Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Sandeep M on 3 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDITONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH 2020
-: PRESENT :-
S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI, B.A. LL.B.,
LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL C.C.No. 117/2018
COMPLAINANT :
The State of Karnataka
By Subramanyapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Sandeep M.
S/o Mayannagowda,
Aged about 23 years,
R/o No.89, 2nd Cross,
Munireddy Layout,
Near Kumarans School,
Doddakallasandra,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Mr. VA - Advocate]
2
Spl.C C.117/2018
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1. Date of Commission : 16/11/2017 to 2/12/2017
Of Offence
2. Date of Report : 2/12/2017
Of Offence
3. Date of Arrest of : 3/12/2017
Accused
4. Date of Release of : 6/2/2019
Accused on Bail
5 Period undergone in
Judicial Custody by : 428 days
Accused
6 Name of the Complainant : Smt. Nandini
7. Date of Commencement
of recording evidence : 27/7/2018
8. Date of Closing of
: 30/10/2019
Evidence
9. Charges framed : Sections 366, 376 of IPC and
5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
10. Opinion of the Judge : As per final Order
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI)
LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bangalore.
3
Spl.C C.117/2018
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Inspector of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 4(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that the Accused on 28/11/2017 after inducing the minor Victim Cw-2, Kidnapped her and taken to the house No.86/A, 4th Floor of Out House near Kumaran's School, Munireddy Layout, and during night hours kept her with him. On 29/11/2017, during morning forcibly had Sexual Intercourse with her. Thereafter sent her to the house of his friend, again on 2/12/2017 brought her to his house and had Physical relationship with her.
4
Spl.C C.117/2018
3. Subsequently, the Complainant Smt. Nandini gave the Complaint to the Subramanyapura Police Station on 2/12/2017. The case has been registered against the Accused in Crime No. 519/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 4(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The Accused was arrested on 3/12/2017 and he was produced before this Court on 4/12/2017 and remanded to Judicial Custody. Later, he was represented through the Counsel and granted bail on 6/2/2019 and released after furnishing Sureties on 7/2/2019.
5. The Investigating Officer has after completed the investigation, filed Chargesheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. This court has taken Cognizance of the said offences 5 Spl.C C.117/2018 and heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the Accused before framing of the Charge. Afterwards as the primafacie materials available to frame the Charge, the Charge is framed for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The said Charge has been read over and explained to the Accused, he has not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
6. The Prosecution has examined 6 witnesses, out of 15 witnesses, as PWs 1 to 6. The documents are marked as Ex.P-1 to 8, 1(a)(b), 2(a), 3(a), 4(a), 5(a), 6(a), 7(a). The Material Objects are marked as 1 and
2. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up CWs 7, 9 and 13 and closed the evidence of Prosecution. 6
Spl.C C.117/2018
7. The Incriminating Circumstances in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses has been read over to the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the entire evidence and not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the Accused on merits.
9. The points for my consideration are :
1. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused on 28/11/2017 had Kidnapped the minor Victim Cw-2 and taken her to his house, thereafter committed Rape and again on 2/12/2017 Raped her and committed Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault repeatedly?
2. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012?7
Spl.C C.117/2018
3. What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following
REASONS
11. Point Nos. 1 and 2: The Prosecution has
relied on the evidence of the Complainant, Victim, Father of the Victim, Doctor and Police Officials to prove the allegations of Kidnap, Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault committed by the Accused on the minor Victim.
12. The Complainant, mother of the minor Victim Smt. Nandini is examined as PW-1. She has stated that as on the date of incident, her daughter minor Victim was studying in 9 th standard, was 8 Spl.C C.117/2018 residing in the Hostel, during vacation came to her house. Afterwards, in the month of December 2016, once she went out of the house without informing her. Therefore, she gave Complaint to the Police and later it was made known that she went to her Sister's house. Thereafter, the Police brought the minor Victim along with Accused near from Konanakunte Bus stop. After verifying the Victim, she made known that the Accused took her to his relatives house and kept her with him in his house. She has also disclosed about the physical relationship took between them during the said period. She has also identified the Complaint given under Ex.P-1 and her Signature is marked as Ex.P-1(a).
13. In her Cross-examination, she has not denied the Kidnap and Rape committed on her minor daughter. But shown ignorance about whether the same has been committed by the Accused. She has also not aware of the contents of the Complaint 9 Spl.C C.117/2018 given under Ex. P-1. Further she has categorically denied that the Accused after kidnapping her daughter committed Rape as disclosed by the minor Victim. Further, in the Re-examination on behalf of Prosecution, she has been denied that since the matter has settled between herself and the Accused for the reason that he was going to marry her daughter deposed falsely.
14. The father of the Victim Sri. Anantharaju is examined as PW-2. He has identified the Accused and stated that he had seen him in the Police Station, when brought by the Police along with her daughter. According to him, when her daughter went to the house of her Aunt, the Accused took her from the near by park and kept with him and he was brought to her back to the house, subsequent to 4 days from the date of giving Complaint.
10
Spl.C C.117/2018
15. He has stated that the Statement given before the Police with regard to his daughter was Kidnapped by the Accused, afterwards Raped by him.
16. In the Cross-examination, he has denied the minor Victim was kidnapped by the Accused and she did not inform anything regarding after Kidnapping her the Accused kept her in the relative house and committed Rape on her. Further, in the Re- examination he has admitted that since the matter is settled between them and marriage talks of his minor daughter with the Accused are going on.
17. The Victim is examined as PW-4. She has supported the allegations made in the Complaint with regard to the Kidnap by the Accused afterwards forcibly had Sexual Intercourse with her, after taking her to his house in the year 2017. According to her evidence, on 12/11/2017, her mother scolded 11 Spl.C C.117/2018 her, therefore she left the house and went to her Aunt's house, after 15 days, she returned. She got afraid of going into the house, therefore sat in the near by Park. At that time, the Accused came and took her with him to his house and on the next day forcibly had Sexual Intercourse with her. Later he took her to the house of his friend at Ramanagar and she was in the said house for one week and returned to Bengaluru along with the wife of friend of Accused. Afterwards the Accused took her to the Temple at Bengaluru and again had Sexual Intercourse with her in the nearby her Park. The Police caught hold both of them near the Bus Stand at Banashankari, afterwards her parents came to the Police Station. She has identified the Accused in the Court and also deposed in support of the contents of Statement given to the Police.
18. However, in the Cross-examination on behalf of the Accused, she has admitted that both of them 12 Spl.C C.117/2018 were loving each other and she herself voluntarily went with him and he never Kidnapped her as well as not Raped her. She has also denied the Statement given against the Accused before the Police.
19. In the Re-examination on behalf of the Prosecution, she has admitted that the Parents of the Accused and her parents are agreed for her marriage with the Accused and denied, therefore falsely deposed before the Court.
20. The Medical Officer Dr. Malathi is examined as Pw-3. She has examined the Victim on 3/12/2017 and gave Medical Certificate as per Ex.P-2. She has also identified the Panty of Victim collected during her examination is marked as MO.1.
21. In the Cross-examination, she has denied no Statement given by the Victim with regard to the Accused forcibly had Sexual Intercourse with her and 13 Spl.C C.117/2018 she never brought for Medical examination. She has further admitted before receiving the FSL Report gave Medical Report as per Ex.P-2. She has not able to say without going through the FSL Report whether any forcible act of Sexual Intercourse taken on the Victim.
22. The ASI Mr. C. S. Krishnappa is examined as PW-5. He has stated that on 2/12/2017 when he was the SHO in the Police Station, the Complainant gave Complaint and case registered in Cr. No. 59/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012. He has identified his signature in the Complaint as Ex.P-1(b), the FIR is marked as per Ex.P-5 and his computerized Signature as Ex.P-5(a). He has denied a false case has been registered against the Accused.
23. The Police Inspector Mr. Kempegowda is examined as PW-6. He has conducted further 14 Spl.C C.117/2018 investigation and sent the minor Victim for Medical examination and the Accused was produced before him through officials. Afterwards he has recorded the Voluntary Statement. He has identified the Mahazar conducted on 4/12/2017 as per Ex.P-6 and his Signature is marked as Ex.P-6(a). The Medical Certificate of the Accused is marked as Ex.P-3, his Signature is marked as Ex.P3(a). The Age Confirmation Certificate of the Minor Victim is identified as Ex.P-4 and his Signature is marked as Ex.P4(a). The FSL Report is marked as Ex.P-8 and underwear of the Accused is identified and marked as MO2.
24. In the Cross-examination, he has denied fabrication of MO.2 for the case and no Statements of the witnesses recorded along with Further Statement of the Complainant. He has also denied false Chargesheet has been filed against the Accused without proper verification.
15
Spl.C C.117/2018
25. The Prosecution has not placed any Corroborative and Cogent evidence in proof of the alleged Kidnap of the minor Victim by the Accused on 28/11/2017 from nearby the Park. Later, after taking her to his house No.86-A at out house near Kumaran's School, forcibly committed Rape on her. Thereafter, committed Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault on 2/12/2017 as alleged in the Statement of the Victim.
26. Further the evidence of the parents of the Victim goes against the case of the Prosecution. Though they have stated in support of the allegations made against the Accused in their Chief- examination, not supported in the Cross- examination. Further, the Medical evidence and FSL Report are not supported the Prosecution case.
27. The Age of the Victim as minor as on the date of alleged incident is not proved before the 16 Spl.C C.117/2018 Court. Though the Head Mistresses of Carmel Educational Society issued a certificate relating to her age marked with consent as Ex.P-4, same is not proved by examining the said Head Mistresses before the Court. Further the evidence of the minor Victim deposed in Chief-examination in support of the case of Prosecution is contrary to the admissions made by her in the Cross-examination. Because the minor Victim and her parents categorically admitted that since marriage talks of both of them took in the family and they have compromised the matter, deposed falsely before the Court.
28. Therefore, considering the above discussed aspects, I come to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to prove the allegations of Kidnap, Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault committed by the Accused on the minor Victim punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 17 Spl.C C.117/2018 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative .
29. Point No. 3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused Sandeep. M. S/o Mayanna Gowda is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The bail bonds executed by the Accused and surety under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. shall be in force till the completion of Appeal period.
The M.O. 1 and 2 and other properties if any, seized by the Investigating Officer in this case, are ordered to be destroyed as useless and worthless after completion of Appeal period.18
Spl.C C.117/2018 (Dictated to the Judgement writer, transcript and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court today on 3rd day of March, 2020.) (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1) List of witnesses examined for the Prosecution PW.1 Nandini PW.2 Anantharaju PW.3 Dr.Malathi PW.4 Victim PW.5 C.S.Krishnappa PW.6 Kempegowda
2) List of documents marked for the Prosecution;
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW-1.
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW-5
Ex.P2 Medical Certificate of the Victim.
19
Spl.C C.117/2018
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW-3
Ex.P3 Medical Certificate of the Accused
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW-6
Ex.P4 Age Confirmation Certificate of Victim.
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW-6
Ex.P5 F.I.R.
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW-5
Ex.P6 Mahazar
Ex.P6(a) Signature of Pw-6
Ex.P7 Further Statement of Complainant
Ex.P7(a) Signature of Pw-6
Ex.P8 FSL Report.
3) List of Material Objects marked for the Prosecution MO1 Panty of Victim.
MO2 Underwear of Accused.
4) List of witnesses examined for the Accused Nil
5) List of documents marked for the Accused Nil 20 Spl.C C.117/2018
6) List of Material Objects marked for the Accused Nil (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
*** 21 Spl.C C.117/2018 Judgment pronounced in the open court, (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused Sandeep. M. S/o Mayanna Gowda is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The bail bonds executed by the Accused and surety under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. shall be in force till the completion of Appeal period.
The M.O. 1 and 2 and other properties if any, seized by the Investigating Officer in this case, are ordered to be destroyed as useless and worthless after completion of Appeal period.
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.