Bangalore District Court
State By vs John David Gifton on 5 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 5 th Day of December, 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.NO. 693/2016
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Upparpet Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED: 1. John David Gifton,
S/o Daniel,
26 years,
2. Daniel, 55 years, (Split up)
3. Gracelin (Split up)
W/o Daniel
aged about 49 years
4. Gladson
S/o Daniel
All are R/at No.326, AVM Nagar,
3rd Street, Urapakam,
Chennai, Tamilnadu.
(By Sri. J.K.R, Advocate)
2 S.C.NO. 693/2016
1. Date of commission of offence: 11-08-2015 to 25.10.2015
2. Date of report of occurrence : 22-02-2016
3. Date of commencement of : 27-10-2017
recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 28-10-2017
5. Name of the Complainant : Victim
6. Offences Complained of : Section 376, 420 of IPC.,
and Sec. 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are acquitted.
JU DG M E NT
A charge sheet is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Chickpet Sub-Division, Bengaluru against the accused
No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420
of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act).
2. Based on the first information statement lodged by
CW.1 Upparpet Police registered the case in Crime
No.72/2016 and sent FIR to the court. The Investigation
Officer after completion of investigation has filed the charge
sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the aforesaid offences
3 S.C.NO. 693/2016
directly before the designated Special Court. This case which
was pending before II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court and
Special Court at Bengaluru transferred to this court as per
Notification ADM I(A) 599/2017 dated 29.7.2017. In this case
accused No.2 and 3 remained abscond. Hence, case against
accused No.2 and 3 ordered to split up as per order dated
19.10.2019.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under: -
CW.1 complainant/victim belongs to Scheduled Caste.
Accused do not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. Accused No.1 and CW.1 came in contact with each
other through Shaadi.com. Accused No.1 proposed her for
marriage. Hence, CW.1 agreed for the same. That on
11.8.2015 accused took CW.1 from Majestic bus stand to the
Honnagiri Lodged situated at T.B. Road in the guise of
marriage talks. The accused No.1 booked Room No.102 in
the said lodge committed sexual assault by committing sexual
intercourse with CW.1 in the promise of marriage. That on
24.10.2015 accused who again came to Majestic asked CW.1
4 S.C.NO. 693/2016
to come to Majestic Honnagiri Lodge and booked the room the
lodge and committed sexual intercourse with her in the
promise of marriage. Thereafter also the accused No.1 who
had contact with CW.1 had continued sexual intercourse with
her in the promise of marriage. Thereafter accused No.1
started to avoid CW.1. That on 25.1.2016, CW.1 went to the
house of accused No.1 to 4 situated at Chennai on that day at
about 2 PM when CW.1 approached accused No.2 to 4 and
told them about love affair of accused No.1 with her at that
time accused No.2 to 4 abused her in the name of caste and
refused to give accused No.1 marriage with her. It is alleged
that the accused No.1 in the promise of marriage had sexual
intercourse with her and thereafter refused to marry her and
thereby accused No.1 deceived her. The accused No.2 to 4
abused her in the name of caste. Based on the first
information lodged by CW.1 on 22.2.2016, Upparpet police
registered the case in Crime No. 72/2016 and sent FIR to the
court. The Investigation Officer took up the investigation and
visited to the place of incident and conducted panchanama.
The Investigation Officer recorded the statement of the
5 S.C.NO. 693/2016
witnesses. The I.O., after collecting all materials on
completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet against
the accused No.1 to 4 for the aforesaid offences.
4. Accused No.1 and 4 are on bail. Charge sheet copies
furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s 207
of Cr.P.C., is duly complied with. In this case, accused No.2
and 3 remained abscond and hence the case against them
ordered to be split up.
5. On 16.11.2019 charges are framed against the
accused No.1 and 4 for the offences punishable u/s 376, 420
of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 7
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked the documents
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, M.O.1 to 4 are marked. Despite of sufficient
opportunity given to the prosecution, the prosecution has not
examined remaining witnesses.
7. On 29.11.2019 the statement of the accused No.1
and 4 as required u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded by putting all
6 S.C.NO. 693/2016
incriminating evidence. The accused persons have not lead
any defence evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Spl.Public
Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused and
perused the entire case papers.
9. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my
consideration :-
POINTS
Point No.1:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 who
loving CW.1 in the guise of marriage on
11.8.2015 and 24.10.2015 in the room of
Honnagiri Lodge had forcible sexual
intercourse with CW.1 and thereafter also he
had forcible sexual intercourse with CW.1 in
the promise of marriage and thereby the
accused No.1 has committed offence
punishable u/s 376 of IPC ?
Point No.2:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 in
the promise of marriage had sexual
intercourse with CW.1 and thereafter he
refused to marry CW.1 and deceived her
7 S.C.NO. 693/2016
and thereby the accused has committed an
offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC?
Point No.3:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1
and 4 not being the member of Scheduled
Caste abused CW.1 who belongs to
Scheduled Caste in the name of caste and
insulted and humiliated her and thereby
the accused No.1 and 4 have committed
the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of The
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
Point No.4:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1
and 4 have committed the offence
punishable u/s 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act?
Point No.5:- What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the negative
Point No.2:- In the negative
8 S.C.NO. 693/2016
Point No.3:- In the negative
Point No.4:- In the negative
Point No.5:- As per final order
for the following
REASONS
11. POINTS No.1 to 4:- Since these points are inter-
linked with each other in order to avoid repetition of facts and
for convenience I have taken them up together for discussion.
P.W.1 is the complainant and victim, P.W.2 Laxmi is the
eye witness. PW.3 Sumathi is the mother of PW.1. P.W.4 is
the Cashier of Honnagiri Residency Lodge. P.W.5 is the owner
of Honnagiri Residency Lodge. PW.6 WPC who took PW.1 to
the K.C. General Hospital. PW.7 Head Constable who carried
FIR to the court. In this case PW.1 to PW5 have completely
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. It is the specific
case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 who came in
contact with PW.1 through Shaadi.com thereafter proposed of
her marriage and in the guise of marriage talks he took her to
Honnagiri Lodge situated at T.B. Road, Majestic on 11.8.2015
and 24.10.2015 and forcefully committed sexual intercourse
9 S.C.NO. 693/2016
with her. It is further case of the prosecution is that accused
No.2 to 4 abused PW.1 in the name of caste. But quite
contrary to the case of the prosecution, PW.1 has completely
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that
the accused persons have not committed any offences.
12. P.W.1 has deposed that accused No.1 is her
husband. Accused No.2 is her father-in-law. Accused No.3 is
her mother-in-law. Accused No4. Is her brother-in-law. She
states that she belongs to schedule caste. Accused belongs to
Christian community. She states that she came in contact
with accused No.1 through Shaadi.com. PW.1 has deposed
that her marriage with accused No.1 performed on 22.7.2016.
She has deposed that the accused No.1 not deceived her any
point of time. The accused No.1 has not forcefully committed
sexual intercourse with her. Since there was some altercation
between her and accused No.1 hence she has lodged the
complaint against the accused. She states that she do not
know the contents of Ex.P1 complaint. She has deposed that
the police took her signature on Ex.P2 in the police station.
10 S.C.NO. 693/2016
The police have not conducted any mahazar in her presence.
She states that at no point of time accused No.1 taken her to
any lodge. She has not shown any lodge to the police. She
has deposed that the accused persons have not abused her in
the name of caste. Having turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution, Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor cross-examined
P.W.1 in detail. During the course of her cross-examination
by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor P.W.1 has denied the entire
contents of Ex.P1 complaint and Ex.P2 mahazar. She has
admitted the suggestion that after the marriage with accused
No.1 she had child through accused No.1. She has admitted
the suggestion that she compromised the case with the
accused.
13. P.W.2 Laxmi has deposed that she knows accused
No.1 and PW.1. PW.1 is the wife of accused No.1. She do not
know anything about this case. She has not given statement
before the police. Having turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution, the Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor cross-
examined her PW.2 in detail. During the course of her cross-
11 S.C.NO. 693/2016
examination P.W.2 has denied of giving any statement before
the police as per Ex.P.3. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of
P.W.2 to support the case of the prosecution.
14. P.W.3 Sumathi is the mother of PW.1 has also
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.3 has
deposed that her daughter PW.1 married to accused No.1.
She states that she and her daughter belongs to Scheduled
Caste. Accused persons belongs to Christian community.
She has deposed that her daughter is not complained
anything against the accused. The accused persons have not
deceived PW.1 and not abused PW.1 in the name of caste.
PW.3 has deposed that she has not given any statement
before the police. Having turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution learned Spl.P.P., cross-examined PW.3 in detail.
During the course of the cross-examination of PW.3 she has
denied of giving any such statement before the police as per
Ex.P4. PW.3 has admitted the suggestion that her daughter
compromised case with the accused. She has denied all other
12 S.C.NO. 693/2016
suggestions made to her. Nothing is elicited from the mouth
of PW.3 to support the case of the prosecution.
15. P.W.4 Shankar is the Cashier of Honnagiri
Residency Lodge has deposed that he do not know the
accused No.1. He states that on 11.8.2015 one John David
and Ramya booked the Room No.302 and stayed in that room
and vacated the room on 12.8.2015. He states that he do not
know anything about the incident. He has given Ex.P5 to P7
copy of receipts, Lodge Ledger Extract to the police. He has
not given any statement before the police. Since PW.4 has
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, learned Special
PP cross-examined him in detail. During the course of his
cross-examination PW.4 has denied the suggestion that
accused No.1 came along with lady to the room. He has
denied of giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P8.
During the course of his cross-examination by the learned
counsel for the accused PW.4 has deposed that he do not
know the names of all the persons who coming to the lodge.
13 S.C.NO. 693/2016
He do not remember the face of the persons who came to the
lodge.
16. PW.5 Shashidhar is the owner of the Honnagiri
Lodge has deposed that he do not know the accused No.1. He
do not know anything about this case. He has not given any
statement before the police. Even though learned Special
Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.5 in detail nothing is
elicited from his mouth to support the case of the
prosecution. PW.5 has denied of giving any statement before
the police as per Ex.P9.
17. PW.6 Sundarabai WPC has deposed that on
1.3.2016 she took PW.1 to the Malleswaram K.C. General
Hospital for medical examination and thereafter she brought
back PW.1 to the police station along with M.O.1 to M.O.4
and Ex.P10 report of the doctor. During the course of her
cross-examination by the defence, she has denied all the
suggestions made to her.
14 S.C.NO. 693/2016
18. PW.7 Venkatesh G, Head Constable has deposed
that on 22.2.2016 as per the direction of PSI Anand Naik he
carried Ex.P11 FIR and Ex.P1 complaint to the court and
given the same to the IX ACMM at 7.30 PM. The oral
evidence of PW.7 is formal in nature.
19. In this case, PW.1 is the important witness. PW.1 is
the complainant/victim has not deposed anything against the
accused. PW.1 has deposed that the accused No.1 has not
deceived her in any manner. She states that the accused
No.1 has not committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.
She states that the accused persons have not abused her in
the name of caste. It is not in dispute that PW.1 is the wife of
accused No.1. PW.2 is the eye witness also not supported the
case of the prosecution. PW.3 is the mother of PW.1 has
deposed that the accused persons have not deceived her
daughter PW.1 and not abused her in the name of caste.
PW.1 and PW.3 in their cross-examination admitted the
suggestion that PW.1 has compromised the case with the
accused. PW.1 and accused No.1 who are husband and wife
15 S.C.NO. 693/2016
may set right their differences, hence, PW.1 may not support
the case of the prosecution for which prosecution cannot be
blamed. Even though learned Special Public Prosecutor
cross-examined PW.1 to PW.5 in detail nothing is elicited from
their mouth to support the case of the prosecution. PW.1 to 5
have not deposed anything against the accused. There is no
iota of evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that
accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable u/s
376, 420 of IPC and accused No.1 and 4 have committed the
offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The
prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt
that the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offences
punishable u/s 376, 420 of IPC and accused No.1 and 4 have
committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) 3(2)(v) of The
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. On appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, this court of the opinion that the prosecution has
failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused No.1 and 4 are
16 S.C.NO. 693/2016
entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answered point no.1 to
point no.4 in the negative.
20. Point No.5:- In view of my findings on points no.1
to 4 and for the foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceeds
to pass the following:-
O R DE R
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the
Accused No.1 John David Gifton and accused No.4
Gladson are hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sec. 376, 420 of IPC & and 3(1)
(x) 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 4
and their surety bond stands cancelled. However,
the bond executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of
Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.
The properties M.O.1 to 4 and remaining
properties mentioned in PF No. 35/2016 and
17 S.C.NO. 693/2016
36/2016 shall be preserved till disposal of the
split up case.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him,
transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in
open Court on this the 5th day of December, 2019.)
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bangalore.
A N NE X U R E
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Victim/complainant
P.W.2 : Laxmi
P.W.3 : Sumathi
P.W.4 : Shankar
P.W.5 : Shashidhar
P.W.6 : Sundarabai
P.W.7 : Venkatesh
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P 3 : Statement of PW.1 before ACP
18 S.C.NO. 693/2016
Ex.P 4 : Statement of PW.3 before ACP
Ex.P 5 : Copy of Receipt
Ex.P 6 & 7 : Copy of Lodge Ledger
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1 : Survical Swab
M.O.2 : Survical Smear
M.O.3 : Vaginal Swab
M.O.4 : Vaginal Smear
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bangalore.
19 S.C.NO. 693/2016
Judgment pronounced in open
court vide separate detailed
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 John David Gifton and accused No.4 Gladson are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec. 376, 420 of IPC & and 3(1)(x) 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 4 and their surety bond stands cancelled. However, the bond executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.
The properties M.O.1 to 4 and remaining properties mentioned in PF No. 35/2016 and 36/2016 shall be preserved till disposal of the split up case.
(MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
20 S.C.NO. 693/2016