Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dhasharatha on 11 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 6th Day of September 2017
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.,
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SPECIAL C.C.No. 406/2014
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka
By Hulimavu Police Station,
Bangalore.
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Dhasharatha,
S/o. Late Govinda Raju, 36 years,
R/at. No.74, Someshwara Layout,
Hulimavu, B.G. Road,
Bengaluru
Sri.K.N.N. Advocate.]
1 Date of commission of offence 21-09-2012 to
23-11-2012
2 Date of report of occurrence 21-12-2012
2 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
3 Date of arrest of Accused 27-12-2012
Date of release of Accused 28-03-2013
Period undergone in custody 01 day,
by Accused 03 months
4 Date of commencement of evidence 03-01-2015
5 Date of closing of evidence 03-08-2017
6 Name of the complainant Victim girl
7 Offences complained of Section 376, 366,
498-A of IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is
convicted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Hulimavu Police Station-Bangalore against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 366, 498-A, 376 of I.P.C.
2. Since it is a case of kidnap of minor girl and rape, as such the name of the victim girl is no where shown in the course of judgment as mandated under Section 227 (A) of Cr.P.C. However her name is referred to as ' victim 3 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 girl' wherever her name is necessary.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
That the accused being a married person in 2009- 2010 became familiar with the victim girl who was then studying in 10th Standard at BES High School, Jaya Nagar, on often contacts developed friendship and in turn fell in love with her, induced or seduced her to marry her, on that inducement during 2010, in the month of April, at her House No.1074, at 12th Cross Road, Weavers Colony, Bengaluru, committed rape upon her against her wish and without consent and thereby she became pregnant and got aborted. On 21-09-2012 at about 02.00 p.m., the accused kidnapped Cw.1-the victim girl from her house with an intention to marry her and in pursuance of it on 18-10- 2012, got married her at Annamma Temple, Bengaluru, against her wishes by tying Thali with assistance of his first wife. After having married the victim girl, lead the marital 4 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 life with her at marital home up to 23-11-2012. During that period harassed her both physically and mentally demanding money, on failure, abusing and assaulting her and ousted her forcibly at about 05.00 a.m., on 23-11- 2012. As a result, complaint lodged against the accused.
The police registered the case against the accused punishable under Section 376, 366 and 498-A of IPC.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 376, 366, 498-A of I.P.C.
5. That after filing of the charge sheet as usual, the accused who was in judicial custody produced before the Committal Court. The copy of charge sheet furnished to the accused as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C., Thereafter the accused was released on bail as per the order of FTC-17th Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1491/2013. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Hon'ble 5 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. In turn the said case was made over to this Court.
6. After receiving the record by this Court, the summon was issued to the accused. In pursuance of said summons, the accused appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted no arguments before framing charge and requested to frame charge. The learned predecessor in office framed charge against the accused and the contents of the charges read over and explained to the accused in Kannada. The accused pleaded not guilty and submits crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused set down for prosecution evidence.
7. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined in all 13 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.13, got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and closed its side evidence. As could be seen from the evidence 6 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 of prosecution witnesses, they have deposed against the accused. In view of incriminating evidence appearing against accused, he is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him. During the course of cross-examination, the accused got marked Ex.D1, Ex.D1(a) and Ex.D1(b), but no defense evidence is produced. The accused complied the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
8. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused being a married person in 2009-
2010 became familiar with the victim girl who was then studying in 10th Standard at BES High School, Jaya Nagar, on often contacts developed friendship and in turn fell in love with her, induced or seduced her to marry her, on that inducement during 7 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 2010, in the month of April, at her House No.1074, at 12th Cross Road, Weavers Colony, Bengaluru, committed rape upon her against her wish and without consent and thereby she became pregnant and got aborted and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that on 21- 09-2012 at about 02.00 p.m., the accused kidnapped Cw.1-the victim girl from her house with an intention to marry her and in pursuance of it on 18-10-2012, got married her at Annamma Temple, Bengaluru, against her wishes by tying Thali with assistance of his first wife and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused after having married the victim girl, lead the marital life with her at marital home up to 23-11-2012. During that period harassed her both physically and mentally demanding money, on failure, abusing and assaulting her and ousted her forcibly at about 05.00 a.m., on 23-11-2012 and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
4. What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:- 8 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: In the Affirmative.
Point No.3: In the Affirmative.
Point No.4: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 3:-As these points are interrelated one, hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasoning.
11. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.13, got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the victim, Pw.2 is the mother of the victim girl, Pw.3, Pw.4, Pw.8, Pw.10 and Pw.13 are the doctors, Pw.5 is the neighbours, Pw.6, Pw.7, Pw.9, Pw.11 and Pw.12 are police personnel. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the evidence of said witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused. In order to establish the alleged 9 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 offences against accused the prosecution is required to prove that the accused being a married person in 2009- 2010 became familiar with the victim girl who was then studying in 10th Standard at BES High School, Jaya Nagar, on often contacts developed friendship and in turn fell in love with her, induced or seduced her to marry her, on that inducement during 2010, in the month of April, at her House No.1074, at 12th Cross Road, Weavers Colony, Bengaluru, committed rape upon her against her wish and without consent and thereby she became pregnant and got aborted. On 21-09-2012 at about 02.00 p.m., the accused kidnapped Cw.1-the victim girl from her house with an intention to marry her and in pursuance of it on 18-10- 2012, got married her at Annamma Temple, Bengaluru, against her wishes by tying Thali with assistance of his first wife. After having married the victim girl, lead the marital life with her at marital home up to 23-11-2012. During that period harassed her both physically and mentally demanding money, on failure, abusing and assaulting her 10 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 and ousted her forcibly at about 05.00 a.m., on 23-11-2012 and committed offences punishable under section 376, 366, 498-A of I.P.C. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing to scan the available materials evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 376, 366 and 498-A of IPC.
Section 376 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for rape-(1)Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the 11 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.
(2) Who ever,-
(a) being a Police Officer commits rape-
(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed;
(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or
(iii) On a woman in his custody or in the custody of a Police Officer subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or
(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place or custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman's or children's institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or 12 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine;
provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years. Section 366 of IPC defines that:
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, (and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority to any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is 13 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid."
Section 498-A of IPC defines that:
Husband or relative of husband or a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
For the purpose of this section, "cruelty' means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view of coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
13. Now left to know whether the available material evidence on record establishes the ingredients of aforesaid 14 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 offences and the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-the victim girl, in her chief examination she has deposed in support of the prosecution and also in respect of offence under Section 376 of IPC earlier to alleged marriage. She has deposed that she know the accused, he is her father's paternal aunt's son. He is residing at Hulimavu. He got first marriage about 10 years. Both the accused and his first wife came to her parents house and in view of non- begotten issue, they demanded the parents of the victim girl to give her in marriage with the accused, for that the parents of the victim girl not consented with the request of the accused and his first wife. As a result, the accused used to visit to the school where the victim girl studying often and often and demanded her to marry him, for that she has not given consent to him. About four years back earlier to giving evidence on 03-01-2015, i.e., during the 15 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 year 2010-2011, at about 02.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the victim girl, at that time she was alone in the house and she was studying in 10th Standard and demanded her to marry him, for that she refused the same, as a result he has raped her in the said house. Due to said act of the accused, she was unable to write 10th Standard exams and she failed. He has also threatened her that if she disclose about rape caused by him to her, he is going to rape her sister also. In view of her sister's marriage not celebrated, she was afraid and not disclosed the said fact with her parents. As a result she had consumed poison and fell down. At that time her parents admitted her to Vinayaka Hospital and her parents quested her for her act, for that she has told to her mother that in view of failing in S.S.L.C., with fear, consumed poison. Thereafter her parents also started to scold her, as a result she stopped to go to School. Again the accused came to her house and told her stating that:
16 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB-¥ÀÅ£ÀB §AzÀÄ E£ÉßãÀÄ J¯Áè D¬ÄvÀ¯Áè ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆà JAzÀÄ ¦Ãr¸ÀÄwÛzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ. CzÁzÀ 2 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆmÉÖ £ÉÆêÀÅ §A¢vÀÄ. DUÀ QªÀiïì D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃV ZÉPÀ¥ï ªÀiÁr¸À¯ÁV, ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ UÀ©üðtôAiÀiÁV¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ ¥sɯÉÆæ£ï lÆå¨ï£À°è ªÀÄUÀÄ EzÉ JAzÀÄ, D PÁgÀt¢AzÀ §¸ïÖð DVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä DUÀ £ÉÃgÀªÁV £À£ÀߣÀÄß EzÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÁgÀt JAzÀÄ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÉýzÀgÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£É߯Áè ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ."
The above said evidence supports the case of the prosecution against the accused in respect of during the year 2010, one fine day the accused raped the victim girl, when she was minor. For that the accused cross-examined this witness and elicited with regard to religion accepted by her and her parents, though they are Hindus, they accepted Christian religion. It is the suggestion of the accused that:
"£Á£ÀÄ aPÀ̪À½gÀĪÁUÀ¯ÃÉ CªÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ ªÀÄvÁAvÀgÀ UÉÆArzÀg Ý ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÁAvÀgÀUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgªÀ ÀÇ ¸ÀºÁ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÀÄzÀsåzÀ ¸ÀA§AzÀs ºÁUÉà ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉ¢vÀÄÛ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤ÃªÀÅ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ DgÉÆæ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ-ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÉãÀÆ E¯Áè, K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ¥ÀsAPÀë£ï EzÀÝgÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉÆÃV §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ, £À£Àß zÉÆqÀØ CPÀÌ£À ®UÀßPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ DgÉÆæ PÀÄlÄA§ §A¢vÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."17 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
Further she was elicited that:
"¥ÀA s PÀë£ï EzÀ°Ý è ªÀiÁvÀæ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgzÉ ÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
The above said evidence clinches and unequivocally points out that though the victim girl and her parents adopted Christian religion, but the relationship between their families was continued as it is. Even the accused is also the son of sister of the victim girl's father and relationship continued as it was with the victim girl when she was minor. At the same time no such denial suggestion made by the accused for the above said facts and circumstances.
15. Further the accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and elicited that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä §½ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß DvÀÀ¤UÉ ®UÀß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝ «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀ°®è. AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ §AzÀÄ D jÃw PÉýzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ 2010£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ NzÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw DgÉÆæ §AzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀ̼À£ÀÄß ®UÀß ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ PÉüÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ ¸ÀA§A¢ü 18 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 JAzÀÄ, ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÁUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÃÉ qÁ, ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ElÄÖPÉƼÀî ¨ÉÃqÁ JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉýzÀÝgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
Further she was elicited that:
"±Á¯ÉUÉ DgÉÆæ §AzÀÄ vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß ®UÀß ªÀiÁr PÉƼÀî¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ¦Ãr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄUÉ MªÉÄä ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉýzÉ£Ý ÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ DUÁUÉÎ §AzÀÄ F jÃw ¦Ãr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ºÉüÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÀsAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ºÉüÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢ü DVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¨ÀA s iÀÄ ¥ÀqÀĪÀ CUÀvÀå EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¥sÉÊ£Á£ïì ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ, ©Ã¢AiÀįɯÁè dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉ, ¥ÉǰøÀgÉÆA¢UÀÆ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðzÀ°è EgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÉÃÝ £É PÁgÀt DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÀA s iÀÄ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
The above said evidence also clinches the issue unequivocally points out that the accused harassed the victim girl and demanded her to marry him. At the same time no such denial suggestion made by the accused for the above said elicitation. If this piece of evidence taken into consideration, the accused also accepted the evidence of Pw.1 with regard to the demand made by him along with 19 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 his first wife to the parents of the victim girl to get marry the victim girl, even though she was minor.
16. Further the accused elicited that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¨ÀA s iÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ- vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹gÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýzÉ£ Ý ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Again she was elicited that:
"¤ÃªÉà EµÀÖ¥ÀlÄÖ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃmɯïUÉ ¥ÁQðUÉ ºÉÆÃV¢Ýj F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹gÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÃÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃUÉ EµÀÖ¥ÀqÀ° JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ"
The above said evidence elicited by the accused through her cross-examination clearly establishes the harassment caused by the accused when the victim girl was minor. At the same time no such denial suggestion made by the accused for the above said facts and circumstances.
Further the accused also elicited that: 20 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
"¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä F jÃw §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ¯ÃÉ MªÉÄä «µÀ PÀÄr¢zÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®èªÉAzÀÄ , DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ gÉÃ¥ï ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ «µÀ PÀÄr¢zÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. «µÀ PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ JµÀÄÖ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DgÉÆæ ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ K¦æ¯ï 1£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ «µÀ PÀÄr¢zÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ , DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁZïð wAUÀ¼À°è CAzÀgÉ »A¢£À wAUÀ¼À¯ÉÃè CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. "
She has also deposed that:
"¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ FUÀ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB K¦æ¯ï 1£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹AiÀÄ EAVèÃµï «µÀAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉz£É ÉAzÀÄ, §ºÀıÀB ¨sÁ£ÀĪÁgÀªÉà £Á£ÀÄ «µÀ PÀÄrzÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ , ræ¥ïì ºÁQ¹PÉÆAqÉ ¸ÉÆêÀĪÁgÀ UÀtv ô À «µÀAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉz£ É A É zÀÄ C¤¸ÀÄwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
The above said evidence also not denied by the accused by denial suggestion. On the other hand it is suggested that the medical documents not produced to the police to establish the above said facts and circumstances. When there is drastic stand taken by the victim girl with regard to the alleged offences against the accused and she has deposed in corroboration of the prosecution case, it is the bounden duty of the accused to test her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and to establish 21 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 his defense, but no such attempt is made.
Further the accused tested the veracity of this witness and also elicited that:
"£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CPÀÌ-¥ÀPÀÌ CAzÀgÉ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CPÀÌ-¥ÀPÀÌ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À¯É¯Áè ¥sÁå«Ä°UÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ElÄÖ PÉƼÀî¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÉå ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð EgÀ°®è, ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð CAzÀgÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ-ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¤ÃªÀÅ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ-§gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ºËzÉAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
Further she was elicited that:
"¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgz É ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß gÉÃ¥ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ §A¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D jÃw gÉÃ¥ï ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛ¢ÝÃj DUÀ CPÀÌ-¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è d£ÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄäzÀÄ «ÃªÀgïì PÁ¯ÉÆä, CPÀÌ-¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À¯É¯Áè ªÀÄUÀÎ £ÀqɸÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ D ±À§Ý°è AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÀÆVzÀgÀÆ K£ÀÆ PÉý¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
The above said evidence also strengthen the case of the prosecution with regard to the rape caused by the accused with the victim girl. No doubt it is true that she has not stated that the neighbours are weavers having 22 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 weaving machines, but that doesn't mean the accused has not committed rape on the victim girl.
Further the accused elicited that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ QgÀÄaPÉƼÀî®Ä, ¥ÉÇæmɸïÖ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÉÃÝ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÀÄ CPÀÌ-¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀÄ §gÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÉ£A É zÀÄ CPÀÌ-¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀÄ §gÀ°®è, £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇgÀPÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ ºÉÆqÉz£ É ÉAzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ NrºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ CªÀPÁ±À EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ CªÀPÁ±À EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨Àz s ÀæªÁzÀ ¯ÁPï DUÀ°Ã, UÉÃmï DUÀ°Ã EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¯ÁPï EvÀÄÛ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ UÉÃmï ¸ÀºÁ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ UÉÃmï EzÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ ¯ÁPï EzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV°UÉ a®PÀ ºÁPÀÄwÛzÀÄz Ý ÀjAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÀqɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ §gÀ®Ä DUÀÄwÛgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ M§â¼Éà EzÁÝUÀ £Á£ÉãÀÆ D jÃw UÉÃmïUÉ ©ÃUÀ ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¨ÁV°UÉ a®PÀ ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛg° À ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgz É ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ a®PÀ ºÁQzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
Again she was elicited that:
"¤ÃªÀÅ UÉÃmïUÉ ©ÃUÀ ºÁQzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ a®PÀ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ EgÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ gÁwæ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¯ÁPï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. UÉÃnUÉ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ ©ÃUÀ ºÁPÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV°UÉ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ a®PÀ ºÁQPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ,"23 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
The above said evidence tested by the accused still he fails to establish his defense by way of cross-examination coupled with denial suggestion.
17. Pw.1 at her cross-examination again deposed that:
"D £ÉÆë£À°è K£ÀÆ ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÉÊzÀågÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ, gÉÃ¥ï DVzÀÝjAzÀ F jÃw DVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÉ C°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ K£ÀÆ DV®èzÃÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ gÉÃ¥ï JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ªÉÊzÀåjUÉ ¤eÁA±À UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ gÉÃ¥ï DVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®èªÉAzÀÄ, ¥É¯ÉÆæ£ï lÆå¨ï£À°è ªÀÄUÀÄ EzÉ §gï¸ïÖ DVzÉ JAzÀÄ CªÀgÃÉ §AzÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÁgÀt EzÀPÉÌ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ, ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ C¯Áè £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ zÀ±ÀgÀxÀ JAzÀÄ CµÀÄÖ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉüÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
Again she was elicited that:
"CvÁåZÁgÀ DVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛ¢ÝÃj D WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ £ÀÀAvÀgÀ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄUÉ ºÉüÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÀsAiÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ ºÉüÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
The above said evidence also strengthen the case of the prosecution that the accused raped the victim girl at the house of the victim girl when she was minor. 24 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
18. Viewing from available material evidence on record through Pw.1, this Court feels to observe that the prosecution establishes that the accused raped the victim girl when she was minor that too when she was studying S.S.L.C in the month of March last week.
19. Now left with the further evidence in respect that the accused on 21-09-2012 at about 02.00 p.m., forcibly taken the victim girl from the house with an intention to marry her and in pursuance of it on 18-10-2012 got married her at Annamma Temple in Bengaluru, without her consent and wishes, he tied Thali with the assistance of his first wife, for that Pw.1 in her chief examination deposed corroborating the facts and circumstances and also deposed that the accused taken her from her house in a car on 22-09-2012, went to Pilaganahalli, where the accused's house is situated, kept her in the said house for a period of two days by locking the room. Thereafter he has taken the victim girl to his another house at Hulimavu 25 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 where his first wife stayed. Initially the accused and his first wife looked after her very well, after that the accused started to harass the victim girl sexually with the assistance of his first wife. Thereafter both the accused and his first wife taken her to Annamma Temple situated in Majestic circle, Bengaluru and tied Thali to her. Thereafter, after a week her parents came to the accused's house and made galata and went from the said house stating that they are going to lodge complaint against the accused. After that also the accused not stopped by giving sexual harassment to the victim girl. For that the accused tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that:
"2012£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÀéEZÉé- ¬ÄAzÀ¯Éà ®UÀß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÉÄeɹÖPï£À CtÚªÀÄä£À zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À°è DVzÀÄÝ. ¤ªÀÄä ®UÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇeÁj ªÀiÁrzÁÝ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À°è ¥ÀÇeÁj JAzÉãÀÆ AiÀiÁgÀÆ EgÀ°®è, ¥ÁåAmï ±Àmïð ºÁQPÉÆAqÀ M§â ªÀåQÛ EzÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÃÉ vÁ½ JwÛPÉÆlÖzÀÄ CµÉÖà JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
CtÚªÀÄä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z
À À°è ®UÀß ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ
C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ¥ÀqAÉ iÀĨÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ K£ÀÄ £ÀqɬÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉãÀÆ UÉÆwÛ®è, 26 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À°è M§â ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀå ¤AwzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ, DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ vÁ½ PÀnÖzÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CtÚªÀÄä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À°è AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ £ÀÆgÁgÀÄ d£À EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ D ¢£ÀªÀÇ d£À EzÀÝgÀÄ, D ¢£À §ºÀ¼À d£ÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ C°è D¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ, ¥ÀÇeÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀjUɯÁè PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ, DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄUÁV JAzÀÄ ¥ÀÇeÁj JAzÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÆ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.."
Further elicited that:
"£À£Àß ¸ÀéEZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÉ£ÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀÄÁrPÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgzÉ ÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛg.É"
The above said evidence also clinches the issue unequivocally points out that according to the accused on the consent of the victim girl he has married her before Annamma Temple. But the victim girl clearly denied the above said stand of the accused and she has reaffirmed that by force the accused tied Thali before Annamma Temple and also he has threatening her with dire consequences. Further she was elicited that "ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À°è E¢Ýj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 2 UÀAmÉ DVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, ¥ÀÇeÉ DUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ, DgÉÆæ EzÀ£ Ý ÉAzÀÄ, £À£ÀUÉãÀÆ ¥ÀÇeÉ §UÉÎ M®«®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¢£À ¨É½UÉÎ 11 UÀAmÉUÉ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£PÀ ÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ. zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£zÀ À°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ E§âgÀÆ ºÀÆ ªÀiÁ¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ PÉÆAqɪÀÅ CAzÀgÉ 27 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 ¸Àj. DgÉÆæ vÁ½ ¸ÀºÁ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÀnÖzÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV Hl ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¥ÀwßAiÉÄà £ÀªÀÄUÉ ®UÀß ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀéEZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
Again she was elicited that:
"ÀªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀAqÀ- ºÉAqÀw JAzÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¢£À E¢Ýj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 18-10-2012 gÀAzÀÄ ®UÀß DVzÀÄÝ ¢B23-11- 2012 gÀªÀgÉUÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ, ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÉgz À ÀÄ 2012£Éà E¸À« ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï wAUÀ½£À¯ÉÃè §®ªÀAvÀªÁV CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ®UÀß DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀAqÀ-ºÉAqÀw JAzÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ E¢ÝgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉ®¸ÀzÀªÀ¼À ºÁUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ, §®ªÀAvÀªÁV DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛz£ ÀÝ ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ 18 ªÀµÀð DzÀ £ÀAvÀgªÀ Éà DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀß D¬ÄvÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the accused accepted about the marriage was taken place with the victim girl after she attained 18 years of age, but it is her definite evidence that earlier to that during the year 2010-2011 when she was studying in S.S.L.C., the accused raped her in her house and consequently she admitted to the hospital and the hospital authorities declared her fallopian tube burst. The said fact is not 28 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 denied by the accused specifically. It is the suggestion of the accused that she herself voluntarily got married the accused, but dispute arouse between herself and first wife, she has lodged this false complaint. If this piece of suggestion taken into consideration, the accused not denied about the marriage of the victim girl by him, but earlier to the said marriage what criminal act done by the accused was established by the prosecution through the evidence of this witness. This piece of evidence crystallizes that with bad motive, the accused committed rape on the victim girl and then he got married her before Annamma Temple.
20. Viewing from available material evidence on record this Court feels to observe that the prosecution has establishes the alleged offences against the accused in respect that he has forcibly kidnapped the victim girl on 21-09-2013 with an intention to marry her and in pursuance of it, he got married the victim girl on 19-10- 29 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 2012 before Annamma Temple, Bengaluru, against consent and wishes he had tied Thali on her neck.
21. Now left with the available evidence to consider after marriage of the victim girl at Marital home up to 23- 11-2012, the accused both physically and mentally harassed her by demanding dowry and also abused her in filthy language and assaulted her and ousted her forcibly at about 05.00 p.m., on 23-11-2012. For that Pw.1 in her chief examination deposed that due to quarrel between herself and the accused along with his first wife, she was not in piece of mind, as a result she went to Church on 22- 12-2012 at early hours and thereafter she has met with her sister and her mother and narrated about the criminal activities of the accused to her. When she was in bus stop, she called the accused and the accused taken her to his house. Thereafter he has demanded Rs.5 Lakhs and asked her to bring the same from her mother, otherwise she has to hang herself. By that time she was two months 30 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 pregnant. She went outside the house, for that also the accused and his first wife came in a bike and also assaulted her on a road and took her to their house, again assaulted her with a stick. On 23-11-2012 the accused brought her to Pillaganahalli and after 2-3 days she received stomach ache and got aborted.
22. For that the accused tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and commission and also elicited that "ªÄzÀÄªÉ DzÁV¤AzÀ PÀÄAPÀĪÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁAUÀ®å G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛ¢Ýj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¢£ÀªÃÉ vÁ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß J¸ÉzÉ£ÉAzÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ©aÑmÉÖ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀt K£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÆ EµÀÖ EgÀ°®è, ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄÆ EµÀÖ EgÀ°®è, 2£Éà ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁV ºÉÆÃUÀ®Æ EµÀÖ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
Again she was elicited that:
"¤ªÀÄUÉ EµÀÖ EgÀ°®è CAzÀgÉ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À°è ®UÀßzÀ ¢£À J®èjUÀÆ ºÉüÀ§ºÀÄ¢vÀÄÛ, ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄ §ºÀÄ¢vÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CAzÀgÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁrzÉ£ Ý ÉAzÀÄ, DzÀgÉ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À°è K£ÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."31 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
The above said evidence reaffirms about the marriage held between the accused and the victim girl was with force of the accused, but not with the consent of the victim girl. It is the suggestion that she has demanded to convert to Christian community from Hindu community by the accused and the accused refused the same, for that she has lodged false complaint against him, for that she had denied the same. Except that the accused has not denied about the evidence of Pw.1 in her chief examination in respect of demand of dowry. Viewing through the evidence of Pw.1, this Court has no impediment in arriving into the conclusion that the prosecution establishes alleged offences against the accused through the evidence of Pw.1 who is the victim girl.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Shanthi- the mother of the victim girl, she has deposed in her chief examination that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DUÁUÉÎ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ-ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀ£ Ý ÀÄ. 2009£Éà E¸À« 32 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 r¸ÉA§gï 25£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¥Àwß ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ M¥À° à ®è. £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q aPÀ̪À½zÁݼÉ, DgÉÆæUÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÃÉ r JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ."
Further she has deposed that:
"ªÀiÁZïð wAUÀ½£À°è £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ 2-3 ¥ÉÃ¥ÀgïUÀ¼À ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ ºÁdgÁVzÀݼÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 12-30 UÀAmÉUÉ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ §½ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ©qÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀÄ ºÉý £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁr PÉr¹zÀ£ÀÄ."
The above said evidence in respect of rape done by the accused with the victim girl not denied by the accused by way of cross-examination. It remains uncontrovered.
Further Pw.2 deposed that:
"dÆ£ï wAUÀ½£À°è £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ ºÉÊ ¦üêÀgï §A¢vÀÄ. ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°ègÀĪÀ «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ PÀgz É ÉÆÃAiÉÄ£ Ý ÀÄ.
zÉÆqÀØ-zÉÆqÀØ «ÄµÀ£ïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ, QªÀiïì D¸Àv à ÉæUÉ PÀgzÉ ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. ºÉÆmÉÖ £ÉÆêÀÅ PÀrªÉÄ DUÀ°®è ¸ÁÌå¤AUï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. lÆå¨ï£À°è 2 wAUÀ¼À UÀ¨Àsð EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. lÆåmï §¸ïÖð DVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ vÀPÀëtªÉà D¥ÀgÉñÀ£ï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. EzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀt AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉýzÀgÀÄ, £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉüÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ. ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ «ZÁj¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß zÀ±ÀgxÀ À AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ PÉýzÀ £ÀAvÀgª À ÃÉ DgÉÆæ ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛVzÀÄÝ. DgÉÆæUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr PÀgɬĹ 33 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 PÉýzÁUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉtÄÚ PÉÆqÀ°®è PÁgÀt F jÃw ªÀiÁrzÉ£ÀÄ, vÀ¥Áà¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ."
Again she has deposed that:
"MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉ vÀgÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. UÉÆnÖUÉgÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ eÉÆåÃw ¤ªÀÄð¯ÁzÀ°è ¥sÁåµÀ£ï reÉÊ£ï vÀgÀUÀwUÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀ¼ÀÄ. 6-7 wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆÃUÀ°®è. ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ EzÉà jÃw ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. C®Æè §AzÀÄ PÁl PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ w½zÀħA¢vÀÄ. DgÉÆæUÉ ºÉzÀjPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀ¼ÀÄ J®Æè ºÉÆÃUÀzÉà «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹zÀ¼ÀÄ."
The above said evidence also crystallizes that due to rape done by the accused with the victim girl, she became two months pregnant and the same was resulted in bad consequence in her fallopian tube and the same was busted. As a result the operation was taken place. This evidence is also not denied by the accused by denying suggestion and the evidence of Pw.2 remains as it is.
Further Pw.2 deposed that:
"2012£Éà E¸À« ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï wAUÀ½£À°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. J¯Áè PÀqÉ ºÀÄqÀÄQzÀgÀÆ ¹UÀ°®è. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV PÉüÀ¯ÁV 34 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 £ÁªÀÅ PÀgÉvÀA¢®èÁ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB DgÉÆæ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ 4-5 d£À ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄgÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ ®UÀß DVzÀÄÝ PÀAqÀħA¢vÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¥Àwß £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q- AiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä §gÀ°®è. CªÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä EµÀÖ E®è ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ ¥Àwß £À£ÀUÉ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. 21£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q §AzÀÄ J¯Áè «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. £À£ÀßzÃÉ £ÀÆ vÀ¦à®è JAzÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ºÉzÀj¹ F jÃw ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. 2012£Éà E¸À« r¸ÉA§gï 21£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆmÉÖªÀÅ."
The above said evidence also remains unchallenged by the accused and the said evidence remains uncontraverted. When there is a drastic stand taken by the accused, it is the bounden duty to summon Pw.2 and cross-examine Pw.2 by denying the said evidence by denial suggestion. Not taking further steps by the accused, it is absolutely fatal to the defense taken by the accused herein. At the same time the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused as per the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt through this witness. Now left with the medical evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 35 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
24. By going through the evidence of Dr.Rajesh.K.S, he has issued age certificate of the victim girl and examined her on 29-12-2012. He has also tested the victim girl through radiological examination and issued Ex.P3. The said evidence remains unchallenged. On perusal of Ex.P3, the doctor opines the age of the victim girl as 19 to 20 years as on 29-12-2012. Even this piece of oral and documentary evidence is taken into consideration, as on the year of 2010, when the rape was taken place with the victim girl by the accused, she was a minor girl at the age of 16 years. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the prosecution establishes the case that the criminal motion was started in the year 2010 when the accused caused rape on the victim girl.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.4- Dr.Indira.L.Asangi, she has deposed that on 27-11-2012 at about 02.45 p.m., the police produced the accused for medical examination, she has examined the accused and 36 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 issued certificate as per Ex.P4. Her evidence also remains unchallenged. On perusal of Ex.P4, the doctor opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is incapable of performing sexual intercourse. Through the evidence of Pw.4 also the prosecution establishes that the accused is capable of performing sexual intercourse and according to the victim girl he has raped her in her house in the year 2010 when she was studying 10th standard at the month of last week of March.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Lalitha, who is neighbour of the house of the victim girl, she has deposed that she know the parents of the victim girl and the victim girl. Further it is her evidence that the accused is the son of sister of father of the victim girl and he used to come over to the house of the victim girl in the year 2010 and she has also seen about the visit of the accused to the house of the victim girl. Thereafter for a period of two years he has stopped to come over to the house of the victim girl, 37 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 again he has started to come over to the house of the victim girl from 2012 onwards. On one day the accused came to the house of the victim girl, on very day the mother of the victim girl in the evening stated that she is searching for the victim girl and she was not found, for that this witness told her that the accused came to her house in the morning. Further she heard that the accused forcibly taken the victim girl to his house, after a month she came to know the victim girl found in the house of the accused.
27. The accused tested the veracity of the evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also denied all the evidence given by her in her chief examination. At the same time it is elicited that:
"£ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀĪÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÁV- gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgA É zÀÄ ºÉýzÀݼÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Again she has shown her ignorance and deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ- wÛzÀÄz Ý £ À ÀÄß ©lÄÖ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ K£ÀÆ UÉÆwÛ®è. "38 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
The above said evidence that too elicited by the accused clinches the issue unequivocally points out his presence in the house of the victim girl. No doubt it is true that it was elicited that he was the relative of the victim girl, but that doesn't mean that he is having permission to rape the victim girl in her house. Through this witness the prosecution establishes the presence of the accused in the house of the victim girl often and often and it is the case of the prosecution that having relationship with family of the victim girl as son-in-law, he used to visit the house of the victim girl often and often and as per the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 he has raped the victim girl, after that he has forcibly taken her by way of kidnap to his house and thereafter he got married her without the consent of the victim girl and then he ousted the victim girl from his house by demanding dowry.
28. By going through the evidence of Pw.8- Dr.Suguna, she has deposed that:
39 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
"¢£ÁAPÀB27.07.2010gÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ JgÀqÀÄ n±ÀÄå ¸ÁåA¥À¯ïUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀÅUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÉÄÊPÉÆæ¸ÉÆÌ¥ï£À°è ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¨ÀsÆæt gÀZ£ À É DVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀÅgÁªÉ PÀAqÀħAvÀÄ. "
Further she has deposed that she has issued Ex.P6- report and her signature is Ex.P6(a). On perusal of Ex.P6 it is Histopathology Report given by Dr.Suguna.B.V, on 28- 07-2010 and the age of the victim girl is 16 years. She has impressed that features consistent with ectopic tubal gestation. The accused tested veracity of evidence of this witness and denied that she has not conducted test of tissues and she has not done DNA test, for that she has denied stating that she has tested only the tissues and no such requisition made for conducting DNA test. It is her evidence that:
"¸ÀzÀj ¨ÀsÆæt ¥sÉ®ÉÆæAiÀÄ£ï lÆå¨ï£À°è ªÀiÁvÀæ PÀAqÀÄ §AvÀÄ, UÀ¨ÀsðPÉÆñÀ¢AzÀ vÉUÉ¢zÀÝ n±ÀÄåªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀ°®è. "
Here also the case of the prosecution that the tissue found in fallopian tube was busted. As such the surgery was taken place. At this stage this Court opines that the 40 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 prosecution establishes the alleged offences against the accused through the evidence of Pw.8.
29. By going through the evidence of Pw.10- Dr.Nirmala Shivalingaiah, she has deposed that the victim girl was admitted to KIMS Hospital for surgery on 27-07- 2010 and discharged on 03-08-2010. At that time the victim girl was pregnant. Further on examination it was found the tissue was in fallopian tube and it was busted, as a result the surgery was conducted through Dr.Jayanthi as per the direction of this witness and issued Ex.P10-Medical certificate. On perusal of Ex.P10-Discharge summary issued by KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein the victim girl was admitted on 27-07-2010 and discharged on 03-08- 2010. The operation was taken place on 27-07-2010. It is also mentioned about pregnancy of the victim girl and operated tubes.
30. The accused tested the veracity of the evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, 41 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused. Further she was elicited that:
"¤.¦.10 gÀ°è £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV®è JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ DVzÉ. £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ AiÀÄÆj£ï ¥ÉæUÉߤì À è ¥Á¹nªï §AvÀÄ."
mɸïÖ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CzÀg° The above said evidence also crystallizes that during the year of 2010 itself, the victim girl was pregnant of two moths. It is also the case of prosecution that during the month of March last week and April, the accused raped the victim girl in her house. No doubt it is true there is no mentioning of sexual abuse caused by whom with the victim girl in Ex.P10 and she has joined to the hospital due to ill health for treatment and she came to the hospital on her own and not brought by the police. Here also it is very clear that the victim girl lodged complaint during the year 2012 and not earlier to that, but as per her complaint, the criminal motion taken place during the year of 2010 itself when she was minor. Through this witness also the 42 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 prosecution establishes the alleged act of the accused with the victim girl for the offence as per Section 376 of IPC.
31. By going through the evidence of Pw.6- M.Venktaswamy-A.S.I., has deposed that on 21-12-2012 when he was SHO, at about 03.00 p.m., the victim girl came and lodged complaint, he has received the same, prepared F.I.R., as per Ex.P5 and his signature is Ex.P5(a). The accused cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that:
"DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀw JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj, DzÀgÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ."
Further he has admitted the suggestion that:
"¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ DgÉÆæUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝ «µÀAiÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÀÆÝ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀݼÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
The above said suggestion clinches the issues unequivocally points out that the accused forcibly got married the victim girl and also earlier to that he has raped the victim girl as per 43 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 the case of the prosecution. Though this witness is a formal witness, but with regard to the suggestion made by the accused to this witness, it corroborates the case of the prosecution against the accused.
32. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-S.M. Chandrappa-Police Inspector, he has deposed that he has received record from Pw.6-Venkataswamy on 22-12-2012 and conducted further investigation and he went to the spot, conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 in front of Cw.6 and Cw.7. He has also recorded the statement of Cw.2 and Cw.3.On 26-12-2012 Cw.8 and Cw.9 produced the accused before him and Cw.9 given report as per Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(a). He arrested the accused, recorded his voluntary statement. He has also recorded re-statement of the victim girl on 27-12-2012 as per Ex.P8 and his signature is Ex.P8(a). Thereafter he has given request for adding of Section 366 of IPC as per Ex.P9 and thereafter he has sent the victim girl and the accused for medical 44 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 checkup.
33. The accused cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and denied the process of conducting mahazar, recording of statement, for that this witness denied the same. It is the suggestion of the accused that:
"¦üAiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAZÉ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzÀszÀ°è EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
The above said suggestion clinches the issue unequivocally points out that the victim girl and the accused are not strangers, they are known with each other. But the alleged incident as per the prosecution case is against the will and wish of the victim girl who is none other than the complainant also. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is also a formal one.
34. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-Shiva Chandra-Head Constable, he has deposed that he has 45 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 produced the accused before Pw.6 on 26-12-2012 at about 06.00 p.m., and given report as per Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(b). The accused tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission by denial suggestion, but nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of the accused.
35. By going through the evidence of Pw.7- Parameshwar-Police Constable, he has also deposed that he has accompanied with Pw.12-Shivachandra for arresting the accused and produced before Pw.6. Though the accused cross-examined this witness, except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused.
36. By going through the evidence of Pw.13- Dr.Mahalakshmi, she has deposed that on 27-12-2012 at about 01.50 p.m., she has examined the victim girl and she has generally checked the victim girl and sent to OBG and Radiological examination and she has received report from 46 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 OBG stating that:
"The victim girl had signs of having sexual intercourse.
2) No signs of fresh sexual intercourse.
3) Further the OBG opinion is as the lady has come back after one year of not having sex this question irrelevant.
4) Cannot tell affirmative since the victim girl got abortions.
At the time of examination the victim girl told she has undergone operation on 27.07.2010 and also produced KIMS record for perusal.
As per the said record the victim girl had undergone right side partial salpingectomy. Further it is mentioned in that record in respect of right un rupture ectopic pregnancy and tube abortion.
In respect of age of victim girl she was referred to radiological examination and radiologist given opinion stating that victim girl age in between 19 to 20 years i.e. above 19 years. For that I have issued wound certificate."
She has further deposed that she has given Ex.P12- Medical certificate and her signature is Ex.P12(b). The 47 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 accused tested the veracity of this witness, except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the alleged defense of the accused.
37. By going through the evidence of Pw.11- T.B.Jayaram-A.C.P., he has deposed that he has received record from Cw.16 on 20-12-2012, after perusal of the record, he has conducted further investigation. He has received report as per Ex.P3 and his signature is Ex.P3(b). He has also received Ex.P11-Birth certificate of the victim girl and his signature is Ex.P11(a). On 01-02-2013 he has received the medical certificate as per Ex.P10 and his signature is Ex.P10(a). He has also received Ex.P6- Histopathology Report and his signature is Ex.P6(b). On 13-02-2013 the investigation was completed and after receiving medical certificate as per Ex.P12 and Sonology Report as per Ex.P13, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 376, 366 and 498-A of IPC. The accused tested the veracity of 48 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused.
38. Here the produced evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.13 strengthen the case of the prosecution against the accused. When there is a drastic stand taken by the prosecution with regard to the alleged offences against the accused, it is the bounden duty of the accused to disprove the same beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, at the cross-examination itself the suggestion to the prosecution witnesses strengthens the case of the prosecution. Further the evidence of the prosecurtrix inspires confidence and the same is to be natural and truthful. The criminal motion started in the year 2010 itself, when the prosecurtrix was minor. The other evidence also corroborates the evidence of the victim girl. Moreover, the suggestion to the prosecution witnesses by the accused at their cross-examination also supports the evidence of the 49 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 victim girl as Pw.1. When such being the case, question of disbelieving the case of the prosecution against the accused does not arise. Further the evidence of prosecurtrix is more trustworthy, since she has narrated the incident as to what the accused has done to her and when the incident was commenced. Further this Court feels to observe that the acquaintance of the accused with the victim girl is not in dispute and it is established through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and through the cross-examination of prosecution evidence by the accused. Visiting of the accused to the house of the victim girl is also established. The victim girl had specifically stated that for the first time without her consent, in her house, the accused had raped her. Thereafter he was threatening to the victim girl to marry him since all the acts done by him. It is also established that at the time of rape of the victim girl she was minor and she was studying at 10th standard as per the medical documents. It is also very clear that the accused having first wife, but the first wife also encouraged the 50 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 accused to do the said activities in her house and she also forced the prosecurtrix to co-operate with the accused, for alleged sexual activities. The produced medical certificate also clearly establish the case of the prosecution against the accused.
39. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused not established by him through cross-examination of Pw.1 to Pw.13. The facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probabalises the case of the prosecution rather than the defense of the accused.
40. In view of the above said reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.13 and documentary evidence of Ex.P1to Ex.P13 placed on record in respect of alleged offences is sufficient to prove that the accused being a married person in 2009-2010 became familiar with the 51 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 victim girl who was then studying in 10th Standard at BES High School, Jaya Nagar, on often contacts developed friendship and in turn fell in love with her, induced or seduced her to marry her, on that inducement during 2010, in the month of April, at her House No.1074, at 12th Cross Road, Weavers Colony, Bengaluru, committed rape upon her against her wish and without consent and thereby she became pregnant and got aborted, on 21-09-2012 at about 02.00 p.m., the accused kidnapped Cw.1-the victim girl from her house with an intention to marry her and in pursuance of it on 18-10-2012, got married her at Annamma Temple, Bengaluru, against her wishes by tying Thali with assistance of his first wife, after having married the victim girl, lead the marital life with her at marital home up to 23-11-2012, during that period harassed her both physically and mentally demanding money, on failure, abusing and assaulting her and ousted her forcibly at about 05.00 a.m., on 23-11-2012 and thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Section 376, 366 and 52 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 498-A of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.1 to 3 in the "Affirmative".
41. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused is entitled for an order of conviction. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376, 366, 498-A of I.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th Day of September 2017.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.53 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the arguments from the learned counsel for the accused regarding sentence. No representation from prosecution side. Hence, the arguments on sentence from prosecution side taken as not addressed.
2. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused is only earning member in his family, he is having aged mother and one orphan child and the said child recently met with an accident and he has to look after the said child and requested to take lenient view in respect of imposing sentence on the accused.
3. The learned counsel for the accused produced memo with documents to show the accused is having wives namely-Muniyamma and Ashwini and Tejaswini-daughter.
He has also produced other documents to show that the mother of the accused is suffering from cordial diseases during the year 2008, now she is under treatment. Further the learned advocate for accused also produced some medical documents to show that the accused adopted a orphan child-Tejeswini and she met with an accident and she is suffering from hyper active airway disease with 54 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 serious disorder and the accused has to look after his mother and the child and requested to take lenient view in respect of imposing sentence on the accused.
4. It is not in dispute that the accused committed rape on victim girl when she was minor in her house itself and thereafter he has forcibly took the victim girl and married her at Annamma Temple-Bengaluru and thereafter against her will and wish he had sexual intercourse forcibly and also he has ousted the victim girl by demanding dowry. The above said facts deposed by the victim girl and her mother as Pw.2. When such being the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met by imposing the minimum sentence to the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376, 366 and 498-A of IPC as prescribed in I.P.C.
5. Further punishment for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., fixed rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and fine. In respect of Section 366 of I.P.C., the punishment prescribed of procuration of girl, forced intercourse, the punishment is imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Further in respect of demand of dowry, 55 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus in my opinion if the Court has to impose sentence of rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go Simple imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., against accused, simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for a period two months in respect of offence under Section 366 of I.P.C., fixed to accused and simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for a period one month in respect of offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., no impediment will be caused to him. Hence, I proceed to pass the sentence as under:
ORDER Accused is sentenced to under go rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.56 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014
Accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. and in default for payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and in default for payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
All the three sentences of accused shall run concurrently.
The accused is entitled for benefit of set off for the period for which he has already undergone imprisonment as under trial prisoner during the course of trial as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Issue conviction warrant.
57 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014Furnish free copy of judgment and order of sentence to the accused persons forth with. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th Day of September 2017.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW 1 Victim girl Cw.1 23-04-2012 PW 2 Shanthi Cw.2 03-01-2015 PW 3 Dr.Rajesh.K.S. Cw.11 13-01-2015 PW 4 Dr.Indira L.Asangi Cw.15 08-09-2016 PW 5 Latha Cw.4 03-11-2016 PW 6 M.Venkataswamy Cw.10 03-11-2016 PW 7 Parameshwar Cw.8 03-11-2016 PW 8 Dr.Suguna Cw.13 27-12-2016 PW 9 S.M.Chandrappa Cw.16 27-12-2016 PW 10 Dr.Nirmala Cw.12 14-02-2017 Shivalingaiah 58 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 PW 11 T.B.Jayaram Cw.17 26-04-2017 PW 12 Shiva Chandra Cw.9 27-06-2017 PW 13 Dr.Mahalakshmi Cw.14 03-08-2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 03-01-2015 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 03-01-2015 Ex.P 2 Mahazar Pw.1 03-01-2015 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 03-01-2015 Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 27-12-2016 Ex.P 3 Age estimation report Pw.3 13-01-2015 Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 13-01-2015 Ex.P 3b Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 26-04-2017 Ex.P 4 Medical report of Pw.4 08-09-2016 accused Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 08-09-2016 Ex.P 5 F.I.R. Pw.6 03-11-2016 Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 03-11-2016 Ex.P 6 Histopathology Pw.8 27-12-2016 Report Ex.P 6a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 27-12-2016 Ex.P 6b Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 26-04-2017 Ex.P 7 Report of Pw.12 Pw.9 27-12-2016 Ex.P 7a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 27-12-2016 Ex.P 7b Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 27-06-2017 Ex.P 8 Re-statement of Pw.9 27-12-2016 victim 59 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 Ex.P 8a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 27-12-2016 Ex.P 9 Requisition to Court Pw.9 27-12-2016 Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 27-12-2016 Ex.P 10 Discharge summary Pw.10 14-02-2017 of victim Ex.P 10a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 26-04-2017 Ex.P 11 Copy of transfer Pw.11 26-04-2017 certificate of victim Ex.P 11a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 26-04-2017 Ex.P 12 Wound certificate of Pw.11 26-04-2017 victim Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 26-04-2017 Ex.P 12b Signature of Pw.13 Pw.13 03-08-2017 Ex.P 13 Sonology report Pw.11 26-04-2017 Ex.P 13a Signature of Pw.11 Pw.11 26-04-2017 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Ex.D1 Statement of victim Pw.1 22-03-2016 Ex.D1(a) Marked portion in red Pw.1 22-03-2016 colour Ex.D1(b) Marked portion in red Pw.1 22-03-2016 colour 60 Spl.C.C.No.406/2014 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
***