Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Krishnamurthy on 5 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
-: PRESENT :-
S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI, B.A. LL.B.,
LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
SPECIAL C.C.No. 354/2016
COMPLAINANT :
The State of Karnataka
By Yelahanka Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Krishnamurthy.
S/o Doddaiah,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at Ist Cross, Ist Main,
Bande Road, Kogilu Layout,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Mr. SSY - Advocate]
***
2
Spl.C C.354/2016
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1. Date of Commission : 13/6/2016
Of Offence
2. Date of Report :
Of Offence 14/6/2016
3. Date of arrest of Accused : 15/6/2016
4 Date of release on Bail : 16/9/2016
5 Period undergone in : 91 days
Judicial Custody
6 Name of the complainant : Smt. Sharada.
7. Date of Commencement :
of recording evidence 5/1/2017
8. Date of Closing of : 3/1/2020
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.354/2016
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Inspector of Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that the Complainant Smt. Sharada was working in a Private Insurance Company and residing with her two daughters in the house No. 292/01 at Kogilu Extension, Bengaluru. Her second daughter was aged about 14 years studying at Government School of Yelahanka. The Accused got introduced with her and used to talk when she was going to the School. Afterwards, he had expressed his love with an assurance of marrying her and to lookafter in good manner. Subsequently, on 13/6/2016, at about 4.30 PM, the minor Victim went to the Tailoring shop to bring the stitched Uniforms, the Accused came near the said 4 Spl.C C.354/2016 Tailoring shop and again told her that he is in love with her and will lookafter in good manner and also called her to come with him. When she refused to go with him, he threatened her that he will teach a lesson to his family members and relatives as well as induced her, taken to Sasalu of Doddaballapur Taluk. He went to the house of CW-11, Ramanjinappa and during night hours on 14/6/2016, he had Sexual intercourse twice with Victim forcibly.
3. Subsequently on 14/6/2016 the mother of the minor Victim Smt. Sharada gave the Complaint to the Yelahanka Police Station and informed about missing of her minor daughter from the house from 13/6/2016.
4. On 16/6/2016, the Accused was arrested and produced before this Court and thereafter remanded to Judicial Custody. He was represented through the Counsel and on 16/9/2016, granted bail by this Court. 5
Spl.C C.354/2016
5. The Investigating Officer during investigation has collected the documents and recorded the Statements of the witnesses and finally filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 IPC and 3 R/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
6. This Court has taken Cognizance of the said offences, and after hearing both the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused framed the Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The said Charge is read over and explained to the Accused in the language known to him. He has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The Prosecution in total examined 6 witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 out of 25 witnesses. The documents 6 Spl.C C.354/2016 Exs.P1 to 10, Exs.1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 5(a), 6(a) are marked. The Materials are marked as MOs -1 and 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up Cws-18 and 20 and closed evidence of prosecution.
8. The incriminating circumstances in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses read over to the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the entire evidence and not chosen to lead any evidence on his behalf.
9. Heard, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the Accused.
10. The points that arise for my consideration are :
1. Whether the Prosecution has proves that, on 13/6/2016 after kidnapping the minor Victim, the second daughter of Complainant and taken her to Doddaballapur and stayed in the 7 Spl.C C.354/2016 house of Cw-11 Ramanjini and forcibly committed Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault on her?
2. Whether the Prosecution has proves that, the Accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 ?
3. What Order?
11. 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
12. Point Nos.1 and 2: The Prosecution to prove
the allegations of Kidnap, Rape and Aggravated penetrative Sexual Assault on the minor Victim is examined six witnesses including the Complainant and the Victim.
8
Spl.C C.354/2016
13. The mother of the minor Victim Smt. Sharada is examined as PW-2. She has identified the Complaint given against Accused as per Ex.P-2 and her signature is marked as Ex.P-2(a). The Mahazar conducted by the Police is marked as Ex.P-3 and bears her signature as Ex.P-3(a). She has shown ignorance about the contents of both the Complaint and the Mahazar. She has treated hostile and Cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. But in the Cross-examination her Statement Ex.P-4 given against the Accused stating that after he Kidnapped her minor daughter taken to Doddaballapur and forcibly committed Rape on her has not admitted.
14. The Victim is examined as PW-3. She has identified the Spot Mahazar conducted by the Police in the house of Ramanjinappa at Doddaballapur, as per Ex.P-5 and her signature is marked as Ex.P-5(a). Her Statement recorded by the concerned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P-6 and her 9 Spl.C C.354/2016 signature is marked as Ex.P-6(a). She has denied the contents of both Exs. P-5 and 6. Therefore, treated hostile and Cross-examined.
15. In the Cross-examination, her Statement given before Police as per Ex.P-7 in which she has stated about the Accused after making friendship with her, forced her to marry,. Afterwards, when she was going to School, Kidnapped and taken to Doddaballapur, thereafter on the assurance that he will lookafter her in good manner committed Rape, but she has not admitted the said contents.
16. Dr. B.M.Nagaraju is examined as PW-1. He has issued the Medical Certificate to the Accused by giving opinion that he is capable of involving in the act of Sexual intercourse. The Medical Certificate issued by him is marked as Ex.P-1 and his Signature is marked as Ex.P-1(a).
10
Spl.C C.354/2016
17. The Sister of Complainant Smt. Bhagyalakshmi is examined as PW-4. She has also turned hostile and denied her Statement given against the Accused as per Ex.P-8.
18. The independent witness Devi is examined as PW-5. She has denied her Statement given against the Accused as per ExP-10 in which she made allegation about Kidnap and Rape committed by the Accused on the minor Victim.
19. One of the Mahazar witness Srinivas is examined as PW-6. He has identified his signature in the Mahazar Ex.P-3, is marked as Ex.P-3(b). He has also turned hostile and not admitted the Mahazar conducted by the Police at the spot on 15/6/2016.
20. The evidence of Prosecution placed through Victim and the Complainant is not corroborated to believe the allegations made against the Accused 11 Spl.C C.354/2016 relating to the Kidnap, Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault committed by him on the minor Victim. It is true the Victim was a minor as on the date of the alleged incident and in support of her age, the Certificate produced marked with consent as Ex.P-9 shows that her Date of birth is 18/8/2002. Therefore, she was only aged about 14 years as on the date of 13/6/2016. when the Accused alleged to be Kidnapped her from the lawful custody of her parents and forcibly taken to the house of CW-11 at Doddaballapur where committed Rape repeatedly on her. But the said allegations are not supported by the oral evidence of minor Victim and her mother, because both of them turned hostile and deposed inconsistent to the contents of Complaint, Mahazars and Statements given before the Police as well as Statement of the Victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate.
21. The important aspect is the Medical Officer who has examined the Victim in the Bowring Hospital is 12 Spl.C C.354/2016 not examined before the Court and her Medical Certificate is also not marked as an exhibit. But the Medical Report available on record shows that she was examined on 16/12/2016 at Bowring and Lady Curgen Hospital, Bangalore and no signs of recent Sexual Intercourse noticed by the Doctor on the Victim, though hymen was not intact. Even the same is taken into consideration, if really the Accused had forcibly Raped the Victim twice on 14/6/2016. The signs of recent Sexual Intercourse on her should have been found when she was examined by the Doctor on 16/6/2016.
22. Therefore, taking into consideration the above discussed aspects, I came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of Kidnap, Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault committed by the Accused on 14/6/2016, which are punishable under Sections 366, 376 IPC and 5(l) R/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, I answer point Nos. 1 and 2 in the Negative.
13
Spl.C C.354/2016
23. Point No.3: In view of my above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused- Krishnamurthy S/o Doddaiah 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 earlier stands cancelled.
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 properties seized if any, by the Investigating Officer in this case, are ordered to be destroyed as useless and worthless after the completion of Appeal period.14
Spl.C C.354/2016 (Dictated to the Judgement writer, transcript and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court today on 5th day of February, 2020.) (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1) List of witnesses examined for the Prosecution PW.1 Dr. B.M.Nagaraja PW.2 Sharada PW.3 Victim PW.4 Bhagyalakshmi PW.5 Devi.
PW.6 Srinivas.
2) List of documents marked for the Prosecution Ex.P1 Medical Certificate of Accused Ex.P1(a) Signature of Medical Officer PW1 15 Spl.C C.354/2016 Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P2(a) Signature of Complainant Ex.P3 Mahazar Ex.P3(a) Signature of Complainant Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW-6 Ex.P4 Statement of Victim PW3 Ex.P5 Mahazar Ex.P5(a) Signature of Victim PW3 Ex.P6 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of Victim PW3 Ex.P6(a) Signature of Victim PW3 Ex.P7 Statement of Victim PW3 Ex.P8 Statement of Victim PW4 Ex.P9 Date of Birth Certificate of Victim.
Ex.P10 Statement of PW-5.
3) List of Material Objects marked for the Prosecution Nil
4) List of witnesses examined for the Accused
- NIL -
5) List of documents marked for the Accused
- NIL -16
Spl.C C.354/2016
6) List of Material Objects marked for the Accused
- NIL -
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
*** 17 Spl.C C.354/2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court, (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused- Krishnamurthy S/o Doddaiah 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 earlier stands cancelled.
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 properties seized if any, by the Investigating Officer in this case, are ordered to be destroyed as useless and worthless after the completion of Appeal period.
(S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) 18 Spl.C C.354/2016 LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.