Bangalore District Court
State By Hebbala Police vs Vijay Kumar @ Vijay on 14 August, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, day of , 14 th day of August, 2020. .
Present: SMT.R.SHARADA,B.A. M.L
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55]
SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SPL CC NO.543/2019
COMPLAINANT: State by Hebbala Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Vijay Kumar @ Vijay,
Son of Venkateshappa,
Aged 21 Years,
Residing at: Palyagere Grama,
Cheluru Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District.
[accused is in the judicial custody ]
[By Advocate Sri. Shaik Saoud ]
1. Date of commission of offence From 29.1.2019 to 3.2.2019
2. Date of report of occurrence 3.2.2019
of the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 11.2.2019
Since the date of arrest ie., from 11.2.2019
till today the accused is in the judicial
custody.
4. Date of commencement of 2.7.2019
evidence
2 Spl CC No.543/2019
5. Date of closing of evidence 6.8.2020
6. Name of the complainant Smt.Lakshminarasamma, complainant as well as the
mother of the victim girl.
7. Offences complained of Secs. 363, 366(A), 376 of IPC and
[As per charge-sheet] Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, Hebbala police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366(A), 376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the complainant who is none other than the mother of the victim girl lodged a missing complaint that, 29.1.2019 in the afternoon at 3.30 P.M., her daughter/ victim girl who was aged 16 years went out of the house in search of job, but did not turn up. Inspite of her search, she was not traced out. The complainant suspected that the accused herein might have kidnapped her daughter. Thereby, the complainant requested the complainant police to trace out her daughter and to take action against the accused. Hence, on the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.23/2019 for the offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the victim girl 3 Spl CC No.543/2019 was traced out and on her enquiry, she revealed that, on 29.1.2019, the accused by enticing her took her to house of CWS-13 and 14 and kept her in the said house and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Hence, on the statement given by the victim girl, the Investigation Officer has inserted Secs. 366(A), 376 of IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
3. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused on 11.2.2019 and produced him before this court, thereby he was remanded to the judicial custody. Since the date of arrest ie., from 11.2.2019 till today the accused is in the judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the accused which is numbered as Spl CC No.543/2019. As per the provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, copies of the charge-sheet furnished to the accused. Accordingly charge is framed, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty, claims to be tried. Accordingly, the trial is fixed, summons issued to the prosecution witnesses as per V.C Rules, 2020.
4. The prosecution has examined totally 15 witnesses as PWs-1 to 15 and got marked 31 documents as Exs.P1 to P31. As per Sec.33(2) of POCSO Act 2012, the evidence of the victim girl has been recorded in the presence of her mother. Thereafter Statement of the accused recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the incriminating evidence told to him, but 4 Spl CC No.543/2019 he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf and no documents are marked.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, at this stage, following Points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that, on 29.1.2019, the accused by enticing CW2/ victim girl who was aged 16 years, took her to house of CWS-13 and 14 and kept her in the said house, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused not only kidnapped CW2/ victim girl, but also kept her in the house of CWS-13 and 14 and during such stay, the accused committed rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, knowing that she was minor in age, thereby the accused has committed offences punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012 ?
3. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 and 2: In the Negative, Point No .3: As per the final order, for the following:5 Spl CC No.543/2019
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 AND 2:- These Points are inter-linked to each other, hence, they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in order to prove the prosecution case totally 15 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 15 and documents are marked as Exs.P1 to 31. Though the victim girl and other her mother and other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution but the court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case along with available evidence of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the Investigation Officer who has been examined before this court has deposed to about conducting of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet against the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not contradicted by the counsel for the accused. Apart from that, according to Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012, there is burden casted upon the accused to prove his innocence, but, he has failed to chose to examine any of the witness on his behalf, thereby, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused has to be convicted and he prays to convict the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
6 Spl CC No.543/20199. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The victim girl and her mother and other material prosecution witnesses have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case when they were subjected to the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, these witnesses have denied all the suggestions put to them supporting their chief evidence. Even the doctor who has phyiscally examined the victim girl and given Medical Report has not been examined by the prosecution before this court. So, looking into the evidence of the Investigating Officer, this court cannot convict the accused for the offences as alleged. Hence, the learned counsel for the accused prays to acquit the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
10. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence furnished by the prosecution before this court. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 15 witnesses, out of them, PW1/ CW2 is the victim girl. PW2/CW1 is the mother of the victim girl. PW3/CW3 is the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P7. PW4/CW4 is also one of the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P7. PW5/CW5 is the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P8. PW6/CW24 is the Police Inspector/ Investigation Officer of this case. PW7/CW6 is the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P8. PW8/CW7 is the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P17. PW9/CW8 is also the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P17. PW10/CW12 is the elder sister of the victim girl. PW11/CW13 is also one of the 7 Spl CC No.543/2019 elder sister of the victim girl. PW12/CW14 is the close relative of the accused. PW13/CW15 is also the close relative of the accused. PW14/CW16 is the owner of the house wherein the victim girl and her family members were residing in a house as tenants. PW15/CW10 is the father of the victim girl. In support of its case, the prosecution has also produced the following documents: Ex.P1 is the further statement of PW2. Ex.P2 is the counselling report of the victim girl. Ex.P3 is the further statement of the victim girl. Ex.P4 is the statement of the victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P5 is the Medical Report of the victim girl. Ex.P6 is the statement given by the victim girl before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P7 is the spot mahazar. Ex.P8 is also the spot mahazar. Ex.P9 is the Medical Report of the accused. Ex.P10 is the Report of the Head constable. Ex.P11 is the Report of CW19- Woman PC . Ex..P12 is the Acknowledgement issued by FSL, Madiwala, Bengaluru. Ex.P13 is the Complaint dated:
3.2.2019. Ex.P14 is the FIR. Ex.P15 is the Letter dated:
11.2.2019. Ex.P16 is the Letter dated: 11.2.2019. Ex.P17 is the Spot Panchanama . Ex.P18 is the Report of the PSI. Ex.P19 is the statement of the victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P20 is the Requisition of Police Inspector . Exs.P21 and P22 are the School documents of the victim girl. Ex.P23 is the Report of CW19- Woman PC. Ex.P24 is the FSL Report. Ex.P25 is the Requisition of the Police Inspector. Ex.P26 is the Statement of PW10 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P27 is the Statement of PW11 8 Spl CC No.543/2019 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P28 is the Statement of PW12 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P29 is the Statement of PW13 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P30 is the Statement of PW14 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C and Ex.P31 is the Statement of PW15 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C.
11. Now coming to the evaluation of the evidence by the above referred prosecution witnesses , I would like to take up firstly the evidence of the victim girl. The victim girl has been examined as PW1 before this court. In her chief examination she has deposed about her family status. Further she has deposed that, the accused is her relative, whenever she used to go the house of the accused, at that time, she has seen the accused. She has further deposed that, CW1 had lodged a complaint of her missing. Her mother had advised her to go to the work, as she did not like it, she had gone to her grandmother's house. During the months of January and February -2019 she had gone to her grandmother's house situated at Perumalapalli, at Andhra Pradesh and stayed in her grandmother's house for one week, thereafter her mother had come to the said grandmother's house and brought her [victim girl] back. The accused is her relative. She has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. Her date of birth is 4.8.2002. She has further deposed that, the accused has not caused any trouble to her. She do not know anything other 9 Spl CC No.543/2019 than this. As per the instructions of the police, she has signed. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that, she knows the accused. But she has denied that, the accused used to come near the Girls hostel and used to talk to her. She has admitted that, herself and the accused decided to marry. But, she has denied that, the accused took her to Bagepalli, Chintamani. She has further deposed that, on 29.1.2019, the accused took her to Chintamani to his house and kept her there along with him and committed rape on her. She has denied that she has given statement as per Ex.P2. She has denied that, she has given further statement as per Ex.P3 that, the accused has committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly. She has admitted her signature on Ex.P4 which is the statement given by her before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C and her signature is as per Ex.P4(a). She has denied that, she has given statement before the doctor at the time of her medical examination that the accused has committed rape on her. The Medical Report of the victim girl is as per Ex.P5. She has also denied that she has stated before the SJPU that herself and the accused were living as husband and wife. She has identified her signature on the Statement as per Ex.P6 and her signature is as per Ex.P6(a). She has also denied that, as the accused has told that he will marry her [victim girl] she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, this witness has sated that, her date of birth is 10 Spl CC No.543/2019 4.8.1998, but wrong date of birth is given in her school and it has to be rectified. This witness has admitted that, she do not know the contents of Exs.P2, P3, P4 and P6. She has also admitted that, she has not given any statement before any officer.
12. PW2 is the mother of the victim girl. In her evidence before the court, she has deposed that, CW2 is her younger daughter. She do not know the accused. She has not identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. She is seeking the accused for the first time in the court hall. She had lodged the complaint, as her daughter/ victim girl was found missing from the house, because of the reason that, she had beaten her daughter, thereby her daughter had gone away from the house. On the next day of lodging the complaint, her daughter was traced out and she was in the house of Rathnamma, the sister-in-law of PW2 at Palacheruvu. The police had not come near her house and her daughter was not sent to the hospital. She has not given any further statement.. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross- examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that, she had stated in the complaint that her daughter was missing from 15 days, but she had stated that her daughter was missing from one week. She has further denied the suggestion that, at the time of lodging the complaint, she had suspected the accused and lodged the complaint. She has further denied that, at the time of counselling her daughter, her daughter had told that the accused and her daughter were loving each 11 Spl CC No.543/2019 other and the accused had taken her daughter along with him and he had kept her in a room and committed rape on her daughter. She has further denied all the suggestions put to her and finally she has denied the suggestion that in order to help the accused she is deposing falsely.
13. PW15 is the father of the victim girl. In his evidence before the court he has deposed that, the victim girl is his daughter. He do not know anything about this case. The accused has not caused any trouble to their family. Other than this he do not know anything about this case. He has not given any statement before the police. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and subjected him to cross- examination. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that, his wife/ CW1 had given missing complaint of the victim girl. But, he has denied that, the accused and the victim girl were loving each other and that the accused had taken the victim girl to Tirupathi, Bagepalli and committed rape on her daughter. He has also denied that, he has stated all these things before the police. He has denied that he has given statement as per Ex.P31 to the police. He has denied that, though he has given statement as per Ex.P31, as his family and the family of the accused have agreed to perform the marriage of the victim girl with the accused, he is deposing falsely. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
12 Spl CC No.543/201914. PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses to the Mahazar as per Ex.P7 . In their evidence before the court they have deposed that, they can identify their signatures on the Mahazar as per Ex.P7 and their signatures are as per Ex.P7(a) and P7(b) respectively. They have further deposed that, they do not know the contents of Ex.P7 and they do not know anything about this case. These 2 witnesses were treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and they were subjected to cross-examination. In their cross-examination, they have denied that, on 11.2.2019 at about 11 A.M., the complainant police have taken them near the house of Raghavendra situated at 9th Cross, Anand Giri Badavane, Hebbal, Bengaluru . They have further denied that, the complainant and one Devendra were present at the spot. They have further denied that, the complainant has shown the place of occurrence to the police. They have also denied that, the police have drawn mahazar before them and taken their signatures on Ex.P7 at the spot. They have also denied that, the police have read over the contents of Ex.P7 to them. They have also denied that, inspite of knowing all the facts of this case, and the contents of Ex.P7-Mahazar, they are deposing falsely in order to help the accused. PW3 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that, he has put his signature on Ex.P7-Mahazar in the police station. He has also admitted that, he do not know the contents of Ex.P7-Mahazar. He has also admitted that, he has put his signature on Ex.P7-Mahazar as per the directions of the police. PW4 was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
13 Spl CC No.543/201915. PW5 is the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P8. In his evidence before the court, when Ex.P8-Mahazar dated: 14.2.2019 was confronted to him, he has identified his signature on Ex.P8 as per Ex.P8(a). He has put his signature on Ex.P8 in Muruvapalli village police station, but he do not know the contents of Ex.P8. The police have not explained the contents of Ex.P8 to him. He has put his signature on Ex.P8 at the instance of the police. The police have taken his signature near his house at Muruvapalli village. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected him to cross-examination. In his cross- examination, he has denied that, the accused had kept the victim girl in his house at Muruvapalli village. He has also denied that, on 14.2.2019 police had visited his house along with the complainant and drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P8. He has also denied that, the accused had kept the victim girl in his house who was a minor at that time. He has also denied that, after knowing this, the police visited his house and drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P8. He has also denied that, after knowing the contents of Ex.P8, he has signed to it. He has also denied that, as the accused is his friend, he is giving false evidence to the court inspite of knowing all the facts of this case and also the contents of Ex.P8. This witness was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross- examination, this witness has admitted that, nothing has happened in his house and the police have simply visited his house and took his signature and went back. He has also admitted that, he do not know anything about this case.
14 Spl CC No.543/201916. PW7 is also one of the witness to the Mahazar as per Ex.P8. In her evidence before the court, when Ex.P8-Mahazar was confronted to her, she has identified her signature on Ex.P8 as per Ex.P8(c). One year back to the date of giving her evidence before the court, the police had come to her village, but she do not know as to why the police had come. She do not know the contents of Ex.P8. Other than this she do not know anything. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, on 14.2.2019, the police had come to the house of Narayanaswamy to conduct mahazar. She has also denied that, she had shown the house where the victim girl and the accused were staying. She has also denied that, she was also present at the time of drawing mahazar. She has also denied that, inspite of knowing the contents of mahazar in order to help the accused she is deposing falsely before the court. This witness was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
17. PW8 and PW9 are the witnesses to the Mahazar as per Ex.P17. In their evidence before the court, when Ex.P17 was confronted to them, they have identified their signatures on Ex.P17 as per Ex.P17(b) and Ex.P17(c) respectively. One year back to the date of giving their evidence before the court, when the police had come to their village, they have signed on Ex.P17, but, they do not know the contents of Ex.P17. Other than this they do not know anything. The learned Public Prosecutor treated these 15 Spl CC No.543/2019 2 witnesses as hostile and subjected them to cross-examination. In their cross-examination, they have denied that, on 14.2.2019, the police conducted mahazar in the house of Kadirappa. They have also denied that, they showed the house where the accused and the victim girl were staying. They have also denied that, they was also present at the time of drawing mahazar. They have also denied that, inspite of knowing the contents of mahazar in order to help the accused they are deposing falsely before the court. These 2 witnesses were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
18. PW10 and PW11 are the elder sisters of the victim girl. In their evidence before the court, they have deposed that, CW1 is their mother. The victim girl is their younger sister. They do not know anything about this case. The victim girl had quarrel in the house and gone to the house of PW10, without knowing this fact, their mother had lodged a complaint. Other than this, they do not know anything about this case. The accused has not caused any trouble to their younger sister/ victim girl. They have not given any statements to the police. The learned Public Prosecutor treated these 2 witnesses as hostile and subjected them to cross- examination. In their cross-examination, they have admitted that, as the victim girl was found missing, their mother had lodged a complaint. But, they have denied that, the police have recorded their statements. They have denied that, the victim girl had told them that, the accused took their younger sister / victim girl along with him to Tirupathi and kept her in a house and committed rape 16 Spl CC No.543/2019 on their sister. They have also denied that, they have given their statements to the police. The statement given by PW10 is as per Ex.P26 and the statement given by PW11 is as per Ex.P27. They have also denied that, as their family members have decided to perform the marriage of their sister/ victim girl with the accused, they are deposing falsely, in order to protect the future life of the victim girl. These 2 witnesses were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
19. PW12 and PW13 are the close relatives of the accused. In their evidence before the court, they has deposed that, he do not know the victim girl. They also do not know anything about this case. The accused has not caused any trouble to the victim girl. One day police had come near their house but they do not why the police had come. They have not given any statement to the police. The learned Public Prosecutor treated these 2 witnesses as hostile and subjected them to cross-examination. In their cross-examination, they have denied the suggestion that, they had kept the accused and the victim girl in their house and in their house the accused committed rape on the victim girl. They have denied that, they have told all these things to the police. They have also denied that, they have given statements to the police as per Ex.P28 and Ex.P29 respectively. They have also denied that, inspite of giving statement as per Ex.P28 and Ex.P29, as the victim girl and the accused is their relative, and as both the family members have decided to perform the marriage of the accused with the victim girl, and if they reveal the truth, the future life of the 17 Spl CC No.543/2019 accused and the victim girl will be put in danger, they are deposing falsely. These 2 witnesses were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
20. PW14 is the owner of the house wherein the victim girl and her family were residing as tenants. In his evidence before the court, he has deposed that, he do not know anything about this case. The victim girl is the daughter of CWS-1 and 10. CW1 and CW10 were residing with their family in his house for few months as tenants and later they vacated the house. Other than this he do not know anything about this case. He has not given any statement before the police. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and subjected him to cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that, he do not know that, the mother of the victim girl given missing complaint of the victim girl. He has also stated that he do not know that, , the accused and the victim girl were loving each other and that the accused had taken the victim girl to Tirupathi, Bagepalli and committed rape on her daughter. He has denied that, he has stated all these things before the police. He has denied that he has given statement as per Ex.P30 to the police. He has denied that, though he has given statement as per Ex.P30, as the complainant 's family and the family of the accused have agreed to perform the marriage of the victim girl with the accused, he is deposing falsely. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
18 Spl CC No.543/201921. Now I come to the evidence given by PW6/ Police Inspector/ Investigation Officer of this case. PW6 in his evidence has deposed before the court that, on 3.2.2019 he received the case file of this case from CW23 and verified it. CW23 received the complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.23/2019. He continued with the investigation and on 11.2.2019, he deputed his staffs for tracing out the victim girl and on the same day, the victim girl was traced out and she was produced before him and he sent the victim girl for medical examination and received the Medical Report of the victim girl. He has conducted spot panchanama in the presence of CWS-1, 3 and 4. On 3.2.2019, he deputed CWS-20 and 21 for tracing out the accused. On 11.2.2019, CWS-20 and 21 apprehended the accused and produced before him and he enquired with the accused, recorded his voluntary statement and after conducting the arrest formalities, he has arrested the accused. On 13.2.2019, he has conducted the spot panchanama of the occurrence of the incident. On 22.2.2019, he has sent the victim girl before the Learned Magistrate for recording of her statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. He further continued with the investigation and after completion of investigation, he has submitted charge-sheet against the accused. He can identify the accused. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has filed false charge-sheet against the accused.
19 Spl CC No.543/201922. Considering the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of the victim girl, her mother and other material witnesses, all these witnesses have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused eloped the victim girl, took her along with him and kept her in a house and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly, knowing fully well that the victim girl was a minor. Hence, there is no chain to link the accused with the alleged crime. Though the evidence of the Investigation Officer is corroborative that, the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault by the accused and the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and the accused was arrested, but, they do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as because the victim girl and her mother who are the material witnesses have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the prosecution case. Even the Lady doctor who has physically examined the victim girl and given the Medical Report has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that the victim girl was subjected to rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the accused. The Victim girl except identifying her signatures nothing has deposed against the accused to hold that the accused has committed the offence as alleged against him. Thereby, I am of the view that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal from the hands of this court. Of course, the presumption under Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 goes against the accused but, initial burden is on the prosecution to 20 Spl CC No.543/2019 prove its case by furnishing cogent evidence but it failed to do so, thereby, I hold that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
23. In the present case, as per the discussions made by me herein above, the victim girl has deposed before the court that, she has not suffered any sexual assault on her from the accused and further she deposed that, her marriage is fixed with the accused. Considering these aspects, I find no reasons to award compensation to the victim girl as per the provisions under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules 2012, as such no compensation is awarded to the victim girl.
24. POINT NO.3:-:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 and 2 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Sec.366 of IPC, Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 14 th day of August, 2020] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.21 Spl CC No.543/2019
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Victim girl CW2 2.7.2019
PW2 Lakshminarasamma CW1 27.11.2019
PW3 Venkatacharan CW3 31.7.2020
PW4 Devendra CW4 31.7.2020
PW5 Naveen CW5 31.7.2020
PW6 R.T.S.Khan CW24 6.8.2020
PW7 Lakshmidevamma CW6 6.8.2020
PW8 Narasimhappa CW7 6.8.2020
PW9 Fakireddy CW8 6.8.2020
PW10 Shobha CW12 6.8.2020
PW11 Shyamala CW13 6.8.2020
PW12 Kadirappa CW14 6.8.2020
PW13 Rajakumar CW15 6.8.2020
PW14 Raghavendra CW16 6.8.2020
PW15 Eshwarappa CW10 6.8.2020
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Further statement of PW2
Ex.P2 Counselling Report of PW1/ victim girl
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1/ victim girl
Ex.P3 Further Statement of PW1/ victim girl given
before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P4 Statement of PW1/ victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW1/ victim girl Ex.P5 Medical Report of PW1/ victim girl Ex.P6 Statement given by the victim girl before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW1/ victim girl Ex.P6(b) Signature of PW6 Ex.P6(c) Signature of CW19 Ex.P7 Spot Mahazar 22 Spl CC No.543/2019 Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P7(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P7(c) Signature of PW6 Ex.P8 Spot Mahazar Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P8(b) Signature of PW6 Ex.P8(c) Signature of PW7 Ex.P9 Medical Report of the accused [consent marked] Ex.P10 Report of CW20-Manjanna, Head Constable regarding apprehending of the accused and producing him before the Police Inspector of the complainant police station [consent marked] Ex.P11 Report of CW19-Vanitha Nayak, Woman PC regarding taking the victim girl of this case to Bowring Hospital and producing of the Medical Report of the victim girl along with the sealed articles of the victim girl collected at the time of medical examination of the victim girl. [consent marked] Ex.P12 Acknowledgement issued by FSL,Madiwala, Bengaluru for having received the sealed articles of this case. [consent marked] Ex.P13 Complaint dated: 3.2.2019 lodged by the complainant / PW2/ mother of the victim girl to the complainant police [ consent marked] Ex.P14 FIR [consent marked] Ex.P15 Letter from the Doctor dated: 11.2.2019 for sending the sealed articles to the FSL, Bangalore.
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P16 Letter dated: 11.2.2019 Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P17 Spot Panchanama Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P17(b) Signature of PW8 Ex.P17(c) Signature of PW9 Ex.P18 Report of CW23-Rajesh.V.M., PSI regarding conducting of spot mahazar Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW6 23 Spl CC No.543/2019 Ex.P19 Statement of PW1/ victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P19(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P20 Requisition given by the Police Inspector of the complainant police station to the Head Master of Government Girls High School, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura District to issue certificate certifying the date of birth of PW1/ victim girl who was studying in the said school. Ex.P20(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P21 Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Principal/ Head Master of Government Girls High School, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura District wherein PW1/ victim girl was studying showing the date of birth of PW1/ victim girl as 4.8.2002 Ex.P21(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P22 Copy of School Register issued by Head Master of Government Girls High School, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura District wherein PW1/ victim girl was studying Ex.P23 Report of CW19-Vanitha Nayak, Woman PC regarding taking the victim girl of this case to Bowring Hospital and producing of the Medical Report of the victim girl along with the sealed articles of the victim girl collected at the time of medical examination of the victim girl. [consent marked] Ex.P23(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P24 FSL Report Ex.P24(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P25 Requisition dated: 21.6.2019 given by PW6 to examine FSL Officer who has issued FSL Report Ex.P25(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P26 Statement of PW10 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P27 Statement of PW11 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C 24 Spl CC No.543/2019 Ex.P28 Statement of PW12 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P29 Statement of PW13 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P30 Statement of PW14 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P31 Statement of PW15 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Witness examined, documents, marked for the accused: NIL [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.25 Spl CC No.543/2019
14.8.2020 Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Sec.366 of IPC, Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
[R.SHARADA]] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.26 Spl CC No.543/2019