Bangalore District Court
Jalahalli P.S vs Raviprasad on 25 January, 2024
KABC010000482016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2024
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.02/2016
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Jalahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED: A1. Ravi Prasad,
S/o Late A.Gandhi,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at 7th block,
Prestige Wellington Apartment,
Gangamma Circle,
Jalahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 013.
A2. Sulochana,
W/o Late A.Gandhi,
Aged about 72 years,
r/at No.7063,
6th floor, 7th block,
Prestige Wellington Apartment,
Gangamma Circle,
Jalahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 013.
(A1 & A2 Rep. by Sri.AMKC, Advocate)
S.C.No:02/2016
2
1. Date of commission of : 5.7.2014 to 19.6.2015
offence
2. Date of report of Offence : 20.09.2015
3. Name of the Complainant : Smt.Nagarathna
4. Date of commencement of : 30-07-2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 06-04-2023
6. Offences Complained are : U/s.376, 420 of IPC, 4 of
D.P.Act, 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are found not guilty
***
JUDGMENT
This case is registered on the basis of charge sheet submitted by ACP Yeshwanthapura Sub Division against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 376, 420 of IPC, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2014 the complainant and her mother were approached by accused and his mother through Anjanappa, the marriage broker. They have visited their house, and knowing fully that complainant is S.C.No:02/2016 3 belonging to schedule caste, the accused No.1 promised will marry the complainant.
3. The complainant was approached through telephone by the accused, they demanded about Rs.4 lakhs dowry, after negotiations it was reduced to Rs.2,50,000/-. It has been promised by December 2014, accused No.1 will marry the complainant. On 09.08.2014 accused No.1 came to the house of complainant and met mother of the complainant and requested mother of the complainant, to send her daughter along with accused No.1 to Bandikal, Denugiri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy temple of Chikkaballapur. At that time when the complainant's mother enquired where the mother of the accused No.1 is, he reported she had gone to some other place.
4. On that day accused No.1 took complainant to his Prestige Apartment, after returning from the temple, the victim was convinced by the accused S.C.No:02/2016 4 not to fear, but he forcefully had intercourse. On the next day, he left the victim to her house.
5. On 30.08.2014 once again when accused was going to Chikkaballapura temple along with one Gopinath in a car, they requested to send the complainant and it is reported once in 15 days the mother of the accused No.1 will be going to Chennai and during that period the accused No.1 requested complainant to accompany him in the house. If the complainant did not respond, Accused No.1 would threaten that he will leave her company. Whenever the complainant went to the accused No.1 house, he forced to have physical relationship and till the mother of the accused returns he did not allow her even to move out of the house. The accused promised as they are going to marry and is not going to deceive her.
6. The complainant submits on 14.11.2014, 15.11.2014 in the Prestige Apartment and even during night he used to take complainant to S.C.No:02/2016 5 Mathikere, own house and this fact is even known to Gowramma. The accused No.1 was working in Bonefigloli company, due to his work he has to move out of the city to Hubli, Bagalkot, etc, accordingly he convinced the complainant to accompany him by promising before the mother of the complainant, as there are other family colleagues are coming, he took her from 19.11.2014 to 21.11.2014. The complainant submits in Hubli Revankar Comfort Room No.114 was booked by the accused No.1 where he had physical relationship with the victim. From there they returned back to Bengaluru, but even then accused No.1 never talked about the marriage. In fact though 6 months was over, even then accused No.1 did not talked about the marriage. On 12.2.2015 to 15.2.2015, due to company work, accused No.1 took the complainant in KSRTC bus, he took to hotel near the KSRTC Bus stand at Bagalkot and had physical relationship. Similarly S.C.No:02/2016 6 on 22.2.2015, 2 days he took the victim to Belgaum, Ramdev Hotel No.222 for a day.
7. The accused No.1 even though his mother was residing in the house, accused used to call complainant and did had physical relationship with the complainant. On 19.6.2015 when the complainant forced the accused to marry her on one or other pretext used to dodged the matter. After getting suspicious the complainant had reported everything to her mother and requested to get the marriage performed. Then accused No.1 mother Accused No.2 abused the complainant that she is belonging to lower caste 'holeya, madiga' and she is destitute, she is not able to pay any dowry as demanded and she is not suitable for their house. Therefore as there is no match for the accused No.1 they did not marry, even though her son is aged about 40 years.
8. Immediately though accused No.1 was requested he convinced that he will talk to his S.C.No:02/2016 7 mother but even in the meantime complainant came to know through another friend Suresh of accused No.1 that they are trying to get engagement of the accused No.1 with one girl of Hosuru within third week of September. Accordingly when complainant forced the accused No.1, he had deceived the complainant even though having physical relationship, as such complainant made complaint before the jurisdictional police on 20.9.2015. On the basis of complaint, the investigating officer on conclusion has filed charge sheet.
9. On service of the summons, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before this Court and got enlarged on bail. The charge sheet copies were furnished to the accused Nos.1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, my learned predecessor in office framed charge for the offences punishable S.C.No:02/2016 8 u/s.376, 420 of IPC, 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. At trial, the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 19 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to 43 and closed its side and on defence accused got examined D.W.1 and another as D.W.2 and got exhibited Exs.D.1 to 3 and closed their side. The statement of the accused persons u/sec 313 recorded, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and the accused persons, denied all the incriminating evidence.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record.
12. 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 accused No.1 on 09.08.2014 at S.C.No:02/2016 9 12.00p.m took the complainant/Prosecutrix to Gangamma Circle, house No 7063, Prestige th Wellington Apartment, 7 Block, Bengaluru on the pretext of marrying her and sexually assaulted her. Also, assaulting of marrying her, took the Prosecutrix to lodges in Hubli, Bagalkot,accused no.1 on 09.08.2014 at 12.00p.m took the complainant/Prosecutrix to Gangamma Circle, house No 7063, Prestige th Wellington Apartment, 7 Block, Bengaluru on the pretext of marrying her and sexually assaulted her. Also, assaulting of marrying her, took the Prosecutrix to lodges in Hubli, Bagaqlkot, Belgavi and sexually assaulted there too, thereby committed offence punishable U/s 376 of IPC?
2.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and places accused No.1 promising to marry her and not marrying her and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 420 of IPC?
3.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that both with common intention on 05.07.2014 saw the Prosecutrix for marriage and demanded dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?
4.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that both accused with common intention on S.C.No:02/2016 10 19.06.2015, when the Prosecutrix informed accused No.2 about the cheating and sexual assault committed by you accused No.1 on her, both of them have insulted her in the name of caste thereby committed offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
5.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place both accused with common intention denied marriage as the Prosecutrix belongs to Schedule Caste and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
6. What Order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows; Point No.1 to 3 : In the Negative Point No.4 and 5: In the Negative Point No.6: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT Nos.1 to 3 : The prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/Sec.376 of IPC, the prosecution relies on the evidence of complainant examined as P.W.1. The mother of the complainant got examined as P.W.2. The P.W.3 is a Producer of Film and S.C.No:02/2016 11 knowing the accused and complainant deposed about the complainant had reported that she is going to marry the accused No.1. The P.W.4 is the marriage broker. This witness has turned hostile with regard to the marriage negotiations between the complainant and accused No.1. The P.W.5 is another witness who knows about accused No.1 and complainant is the case of prosecution but this witness has deposed that he does not know the caste of the complainant and accused who deposed about knowing P.W.4 who had given phone numbers of the accused. This witness is treated as hostile does not support the prosecution case.
15. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer who examined the accused and deposed that accused is fit and is not impotent. This witness deposes medical certificate as per Ex.P.8 and in the cross- examination admits accused physical appearance has not been specified in the requisition dtd:30.9.2015. This witness deposes he did not examined the accused whether he had recent S.C.No:02/2016 12 sexual intercourse or not, but he reported only with regard to accused being fit to perform sexual act. P.W.7 is B.K.Basavaraju who deposed about complainant being his relative and he knows the accused who is belonging to Reddy caste. This witness deposes about marriage negotiations wherein he, Rangamma, mother of the victim, Diwakar, Anjinappa were present when they went to the house of accused for marriage negotiations. P.W.8 Chandranayak is another person who deposed about knowing accused and complainant and deposed about working as a Security at Prestige Wellington Apartment wherein accused were staying in Apartment No.7063 and accused used to bring complainant to that apartment while he was working as a security. P.W.9 is another Manager of the hotel at Hubli who deposed about knowing about accused and also complainant, on 20.11.2014 accused had booked room in their hotel, room No.114 they were staying together S.C.No:02/2016 13 upto 22.11.2014. Further on 23.2.2015 accused has booked room again and he has been allotted Room No.104. Complainant was also present upto 25.2.2015 and once again from 20.11.2014 to 22.11.2014 he has verified the hotel records. Accordingly issued Ex.P.12 to the police when enquired. P.W.10 Vikas is the person incharge of the hotel Aradhana Deluxe at Bagalkot and also a resident of Bagalkot. This witness deposes about knowing accused and complainant from Bengaluru accused No.1 had booked room at Bagalkot on 4.10.2015, both had resided in the room, even further booked on 6.2.2015 and on 7.2.2015 they have vacated the same.16. P.W.11 is the doctor who examined the victim on 21.9.2015 and issued Ex.P.5. This witness deposes about victim undergoing sexual intercourse when she examined there is no evidence of recent sexual contact. Accordingly she issued Ex.P.5. P.W.12 is the person who took mobile phones bearing S.C.No:02/2016 14 No.8123209611 and 9243117890 for forensic examination and also to retrieve the call details. He had issued 65B about retrieving mobile phone call details as per order of the superiors as per Exs.P.15 to 17.
17. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer Police Inspector who accompanied the complainant on 21.9.2015 and 3.10.2015 alongwith complainant she recorded statement of witnesses and collected the documents with regard to accused No.1 staying in the hotel under Exs.P.9 to 12. On enquiry had made report to the ACP. The P.W.15 B.N.Nataraj is a Head Constable working in Yeshwanthapura police station. P.W.16 is the ACP who took investigation as per the order of the DCP under Ex.P.22, obtained caste certificate of the complainant on 21.9.2015, received her caste certificate and sent her for medical examination alongwith police Inspector Devikadevi for proper examination and visited the house No.7063 in S.C.No:02/2016 15 Wellington Apartment of Prestige. This witness deposes about recording statement of witnesses and collected accused and complainant's caste reports, further obtained the call details and on conclusion had filed charge sheet against the accused.
18. P.W.18 is the Priest at Om Shakthi temple in Sarjapura village. This witness deposes he enquired accused and complainant that why they are not marrying since 2015. The complainant replied that complainant has not been married since mother of the accused No.1 is not agreeing. P.W.19 is the Manager at Ramadev Hotel of Belagavi who deposed this witness deposed about signing Exs.P.19 and 27 and even Exs.P.28 and
29.
19. The complainant in her examination-in-chief specifically deposed in consonance with the complaint by giving particulars about the accused was got acquainted through one Anjanappa S.C.No:02/2016 16 marriage broker as on 5.7.2014. The complainant has deposed accused has seen her near Anjaneya temple in their area even though knowing victim is belonging to schedule caste, accused No.1 agreed to marry her. Within 3 to 4 days accused No.1 met victim in Kanteerava Studio where complainant's sister house is situated. In that house, accused Ravi Prasad, Anjinappa and Diwakar were present and they have talked with regard to the marriage. Accused had demanded Rs.4 lakhs for the marriage expenses, however that much amount was unable to be paid by the family of the victim, atleast he agreed for Rs.2 and 1/2 lakhs as dowry.
20. The complainant has deposed accused took phone number of this victim and he called victim to his house as accused No.2 had called to see the victim. In fact accused No.1 insisted even to bring the mother of the victim. On the said invitation victim had went to accused No.1 house in the year 2014 both accused and victim went to S.C.No:02/2016 17 Chikkaballapura, Lakshmi Narasimha temple, then accused No.1 also accompanied the victim, at that time while returning it had become 10.30 p.m to 11.00 p.m, then accused No.1 took the victim to his house inspite of victim expressing her reservations, victim was taken to the Prestige Apartment of the accused No.1 near Gangammanagudi. In fact in the house accused kept victim in a separate room, later accused took victim in that room and he forced her to concede for his demand of sexual favour. At about 5.30 am he left the victim to her house.
21. The P.W.1 has deposed within a week accused No.1 family had asked to visit the house of the accused No.1, then accused, her sister and broker Anjinappa, Diwakar, Basavaraju all went to the house of the accused, wherein accused No.2 informed they have consented to the marriage within 3 months it can be performed and when the victim side expressed they will get marriage done S.C.No:02/2016 18 in a temple, then accused No.2 expressed if victim is given as a daughter-in-law on 30.8.2014 accused No.1 and victim went to Lakshmi Narasimha temple on that day also, similarly accused No.1 took once again to cinema and had physical relationship with the victim 3 to 4 times. In the year 2014 September second accused went to Chennai at that time accused No.1 on 2.9.2014 took the victim to his house and once again he had physical relationship. Further on 9.9.2014 also when the accused No.1 went to his official tour he took the victim alongwith him and they stayed at Bonfeekloli company work and to Hubli, Belgaum, as a company Marketing Sales Executive, in all those places he made rooms at Hubli lodge and at Belgaum, in the year 2015 February once again accused No.1 took victim alongwith him and continuously had physical relationship with the victim.
S.C.No:02/2016 19
22. The victim has deposed accused further took her to Bagalkot where they stayed near the KSRTC Bus stand and there also accused No.1 abused her physically.
23. The victim has deposed after this as per the promise accused did not marry her within that period, as such she demanded marriage to be performed within a reasonable period.
24. She once again took the Basavaraj broker and alongwith mother of the victim, but accused No.2 and 1 did not agree the proceed with the marriage. In fact accused No.2 informed that victim is belonging to lower caste how she can expect being wife of a person from upper caste. The accused No.2 further informed though accused No.1 is aged nearly 40 years he had not married means he needs the girl of their own status. Accordingly victim being disturbed as the life of the victim was spoiled, she lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1.
S.C.No:02/2016 20
25. In the cross-examination the victim has given particulars about her school, her native and what her father and mother are doing. Further the victim has deposed about police drawing spot Mahazar and also identifies the photographs placed on record.
26. he victim has deposed about how she came into contact with the accused and where she was working and residing near Kanteerava studio but deposed she cannot give the number of the house near Kanteerava studio. The victim deposed she had made a separate house for Rs.2,000/- rent and she and her mother were residing there, her elder sister was also residing at that time. The victim deposed in what circumstances, in what manner she met the accused No.1 is brought by Anjnappa marriage broker. This witness deposes in page-15 of her evidence that she will be called as Nagarathna @ Lakshmi. Further deposes broker Anjinappa had shown accused No.1 being the S.C.No:02/2016 21 suitable bride. This witness deposes that Anjinappa is belonging to schedule caste. When the Anjinappa was asked to show any of the marriage proposals, then accused No.1 proposal was brought. This witness deposes when she, Anjinappa had gone to temple, there she met accused and further deposed there no any marriage talks did held. The complainant in her cross-examination dated:18.9.2018 submits she had already got red crime No.217/2012 in Nandini layout police station against one Venkatesh is admitted. This witness admits she had given in the complaint as Lakshmi in her own handwriting. This witness admits in that criminal case charge sheet is filed and she has been mentioned as Lakshmi @ Nagarathna. The said Venkatesh is Cinema stunt actor and she was working as a Senior Stunt Assistant and this case is similar to that of having physical relationship and deceiving this victim complainant by the said Venkatesh is S.C.No:02/2016 22 admitted. The witness admits further she had informed this present accused No.1 about previous case S.C.885/2013. This witness specifically admits in page-18 as follows:
" £Á£ÀÄ ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸À°è¹zÀ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï PÉù£À £ÀA§gÀÄ J¸ï ¹ 885-2013 JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D PÉøÀÄ ¹¹ºÉZï 54 gÀ°è £ÀqɬÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤ÃªÀÅ J¸ï ¹ 885-2013£ÀÄß gÁf ªÀiÁrPÉÆAr¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë £ÁªÀÅ gÁf ªÀiÁrPÉÆAr®è J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. J¸ï ¹ 885-2013 ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ¤ÃªÀÅ F PÉù£À 1£Éà DgÉÆæeÉÆvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä M¦àPÉÆArgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ºËzÀÄ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë ªÀÄÄAiªÀjzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉAPÀmÉñï FvÀ£À ªÉÄð£À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß 1£Éà DgÉÆæ gÀ«¥Àæ¸ÁzïUÉ ºÉýzÉÝ£ÀÄ, DzÀgÀÆ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ."
27. This witness denies that first accused after filing of the previous case he did not accepted to marry her she denies. This witness deposes she had not informed the previous breakdown of S.C.No:02/2016 23 marriage to broker Anjinappa. This witness admits specifically that she had filed case against Venkatesh is not informed to the accused No.2. This witness denies she had received compensation in the previous case.
28. This witness deposes by giving particulars wherever they have went to in KSRTC bus. In the year 2015 she deposed they stayed at Belgaum, Ramadev Hotel and accused No.1 had reserved the tickets and even rooms. This witness admits she has not specified in that complaint that the room booked by the accused is whether double cot bed room or single cot bed room. She admits she had gone alongwith accused who had gone on his work purpose is not mentioned in the complaint is denied. This witness deposes she had informed her mother about accused No.1 taking her to Hubli. This witness admits she has not informed about the incident with the accused No.1 to the broker Anjinappa whenever went to Chikkaballapur S.C.No:02/2016 24 Lakshmi temple. This witness admits Exs.D.1 and D.2 concerning the crime registered against Kaurav Venkatesh. This witness admits that the said Kaurav Venkatesh had kept in custody and she had given further statement and specifically denies in the same Cr.217/2012 she had given further statement that accused Venkatesh had promised her to marry and had sexual intercourse is denied by this witness. The evidence given by the witness in S.C.No.885/2013 shown to her is denied. This witness denies specifically that she had given complaint before Nandini Layout police station against said Venkatesh for offence punishable u/s.376 and 420 of IPC. This witness deposes further she cannot give the dates when she had went to Hubli, Bagalkot and Belgaum and denies other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused. This witness deposes that she cannot give room number when she went to Hubli lodge, Revankar Comforts Lodge. This S.C.No:02/2016 25 witness deposes accused car number is KA-04- MM-5394, in the vehicle they had went to Lakshminarasimha temple at Chikkaballapur. This witness admits she had not informed second accused about accompanying the accused No.1 to go to Lakshminarasimha temple by her. This witness admits there is a watchman to the house and there is a log book. The witness volunteers she had not signed the log book. She visited the apartment. This witness denies other suggestions made by learned counsel for the accused. This witness deposes police have not done Mahazar near the house of accused No.1. The witness deposes she has been subjected to medical examination on 29.1.2015. This witness deposes she cannot give whether lady Medical Officer examined her or not. This witness admits she has not specified how many times accused had sexual intercourse with her. This witness admits accused No.1 is having own house and some house are S.C.No:02/2016 26 rented. He is having rental income of about Rs.2 lakh is deposed, having no any knowledge of the victim. The complainant deposes in page-30 of her cross-examination that till 2018 accused was having intercourse with her and was living with her and she has mentioned the same before the court and that lived as a husband and wife but later he left her. This witness denies the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
29. The SPP further got examined Exs.P.30, 31 to
44. The petitioner has placed Ex.P.30 the marriage got registered by accused No.1 with one Anubasharma as per Ex.P.30. The Cr.No.492/2018, FIR is got marked as per Ex.P.31, Insurance policy copy marked as per Ex.P.32, NCR documents as per Ex.P.33 and complaint given to police marked as Ex.P.34 and 35, complainant has placed photographs as per Ex.P.36 to 39 with 65B certificate. The complainant got marked FIR as per S.C.No:02/2016 27 Ex.P.41, the C.C.612/2019 certified copy marked as per Ex.P.42 and charge sheet as per Ex.P.43 and private compliant as Ex.P.44.
30. The P.W.1 specifically admits on 17.9.2018 accused No.1 had given private complaint against her. This witness denies she had went to the house of the accused No.1 and made altercation. This witness denies only after private complaint is filed she had made complaint as per Ex.P.31. This witness denies Ex.P.30 has no any resemblance with the present case. This witness admits she has not made against accused No.1 and Anubasharma. This witness admits they are not residing together. Further deposes that they have divorced. This witness denies only after she interfered in the marriage of accused No.1 with Anubasharma it has ended in divorce. This witness deposes Ex.P.36 and 38 are taken in Hyderabad in the year 2018. This witness deposes the photograph has been taken when accused was S.C.No:02/2016 28 giving amount to her and it has been taken by one Sampath Rao. This witness deposes on 11.5.2018 to 13.5.2018 accused and herself were in Hyderabad in Sai Residency Hotel, then went in a train booked by accused. This witness deposes while she was delivering hard disk of the company accused accompanied her. With regard to Ex.P.32 this witness deposes she has placed Ex.P.32 to discloses accused No.1 has shown as his wife to the Insurance company. This witness admits on 17.9.2018 accused had given another complaint against this complainant P.W.1. This witness denies she used to quarrel with the accused by going to his house. This witness deposes when she informed Lakshmi about her condition, the said Lakshmi given complaint before police as per Ex.P.34. This witness denies she is making false claim on accused No.1 residing with her. This witness admits the Cr.No.492/2018 got registered S.C.No:02/2016 29 by this complainant has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per Ex.D.3.
31. The complainant P.W.1 admits she and accused have compromised. This witness admits accused never abused her by taking her caste name. This witness deposes she went near the house of accused No.2 admits there was no any agreement between herself and the accused No.1 to marry.
32. P.W.2 Rangavva is mother of the complainant who deposed similarly as that of P.W.1 that accused No.1 had made a marriage proposal with the victim her daughter and they have demanded Rs.4 lakhs dowry on failure to pay they have refused to marry, as such complaint has been made by her daughter. In the cross-examination this witness admits her son is married. This witness deposes she is residing in Bannuru village only where TC of the complainant is available. This witness admits she never resided in Bengaluru.
S.C.No:02/2016 30 This witness deposes her daughter Lakshmi was residing in Bengaluru but she cannot give the description of the plot where she was residing. This witness admits her grandson is studying in Bengaluru and she is residing with Lakshmi since 2 years. This witness deposes accused No.1 was brought by Anjinappa and Sudhakar but she cannot give the date but about 3 years back. This witness deposes about marriage being admitted by accused No.1. This witness deposed accused No.2 never came for the marriage talks. This witness deposes her daughter has been taken to public place by the accused No.1 and they stayed together but denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
33. The P.W.3 Rajashekar has deposed that in the year 2014 August when he went to Ganesha temple, Moodalapalya, Bengaluru, he saw C.W.1 and accused No.1, when he enquired he came to know that C.W.1 is marrying accused No.1 and to S.C.No:02/2016 31 get fix the marriage date they have come to the temple to ask Archaka, at that time Archaka informed them to go to Narasimhaswamy temple and this witness alongwith C.W.1 and accused No.1 went to Narasimhaswamy temple and enquired accused No.1 whether he is marrying C.W.1 and accused No.1 informed he is marrying C.W.1 and went to Bengaluru in the car. He further deposed that he called C.W.1 whether she has reached her house, but she informed that she is in the house of accused No.1 and whenever he called her through phone, she informed that she is alongwith accused No.1. He further deposed that C.W.1 took back the amount of Rs.1 lakh given to this witness and informed him that they are going to compromise. In the cross-examination P.W.3 has admitted that C.W.1 and her mother are residing in a rental house. He denies that he does not know when C.W.1 attended his shop. He denies that he does not know the date when he S.C.No:02/2016 32 alongwith CW.1 and accused No.1 went to Narasimhaswamy temple in the car. He further denied that he does not know when accused No.1 and C.W.1 came to his shop in the bike. He denies that he does not know the bike number. He denies to the suggestion made to him that he has not taken the C.W.1 and accused No.1 to Narasimhaswamy temple. He denies that he does not know the marriage conversation taken place. He denies to the suggestion that accused No.1 never informed him that he will marry C.W.1. He depose that police have not issued summons but called him through phone. He further denied all other suggestions.
34. The P.W.4 Anjinappa marriage broker has deposed that C.W.1 has given her photo to see a bridegroom, he shown the photo of C.W.1 to Diwakar and Diwakar shown the photo to accused No.1, later he does not know anything. He has deposed that he has not taken accused to the S.C.No:02/2016 33 house of C.W.1 and shown her and no marriage conversation taken place. He further deposed that he does not know what accused No.1 has made to C.W.1. In the cross-examination he admitted that C.W.1 has given her photo to see a bridgegroom. He denies to the suggestion that he has taken the accused No.1 to the house of C.W.1 near kanteerava Studio. He denies to the suggestion that accused No.1 demanded Rs.4 lakhs later decided to give Rs.2.5 lakhs. He denies to the suggestion that accused No.1 and victim were roaming. He denies to the suggestion that accused No.1 had physical relationship with C.W.1. He denies to the suggestion that accused No.1 had cheated the C.W.1 without marrying her. He further denies that on 22.9.2015 he has given statement before ACP. He further denies Ex.P.6 statement given by him. He admits that to the house of shown. In the cross-examination of learned counsel for the accused he denied to the S.C.No:02/2016 34 suggestion that C.W.1 never gave photo of her daughter to see bridegroom. He can't say when the C.W.1 gave photo the him. He deposes that he does not know where he kept the photo. He further denied all other suggestions and remained hostile to the case of prosecution.
35. P.W.5 deposed that he does not know C.W.1 and accused No.1 and to which caste they both belong. In the year 2014 when he went to marriage of sister of accused No.1, accused No.2 son told him to show bride to accused No.1. He gave Anjinappa phone number, later he does not know what has happened. In the cross-examination he denied all the suggestions made to him.
36. P.W.6 Dr.Akshathraj Shetty deposed about conducting medical examination of accused No.1. The suggestions made to the witness are denied.
37. P.W.7 Basavaraju B.K who deposed victim is his sister-in-law and accused is known to him as belonging to Reddy community. This witness S.C.No:02/2016 35 deposes the broker has brought accused No.1 for family negotiations at that time C.W.1, Rangamma, Diwakar, Anjinappa were present. All of them went to accused No.1 house wherein accused No.1 promised to marry victim. This witness denies accused misusing his friendship with complainant.
38. P.W.8 Chandranayak similarly deposes about knowing the accused and complainant and this witness also deposes about marriage talks. This witness deposed he had stopped the complainant without leaving her into the apartment, but accused No.1 came and took her to his apartment. This witness deposes police have come to conduct Mahazar. In the cross-examination he denied all the suggestions made to him and remained hostile to the case of prosecution.
39. P.W.9 Manager of Hotel Revannakar Comfort, Hubbali wherein he has deposed that on 20.11.2014 accused and complainant came to his S.C.No:02/2016 36 hotel and booked a room No.114 and stayed till 22.11.2014 and vacated at 10.00 p.m. Again on 23.2.2015 accused and complainant went to his lodge and booked room No.104 and stayed till 25.2.2015 and vacated at 7.40 p.m. When police enquired him he gave check out bill copy from 20.11.2014 to 22.11.2014 and photos in web camera as per Ex.P. 9 and 10 to them. He also gave check out bill copy from 23.2.2015 to 25.2.2015 as per Ex.P.11 to them. He further gave scan election ID as per Ex.P.12.
40. P.W.11 Dr.Jasmin Abraham deposed that he had examined the victim and stated that no external injuries found on her body, external genital examination deposed that hymen old healed tear at 4'0 clock and 7'0 clock position, vaginal written statement normal, and gave opinion that she is used to an act such as that of sexual intercourse, however there is no evidence of recent sexual contact and issued report as per S.C.No:02/2016 37 Ex.P.5. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the major report are found negative and there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse but she is used to an act act such as that of sexual intercourse.
41.P.W.12 PC 11663, CCB has deposed that police officer informed him to bring the phone number details of mobile No.8123209611 and 9243117890 and as per his direction he brought the details of the phone numbers and 65B certificate as per Ex.P.15 and details of both phone numbers as Ex.P.16 and 17. In the cross-examination he denied all the suggestions made to him but admits that it belongs to this case.
42. P.W.13 Shivalingaiah Retired ASI deposes that on 26l.10.2015 he had gone to Maralu village, Kodathi Post, Sarjapura road and called Om Shakthi temple Archaka Smt.Nagarathnamma to come to station and give statement, when she refused to go to station, he took her statement in S.C.No:02/2016 38 that place only and brought it to the police station and submitted as per Ex.P.18. In the cross- examination he admitted that he has recorded the statement and submitted in the police station.
43. P.W14 Devika Devi is the PSI has deposed that on 21.9.2015 she has been appointed to take the complainant to Hubbali, Bagalkote and Belagavi and to the lodge shown and to collect witness and record statement of witnesses. On 3.10.2015 she went and recorded the statements as per Ex.P.9 to 12. She also contacted the Hotel Manager and recorded statement and gave receipt of the lodge where accused and complainant were stayed as per Ex.P.19, on 4.10.2015 she went to Bagalkote and collected check out bills and election identity card scanned copy as per Ex.P.13 and 14 and on 5.10.2015 she went to Yeshwanthapur police station and produced the same before ACP and the report of ACP as per Ex.P.20.
S.C.No:02/2016 39
44. P.W.15 is the Police Personnel who searched the accused and arrested him on 30.9.2015 and produced before the Investigating Officer, his report is marked as Ex.P.21. In the cross- examination witness admits he has been given to arrest the accused in writing. The witness deposes he has been informed about the appearance of the accused. This witness deposes he has not enclosed the photograph of the accused alongwith reports before the ACP. This witness deposes the Yeshwanthapura Railway Station is a place where lot of people will be moving. This witness admits he has not mentioned in the main entrance of Yeshwanthpura police station accused being found and arrested in his report. This witness admits there was another personnel also appointed similarly and denies the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused.
45. P.W.16 is the ACP who conducted the investigation by obtaining further investigation on S.C.No:02/2016 40 the order of DCP. Further this witness deposes he obtained caste report of the victim and sent the victim for medical examination. Further recorded statement of C.W.7 and collected the entry and exit of the apartment from the security. This witness deposes accused was traced and produced before him. He got remanded the accused. He obtained CCTV Footage. He deputed a staff to conduct Mahazar at different places and also in the house of accused, he got arrested accused No.2 from the house No.7063. This witness deposes about drawing of spot Mahazar and taking the photographs as per Ex.P.23. It has been reported by the accused No.2 to the Investigating Officer that she is suffering from blood cancer and also suffering from diabetes. This witness deposes abut collecting 65B Evidence Act Certificate. This witness deposes about recording statement of the material witnesses and also drawing Mahazar. After arresting the accused he got medical S.C.No:02/2016 41 examination of the accused. On obtaining reports Ex.P.9 to 14 he concluded investigation and filed charge sheet. This witness in cross-examination denies the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused. This witness has not at all enclosed alongwith the complaint the caste certificate issued to the victim. He has not placed before the court. This witness denies he never sent victim to medical examination and obtained report. This witness denies by denying that he never visited the apartment of accused i.e. on 21.9.2015 and collected the documents from the security. This witness admits he has not collected documents concerning to the house No.7063 being in existence in whose name, this witness denies other suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused. This witness admits in Ex.P.9 name of Raviprasad is mentioned and there is no mention of the complaint is admitted. This witness denies other suggestions that he never sent any S.C.No:02/2016 42 person to Belgaum, Hubli, Bagalakote but falsely implicated the accused.
46. P.W.17 is the Police Inspector who deposed about receiving complaint on 20.9.2015. This witness deposes about registering FIR which is undisputed. In his cross-examination admits certain facts are being written in Ex.P.1 complaint. This witness denies the victim is also known as Lakshmi, witness replies it is not necessary for him to investigate. This witness pleads ignorance about Cr.No.885/2013 being got registered on the board of Nandini Layout police by the same victim.
47. Another witness P.W.18 who deposed about knowing complainant. This witness P.W.18 deposed about complainant being taken to temple by the accused in the year 2015. In fact this witness deposes accused had promised to marry the victim. This witness deposes that accused and victim had come to temple, they had previously agreed to marry but later accused No.1 and his S.C.No:02/2016 43 mother are not accepting the marriage proposal. This witness in cross-examination admits there will be lot of public coming to the temple at the time of pooja. This witness admits to Om Shakthi temple ladies and even gents also visit. This witness admits the victim had got Om Shakthi mala twice in their temple. They have gone to Chennai in a bus for attending Om Shakthi mala on piligrimage. This witness admits she does not know the address of the accused No.1.
48. P.W.19 is the Manager of Ramdev hotel who deposes that on 26.2.2015 one lady and a gents namely Ravi Prasad had visited their hotel, he had collected identity of the person who took the room, later police came to their hotel and conducted Mahazar, he deposes by noticing Ex.P.19, 27, 28 and 29 photographs.
49. In the case on hand, with regard to the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC, the prosecution basically relies on evidence of the S.C.No:02/2016 44 complainant and P.W.2 mother of the complainant. In fact the complainant though deposes in consonance with her examination-in-chief has specifically deposes she cannot give the description of the rooms booked at Hubli, Bagalkot and Ramdev hotel at Belgaum in her cross- examination. Moreover the complainant has claimed accused married her and they were living as husband and wife upto the year 2018 that means even after the filing of this case in page-30 of her cross-examination. In fact the allegations made by the complainant is the accused had promised to marry her who has refused to marry. Therefore the facts narrated by the complainant in the complaint and her admission in page-30 and 31 of her cross-examination contradicts. The complainant admits iin page-23 that she is the complainant who made complaint against Kaurav Venkatesh for similar offence. However this witness P.W.1 denies her further statement given S.C.No:02/2016 45 in the crime though the witness has admitted the certified copy of the documents but denies she had made complaint for the offence punishable u/s.376 and 420 of IPC. On going through the Ex.D.1 and 2, these documents discloses there was promise to marry by the said Kaurav Venkatesh to the complainant is evident from the FIR registered and the complainant has shown her name as Lakshmi and she admits she is the same person who had lodged complaint. Under such circumstances, the conduct of the complainant by deposing in page-23 of her cross-examination dated:11.10.2018 actually contradicts with the Ex.D.1 and 2. In fact though the other witnesses namely P.W.2 mother of the complainant has deposes about the alleged offence being committed by the accused, the P.W.2 in her cross- examination admits in page-6 the complainant had not had separate residence from that of her daughter Lakshmi. In page-9 of cross of P.W.2 she S.C.No:02/2016 46 admits that Kaurav Venkatesh had deceived her daughter, as such she had given complaint and this witness has also given statement before the police and against the said Kaurav Venkatesh. This witness admits she had given her statement that her name is Gangamma and husband is Manchaiah is mentioned therein. In fact the name of the complainant and name of mother of the complainant has been given differently in these 2 proceedings actually contradicts with the case of prosecution. P.W.3 Rajesh he found complainant and accused in the year 2014 August. When he enquired complainant who is she, she has replied she is going to marry the accused No.1. This witness deposes he used to enquire the complainant when she is going to marry accused and in 2016 he has been mentioned to pay dowry she needs amount. In his cross-examination this witness in page-4 of his cross-examination deposes he does not know name of mother of the S.C.No:02/2016 47 complainant and her sister. This witness deposes in page-5 of the cross-examination he never went alongwith accused No.1 and complainant to Narasimhaswamy temple. This witness deposes that he cannot give date and time when accused No.1 and complainant went to Hubli, Belgaum and so on. In the case on hand, considering the evidence of the complainant who has specifically deposed about causing loss of her quotation, accused No.1 promised to marry he had failed to marry her. As such she was subjected to sexual harassment by the accused No.1. Accordingly accused is guilty of offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC is the contention of the learned SPP.
50. On going through the complaint, complainant has specifically mentioned about accused No.1 failed to marry her inspite of promising, even accused No.2 is also directly involved though there written statement marriage talks. The accused also entered witness box as D.W.1. He has denied S.C.No:02/2016 48 all the allegations made by the complainant. In his cross-examination deposed he did married Kaurav Venkatesh in the year 2018 by registering their marriage when the complainant interfered in his marriage life his wife left matrimonial house and she has also given complaint. However the present complainant had made complaint before the jurisdictional Nandini Layout police in the name of Lakshmi against one Kaurav Venkatesh with whom she was working as a stunt assistant. In the case on hand, considering the complainant has changed her name as Lakshmi and now as Nagarathna and she admits Ex.D.1 being given by her and Ex.D.2 is the FIR registered against the said Kaurav Venkatesh goes to show that she has made complaint in durable manner is proved by the defence rather the complainant is able to establish her case about deceiving her. The oral evidence placed by the complainant namely of CWs.2, 3, 4, 5 and a case against the case of S.C.No:02/2016 49 prosecution. Even PWs.4 and 5 have turned hostile. Under such circumstances the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC not established.
51. In the case on hand the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.376 of IPC, prosecution basically relies on the evidence of complainant P.W.2 Rangamma mother of the complainant, the Medical Officer P.W.6 and 11. P.W.7, 8 have deposed about seeing accused and complainant together in the year 2014 and P.Ws.7 and 8 deposed about negotiations of marriage done in presence of C.W.1, her mother and Diwakar and Anjinappa. Similarly P.W.8 deposed about the marriage talks in his examination-in- chief in page-2, similarly to that P.W.7. However in the cross of P.W.7 admits he and complainant belong to same village. He admits he had fallen in love with the elder sister of the complainant and he had married her deposes he does not know S.C.No:02/2016 50 complainant belongs to SC/ST. This witness deposes he had married about 15 years back. Similarly P.W.8 in the cross-examination deposes in page-5 admits there is no intercom facility to the house of the accused and he had not enquired accused No.1 before leaving the complainant into the gated apartment premises. This witness further admits he has not confirmed that accused No.1 before confirming the complainant entered the apartment premises. This witness deposes as accused and complainant and others had come to the house of accused No.1 he had mentioned he knows the marriage talks between the accused No.1 and the complainant. This witness deposes he has not at all taken signature of the complainant whenever she visited the apartment in the register mentioned to that effect. Therefore the hostility of the complainant, PWs.4 and 5 and in the cross-examination of P.W.3 deposing that complainant had borrowed some of the amount for S.C.No:02/2016 51 her and accused and complainant visited his shop in the year 2016 cannot be considered as a material fact so as to consider that accused and complainant were having physical relationship.
52. In fact the Medical Officer has given report that both the accused No.1 and complainant are capable of having physical relationship.
53. Learned SPP argues Ex.P.34, 36 to 39 clearly discloses accused No.1 and complainant had gone to different places together and whenever accused No.1 had gone to his work, the complainant had accompanied him, as such they have physical relationship is established. Further the examination of the P.W.9 and 10 who have deposed seeing accused in their hotel as per the records maintained in the office namely Revannakar Comfort, by booking room on 22.11.2014, the accused and complainant both had come even P.W.10 Vikas has also deposed about seeing accused No.1 and complainant both S.C.No:02/2016 52 in the room together. Therefore the materials placed by the prosecution even the evidence of Investigating Officer directly proves accused and complainant had physical physical relationship, as such complaint made by the complainant establishes their physical relationship. Therefore accused is to be convicted.
54. Learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice Ex.P.33 where in the name of Lakshmi the present complainant had made complaint on 5.12.2023, NCR has been issued that some other lady had abused the complainant concerning her husband. When the complainant is not at all married, then how she can give complaint before the police as per Ex.P.33 and 34. Further as per Ex.P.35 as on 5.12.2019 complainant has given statement before the police by showing complainant as wife of accused No.2. Therefore there is contradiction between the present case complainant filed complaint that of S.C.No:02/2016 53 statement before the police on 5.12.2013. Moreover when the complainant has been re- examined as on 16.12.2022 she deposes whatever she has deposed in the examination-in-chief are all false and she has now compromised with accused No.1. Therefore considering these materials, the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.376 of IPC are not established is my firm view. On considering the material on record, with regard to the offence punishable u/s.4 of DP.Act, 376 and 420 of IPC.
55. In citation reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 in a case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that what are the ingredients to be satisfied by prosecution to seek the commission of offences punishable u/sec.375 by fulfilled by the prosecution. In para 9, the consent known to be given under fear or misconception should not be considered as per sec.90 of Cr.P.C has been S.C.No:02/2016 54 observed as per the Part-B, the prosecution has to prove that the consent is under misconception. The twin conditions to be satisfied by prosecution are a false promise and secondly it is made in a misconception. In para 10 of the citation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows;
"Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the context of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a special provision, the general provision, namely, Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code was not of much assistance to the prosecution. According to him, Section 375 Thirdly, Fourthly and Fifthly exhaustively enumerate the circumstances in which the consent given by the prosecutrix is vitiated and does not amount to consent in law. According to him, one has to look to Section 375 alone for finding out whether the offence of rape had been committed. Secondly, he submitted that even under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code the consent is vitiated only if S.C.No:02/2016 55 it is given under a misconception of fact. A belief that the promise of marriage was meant to be fulfilled is not a misconception of fact. The question of misconception of fact will arise only if the act consented to, is believed by the person consenting to be something else, and on that pretext sexual intercourse is committed. In such cases it cannot be said that she consented to sexual intercourse. He sought to illustrate this point by reference to English cases where a medical man had sexual intercourse with a girl who suffered from a bona-fide belief that she was being medically treated, or where under the pretence of performing surgery a surgeon had carnal intercourse with her. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5 th Edn.) p. 510 f "consent" has been given the following meaning:
"Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side".
S.C.No:02/2016 56 It refers to the case of Holman v. R.¹ wherein it was held that; "there does not necessarily have to be complete willingness to constitute consent. A woman's consent to intercourse may be hesitant, reluctant or grudging, but if she consciously permits it there is consent". Similar was the observation in R. v. Olugboja² wherein it was observed that "consent in rape covers states of mind ranging widely from actual desire to reluctant acquiescence, and the issue of consent should not be left to the jury without some further direction". Stephen, J. in R. v. Clarence³ observed: (All ER p. 144 C-D)"It seems to me that the proposition that fraud vitiates consent in criminal matters is not true if taken to apply in the fullest sense of the word, and without qualification. It is too short to be true, as a mathematical formula is true."
Wills, J. observed: (All ER P. 135 I) "That consent obtained by fraud is no consent at all is not true as a general proposition either in fact or in law. If a man meets a woman in the street and knowingly gives her bad money in order to procure her consent to intercourse with him, he obtains her consent by fraud, but S.C.No:02/2016 57 it would be childish to say that she did not consent."
56. Ex.D.3 the same accused has been implicated in crime for the offence punishable u/s.420, 417 of iPC and sec.3 & 4 of DP Act, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has quashed the proceedings concerning sec.3 and 4 of the D.P.Act in the Cr.No.492/2018 which has been subsequently got registered by the same complainant. Therefore this present complaint is made as on 19.9.2015 itself then the question of accused and complainant being married cannot be considered since the offence punishable u/s.376 of IPC does not arise when accused and complainant are considered as husband and wife. Therefore the subsequent complaint got registered by the same complainant against the accused contradicts the previous complaint namely Ex.P.1 on which the present case is taken up by registering S.C.No.2/2016. Under such S.C.No:02/2016 58 circumstances the point of law is very clear and even Ex.D.3 the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rejecting the prayer of complainant in subsequent crime as Investigating Officer has registered for offence punishable u/s.4 of DP.Act does not survive definitely acts as a contradiction to the present facts narrated by the complainant in this case. In fact complainant in her cross- examination has specifically admitted about getting registered crime against the accused No.1 subsequently. Hence this court is specified to answer Point Nos. 1 to 3 for consideration in the negative.
57. POINT NO.4: On going through the materials on record, the complainant is belonging to schedule caste Adi Karnataka. The complainant has specified that accused is knowing about her caste is from the beginning. However even though the caste of the accused is different from the caste of the complainant, the accused in hi sec deposed S.C.No:02/2016 59 he knows the complainant and has specifically mentioned complainant has compromised to take back her case when amount is paid to her and complainant had forced again and again to give money to complainant. Even on 13.10.18 complainant had got registered another crime which came to be struck down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by way of quashing the same. Therefore the caste of the complainant and that of accused is not in dispute, however to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.9 of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 which is as follows: "annoyance of member of SC/ST". The Ex.P.35 alongwith Ex.P.34 and Ex.D.3 and evidence of the complainant annoyance or any type of overt act causing injury to the person belonging to SC/ST is available on record. In the evidence of complainant though she has given evidence in a marathon way her cross- examination in the case on hand established page- 22 and 23 contradicts the case of the complainant.
S.C.No:02/2016 60 As such the material placed by the accused No.1 are sufficient to consider the defence. Accordingly even explanation offered by the complainant in her cross-examination concerning Ex.D.1 and 2 contradicts the prosecution case. Accordingly this Point No.4 for consideration is answered in the Negative.
58.POINT NO.5: On going through the materials on record, in the case on hand first offence is punishable u/sec.376 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 offences 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)(i)(ii) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 are not punishable with imprisonment exceeding 10 years S.C.No:02/2016 61 or above. Accordingly, point No.5 is answered in the negative.
59. POINT NO.6: The accused did complied the provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by providing personal bond before this court, for his appearance before the Hon'ble Appellant court. In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
O RDE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences under Section 376, 420 of IPC, 4 of D.P.Act, 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are set at liberty.
However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec.437(A) of
S.C.No:02/2016
62
Cr.P.C., shall be in force till appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of January 2024).
(Rajesh Karnam.K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru.
A N N EXU RE
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Nagarathna
P.W.2 : Rangavva
P.W.3 : Rajashekar
P.W.4 : Anjinappa
P.W.5 : Diwakar Rao
P.W.6 : Dr.Akshatraj Shetty
P.W.7 : Basavaraju
P.W.8 : Chandra Nayak
P.W.9 : Francis Babu
P.W.10 : Vikas
P.W.11 : Dr.Jasmin Abraham
P.W.12 : Harish
P.W.13 : Shivalingaiah
P.W.14 : Devikadevi
P.W.15 : Nataraj
P.W.16 : Ashok Narayan
S.C.No:02/2016
63
P.W.17 : T.C.Venkatesh
P.W.18 ; Nagarathnamma
P.W.19 : Praveen Shetty
2.DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a)(b) Signature of PW.1,P.W.17
Ex.P.2 : Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a)(b) Signature of PW.1, P.W.16
Ex.P.3 : Photo
Ex.P.4 : Photo
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW.16
Ex.P.5 : Medical examination
Ex.P.5(a)(b)(c) Signature of PW.1,P.W.11,16
Ex.P.6 : Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.7 : Statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.8 : Medical examination report
Ex.P.8(a)(b)(c) Signature of PW.6,signature of
accused, signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.9 : Hotel Invoice
Ex.P.10 : Guest details
Ex.P.11 : Invoice
Ex.P.12 : Guest details
Ex.P.13 : Bill (Aradhana deluxe)
Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.14 : Election identity card copy
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.15 : 65B certificate
S.C.No:02/2016
64
Ex.P.15(a)(b) Signature of PW.12,P.W.16
Ex.P.16 : Call details of victim
Ex.P.17 : Call details of accused
Ex.P.18 : Report of P.W.13
Ex.P.18(a)(b) Signature of PW.13,P.W.16
Ex.P19 : Hotel bill
Ex.P.20 : Report of P.W.14
Ex.P.20(a)(b) : Signature of P.W.14, 16 Ex.P.21 : Report of P.W.15 Ex.P.21(a)(b) Signature of PW.15,P.W.16 Ex.P.22 : Dept. Order Ex.P.22(a) : Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.23 : Rough sketch Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.24 : Caste report of accused Ex.P.24(a) : Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.25 : Caste report of victim/ complainant Ex.P.25(a) : Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.26 : FIR Ex.P.26(a) : Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.27 : ID Card Ex.P.27(a) : Signature of P.W.19 Ex.P.28 : Register extract Ex.P.28(a) : Signature of P.W.19 Ex.P.29 : Register extract Ex.P.29(a) : Signature of P.W.19 Ex.P.30 : Marriage certificate Ex.P.31 : FIR S.C.No:02/2016 65 Ex.P.32 : Insurance copy Ex.P.33 : NCR Ex.P.34 : Complaint Ex.P.35 : Statement of P.W.1 Exs.P.36 to 39 : Photos Ex.P.40 : FIR Ex.P.41 : Complaint Ex.P.42 : PCR copy Ex.P.43 : Charge sheet
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
D.W.1 : Raviprasad
D.W.2 : Sanjeev Rao
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 : Complaint
Ex.D.2 : FIR
Ex.D.3 : High court Order copy
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil
(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru