Bangalore District Court
State By Byatarayanapura Police vs Naseer @ Suresh on 30 January, 2018
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2018
Present: SMT.YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO., B.Com. LL.B.[Spl.]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55]
SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SPL CC NO.210/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Byatarayanapura Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Naseer @ Suresh,
Son of Madappa,
Aged 20 years,
Residing at: In front of Spandana Hospital,
Near Laggere Bridge, Behind Shaniswara
Temple, Laggere,
Bangalore.
[By Advocate Sri. T.Sateesha]
1. Date of commission of offence From 3.9.2014 to 4.9.2014
2. Date of report of occurrence of 4.9.2014
the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 07.09.2014
4. Date of release of accused [bail] 10.11.2014
5. Period undergone in custody by 3 Days and 2 Months
the accused
2 Spl CC No.210/2015
6. Date of commencement of 29.3.2016
evidence
7. Date of closing of evidence 12.1.2018
8. Name of the complainant Smt.Laxmi, complainant as well
as the mother of the victim girl
9. Offences complained of Secs. 366 and 376 of IPC and
under Sec.4 of POCSO Act,
[as per the charge-sheet]
2012
10. Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, of Byataryanapura police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 366 and 376 of IPC and under Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
The accused has kidnapped the victim girl/CW2 who was aged about 17 years who was resident of the house residing with her mother CW1 and was studying in I Year PUC and her brother CW9 was doing painting work and the accused was having acquaintance with CW9 and he used to go to the house of CW1 and whenever the victim girl/CW2 was alone in the house, the accused used to talk with her and took her to hotels and also 3 Spl CC No.210/2015 induced her of marriage and on 3.9.2014 at about 10.30 A.M., by inducing the victim girl knowingly that she was minor and she could be compelled for marriage and seduce her for illicit intercourse, kidnapped her [victim girl] from her house bearing No.48/59, situated at 2nd Main, 19th Cross Road, Near Kabalamma Temple, Bapujinagar, Bangalore and took her to Hosur, Tamil Nadu and forcibly married her by tying Mangala Sutra to her neck in Anjaneya Temple on 4.9.2014 and brought her back to Bangalore and kept her [victim girl] in his house near Laggere Bridge, Behind Shanishwara Temple, In front of Spandana Hospital, Bangalore and had sex with her forcibly from 4.9.2014 to 7.9.2014 and thereby committed the offence. Initially on the basis of the missing complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.314/2014 for the offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC and after securing the victim girl and the accused and on the basis of the statement given by the victim girl regarding the incident, the Investigating Officer has added the provisions of Secs.366 and 376 of IPC and Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and proceeded with for investigation and arrested the accused and after collecting the materials filed charge-sheet against the accused. Cognizance was taken. The accused was granted with bail.
3. Initially this case was made over to this court CCH:55. As per the Notification, No. ADM-I (A)/ 614/2017, of the Office of the city Civil Court, Bengaluru, dated:4.8.2017 with effect from the afternoon of 5.8.2017, now, the case is before this Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District, for disposal.
4 Spl CC No.210/20154. The accused who is on bail, is represented by the counsel of his choice. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution papers [charge-sheet] was furnished to the counsel on behalf of the accused in-compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this court has framed the Charge and read over to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
6. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 and 11 witnesses, out of total 26 charge-sheet witnesses and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P17 documents and Material Objects at MOs-1 to 3. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C of the accused has been recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence available against him, but, he has not adduced his defence evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel. Perused the oral and documentary evidence and the record on hand. The Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet, but, the contents of the complaint and materials collected by the Investigating Officer do attract the provisions of Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012, as it is alleged that the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl repeatedly. Even the Charge was farmed under 5 Spl CC No.210/2015 Sec.4 of POCSO Act, 2012. However the evidence led by the prosecution and the materials collected are certainly attracting Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thus, following Points are formulated for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 3.9.2014 at about 10.30 A.M., the accused kidnapped the victim girl/CW2 who was aged about 17 years from her house bearing No.48/59, situated at 2nd Main, 19th Cross Road, Near Kaballama Temple, Bapujinagar, Bangalore from her lawful guardianship, without consent of such guardian and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same date, time and place,, the accused had kidnapped CW2/victim girl knowingly that she was minor from her lawful guardian under the guise of love affairs with an intent that she may be compelled to marriage and seduce her to illicit intercourse with the accused and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused on the same date, time and place kidnapped CW2/victim girl and took her to Anjaneya Temple, Hosur, Tamilnadu on 4.9.2014 and tied Thali and got marriage with her and brought her back to his house situated at, near Laggere Bridge, Behind Shanishwara Temple, In front of Spandana Hospital, Bengaluru and kept her in his house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly from 4.9.2014 to 7.9.2014, knowingly that she was minor and against her will 6 Spl CC No.210/2015 and thereby the accused has committed the offence coming within the purview of Sec.5(l) of POCSO Act, 2012 punishable under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Sec.376 of IPC?
4. What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 3: In the NEGATIVE Point No.4: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. POINTS-1 TO 3:- As these Points are inter-linked with each other, hence, they are taken up for common consideration to avoid repetition of facts. As because the initial burden is casted upon the prosecution, hence, the prosecution has to discharge the same by placing the evidence on record and after its discharge, in that regard, then only, the statutory presumption under Secs.29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012 can be raised and to be considered. Therefore, the evidence placed on record has to be weighed and appreciated whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with reference to the case made out against the accused that, "he has committed the offence of kidnap of the victim girl on 3.9.2014 at about 10.30 A.M., having acquaintance with the victim girl under the guise of love affairs and inducing her of marriage with an intent that, she could be compelled to have illicit intercourse with him, from her legal guardian without such content and took her to Hosur in Tamil Nadu on 4.9.2014 and forcibly married her by tying Mangala Sutra to her neck in Anjaneya swamy 7 Spl CC No.210/2015 Temple and brought her[victim girl] back to Bangalore and took her to his [accused] house situated near Laggere Bridge, Behind Shanishwara Temple, In front of Spandana Hospital, Bangalore and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly from 4.9.2014 to 7.9.2014".
10. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of PW1/complainant/mother of the victim girl [CW1]. She has specifically narrated the relationship with her with her daughter/victim girl and the incident that had occurred during the year 2014 and her daughter/victim girl was aged about 16 years and she was studying in Koppa i.e., the mother's place of PW1 and herself [PW1], her husband and her son were residing in Bangalore and during the holidays, the victim girl used to come to Bangalore. Her [PW1] husband was a carpenter and she [PW1] was going to household work and the victim girl also used to go with her for work and sometimes, she [victim girl] was residing in the house and both herself [PW1] and her husband were returning home in the evening. Her [PW1] son was also going to work and retuning back at home at 9-9.30 P.M. The accused used to have talks with the victim girl and showing interest in her and telling her that he would marry her [victim girl] and this fact was brought to the notice of her [PW1] husband, her in-laws and her parents. Hence, the victim girl was sent to her [PW1] mother's place at Koppa. The accused by getting informed about the address of Koppa, he did not stop contacting the victim girl at Koppa and was following her and torturing her of love affairs. Hence, the victim girl was 8 Spl CC No.210/2015 brought back to Bangalore and she [victim girl] was going with PW1 for work. During the incident date, as the victim girl was not feeling well, hence, she [PW1] left the victim girl in the house and at that time, the victim girl was alone in the house. At 4 P.M., when she[PW1] returned back to the house, the house was locked and the victim girl was not at home and the key was given by the victim girl to the neighbour telling that, she [victim girl] would be going for shopping, which was informed by the neighour to PW1. But, her [PW1] daughter/victim girl did not return back to the house. Inspite of search and getting suspicion against the accused, she[PW1] has filed a Complaint as per Ex.P1. After filing of the complaint, the police have visited her [PW1] house and conducted Spot Mahazar as per Ex.P2. She [PW1] further deposed that, the police informed her [PW1] after 3 days that, they have traced out the accused and the victim girl and she [PW1] went to the police station and on enquiry, the victim girl told that, the accused forced her of love affairs with him and assurance of marriage, inspite of her refusal, by threatening that, he would die if the victim girl did not come with him, she went with him and the accused kept her in his brother's house etc. Thus, the complainant deposed on 29.3.2016. Thereafter the case was posted for further chief examination on 15.9.2017. This complainant-PW1 further deposed that, complaint was lodged. The police brought the victim girl from the house of the brother of the accused. The victim girl did not tell anything. The victim girl told that the accused done nothing on her person.
9 Spl CC No.210/201511. Therefore, this [PW1] witness is considered as hostile witness on seeking permission by the learned Public Prosecutor in that regard. During the cross-examination, what is revealed is that, she [PW1] denied the statement given by her before the police on 8.9.2014 and therefore, she fully turned hostile to the prosecution case stating that, on getting informed about the securing of the victim girl and the accused on 7.9.2014, she [PW1] enquired the victim girl on 8.9.2014. She [PW1] has specifically denied that, the victim girl told that, she had acquaintance with the accused and during the holidays and when nobody else were in her house, both [victim girl and the accused] of them were talking to each other in the house and the accused inducing her of love affairs and under the guise of marriage, took her to Hosur etc. But, this [PW1] witness has specifically stated that, the accused got marriage with another lady and there is no marriage taken place between the victim girl and the accused and they [PW1 and the victim girl] shall be set free from this case. She [PW1] has further denied the suggestion put to her that, "the accused had kidnapped the victim girl and induced her of marriage with an intent that she may be compelled to illicit intercourse and took her to Hosur and got marriage with the victim girl by tying Mangala Sutra to her neck and brought her back to Bangalore and kept her in his house and committed rape on her" etc. Thus, though she [PW1] has stated the love affairs between the victim girl and the accused and the acquaintance with the accused by the victim girl, she [PW1] has totally turned hostile to the prosecution case regarding the kidnap of the victim girl by the accused, and committing of rape on her as contended, in the statement given by her [PW1] before the 10 Spl CC No.210/2015 complainant police, as per Ex.P3. Thus, she [PW1] did not support the case of the prosecution to link the accused wit the alleged offences.
12. PW2 [CW2] is none other than the victim girl herself. She too also turned hostile to the prosecution case, though she has stated the acquaintance with the accused as the accused was residing nearby her parents house and during the year 2014, she was studying in 2nd PUC and when she came over to her parents house in Bangalore during the holidays and stayed for few days, then she [PW2] went to her grandmother's house, without informing it to her parents. She [PW2] further stated that, her mother lodged a missing complaint in that regard and she came to know of it, through her friend and she came to the police station the police had called her [PW2] parents and the accused to the police station and on enquiry, she [PW2] narrated these facts. She [PW2] was taken to the hospital for medical check up and the doctor took her clothes and thereafter she [PW2] was taken to the Learned Magistrate for recording of her statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C, which is at Ex.P4. She has denied that, the accused did not kidnap her nor he had marriage with her nor he had physical contact with her. Therefore, on seeking permission, the prosecution declared her as hostile witness. On getting declared her [PW2] as hostile witness, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to bring on record the admission regarding the alleged incident of "committing of offence of kidnap by the accused, with an intent to seduce her [PW2] for illicit intercourse and took her to Hosur and got marriage with her and brought her to Bangalore and kept her in his 11 Spl CC No.210/2015 house and committed rape on her". But, PW2/victim girl has totally denied the suggestions put to her and stated that, the accused did not commit any illegal act on her, muchless the alleged offence on her person. Even she [PW2] has denied the contents of the statement which she has given before the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P5. She [PW2] has stated that, she does not remember what had been stated by her before the Learned Magistrate. Thus, PW2 has totally turned hostile to the prosecution case with regard to link the accused with the alleged offences.
13. PW9 [CW8] Siddappaji is the father of the victim girl has deposed about his relationship with his wife-CW1, his daughter/victim girl-CW2, his mother-CW9 and his son-CW9 and he also identified the accused. At the time of the incident, the age of the victim girl was about 17 years. During the year 2014, one day, he went out for work and his wife/CW1/PW1 called him on phone and intimated that, his daughter/victim girl was missing and he[PW9] intimated her [PW1] to search the victim girl and next date he returned back to the house after completing the work and CW1/PW1 told that, the accused has taken the victim girl and the victim girl was in the house of the accused and while enquiring about her such conduct, she told that, the accused took her by inducing her of marriage and CW1/PW1 filed a complaint. Thereafter, the police apprehended the accused and also secured the victim girl and sent the victim girl with them and the accused was kept in the police station. He [PW9] did not make enquiry with his daughter/victim girl why she went out of the house and whether the accused has done anything against her. Therefore, 12 Spl CC No.210/2015 the learned Public Prosecutor has sought permission to treat this witness as partly hostile and accordingly granted. He [PW9] has denied the suggestion put to him that, the accused had kidnapped his daughter/victim girl and took her to Hosur in Tamil Nadu and got marriage with her by tying Thali and brought back the victim girl to Bengaluru and kept in his house near Laggere Bride, Near Shanishwara Temple, in front of Spandana Hospital from 4.9.2014 to 7.9.2014 and committed sexual assault on her. Thus, this witness [PW9] has not supported the case of the prosecution to link the accused with the alleged offence.
14. PW10[ CW9] Madhu, brother of the victim girl has deposed about his relationship with the victim girl as his sister, CW8 as his father and CW1 as his mother. During the year the victim girl was about 17 years and she was going to the college at Maddur. During her holidays, the victim girl used to come to Bengaluru to his house. He [PW10] has seen the accused and he also identified the accused in the court. Prior to 20 days back, the accused had told him [PW10] that he is loving the victim girl. He [PW10] informed the said fact to his parents, he and his parents though that the accused was joking and kept quite, at that time, the victim girl was studying in Koppa and she had come to their [PW10] house for holidays and stayed for 2 to 3 days. One day when he[PW10] was on duty, at about 3 to 3.30 p.m., he received a phone call from PW1 that the victim girl was not in the house and she searched for her. He [PW10] telephoned to the friends of the victim girl. When he [PW10] enquired in his house with PW1, PW1 told that, as the victim girl was not feeling well, she stayed back at 13 Spl CC No.210/2015 home and she [PW1] alone went to the work. Thereafter the victim girl locked the house and told one Tabsum that she [victim girl] is going to the work place of PW1 and given the key and went out. He [PW10] enquired with his relatives and friends, but, her [victim girl] whereabouts not known. He searched for the accused, but, the accused was also not found. So, he [PW10] suspected that, the accused might have kidnapped his sister/victim girl and accordingly, he has given his statement. After 2 to 3 days after lodging the complaint, the police called and told that victim girl was found and they [PW10 and his family members] went to the police station and there in the police station, the victim girl and the accused were present. There in the police station, the victim girl told that, she has committed the mistake and that she will not do such mistake in the future. Later the victim girl was brought back to her house. Except this, he [PW10] does not know anything. During the course of his cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, he has denied that, he has not seen the accused and the victim girl talking to each other and on which date, the accused told him [PW10] that he is loving the victim girl and he is deposing falsely at the instance of his [PW10] mother.
15. Now coming to the medical evidence, the prosecution has examined:
(a) PW3 [CW12] Dr.Pradeep Kumar.M.P., Assistant Professor, Victoria Hospital, Bangalore has deposed that, on 8.9.2014 as per the requisition of Sub-Inspector of Police of Byatarayanpura police station he [PW3] has examined the accused brought by the PC-9948 and CW19. On local genital examination, 14 Spl CC No.210/2015 his [accused] body was moderately built and nourished as per his age. The age of the accused was 20 years as per his statement.
He [PW3] opined that, there is nothing to suggest that the person is incapable of performing sexual intercourse and he gave Medical Certificate with reference to the accused as per Ex.P6.
(b) PW4[CW13] Dr.Malathi, Forensic Scientific Officer, FSL, Madiwala, Bangalore has deposed that, on 29.9.2014 she received 2 articles through her Assistant Director-CW14 for examination. She conducted the test and opined that:
(1) Presence of Seminal stain was not detected in item No.1 (2) Presence of spermatozoa was not detected in Article No.2.
Accordingly, she [PW4] gave her Report [FSL Report] as per Ex.P7 and the sample seal is at Ex.P8. She has not been cross-examined by the learned defence counsel. Hence, her cross- examination has not been rebutted.
16. Now, coming to the official witnesses, the prosecution has examined:
(a) PW5[CW20] Hanumaiah-Head Constable of Byatarayanapura police station, has deposed that, as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer, he along with CW19 on 8.9.2014 at about 12 P.M., took the accused to Victoria hospital for medical examination and after his examination, he [PW5] returned back to the police station along with the accused and produced him before the Investigating Officer and he identified the accused before the court stating that, he [PW5] had taken the 15 Spl CC No.210/2015 accused for medical examination. There is only formal denial that, the witness [PW5] had not taken the accused for medical examination nor he was appointed in that regard, which is being denied by this witness. It is the statutory duty performed by this witness [PW5] as per the directions of the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation. Much discussion is not necessary.
(b) PW6 [CW22] S.Nagaraju- Head constable of Byatarayanapura police station, has deposed that, he took 2 sealed articles with passport and requisition of the Investigating Officer to FSL for the opinion. His Passport is marked as Ex.P9, which is evidencing about his work shown as per the order of the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. There is only formal denial that, the witness [PW6] had not taken the 2 sealed articles to the FSL nor he was appointed in that regard, which is being denied by this witness. It is the statutory duty performed by this witness [PW6] as per the directions of the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation. Much discussion is not necessary.
(c) PW7[CW17] Mallikarjun-Police Constable of Byataryanapura police station and PW8 [CW18] Suma, WPC of Byatarayanapura police station have deposed that, on 7.9.2014 he [PW7] along with CWs-16 and 18 were deputed to trace out the victim girl and the accused and as per the information received, at about 6 P.M., in front of Spandana Hospital, near Laggere Bridge, behind the drainage, in a house, they traced out the accused and 16 Spl CC No.210/2015 the victim girl and he [PW7] took the custody of the accused and produced him before the Investigating Officer. Likewise, PW8 took the custody of the victim girl and produced her before the Investigating Officer. There is only formal denial that, the witnesses [PWs-7 and 8] had not apprehended the accused and eth victim girl nor they were appointed in that regard, which is being denied by these witnesses. It is the statutory duty performed by these witnesses [PWs-7 and 8] as per the directions of the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation. Much discussion is not necessary.
17. PW11[CW25] Lakshman.C, is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that, on 4.9.2014 the complainant lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 and FIR is marked as per Ex.P10. On the same day i.e, on 4.9.2014, he visited the house of the complainant and in the presence of pancahs-CWs-3 and 4, he drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and the complainant gave the identity card of her daughter/victim girl as per Ex.P12. On 5.9.2014 he recorded the statements of CWs-7 to 10. On 7.9.2014, he recorded the statement of CW-11 and on the same day, he deputed CWs-16 to 18 to trace out the accused and the victim girl and accordingly they traced out the accused and the victim girl from the house situated at, near Laggere Bridge, Spandana Hospital and apprehended the victim girl and the accused and produced them before him [PW11] and CW16 gave his report as per Ex.P13. He recorded the statements of CWs-17 and 18. Thereafter he recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and after complying the due procedure of arrest formalities, he arrested the 17 Spl CC No.210/2015 accused. On 8.9.2014, he called the panch witnesses CWs-5 and 6 and the accused took him [PW11] and CWs-5 and 6 to Tamil Nadu to Hosur, Anjaneyaswamy Temple, where he [accused] got marriage with the victim girl and on verifying the spot, he [PW11] conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P14. Thereafter, the accused took them [PW11 and CWs-5 and 6] to Nandini Layout to his house, where he had physical contact with the victim girl and by verifying the spot, he [PW11] conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P15 and returned back to the police station and recorded the statements of CWs-5 and 6. He [PW11] got marked the portion of the voluntary statement of the accused as Ex.P16. On the same day i.e., on 8.9.2014, he [PW11] sent the accused along with CWs- 19 and 20 to Victoria Hospital for medical examination and on the same day, he sent the victim girl along with WPC-CW21 to Vani Vilas Hospital for medical examination. On the same day i..e, on 8.9.2014, he [PW11] sent the victim girl for recording her evidence before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. He has identified the accused before the court. On 16.9.2014, CW21 gave his Report as per Ex.P17 regarding collecting of 2 sealed articles belonging to the victim girl from Vani Vilas Hospital. He[PW11] handed over the further investigation to CW26. Thus, PW11 has performed his statutory duty as Investigating Officer.
18. On perusal of the evidence of the very victim girl-PW2, she has totally turned hostile to the prosecution case regarding her kidnap and committing of sexual assault by the accused. Thus, she has not supported the case of the prosecution that, the accused had kidnapped her and committed sexual assault on her.
18 Spl CC No.210/201519. The victim girl's parents i.e., her mother and father [PW1 and PW9] and her brother [PW10] they have also turned hostile to the prosecution case, as they have not supported the allegations that, the accused kidnapped the victim girl under the guise of love affairs and promise of marriage and had physical contact with her during her minority.. Even about their statements given before the Investigating Officer and identification of the accused and their subsequent statements being not supported during the course of their evidence., it cannot be taken as proved case. Therefore, as these material witnesses [PWs-1, 2, 9 and 10] have not supported the prosecution case, hence, the issuance of witness summons and warrants to other charge-sheet witnesses have been dispensed with. Hence, no purpose would be served, their evidence has been dropped. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it is clear that, the prosecution witnesses [PWs-1, 2,9 and 10] have not supported the prosecution case and there is no clinching and cogent evidence to link the accused with the alleged crime. Thus, there is no evidence placed by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, by extending benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, POINTS-1 TO 3 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
20. The victim girl [PW2] has totally turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case that, the accused had kidnapped her and had committed sexual assault on her. Even the parents 19 Spl CC No.210/2015 and brother of the victim girl [PWs-1, 9 and 10] have also totally turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Hence, the victim girl is not entitled for any victim compensation, as provided under law.
21. POINT NO.4:- In the result, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 363 and 366 of IPC and under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Sec.376 of IPC.
His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
MO-1 i.e., CD is ordered to be annexed to Ex.P4. MOs-2 and 3 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereby corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2018] [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.20 Spl CC No.210/2015
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1 Lakshmi CW1 29.3.2016
Pw.2 Victim girl CW2 15.9.2017
PW.3 Dr.Pradeep Kumar.M.P CW12 24.10.2017
Pw.4 Malathi.D CW13 24.10.2017
Pw.5 Hanumaiah CW20 15.12.2017
PW.6 S.Nagaraju CW22 15.12.2017
PW.7 Mallikarjun CW17 15.12.2017
PW.8 Suma CW18 15.12.2017
PW.9 Siddappaji CW8 2.1.2018
PW.10 Madhu CW9 2.1.2018
PW.11 Lakshman.C CW25 12.1.2018
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint dated: 4.9.2014
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P2 Spot Panchanama conducted in the house of the
PW1
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P3 Statement of PW1 given before the complainant
police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C
Ex.P4 Statement of PW2/victim girl given before the
Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of cr.p.C 21 Spl CC No.210/2015 Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW2/victim girl Ex.P5 Statement of PW2/victim girl given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P6 Medical Certificate of the accused Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P7 FSL Report Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P8 Sample seal Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P9 Passport given to PW6 for taking the sealed articles to the FSL, Madiwala, Bangalore Ex.P10 FIR Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P11 Copy of Police Publication regarding missing of the victim girl/CW2 with her photo Ex.P12 Identification Card of Library of Balika Government PUC college, Koppa, Maddur Taluk, wherein CW2/victim girl was studying, showing the date of the birth of CW2/victim girl as 5.11.1997 Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P13 Report given by CW16-Head Constable of Byatarayanapura police station regarding tracing out the accused and the victim girl, apprehending them and producing them before the PSI of Byatarayanapura police station Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P13(b) Signature of CW16 22 Spl CC No.210/2015 Ex.P14 Spot panchanama conducted in Anjaneya Swamy Temple situated in Hosur, wherein the accused married the victim girl /CW2 Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P15 Panchanama conducted in the house of the accused wherein the alleged incident had taken place Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P16 Voluntary statement of the accused Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P16(b) Signature of the accused Ex.P17 Report given by Geetha-WPC- CW21 of Byatarayanaura police station for taking the sealed articles from Vani Vilas hospital with regard to the victim girl and producing the same before the PSI of Byatarayanapura police station Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P17(b) Signature of Geetha-CW21 Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
MO-1 CD of Ex.P4 MO-2 Vaginal swab MO-3 Vaginal smear
Witness examined, documents and MOs marked for the accused: NIL [YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.23 Spl CC No.210/2015
30.1.2018 Accused is present.
Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 363 and 366 of IPC and under Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Sec.376 of IPC.
His bail bond and surety bond stand
cancelled.
MO-1 i.e., CD is ordered to be annexed
to Ex.P4.
MOs-2 and 3 being worthless are
ordered to be destroyed after the appeal
period is over.
[YADAV VANAMALA ANANDRAO]]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.24 Spl CC No.210/2015