Bangalore District Court
Hennur Ps vs Chandrashekar N on 23 February, 2024
KABC010200012020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.830/2020
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Hennuru Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Chandrashekar.N,
S/o Nataraj,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.118, Anjaneya temple road,
near Government school,
Babusa palya,
Bengaluru
(Rep.by Sri.HP, Advocate).
1. Date of commission of offence : 01.01.2017
2. Date of report of Offence : 12.2.2020
3. Name of the Complainant : Meenakshi
4. Date of commencement of : 13-02-2024
recording of evidence
2 Spl.C.No.830/2020
5. Date of closing of evidence : 13-02-2024
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.376(1),
420,323,504,506,313,3(1)
(r),(s),(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
JUDGMENT
The ACP, Banasavadi Sub-Division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 420,323,504,506,313,3(1)(r),(s),(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, accused and complainant were in love, they were residing in the adjacent house at Babusa palya, near Anjaneya Temple, Hennuru, Bengaluru. The complainant was working as a flower vendor, within 15 days of meeting each other, they started loving, accused used to take complainant to different places whenever they were none in the house of victim accused used to visit her house and forced her to sexual relationship. Infact the complainant 3 Spl.C.No.830/2020 requested till the manage physical relationship is to be avoided manner the victim was forced have physical relationship in August 2018 and victim became 2 months pregnant. The accused give Papaya to eat and forced abortion, further in 2019 January she became again pregnant even then, when the victim questioned to marry her, he brought some tablets and forcefully got aborted. Even after this there is physical relationship between victim and the accused she tried to contact accused to marry but he avoided accordingly, on 12.01.2020 accused abused victim " ಸಳ ನನನ ನನ ಯರ ಮದವಯಗತತ ರ. ನನನ ನದಗ ಸಮಮ ನ ಟನಪಸ ಮಡದನ. ಇಲಲ ನದ ಹಹದರ ಸರ ಇಲಲ ದದದ ರ ನಹಡ" dragged her, assaulted her and abused her accordingly victim lodged compliant before the police.
3. On the basis of said complaint, a case has been registered in Crime Number 42/2020 on the file of High Grounds police station. The investigating officer visited the place of incident, prepared spot 4 Spl.C.No.830/2020 panchanama, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing investigation filed charge sheet. Accused was arrested and remanded to J.C. The accused got himself, later got released on bail on 13.11.2020.
4. After filing of charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the offence, accused remained absent and issued summons warrant and even issued NBW and proclamation against accused. Accused produced from judicial custody on 25.01.2024. The charge was framed for the above said offences and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined complainant as P.W.1, got exhibited 9 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and prosecution evidence foreclosed. Since on examining the complainant even the medical records of complainant and accused were undisputed got marked on consent as such CW.5, 6 and 13 given up. In fact the cast report of the 5 Spl.C.No.830/2020 accused and victim were not disputed. In the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of the complainant, as brought to the notice of this court. The accused had married victim during the pendency of this case. Accordingly the examination of other witnesses namely I.O, Panchanama witnesses and other witnesses were not issued summons on 13.02.2024. The accused produced from J.C. However no any witnesses were summoned by dropping the prosecution witnesses case is foreclosed and matter reserved for recording of statement of the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded.
6. Heard arguments and perused the documents and other materials available on record.
7. The following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in August 2018 and January 2019, accused and victim loving each other, when C.W.1 was alone in the house, accused committed forcible sexual 6 Spl.C.No.830/2020 intercourse with her and thereby accused has committed offences punishable u/s 376(1) of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused with an dishonest intention to deceive the victim made her to believe that he is in love with her had sexual intercourse with her and later deceived her and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 12.1.2020 accused had picked up quarrel with CW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to her by means of hands and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 323 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused has intentionally insulted and thereby gave provocation to CW1 intending that such provocation will cause the said CW1 to break the public peace and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.504 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused has criminally intimidated by threatening the CW1 with injury to her person with intent to cause alarm to her and thereby committed the offence Punishable under Section 506 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in 7 Spl.C.No.830/2020 2018-19 accused pretending that he is loving C.W.1 had sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant, when she informed accused, accused made her to eat raw pappaya and made her to consume two times tablets and made her abortion and thereby committed the offence Punishable under Section 313 of IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused not being the members of SC/ST intentionally insulted/intimidated as C.W.1 as "ನನನ ಮಗನ ನಯ ನನನ ಮಗನ" with intent to humiliate the C.W.1 who belongs to schedule caste community in a place within the public view and thereby accused has committed offences punishable u/s 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act?
8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused not being the members of SC/ST has abused C.W.1 who belongs to schedule caste community by taking the name of her caste in a place within the public view and thereby accused has committed offences punishable u/s 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act?
9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the afore said date, time and place, the accused not being a member of SC/ST, knowing very well that CW1 belongs to Scheduled Caste has committed rape 8 Spl.C.No.830/2020 on her and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
10)Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is not being the member of SC/ST has committed sexual intercourse with CW1, who belongs to scheduled caste and thereby you have committed offence which is punishable with more than 10 years or imprisonment of life, which is punishable under Section 376 of IPC and thereby you have committed offences punishable under section 3(2)
(v) of the SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, within cognizance of this court?
11)What order?
8. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : In the Negative
Point No.9 : In the Negative
Point No.10 : In the Negative
Point No.11 : As per final order,
9 Spl.C.No.830/2020
for the following;
REASONS
9. Point No.7 : The prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.313 of IPC with regard to causing abortion to the victim, in the complaint the complainant has specifically mentioned in August 2018 and January 2019 the victim has been given papaya fruit when she was 2 months pregnant and another time when she was 3 months pregnant the accused forced her to take the same and in fact in the year 2019 she has been administered twice by the accused forcefully. In fact accused has been threatened if she does not consume the tablets the accused will not marry her.
10. In the case on hand to consider the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.313 the prosecution has to prove causing of miscarriage without the consent of the complainant. In the case on hand, by the date of marking the complaint on 12.2.2020 by the complainant she had supported the abortion for the last time in the year 2019 January there was gap of more than 12 months. With regard to 10 Spl.C.No.830/2020 commission of offence that forceful abortion being caused or miscarriage by the accused in the year 2018 August the complainant has not placed any material to show pregnancy test report or any medical report that she has been forced to undergo miscarriage. In fact the ingredients of offence of causing miscarriage is to be proved to consider that there was miscarriage. In fact the ingredients of offence of causing miscarriage is to be proved to consider that there was miscarriage caused by the accused by medical evidence or oral evidence. In the case on hand as per the complaint itself the family members of accused and victim were not supporting both the accused and complainant. In fact any of the persons namely family members or known persons who can depose about the causing of miscarriage or in other words as there is no material collected by the Investigating Officer or any other materials placed by the prosecution to prove the ingredients of alleged offences. In the absence of the same, this court cannot come to the 11 Spl.C.No.830/2020 conclusion that based on the materials on record that accused did caused miscarriage without the consent of the complainant victim. In the case on hand, even in the evidence of P.W.1, she does not depose specifically about causing of miscarriage in her examination-in-chief or even after treating her as hostile. Accordingly in the absence of materials this court is obliged to answer this Point No.6 in the Negative.
11. POINT NO.3: The prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.323 of IPC, in the complaint the complainant has specifically mentioned that when she enquired the accused to marry her on 12.1.2020 the accused refused to abuse her and assaulted her with hands. In proof of the same in the evidence of P.W1 she has not supported the prosecution even though this witness has been treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Investigating Officer she does not supports by deposing she has been assaulted by the accused. In the 164 statement of the victim as per Ex.P.2, she 12 Spl.C.No.830/2020 has specifically mentioned in third line of her statement that accused has married her near her house in Yellamma temple and they are residing together in their matrimonial house. These facts contradicts with the case of prosecution to prove the alleged offence of assault being made on the victim. Under these circumstances, in the absence of proof, this Point No.3 is answered in the Negative.
12. POINT NOS.1 & 2: In the case on hand, to prove the ingredients of having sexual intercourse with the victim by the accused, the complainant in her complaint has specifically deposed that accused had sexual intercourse with the victim, while she became pregnant twice in the year 2018 and 2019, accused forced the victim to undergo abortion. Even after that accused is having physical relationship with the victim and when the victim pleaded to marry her accused abused her as 'just for time pass with her and is not going to marry her, she was forced to lodge complaint is the matter in issue. In 13 Spl.C.No.830/2020 her evidence she does not supports the prosecution case by deposing about sexual intercourse by the accused against the wish of the victim is not forthcoming. Further more as per the prosecution case the victim has been forced to have sexual intercourse but at the same time there was promise to marry the victim. In fact the prosecution though tried its best as marriage of the victim and accused had been performed as per the ingredient of offence punishable u/s.376(1) and even the offence u/s.420 of IPC are not made out even at the time of enquiry. The victim has been produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 27.1.2020 after making complaint on 12.2.2020 i.e. after 6 months. In fact even those period the victim has been married by the same accused. As such in the absence of substantial material and as parties have consenting for marriage subsequently even the examination of other material witnesses does not warrants. Accordingly prosecution case has been foreclosed even after going through the statement of the 14 Spl.C.No.830/2020 victim or further statement. Her medical records even that of the accused though they are not disputed does not creates any substantial piece of evidence accused did committed the alleged offence u/s.376(1) or 420 of IPC. Accordingly these Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
13. POINT NOS.4 AND 5: In the case on hand, the complainant has specifically mentioned in her complaint at para-2 that when she enquired the accused to marry her on 12.1.2020 the accused did abused the victim in filthy language and even refused to marry her and he mentioned he has just time passed with her. The fact at that time only the accused did assaulted her dragging her, however with regard to giving life threat there is no any mention in the complaint. In the statement given before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 27.10.2020 accused does abused the victim is not forthcoming. In fact in page-2 of the 164 statement victim has specifically mentioned that accused has been sent to judicial custody he pleaded his fault and agreed 15 Spl.C.No.830/2020 to marry her and as such they have married after he has been released from the prison on conditional bail at the first instance. Therefore in the absence of giving life threat the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.506 of IPC has not been disclosed from the materials on record. In fact with regard to abusive words used by the accused against the victim, the victim has not whispered in examination- in-chief or even after treating her as hostile. The victim does not supports even the 164 statement by her on 21.7.2020. Accordingly in the absence of intimidation or life threat by the accused answered these two Point Nos.4 and 5 in the Negative.
14. POINT NOs.7 & 8: In the case on hand, the victim has specified in her complaint in para-3 as "
ದದ12.1.2020 ರದ ಹಹದಗ ನಹನಬಬ ಳ ಸಳ ನನನ ನನ ಯರ ಮದವಯಗತತ ರ. ನನನ ನದಗ ಸಮಮ ನ ಟನಪಸ ಮಡದನ. ಇಲಲ ನದ ಹಹದರ ಸರ ಇಲಲ ದದದ ರ ನಹಡ". After this, victim has been assaulted is the allegation. In the 164 statement these facts does not find corroboration in her statement. Further 16 Spl.C.No.830/2020 there is no family members of the victim being examined so as to consider that victim has been abused by taking her caste. Under these circumstances, in the absence of ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 though the caste of the victim and the accused are admitted this court is satisfied to answer these two Point Nos.7 and 8 in the Negative.
15. POINT NO.9: In the case on hand, the prosecution to prove the ingredients offence punishable u/sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 has been charged by the prosecution, in complaint the complainant has specified that whenever complainant asked about their marriage, accused used to have sexual intercourse with her and postponing for the marriage. Hence in the absence of ingredients of offence punishable u/sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, as the consent of complainant was there when ever accused and complainant were in consensual 17 Spl.C.No.830/2020 relationship, this court is satisfied to answer this point No.9 in the Negative.
16. POINT NO.10 : On going through the materials on record, in the case on hand first offence is punishable u/sec.376(1) of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for more than 10 years. As such, the charge punishable under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 was framed. In the case on hand, as offence punishable u/sec.376 of IPC being not established. The charge u/sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989 does not survive to be independently proved as other offences punishable u/sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 which are not punishable with imprisonment exceeding 10 years or above. Accordingly, point No.10 is answered in the Negative.
17. POINT No.11 :- The accused is in judicial custody since the date of execution of proclamation issued against him. As such in the absence of proof, accused is to be released. In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following; 18 Spl.C.No.830/2020
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1),354, 420,323,504,506,313,3(1)
(r),(s),(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
The accused is set at liberty.
The accused is directed to be released from the prison if he is not required in any other case.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcription thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2024).
(Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore. ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : victim
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 164 Cr.P.C.
19 Spl.C.No.830/2020
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.3 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.4 : Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.5 : Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.6 : Medical report of P.W.1
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.7 : Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.8 Medical report of accused
Ex.P.9 Caste report of accused and
complainant
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil (Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.