the date of alleged
12 Spl.C.C.449/2014 incident, whether the victim girl was minor or not and the prosecution produces sufficient documents to corroborate the age of the victim girl at the time of the alleged incident have to be looked into.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-the victim, she has given her evidence on 03-03-2016 and subsequently, at that time her age mentioned as 28 years and a married woman. By going through her evidence, she has stated from 7 years to 13 years, she was subjected to sexual torture from the accused No.1, but no such date, month and year stated by her. She has also stated during the year of 2005, she left the Ashram and during the year 2006 she got married with Murali. If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, as on the year of 2006, she was major. Even in the cross-examination, she has confirmed that earlier to closing of 'Peace House' she had attained majority of 18 years. Further during the year November
-2005, she left the 'Peace House' and lodged complaint on 17- 07-2013, except that no such authenticated document placed by the prosecution to believe when she was minor, she was subjected to alleged sexual abuse caused by the accused No.1.
13 Spl.C.C.449/2014
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Dr. B. M. Nagaraj, he has deposed as per the request of Kothnur Police, on 18-07-2013, he has examined the victim, who was produced before him through escort of Cw.18-Sowbhagyamma, at that time the age was 24 years. She has also stated that at the age of 8 years, she was in the 'Peace House' and during 2006, she got married with Murali. On perusal of Ex.P1-Medical certificate, the doctor also mentioned her age as 24 years as on the year 2013, but no such contents finds a place that she was subjected to ossification test and X-ray, as such her age was 24 years in the year 2014. When such being the case, merely on the say of the victim before doctor, without above stated tests, it is not safe to accept the age mentioned as 24 years on the say of the victim to believe that when she was minor she was subjected to sexual abuse as per the case of the prosecution. With these observations, now left with the available material evidence available on record to consider the alleged offences alleged to have been caused by the accused against her.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-victim, she has deposed that she lost her mother during her younger age, 14 Spl.C.C.449/2014 due to inability of her father to maintain her and her sister, her father brought them to the hostel and joined them to Ashram which was run by the accused No.1, at that time her age was 7 years. Here it is relevant to note she has stated her on which date she has joined the hostel to know her exact age. Further she has deposed that in the hostel nearly 40 girls have joined and maintained by the accused No.1, but she stayed there up to the age of 13 years, even in that Ashram no such exact age stated by the victim girl.
19. Further she has deposed that the accused No.1 sexually abused giving bath to her and he used to give bath to her up to 13 years, she matured at the age of 13 years and after tht also he used to cause sexual intercourse on her, due to fear she has tolerated of his sexual abuse. At the time of sexual intercourse on her caused by the accused No.1, due to pain she used to scream, at that time the accused No.1 used to fix the T.V., volume to high, with an intention the screaming of victim not to be heard by anybody. The said fact came to know by the accused No.2 and the accused No.2 in order to take video of sexual activity by the accused No.1 with the victim girl, he has 15 Spl.C.C.449/2014 fixed video camera in the room and forcing her to take the accused No.1 in that room, so that he was able to take video of the activity of the accused No.1, at that time without any other option, she has done as per the instructions of the accused No.1 and 2.
20. Further she has deposed that during the year 2005, her husband was doing mason work in the said Ashram and she married him in the year 2006. She came in contact with Murali when he was doing contract work of mason to construct swimming pool in the Ashram. Further it is her evidence that in order to escape from the clutches of the accused No.1 and 2 she wants to marry Murali. Further she loved Murali and got married him. Not only she was subjected to sexual harassment, also one Lakshmi was subjected to sexual harassment by the accused No.1 and 2. When she left the Ashram in the year 2006, Lakshmi was alone in the Ashram, but she came to know about the sexual harassment on said Lakshmi by the accused No.1 and 2 through T.V. media. On the seeing the said media publication, her husband and In-Laws got suspicious on her and started to question as to whether she was also subjected to 16 Spl.C.C.449/2014 sexual abuse by the accused No.1 and 2, due to said incident her husband stated to consume alcohol and used to come home in the late night in alcoholic mind and started to harass her. According to her nearly six girls were subjected to sexual harassment. Due to harassment of her husband she lodged complaint against him.
21. Further it is her evidence that she has lodged complaint against accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(b). The accused No.2 also threatened her with dire consequences not to disclose about fixing of camera by him to the accused No.1 or to any other person. Only on seeing publication of sexual harassment on Lakshmi she came forward to lodge complaint about the sexual abuse caused on her by the accused No.1 and 2. She has also shown the place of incident to the police, they have conducted mahazar as perEx.P8 and her signature is Ex.P8(a). Due to fear, she has not lodged any complaint in time, though she joined the Ashram in the year 1997. The accused No.2 has not misbehaved with her, only he has fixed the camera in making videography in the room. The accused No.1 used to call upon her for doing sex.
17 Spl.C.C.449/2014
22. With this evidence of Pw.1, on perusal of Ex.P4, she has lodged computer typed complaint on 17-07-2013 against accused No.1 and 2. The police after receiving the complaint registered the case at about 09.00 p.m., in Crime No.82/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 376, 354, 506 read with section 34 of IPC. In the complaint she has stated that she was born on 01-12-1988, whereas in her chief examination she has not whispered about the date of birth. When she was aged about 8 years, she has joined the Ashram i.e., on 09-09-2016. When she was aged about 24 years, she has lodged the complaint stating about the alleged incident which took place from 1996 to 2005 i.e., for a period of nine years. Here it is relevant to note that though she has deposed that whatever she has stated in her complaint, but no such reasons given for the delay 7 years caused in lodging the complaint. The prosecution through this witness also produced 40 CDs as MO3 and one C.D. as MO4. But when MO4 was played through laptop, no such videos found to show that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused No.1. She herself; admitted that she 18 Spl.C.C.449/2014 was not in that C.D. Now left with the cross-examination of accused persons.
23. No doubt it is true it is elicited that she doesn't know as to how many persons are there to look after 'Peace House', but the accused No.1 was looking after 'Peace House'. She has deposed that in that 'Peace House only the ladies and girls used to stay there. She has admitted that:
¦Ã¸ï ºË¸ï£À°è ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀî®Ä DAiÀiÁUÀ¼ÄÀ EzÁÝgA É zÀgÉ ¸Àj. DAiÀiÁUÀ¼° À è PÉ®ªÀgÀ ºÉ¸g À ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ YõÁÕ¥P À À EzÉ. GªÀiÁ, ªÀÄ°èPÁ, ¸É°é ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀÄð¯Á JA§ DAiÀiÁ¼À ºÉ¸g À ÄÀ £À£UÀ É YõÁÕ¥P À « À zÉ. F £Á®ÄÌ d£Àg£ À ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ E£ÀÆß ªÀÄÆgÀÄ £Á®ÄÌ d£À DAiÀiÁUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÁÝg.É Further she has also deposed that:
¦Ã¸ïºË¸ï læ¸ïÖ£À°è ªÁºÀ£Z À Á®PÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ EgÀĪÀgÄÀ , PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀÄ EgÀĪÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë DAiÀiÁUÀ¼ÃÉ PÉ®¸Àª£ À ÄÀ ß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄ À g À ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛg.É ¦üøïºË¸ï læ¸ïÖUÉ qÁPÀÖgï ¨sÃÉ n PÉÆqÀÄwÛg° À ®è DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß D¸Àvà ÉæÉUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÀÆ É AqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ.
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, there is doubt about the alleged act of the accused No.1 while taking bath by the victim girl and other girls in the said 'Peace House.
Further it is also relevant to note she has not reveled about the said act of the accused No.1 to any body, until lodging of complaint, even though there was ample opportunity to her to 19 Spl.C.C.449/2014 revel about the act of the accused No.1 with the public or with the persons who were visiting to said 'Peace House'.
24. Further she has admitted that:
¦Ã¸ïºË¸ï C£ÁxÁ±ÀæªÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 50 d£À C£ÁxÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ EzÀg Ý ÀÄ. D 50 d£À C£ÁxÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ɮg è ÀÆ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄgÉà DVzÀg Ý ÀÄ, ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀÄ EgÀ°®è. F ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ gÀPÀÛ ¸ÀA§A¢üPg À ÀÄ DUÁUÀ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ A É zÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸ÀA§A¢üPg À ÀÄ §AzÁUÀ¯¯ É Áè CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ®z è É £ÀªÀÄäU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzg ÝÀ A É zÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¨Égv É ÀÄ ZÉ£ÁßV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ EgÀÄwÛzª ÉÝ ÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¦Ã¸ïºË¸ï C£ÁxÁ±ÀæªÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀévA À vÀæªÁV NqÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ DlªÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸Ë®¨Àså«vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë D D±ÀæªÀÄ¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ CªÀPÁ±À EgÀ°®è, D±ÀæªÀÄzÀ M¼ÀUÉ D jÃw EgÀĪÀ CªÀPÁ±À«vÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛg.É £ÁªÀÅ C°èzA ÝÀ vÀºÀ C£ÁxÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä¯ÃÉè ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÁévA À vÀæå £ÀªÄÀ VvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C£ÁxÁ±ÀæªÀÄzÀ°z è A ÀÝ vÀºÀ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ CªÀgª À gÀ À ªÀÄ£ÉU½ À UÉ ºÉÆÃV§gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ CªÀPÁ±À«vÉA Û zÀgÉ ¸Àj.
If the above said admission is taken into consideration, definitely the victim girl was having ample opportunity to inform about the activity of the accused No.1 with her during her stay in the said Ashram from 1996 to 2006 i.e., at the age of 7 years to 13 years, but she has not disclosed anything to others. This creates doubt about the commission of offence by the accused No.1 and 2. Further she has admitted that:
EvÀgÉ ªÀÄPÀ̼À gÀP¸ÀÛ A À §A¢üPg À ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä D£ÁxÁ±ÀæªÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß C£ÁxÁ±ÀæªÀÄzÀ°è HlwAr ZÉ£ÁßV PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÁ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆÃUÀåzÀ §UÉÎ UÀªÀĤ¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÁ JA§ÄzÁUɯÁè PÉüÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D jÃw PÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¥Àæ±ÉßU½ À UÉ £ÁªÀÅ 20 Spl.C.C.449/2014 £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À¹ì£À°z è ÀÄz Ý £ ÀÝ ÀÄß GvÀj Û ¸À®Ä £ÀªÀÄUÁåªÀÅzÉà CqÉvq À É ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÀA s iÀÄ EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
Further she has admitted that:
¦Ã¸ïºË¸ï£À ¥ÀæzÉñÀz° À è PÀlÖqÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß PÀlÄÖwÛzÀÄÝ D PÀlÖqÀzÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D PÀlÖqÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ¸ÀéZUÀá Éƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀºÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzg ÝÀ ÄÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ C¯Éè PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ §Ææ¹è JA¨ÁvÀ££ À ÀÄß ¦æÃw¹ 2006 gÀ°è ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DvÀ££ À ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä C£ÁxÁ±ÀæªÀÄzÀ°è K£ÉãÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ £ÀqA É iÀÄÄwÛzÉ JA§ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ£À §½ ºÉýPÉƼÀî°®è. £À£U À É £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À §½ D «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ºÉÃÉ ½PÉƼÀî®Ä £À£U À ÁåªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è.
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, the victim girl was having ample opportunity to disclose about the sexual intercourse caused by the accused No.1 on her with others and was also having ample opportunity to lodge complaint, but she has not made any efforts to lodge the complaint. This crates doubt about the act of victim girl and that benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused No.1 and 2.
25. Further she has deposed that she has not seen Police News Weekly dated 23-12-2012 in respect of ruin of life of Ashram Children, but the same was read over by her husband and mother-in-law and told to her. At the same time she has admitted that she has not lodged any complaint at that time 21 Spl.C.C.449/2014 also. It is her evidence that one Suresh, Vishwa, Glory and tow other women helped her in lodging complaint. Here the defense of accused No.1 and 2 is that the above mentioned persons got vengeance towards the accused No.1 and 2 with regard to property dispute and in order to defame the accused No.1 and 2 they have created the story and lodged complaint through this witness, even though the accused No.1 and 2 have not committed the alleged offences.
26. Further she has also admitted that after leaving of 'Peace House' during the month of December-2005, she went to her brother's house and also done work in the house of Jayasheela and Kumar. Here the accused No.1 and 2 have taken defense and produced documents for reference in respect of Civil suits pending between them since from 2010 and also private complaint lodged through 'Peace House' Trust against Y.Thanasegeran and Jayasheela. Further she has admitted that:
"¦Ã¸ï ºË¸ï ªÀÄÄZÀĪ Ñ ÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ¯É £À£U À É 18 ªÀµðÀ vÀÄA©vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D læ¸ïÖ ªÀÄÄZÀĪ Ñ À ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆArzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªA É §gï 2005 gÀ°è ¦Ã¸ï ºË¸ï læ¸ïÖ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢B17.07.2013 gÀªg À UÉ ÀÆ CAzÀgÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀªgÀ U É ÀÆ ºÀÁUÀÆ D ªÉÆzÀ®Ä zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä £À£U À É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CqÉvqÀ É EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
22 Spl.C.C.449/2014 She has admitted that:
"r¸ÉA§gï 2005 gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¦Ã¸ï ºË¸ï læ¸ïÖ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ EªÀw£Û ª À g À U É ÀÆ DgÉÆæUÀ½AzÀ £À£U À É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÄÁAzÀgÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
She has admitted that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ rJ¸ïJ¸ï ¸ÀAWÀzÀ eÉÆvÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¹PÉÆArzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸ÀAWzÀ ¸Àz¸ À ÉåAiÀiÁVzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. rJ¸ïJ¸ï ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¸Àz¸ À ÀågÀ avÁªÀuÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ DgÉÆæ 1 gÀªg À À «gÀÄzÀÝ £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆmÉÖ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£U À É dAiÀIJïÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀĪÀiÁgï zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¸À®Ä ¸À¥ÉÇÃmï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said admission is taken into consideration, definitely the victim girl dancing on the whims and fancies of the members of D.S.S., viz., Jayasheela and Kumar and others as per the defense taken by the accused No.1 and 2 herein.
27. Further she has admitted that she has deserted her husband and children since from 7-8 years, even her husband and In-Law not aware of her whereabouts. She has also admitted that during the year 2011-212 on several occasions she left the house. She has also admitted that her husband searched for her every where and lodged complaint against her. During the month of July-2013, she left her matrimonial home stating that 'don't search her'. Here it is relevant to note this 23 Spl.C.C.449/2014 complaint was lodged during the year of 2013 at the month of July 17th. She has also admitted that she herself lodged complaint against her husband and the police also advised her to live with her husband amicably, but she has not continued her matrimonial life with her husband. If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, it also crystallizes about the conduct of the victim girl with her husband in the matrimonial home.
28. Further it is the defense of the accused No.1 and 2 that she has not stated in her complaint or further statement what ever she has stated in the chief examination. Further she has deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ MAzÀÄ ªÀµð À zÀ »AzÉAiÉÄà D D±ÀæªÀÄ ªÀÄÄaÑvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë £Á£ÀÄ D±ÀæªÀÄ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Àé®à ¢£ÀU¼À À £ÀAvÀgÀ D±ÀæªÀÄ ªÀÄÄaÑgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛg.É "
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, definitely while lodging complaint by her, she caused delay and no such reasons stated by her for causing delay in lodging the complaint. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that the prosecution fails to establish the just grounds for causing delay 24 Spl.C.C.449/2014 in lodging complaint by this witness against accused No.1 and
2. Even the prosecution has not placed any supporting authenticated documents about the age of the victim girl. With these observations, now left with the available materials evidence, whether the prosecution proves the victim girl was subjected to sexual abuse and intercourse from the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 videographed the same through the evidence of doctor.
29. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Dr.B.M. Nagaraj, he has deposed that on 18-07-2013 the victim girl was produced before him through the escort of Cw.18- Sowbhagyamma. He has recorded the statement given by the victim girl in respect of alleged sexual abuse by the accused No.1 and the same was videographed by the accused No.2 with dire consequences. Further he has deposed that he has examined the victim girl with the assistance of Gynecologist and given report as per Ex.P1 and his signature is Ex.P1(a), the signature of victim girl is Ex.P1(b).
30. On perusal of Ex.P1, the doctor opined that at the 25 Spl.C.C.449/2014 time of the examination of the victim girl she was aged about 24 years and no such sexual intercourse caused with four days from the date of examination, but earlier she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Coupled with this report in the cross- examination he has admitted that:
"M§â ºÉtÄÚªÀÄUÀ¼£À ÀÄß ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuUÉ É M¼À¥r À ¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às zÀ°è D ºÉtÄÚªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ EzÀÄÝ DzÀgÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DPÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄUÉ M¼À¥n À ÖzÀ¼ Ý Á CxÀªÁ E®èªÁ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Admittedly it is the evidence of victim girl that she was married with one Murali @ Bruceli in the year 2006 and also she has got two children through said marital relationship with Murali. When such being the case, it is not safe to accept earlier she was subjected to sexual abuse by the accused No.1.
31. Further Pw.1 deposed that on 20-07-2014 he has examined the accused No.1 and given report as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a). Except denial suggestion of statement given by the victim girl, the accused No.2 has not elicited anything favourable to the defense taken by him. With these now left with the arguments canvassed by the learned advocate 26 Spl.C.C.449/2014 for accused No.1 and 2 that the Investigation Officer not produced the medical examination request letter dated 17-07- 2013 and 20-07-2014. Cw.18 is also not examined, in Ex.P1 no reference or alleged date of incident and Cw.20 is also not examined. Further the doctor also admitted that it is not able to confirm whether the victim girl had involved in any sexual activity before her marriage, as such through the evidence of Pw.1, it is not safe to accept that she was subjected to sexual harassment through the accused No.1 as stated in the complaint.
32. The learned advocate for accused No.1 and 2 also argued that in the complaint no such reasons stated causing delay of 7-8 years from the date of alleged incident i.e., the victim girl left the Ashram during December-2006 up to lodging of complaint on 17-07-2013, even she has not explained delay of another 8 months from the date of alleged news paper publication in Police News dated 23-12-2012. There is also some omission and contradictions produced through the evidence of Pw.1. Even the prosecution has not examined charge sheet witness viz., Lakshmi and six other girls as per the 27 Spl.C.C.449/2014 evidence of victim girl who were alleged to have been subjected to sexual abuse by the accused No.1. As such the reasons given by the prosecution is not acceptable for causing delay in lodging of complaint.
33. Further the learned advocate for accused persons also argued that there is an admitted fact of presence of seven Ayyas in the 'Peace House' and visiting of other children parents and relatives to said house, liberal and free environment in the hostel, cordial and free to talk anything amongst the hostel mates, visits by social workers, no restrictions/fear to convey anything with other children's parents, workers visits at 'Peace House', not informed to husband, even after going out of the hostel and having no kind of restrictions in informing him. Inspite of several opportunities, the victim girl not disclosed the alleged sexual abuse by the accused No.1, since no such act caused by the accused No.1 on the victim girl and she has not stated anything before the persons as stated supra.
34. It is also the arguments of the learned advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 about vengeance of DSS activists with 28 Spl.C.C.449/2014 the accused No.1 and 2. Admittedly as per the evidence of Pw.4 and her admission in the cross-examination, it is very clear the complainant caused delay in lodging of complaint and the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 as per the evidence of Pw.1 through the evidence of Pw.1-Doctor, as such it is not safe to accept the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
35. Now left with the available material evidence produced through Pw.3-Byra-P.S.I., he has deposed that on 17- 07-2013 the complainant came and lodged complaint as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(a). He has prepared FIR as per Ex.P5 and his signature is Ex.P5(a), since the offence is heinous one, he has handed over the record to Police Inspector- Nanjunde Gowda. Further he has also deposed that as per the directions of Police Inspector-Nanjunde Gowda, he has traced the accused No.2 on 26-07-2013 at Kaval Byrasandra, brought to the station, produced before the Investigation Officer along with the report as per Ex.P6 and his signature is Ex.P6(a). The accused No.2 had given voluntary statement before the 29 Spl.C.C.449/2014 Investigation Officer and taken this witness along with other police personnels-Cw.16, Cw.4 and Head Constable-Kuteerappa to his house at Kaval Byrasandra stating that he has kept the camera and C.D there, but on search, no such Camera and C.D. was available in that house, again he has taken them to the Church at Gulya Village, Doddaballapura Taluk, there also these police personnel searched the room of the accused No.1, but no such material objects was available to them for seizure in the said room.
36. Further he has also deposed that on 03-08-2013, he went to Kacharakana Halli, Ramaiah Layout, Amith Ashish Residency Apartment-1st Floor, House No.101, which is residence of accused No.1, at that time he was absconding. They have searched there in front of Panchas-Cw.12-Kumar and Cw.11-Kiran by obtaining search warrant from the Court and searched the table, key board, almera and seized C.D. Box, computer, albums, registers and other documents under seizer mahazar-Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(a). He has also identified MO1 to MO13-Material Objects.
30 Spl.C.C.449/2014
37. Further he has deposed that on 27-07-2013 he has taken custody of accused No.2 and produced before the SHO, and on that day itself, as per the orders of SHO he has produced the accused No.2 before the Court and taken him to police custody. On 28-07-2013 he has recorded statement of Cw.5 and Cw.6 and Cw.5 has given statement as per Ex.P34. On 29-07-2013 he has also recorded statement of Cw.7 and Cw.8 and Cw.7 has given statement as per Ex.P33.
38. Here the accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission in respect of lodging of complaint by the victim girl and at that time she came along with her relative. He has also admitted that on 03-08-2013 the search warrant was executed, at that time the accused No.1 was not in the house, the said house was locked and the door was broken lock, open and searched the said house. Here it is relevant to note the prosecution not examined the person who broke open the lock of the house of the accused. The accused No.1 has denied the seizing of MO1 to MO13 by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same.
31 Spl.C.C.449/2014
39. The learned advocate for accused persons argued that, it is the evidence of Pw.3 that, at the time of seizing of articles in the house of accused No.1, he has not seen and verified the same and brought them as it is to the station. Here it is relevant to note the prosecution not recorded and produced statement of neighbours of the apartment of the house of the accused No.1 in respect of execution of search warrant and made them as Panch witnesses, even the Investigation Officer has not recorded their statement about search warrant executed by that time, when such being the case, it creates doubt about conducting of seizure mahazar. Moreover, the Investigation Officer has seized the articles and it also creates on suspicious.
40. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Tejendra-P.C. 4149, he has deposed that he has also accompanied with Pw.3- Byra at the time of searching the accused persons on 26-07- 2013. He has also deposed about searching and taking custody of accused No.2, produced before the SHO in the station and given statement. On 03-08-2013 he accompanied with the Police Inspector-Nanjunde Gowda to execute search warrant in 32 Spl.C.C.449/2014 the house of accused No.1 along with Panch witnesses-Kiran and Raju, seized MO1 to MO13 and documents as per Ex.P9 to Ex.P25 under seizure mahazar Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(b). In the cross-examination, the accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by them. Here Ex.P9 to Ex.P25 are the documents pertaining to 'Peace House' and the box containing 40 CDs, not pertains to the alleged sexual acts of the accused No.1 with the victim girl.
41. By going through the evidence of Pw.8- Narasimhaiah, A.S.I., he has deposed about he accompanying with Police Inspector-Nanjunde Gowda on 03-08-2013 for execution of search warrant and also seizing of articles-MO1 to MO13 at the house of accused No.1 under seizure mahazar as per Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(c). The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by them. At this stage, the evidence of this witness who is police personnel is formal in nature.
33 Spl.C.C.449/2014
42. By going through the evidence of Pw.18-Kiran, one of the independent Panch witness, he has deposed that his signature is Ex.P7(e), he has signed the same on 03-08-2013 in the first floor of Ramaiah Residency Apartment, Kacharakana Halli and also seized MO1 to MO13 before him. In the cross- examination, the accused persons tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also he has shown his ignorance at that time as to how many persons accompanied to execute the search warrant, he has also admitted no such written notice given to him to participate in search warrant. No doubt it is true he has supported to the case of prosecution, but at the same time the person who broke open the lock is not examined by the prosecution, unless and until produces corroborative evidence, it is not safe to accept the seizing of articles-MO1 to MO13. Further the articles-MO1 to MO13 not discloses about causing of sexual abuse by the accused No.1 on the victim girl.
43. By going through the evidence of Pw.19-Kumar- another Panch witness, he has deposed that Ex.P7(f) is his 34 Spl.C.C.449/2014 signature, but his evidence is that he doesn't know anything about the contents of Ex.P7, he has not read out the contents of Ex.P7 and the police also not stated anything about the contents of Ex.P7, since he doesn't know to read and write of Kannada. The police also not seized any C.D., cassette and other electronic cassettes before him, since he turned hostile to the case of prosecution, the prosecution suggested each and every word of Ex.P7 and seizing of MO1 to MO13, for that he has denied the same. Through the evidence of this witness, the prosecution fails to establish the process of conducting seizure mahazar as per Ex.P7 by executing search warrant. Here it is relevant to note, no such search warrant produced by the prosecution and exhibited the same. While summoning Panch witnesses, the police have not issued notice to them, the Panch witnesses also fails to depose about searching the place.
44. Now left with the other circumstantial witnesses evidence regarding alleged incident and other evidence produced by prosecution. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-B.M.Dwarakanath-Assistant Engineer-PWD, he has prepared sketch of the incident place as per Ex.P3 and his 35 Spl.C.C.449/2014 signature is Ex.P3(a). In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not mentioned the boundaries of the spot in the sketch and also not mentioned the date on which he has given the same to the police.
45. On perusal of Ex.P3 it is very clear the Engineer mentioned the spot, but at the same time no such survey number, site number or the address of the said place mentioned, except mentioning of HBR Road-Chikka Gubbi Road, Key plan. At this stage, it is not safe to accept the said sketch pertains to the alleged incident spot.
46. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Suresh Kumar, alleged to have been the driver of accused No.1 since 1999 to 2009. He has deposed that in 'Peace House' girls were admitted and the accused No.1 was looking after said 'Peace House'. The said 'Peace House' was started during the year 1996, there were 35 to 40 children maintained in the said 'Peace House'. Further he has deposed that they have also provided food, clothing and shelter to the children and said 'Peace House' was also having 'Peace Hospital' at Bagalur to 36 Spl.C.C.449/2014 provide medical treatment to the children of said house, in that hospital one female and two gents doctors were available for giving treatment with 3-4 nurses. In front of said Ashram, there a Government School and all the children of said Ashram were studying in that school. Further he has also deposed supporting the case of prosecution in his chief examination, but at the same time having knowledge of alleged incident and he has not taken any steps to lodge complaint against accused No.1 and 2.
47. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 and 2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that after coming to know about the alleged act of the accused No.1, in and around the public started to talk about the alleged act of the accused No.1 and he has not advised the accused No.1 to stop the said activity, nor he sent the children to their respective houses. He has also admitted that he has not stated anything about the same with the parents of the children. It is his evidence that the accused No.2 was not working in 'Peace House', but he was working at Kammanna Halli Trust, but occasionally he used to 37 Spl.C.C.449/2014 come to Ashram to supply vegetables and for bank work. Further he has admitted that he has not personally seen the accused No.2 doing videograph or video camera alleged to have been fixed by the accused No.2 in the Ashram.
48. He has also admitted that:
"C°èzÀÝ ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ Hl, §mÉÖ ªÀåªÀ¸A ÉÜ iÀÄ£ÀÄß læ¸ïÖ£ÀªgÀ ÃÉ ªÀiÁrzÀg Ý ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁUÀ®Æj£À°z è ÝÀ ¦Ã¸ï D¸Àv à ÉæAiÀÄ°è PÉÆqÀÄwÛzgÀÝ ÀÄ."
Further he has admitted that:
"D læ¸ïÖ£À°è DAiÀiÁUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀg Ý ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÄÀ ß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀî®Ä, HlPÉÌ CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä J¯Áè PÉ®¸ÀU¼ À £ À ÄÀ ß CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Again he has also admitted that:
"C£ÁxÀ ªÀÄ̽UÉ CªÀgz À ÃÉ DzÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ PÉÆoÀr EzÀÄÝ C°è DAiÀiÁUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀg£À ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwz Û g ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. §É¼U À ÎÉ D ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ ¸ÁߣÀ ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, §mÉÖ vÉÆr¸ÀĪÀ PÉ®¸Àª£ À ÀÄß DAiÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
It is also admitted that:
"D ªÀÄPÀ̼À vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D D±ÀæªÀÄPÉÌ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä §AzÀĺÉÄÁÃV ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzgÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said admission is taken into consideration and in view of non-examination of said Ayya by the prosecution, there is a doubt of commission of offence by the accused No.1 38 Spl.C.C.449/2014 as per the complaint of the victim girl. He has also deposed that:
"D ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £À£Àß §½ DgÉÆæ-1 ªÀÄPÀ̼À §UÉÎ C¸À¨Àså jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀwð¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄzÝ £ ÀÝ ÀÄß ºÉýzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1gÀªg À À §½ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ-1gÀªÀgÀ §½ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£U À ÁåªÀÅzÉà C¨ÀsåAvÀgÀ EgÀ°®è." "
It is his evidence that:
"DgÉÆæ-1 ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ C¸À¨ÀsåªÁV ªÀwð¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝÄzÀg Ý À §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ DPÉAiÀÄ CAUÁAUÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ªÀÄÄlÄÖwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÉÄà £À£Àß §½ ºÉýgÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ. F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
If really the said incident happened, having knowledge of the alleged incident, there is a doubt as to why he has not taken any steps against accused No.1 and 2 at that time itself. At the same time there is a doubt of commission of alleged offences by the accused No.1 and 2 against the victim girl and that benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused No.1 and 2.
49. Further he has admitted that he has received Rs.5 Lakhs from the accused No.1 at the time of leaving the job of car driver. If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, there is doubt about the conduct of accused No.1 as stated by this witness in his chief examination. If really the accused No.1 39 Spl.C.C.449/2014 was having such type of conduct, there is a doubt as to why he has not told all these years and not taken any action in support of the victim girl, if rally he heard about the alleged act of accused No.1 on the victim girl from her from 1996 to 2006.
50. Now left with the available evidence of Pw.5-Hary Benedit, the purchaser of 'Peace House' during the year 2008, at this stage the evidence of this witness is a formal one. No such evidence available in support of prosecution case through the evidence of this witness.
51. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-Bruceli, the husband of victim girl, he has deposed that he worked as mason during the year 2009 for seven years. The accused No.1 was the owner of said building. He worked under one Venkatesh, while he was working he came in contact with the victim girl, thereafter he married her and started to reside separately at some other place, except that he doesn't know about the alleged incident, he doesn't know about the whereabouts of his wife since 7 years, on the date of giving evidence by him, he has seen her near the Court and about 40 Spl.C.C.449/2014 seven years back she deserted him and left the matrimonial house, but return only once. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every word of Ex.P27, for that he has denied the same, his definite answer is that he doesn't know anything about the alleged incident and he has not given the said statement. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that this witness being husband of the victim girl, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and the prosecution fails to prove the alleged evidence through this witness beyond all reasonable doubt.
52. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-Muniyappa, he has deposed that he know the accused No.2 since from 15 years, he doesn't know what case filed against him, at no point of time the police called upon him to the station, the police have not conducted any mahazar before him and not seized any documents, Ex.P32(a) to Ex.P32(c) are his signature, but he doesn't know what had written in Ex.P32, he has signed the same near the house of accused No.2, i.e., Church of Goolya but when he signed the same, the police not read out the contents of Ex.P32. He has not given any statement before 41 Spl.C.C.449/2014 police. He know Basave Gowda, son of Kale Gowda. Since this witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, the prosecution suggested each and every word of Ex.P32, for that he has denied the same. Through the evidence of this witness, the prosecution fails to establish the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P32 beyond all reasonable doubt.
53. By going through the evidence of Pw.11-John Peter, he has deposed that about 4 years back, the police summoned him near the house of accused No.2, obtained his signature on Ex.P30 as Ex.P30(a) and Ex.P30(b), but he doesn't know what was written in Ex.P30, the police not conducted any mahazar before him near the house of accused No.2 and he has not given any statement before police. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every word of Ex.P31 and also contents of Ex.p30, for that he has denied the same. Through the evidence of this witness, the prosecution fails to establish the alleged process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P30 and statement given by him as per Ex.P31 beyond all reasonable doubt.
42 Spl.C.C.449/2014
54. By going through the evidence of Pw.13-Manjunath, he has deposed that Ex.P30(c) and Ex.P30(d) are his signatures, but he doesn't know anything about the contents of Ex.P30, the police have not read out anything of Ex.P30. He doesn't know what case filed against accused No.1 and 2. About 7-8 years back in Goolya Village he has signed Ex.P30, when he was working in the field and he has not given any statement before police. This witness also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The prosecution suggested each and every word of Ex.P33 and Ex.P30, for that he has denied the same. Through this witness also, the prosecution fails to establish the alleged process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P30 and statement given as per Ex.P33 beyond all reasonable doubt.
55. By going through the evidence of Pw.14-Basave Gowda, he has deposed that he know the accused No.2 since 10 years, but he doesn't know the accused No.1, he doesn't know what case filed against accused No.2, the police called upon him to the station, but no such steps taken in respect of anything, Ex.P32(d) and Ex.P32(f) are his signatures, but the police have not seized anything before him in the Church of Goolya Village-
43 Spl.C.C.449/2014 the house of accused No.2. He doesn't know the contents of Ex.P32, the police also not read out the same. He has not made any statement before police. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every word of Ex.P34 and Ex.P32, for that he has denied the same. Through the evidence of this witness also, the prosecution fails to establish the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P32 beyond all reasonable doubt and given statement as per Ex.P34.
56. By going through the evidence of Pw.16-Madan, he has also deposed that Ex.P8(c) is his signature, but he cannot say when and where he has signed the same, at no point of time Kathnur police called upon him and obtained his signature. On 18-07-2013 the police summoned him to Byrathi Bande that means he was summoned to the station, but he was not taken to any where, he doesn't know what had written in Ex.P8, the police also not read out the contents of Ex.P8 at the time of obtaining his signature. The police have not given any notice to him. He has seen the accused No.1 and 2 earlier. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of 44 Spl.C.C.449/2014 prosecution in respect of conducting process of mahazar at 'Peace House' alleged to have been shown by the complainant and the mahazar as per Ex.P8 was conducted there itself from 10.30 a.m., to 11.30 a.m., for that he has denied the same. Through this witness the prosecution fails to establish the process of conducting mahazar beyond all reasonable doubt.
57. By going through the evidence of Pw.17-Vishwanath, he has deposed that Ex.P8(d) and Ex.P8(e) are his signatures, he has made said signature on 18-07-2013 in Kothnur 'Peace House', at that time Cw.24 came and conducted mahazar and Cw.3-Madan was also present and after reading the contents of Ex.P8, he has signed the same. No doubt it is true this witness has supported the conducting of mahazar as per Ex.P8 by the Investigation Officer, in the cross examination the accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.1 and 2. When the complaint lodged by the victim girl causing delay and the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2, through other material corroborative and cogent medical 45 Spl.C.C.449/2014 evidence, at this stage this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
58. Now left with the available material evidence of Pw.10-K.Nanjunde Gowda-Investigation Officer. By going through the evidence of Pw.10, he has deposed that he has received record from P.S.I-Byra on 17-07-2013, summoned two Panchas viz., Vishwanath and Madan to the police station on 18-07-2013. Thereafter the complainant taken them to the incident spot and he has conducted mahazar as per Ex.P8, whereas the said Madan and Vishwanath examined as Pw.16 and Pw.17, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and not supported to the process of conducting mahazar by this witness on 18-07-2013 at the spot alleged to have been shown by the complainant. He has also recorded re-statement of the victim girl, sent her for medical check up through escort of Cw.18- Soubhagyamma to Dr.Ambedkar Medical College & Hospital, thereafter he has recorded statement of Sowbhagyamma, but Cw.18 not stepped into the witness box to give her evidence. On 24-07-2013 P.S.I-Byra and other police personnel brought the accused No.2 and produced before him, he has arrested him 46 Spl.C.C.449/2014 and recorded his voluntary statement, thereafter he has sent the accused No.2 for medical checkup. He has also recorded statement of H.C.Putteerappa, Constables-Nataraj and Tejendra. He has also produced the accused No.2 before the Court on 27-07-2013 and taken him to police custody.
59. Further he has deposed that he has recorded statement of Murali-the husband of victim girl on 28-07-2013, but he turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He has also sent the accused No.2 along with escort of Byra and other police personnel with Panchas, in which the accused No.2 stated that he was ready to show the articles viz., videos and C.D., but no such videos and C.C. were recovered by the police through the accused No.2 and thereafter he has produced the accused No.2 before the Court on 30-07-2013. He has recorded statement of Suresh Kumar on 01-08-2013 and obtained warrant search warrant on 03-08-2013 to search the house of accused No.1, accordingly he summoned Kumar and Kiran as Panch witnesses to the house of accused No.1, broke open the lock of said house and seized Registers, C.Ds and other articles by conducting mahazar as per Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(d). The said 47 Spl.C.C.449/2014 documents are marked at Ex.P9 to Ex.P25 and material objects are at MO1 to MO13. Here the Panch witnesses-Kumar examined as Pw.19 not supported to the case of prosecution and turned hostile, whereas Pw.18-Kiran he has deposed in respect of process of conducting mahazar, but at his cross- examination he has shown his ignorance about the contents of Ex.P7 and also admitted except seeing of computer system and C.Ds, he has not seen any other articles. At the same time he has not whispered about the C.Ds pertaining to recording of sexual acts alleged to have been done by the accused No.1. Here it is relevant to note when Pw.10 seized articles, but no such evidence produced by the prosecution to believe there itself the seizure was conducted by this witness in accordance with law by obtaining signatures of the Panchas on the slips and sealed the same through white cloth.
60. At this stage, it is worth while to emphasize on the decision reported in 2016(3) AKR 561- wherein it is pertinent to observe that:
"Evidence Act, Ss.3, 24-Circumstantial evidence- Recovery of gold ornaments of deceased at instance of accused-No proper slips containing signature of police as 48 Spl.C.C.449/2014 well as Panchyathdars affixed on material objects seized- Process of seizure being improper, can led to inference that material objects were planted by prosecution to suit purpose of case-Moreover, though it was prosecution case that face and neck of deceased were crushed by throwing stone on face of deceased however, no bloodstains found on seized ornaments-Also non-mention in mahazar as to weighing and valuing of seized ornaments on spot itself- Circumstance of recovery, not reliable.
Though the facts and circumstances of the above case decision and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one, but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable to the present case on hand.
61. Further Pw.10 also deposed that he has entrusted the work of tracing out of the accused No.1 to P.S.I., and other police personnel by issuing lookout notice, accordingly they have traced the accused No.1, brought him to the station and produced before him. He has also recorded the statement of P.S.I. Byra and other police personnel in respect of enquire made in the house of parents of accused No.2 at R.T. Nagar and thereafter he has handed over the case file to Keshav Murthy, for further investigation.
62. In the cross-examination the accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some 49 Spl.C.C.449/2014 commission and omission and also elicited that he has not summoned the local persons and neighbours at the time of executing search warrant, he has also not drafted the rough sketch of the place where the search warrant was executed and no such sketch produced along with the charge sheet. He has also admitted that he has not mentioned about sealing of MO1 to MO13 in mahazar-Ex.P13 and also not obtained the signature of Panch witnesses on the slips affixed to MO1 to Mo13. At this stage, this Court opines in view of non-producing of corroborative and co-gent material witness evidence against accused No.1 and 2 and also there is delay in lodging of complaint by the victim girl and also no sufficient reasons given by her for causing delay in lodging the complaint, even the prosecution not establishes that she was sexually abused during her stay in the Ashram through the medical evidence and other eye-witnesses evidence. At this stage, the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
63. By going through the evidence of Pw.15- P.Muralidhar-Police Inspector, he has also deposed that as per the direction of Police Commissioner, he has received record on 50 Spl.C.C.449/2014 03-12-2013 from Keshava Murthy and conducted further investigation. On 06-12-2013 he has recorded further statement of the victim girl and also entrusted police personnel to trace out the accused No.1. He has also recorded re- statement of Suresh Kumar on 25-02-2014. On 20-07-2014 he has arrested the accused No.1, made him subject medical check up at Ambedkar Hospital and produced the accused No.1 before the Court along with remand application. He has also recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1 and entrusted the work of preparing the sketch of the incident spot to P.W.D-A.E.E., on 21-07-2014. He has received the medical records of the accused No.1 on 30-07-2014 as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(c). He has also received Ex.P3-spot sketch from A.E.E., on 02-08- 2014 and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2.
64. In the cross-examination, the accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and also elicited some commission and omission and he has also admitted that while preparing Ex.P3, no boundaries of the spot mentioned and also there is no description of the building. At this stage, the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
51 Spl.C.C.449/2014
65. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to establish the defense of the accused No.1 and 2 they have produced the evidence of Dw.1-Usah, wherein she has deposed in support of the defense taken by the accused No.1 and 2 with regard to the Ashram and she was also one of the inmates of the hostel and she joined the said Ashram during 1996-07. She has also deposed in respect of providing education, food, clothing and shelter to the Ashram children by the accused No.1. At no point of time, the accused No.1 done bathing to the children in the Ashram. She has also deposed that one Jayasheela forced her to give statement against accused No.1 stating that he has sexually abused her, for that she has refused.
66. The prosecution tested the veracity of evidence of this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the case of prosecution. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that the evidence of Dw.1 is also a formal one 52 Spl.C.C.449/2014 with regard to the defense taken by the accused No.1 and 2 and this Court opined the defense of accused No.1 and 2 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablise the defense of the accused No.1 and 2 rather than the case of the prosecution.
67. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.19 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P34 and MO1 to MO13, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that The accused No.1 running Ashram in No.77, Byrathi Bande in the name and style of 'Peace House'. The victim girl-Cw.1 joined the said Ashram in the year 1996 for her food, clothing and shelter. The accused No.2 is the worker of said Ashram. When the complainant was aged about 10 years, at that time the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and the said act was videographed by the accused No.2. The accused No.2 has also further threatened the victim girl not to disclose about the videos taken by him to anybody with dire consequences and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 376(2)(d),(f),(g), 53 Spl.C.C.449/2014 292 and 506 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.1 to 3 in the "Negative".
68. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, 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 acquitted for the offences punishable under section 376(2)(d),(f),(g), 292 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
Office directed to return MO1, MO2, MO5 to MO13 to the accused No.1 after appeal period is over and if appeal is preferred, after disposal of the appeal and as per the result of said appeal.
MO3 and MO4 are treated as worthless. Office is directed to destroy the same after appeal period is over and if appeal is preferred, after disposal of the appeal and as per the result of said appeal.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is 54 Spl.C.C.449/2014 then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th Day of January, 2019.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 B.M.Nagaraj Cw.22 14-12-2015 Pw.2 B.M.Dwarakanath Cw.21 14-12-2015 Pw.3 Byra Cw.23 13-01-2016 Pw.4 Manju Cw.1 03-03-2016 Pw.5 Haribenet Cw.4 03-03-2016 Pw.6 Suresh Kumar Cw.10 04-03-2016 Pw.7 Tejendra Cw.15 15-12-2016 Pw.8 Narasimhaiah Cw.16 15-12-2016 Pw.9 Brusly Cw.9 15-12-2016 Pw.10 K.Nanjunde Gowda Cw.24 08-02-2017 Pw.11 John Peter Cw.8 17-08-2017 Pw.12 Muniyappa Cw.6 17-08-2017 Pw.13 Manjunath Cw.7 12-09-2017 Pw.14 Basave Gowda Cw.5 12-09-2017 Pw.15 P.Muralidhar Cw.25 22-01-2018 Pw.16 Madan Cw.3 21-03-2018 Pw.17 Vishwanath Cw.2 16-04-2018 Pw.18 Kiran Cw.11 16-04-2018 55 Spl.C.C.449/2014 Pw.19 Kumar Cw.19 26-07-2018 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Medical report of Pw.1 14-12-2015 victim Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 14-12-2015 Ex.P 1b Signature of victim Pw.1 14-12-2015 Ex.P 2 Medical report of A-1 Pw.1 14-12-2015 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 14-12-2015 Ex.P 2b Signature of A-1 Pw.1 14-12-2015 Ex.P 2c Signature of Pw.15 Pw.15 22-01-2018 Ex.P 3 Spot sketch Pw.2 14-12-2015 Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 14-12-2015 Ex.P 4 Compliant Pw.3 13-01-2016 Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 13-01-2016 Ex.P 5 FIR Pw.3 13-01-2016 Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 13-01-2016 Ex.P 6 Report Pw.3 13-01-2016 Ex.P 6a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 13-01-2016 Ex.P 7 Mahazar Pw.3 13-01-2016 Ex.P 7a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 13-01-2016 Ex.P 7b Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 7d Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 08-02-2017 Ex.P 7e Signature of Pw.18 Pw.18 16-04-2017 Ex.P 7f Signature of Pw.19 Pw.19 26-07-2018 Ex.P 8 Mahazar Pw.10 08-02-2017 Ex.P 8b Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 08-02-2017 56 Spl.C.C.449/2014 Ex.P 8d, 8e Signatures of Pw.17 Pw.17 16-04-2018 Ex.P 9 India Peace Pw.7 15-12-2016 Charitable & Fees Book Ex.P 10 Attendance register Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 11 Salary register Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 12 Salary book Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 13 Social Workers book Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 14 Honorarium register Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 15 Church Offering Pw.7 15-12-2016 subscription file Ex.P 16 Absolute sale deed Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 17 Lease agreement Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 18 Bogi Jiggu George Pw.7 15-12-2016 Book Ex.P 19 Agreement of sale Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 20 SBI Pass book Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 21 Honorarium for the Pw.7 15-12-2016 month April-02 Ex.P 22 Charitable trust Pw.7 15-12-2016 receipt book Ex.P 23 Register book Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 24 Land Receipt book Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 25 Book Pw.7 15-12-2016 Ex.P 26 Malupatti Pw.8 15-12-2016 Ex.P 27 Statement of Pw.9 Pw.9 15-12-2016 Ex.P 28 Search warrant Pw.10 08-02-2017 Ex.P 29 Report of Pw.3 Pw.10 08-02-2017 Ex.P 29a Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 08-02-2017 Ex.P 30 Seizure mahazar Pw.11 17-08-2017 57 Spl.C.C.449/2014 Ex.P 30a, Signatures of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-08-2017 30b Ex.P 30c, Signatures of Pw.13 Pw.13 12-09-2017 30d Ex.P 31 Statement of Pw.11 Pw.11 17-08-2017 Ex.P 32 Seizure mahazar Pw.12 17-08-2017 Ex.P 32a to Signatures of Pw.12 Pw.12 17-08-2017 32c Ex.P 32d, to Signatures of Pw.14 Pw.14 23-09-2017 32f Ex.P 33 Statement of Pw.13 Pw.13 12-09-2017 Ex.P 34 Statement of Pw.14 Pw.14 23-09-2017 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION MO1 Sony C.P.U. Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO2 Samsung Monitor Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO3 C.D. Box containing 40 Pw.7 15-12-2016 CDs MO4 One C.D Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO5 Samsung Xerox Camera Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO6 Olympus Camera Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO7 Photos & Album Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO8 One big Album Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO9 Peace Charitable Trust Pw.7 15-12-2016 Seal MO10 India Theological Seal Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO11 Mr. John Monk Seal Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO12 Seal Pw.7 15-12-2016 MO13 Seal Pw.7 15-12-2016 58 Spl.C.C.449/2014 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Dw.1 Usha 28-11-2018 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE