Bangalore District Court
State By Pulakeshinagar vs Karthik on 31 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDL, CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE
Special Court (CCH-54)
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2015.
PRESENT:
Smt.H.G.Vijayakumari., B.Sc.,LLB.,
LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Spl.C.C.No.359/2014
COMPLAINANT State by Pulakeshinagar
Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor, Bangalore.)
ACCUSED 1. Karthik,
S/o.Mani,Age: 21 years,
R/at #204, Krishnappa Line,
1st Cross, Coxtown, Jeevanahalli,
Bangalore-05
2. Rahul @Patas,
S/o.Rajendra,
Age: 21 years,
R/at #/1-3, 2nd Cross,
Muddamma Garden,
PSK Naidu Road, Doddagunte,
Coxtown, Bangalore
3. Saravana,
S/o.Krishna,
Age: 21 years,
R/at No.02, Muniyappa
Garden,PSK Naidu Road,
Coxtown, Jeevanahalli,
Bangalore-05
(Accused No.1- By Sri.Venkatasway Reddy
Accused No.2 &3- By Sri.H.S.Narayana
Reddy- Advocate)
2 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014
1. Date of Commission : 07.05.2014
Of Offence
2. Date of Report :
08.05.2014
Of Offence
3. Date of arrest of : 13.05.2014
accused
4 Date of release on Bail Accused No.1 released on
bail on 05.07.2015
Accused No.2 & 3 released
on bail on 01.08.2014
5 Period undergone in
Judicial Custody
6 Name of the : Latha
complainant
7. Date of :
Commencement of 10.06.2015
recording evidence
8. Date of Closing of :
20.07.2015
Evidence
9. Offences complained of : Section 120(B), 363, 366,
343, 493, 376 of Indian
Penal Code and Section5(L)
r/w.6 of POCSO Act 2012
10. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 to 3 are
found not guilty
11 Order of the Court : As per final order
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Pulakeshi Nagar Police station, Bangalore have filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under 3 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 Section 120(B), 363, 366, 343, 493, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section5(L) r/w.6 of POCSO Act 2012
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that:
The accused No.1 and the minor victim came to known to each other. The complainant came to know that accused No.1 used to follow the minor victim and she warned the accused No.1. On 07.05.2014 at 7-00 p.m., all the accused hatched a plan, accused No.1 called the victim girl telling that he want to inform some urgent mater, took her in an autorickshaw to Indiranagar, thereafter to Chikkanallala village to the house of C.W.11 Venkatesh relative of accused No.2 on 08.05.2014 at 7-00 p.m., accused No.2 & 3 went to the house of Venkatesh and performed the marriage of accused No.1 with the minor victim and thereafter accused No.1 had forceful physical contact with the minor victim and confined her in the said house till 12.05.2014 and thereafter left leaving the minor victim at Jeevanahalli.
3. As soon as charge sheet was filed and the prosecution papers were made available to the accused No.1 to 3 as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned counsel appearing for the accused No.1 to 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard regarding the framing of charge under 4 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 section 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed and read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 3. Accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore the case was posted for evidence of the prosecution.
4. In order to prove the alleged offences the prosecution examined 10 Witness as PWs 1 to 10 and documents have been marked as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. No incriminating articles have been marked.
5. The accused No.1 to 3 have been examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Their defence is that of total denial. Since evidence before the court was not sufficient to acquit the accused 1 to 3 under section 232 of Criminal Procedure Code, accused No.1 to 3 to lead the defence evidence accused No.1 to 3 submit that they have no defence evidence to be adduced.
6. Heard Learned Public Prosecutor for the state, and learned counsel appearing for the accused No.1 to 3.
7. Now the point that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt:5 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014
(a) That accused No.1 hatched plan along with the accused No.2 and 3 to kidnap the victim and to took minor victim to the house of C.W.11 Venkatesh and thereby committed the offence Punishable under section 120(A) r/w.120(B) of Indian Penal Code ?
(b) That accused No.2 and 3 instigated the accused No.1 to kidnap the victim girl and committed criminal conspiracy to commit the offence and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 120(A) r/w.120(B) of Indian Penal Code.?
(c) That accused No. 1 to 3 on 07.05.2014 at 7-00 p.m., kidnapped
the victim girl from her house from the lawful custody of the complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 363 of Indian Penal Code.?
(d) That accused No. 1 to 3 as per their plan of conspiracy on 07.05.2014 at 7-00 p.m., kidnapped the victim girl took her to Indiranagar in an autorickshaw and thereafter to the 6 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 house of C.W.11 Venkatesh at Chikkanallala Village, Hosakote taluk and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 366 of Indian Penal Code.?
(e) That accused No.1 to 3 as per their plan of conspiracy took the victim girl to the house of Venkatesh, confined her from 07.05.2014 till 12.05.2014 and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 343 of Indian Penal Code?
(f) That accused No.1 unlawfully married the minor victim and by tying Thali inducing the minor victim to believe that he is lawfully married, had physical contact and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 493 of Indian Penal Code?
(g) That accused No.1 confined the victim girl in the house of C.W.11 Venkatesh from 08.05.2014 to 12.05.2014 and sexually harassed her and thereby committed offence punishable under 7 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 section 5(L) r/w.Section 6 of POCSO Act 2012?
2) What Order?
8. My findings above points are as under:-
Point No.1 (a) : In the negative Point No.1 (b) : In the negative Point No.1 (c) : In the negative Point No.1 (d) : In the negative Point No.1 (e) : In the negative Point No.1 (f) : In the negative Point No.1 (g) : In the negative Point No.2 : as per final Order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1(a) and (g):- All the points are taken up together as they are inter related to each other.
10. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the accused No.1 forced the minor victim to love him and she refused. Accused tNo.2 and 3 forced the minor victim to love the accused No.1. The said fact came to known to the complainant and she warned the accused No.1. Acused No.1 to 3 hatched a plan of conspiracy that victim is a minor and to kidnap her. As per their plan, they kidnapped the victim girl on 07.05.2014 at 7-00 p.m., in an autorickshaw to 8 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 Indiranagar, thereafter to Chikkanallala Village of Hosakote Taluk to the house of C.W.11 Venkatesh. On 08.05.2014, accused No.1 married the minor victim girl by force, had physical contact with her and also confined her till 12.05.2014 in the house of C.W.11 Venkatesh and thereafter left her at Jeevanahalli.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 and 3 kidnapped the minor victim, married her by force and confined her in the house of Venkatesh of Chikkanallala Village, Hosakote Taluk and had forceful physical contact. The prosecution case is not supported by the evidence of P.W.8 victim girl.
12. P.W.8 victim girl deposed that she has not seen the accused No.3 and she has not given statement before the police that the accused No.1 kidnapped her with the instigation of accused No.2 and 3 and accused No.1 married her by force, she is not aware of the contents written in the document, wherein she put her signature at Ex.P10(a) and Ex.P1(c). She is also treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and she denied that on 07.05.2014 at 7- 00 p.m., she went out of the house to get currency to her mobile, accused No.1 kidnapped her with the help of accused No.2 and 3 and all the accused took her to 9 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 Chikkanallala village and she further denied that she has given statement before the police as per Ex.P11 narrating the incident and further denied that after seeing the accused No.1 to 3 on 12.05.2014, she gave statement as per Ex.P12 and police seized Thali and leg rings by drawing mahazer as per Ex.P10 and further denied police drew the mahazer as per Ex.P1 in the house of Venkatesh at Chikkanallala Village.
13. Prosecution case is also not supported by P.W.5 Senior Aunt of the victim and P.W.6 mother of the victim.
14. P.W.5 Latha deposed in her evidence that she is not aware that victim was kidnapped and she has not seen the accused and she signed in Pulakeshinagar police station and not aware of its contents and Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and not gave statement before the police as per Ex.P7.
15. P.W.6 mother of the victim deposed in her evidence that she is not aware that P.W.5 has lodged the missing complaint. She has not given statement before the police and she has not seen the accused. She also treated as hostile by the prosecution and she denied that P.W.5 informed that accused No.1 kidnapped the victim and she gave statement to the 10 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 police on 13.05.2014 and she came to know that victim has narrated the incident that accused No.1 to 3 kidnapped her, took her to the house of Venkatesh at Chikkanallala Village and accused No.1 married her by force and committed rape and she gave statement as per Ex.P8.
16. The prosecution case is also not supported by P.W.6 father of the victim girl. P.W.6 also deposed that he is not aware that P.W.5 has lodged the missing complaint alleging missing of his daughter and he has not seen the accused. He also treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and he denied in his cross examination that he gave statement to the police that on 12.05.2014, after the enquiry victim told that accused No.1 to 3 kidnapped her, took her to a house at Chikkanallala village and accused No.1 married her and committed rape and thereafter brought her to his house and denied that he gave statement as per Ex.P9.
17. The prosecution case is also not supported by the evidence of P.W.3 Venkatesh C.W.11. He deposed that he has not seen the accused and the victim girl, both not stayed in his house for two days and he has not given statement before the police. He also treated as hostile witness and he denied that accused No.1 to 11 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 3 went to his house along with victim girl, accused No.2 told him that victim and accused No.1 ran away from their house and permit them to stay for two days in his house. Thereafter, he agreed and accused No.1 and the victim stayed in his house and gave statement as per Ex.P2.
18. Prosecution case is also not supported by the evidence of P.W.1 Thimmarayappa and P.W.2 Ravi Kumar who are the witnesses to of Ex.P1 Mahazer. P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in their evidence that they put their signature in the police station and not aware of its contents.
19. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and denied in their cross examination that they are aware of the fact that police drew mahazer in the house of Venkatesh on 13.05.2014 at Chikkanallala Village in the spot shown by accused No.1 and after mahazer was read over to them, knowing its contents signed the mahazer.
20. The prosecution case is also not supported by P.W.9 Shobha who is also a witness of Ex.P6. She also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and denied in her cross examination that she is aware that 12 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 on 08.05.2014, police came near the house of P.W.1 and drew the Mahazer as per Ex.P6.
21. The prosecution case is also not supported by P.W.10 who is mahazer witness. He deposed that he put his signature to the mahazer about one year back and police not seized any properties at that time and not aware of the contents of the document where he has signed. He also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and he denied in his cross examination tha on 12.05.2014 Pulakeshinagar police seized Thali and Leg rings produced by the victim in the police station by drawing mahazer as per Ex.p10, after knowing its contents, he put his signature at Ex.P10.
22. The evidence of P.W.4 Dr.B.M.Nagaraj deposed that he has examined the witness after obtaining her consent on 12.05.2014 and not seixed any cloth and gave report as per Ex.P3 and also examined accused No.1 on the same day at 10-30 p.m. and gave report as per Ex.P4.
23. Ex.P1 spot mahazer dated 13.05.2014 is not supported by the evidnce of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are mahazer witness. Ex.P6 mahazer dated 08.05.2014 is also not supported by the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.9 stated that she has signed Ex.P6 in the police station 13 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 and Ex.P10 mahazer dated 12.05.2014 is also not supported by the victim girl and Shivanna P.W.10 and P.W.10 has stated that police not shown any properties to him. Seizure of the property is also not proved by the prosecution satisfactorily. Victim denied that she has produced Thali and Leg rings before the police. The prosecution case is also not supported by the evidence of the victim, P.W.3, P.W.5 to P.W.7.
24. In an offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code the evidence of the prosecution plays a vital role. The evidence of the prosecutrix can be accepted without there being corroboration. However, if there are any inconsistency or discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, then the court has to look for corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix, but the prosecution case is not supported by the evidence of the prosecutrix herself.
25. The prosecutrix has denied the incident in toto. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt on the part of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, in view of all these reasons, I answer point No.1(a) and 1(g) in the negative.
26. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings on point Nos.1(a) and (g), accused is 14 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 found not guilty for the above said offences, in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable Under Section 120(A),120(B), 363, 366, 343, 493, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(L) r/w.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
Bail bonds and surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
Property seized in P.F.No.34/2014 dated 12.05.2014 is ordered to be confiscated to the State after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, corrected and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 31st day of JULY, 2015.) (H.G.VIJAYA KUMARI) LIII ADDL, CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS, JUDGE, BANGALORE.
Annexure Witness examined on behalf of the Prosecution Sl.No. List of witness Date of Examination 01 PW-1 Thimmarayappa 10.06.2015 02 PW-2 Venkatesh 10.06.2015 03 PW-3 B.M.Nagaraj 11.06.2015 04 PW-4 Latha 11.06.2015 05 PW-5 Bhagyalakshmi 01.07.2015 06 PW-6 Yadala 06.07.2015 15 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 07 PW-7 Aritha 06.07.2015 08 PW-8 L.Shobha 06.07.2015 09 PW-9 Shivanna 07.07.2015 Documents Marked on behalf of the Prosecution Sl.No 01 Ex.P.1 Spot Mahazer 02 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 in Ex.P1 03 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW2 in Ex.P1 04 Ex.P.1(c) Signature of PW8 05 Ex.P.2 Statement of PW3 06 Ex.P.3 Medical report 07 Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.4 08 Ex.P.4 Accused Medical report 09 Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.4 10 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of Accused 11 Ex.P.5 Complaint 12 Ex.P.6 Mahazer dated 08.05.2015 13 Ex.P.6 (a) Signature of PW5 14 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW9 15 Ex.P.7 Statement of PW5 16 Ex.P.8 Statement of PW6 17 Ex.P.9 Statement of PW7 18 Ex.P.10 Amanath Mahazer 19 Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW8 20 Ex.P.10 (b) Signature of PW10 21 Ex.P11 Statement of PW8 22 Ex.P12 Further statement of P.W.8 (H.G.VIJAYA KUMARI) LIII ADDL, CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS, JUDGE, BANGALORE.
16 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014 17 Spl.C.C.No.359/2014Orders pronounced in open court.
(Vide separate order) Acting under section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable Under Section 120(A),120(B), 363, 366, 343, 493, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(L) r/w.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
Bail bonds and surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
Property seized in P.F.No.34/2014 dated 12.05.2014 is ordered to be confiscated to the State after appeal period is over.
(H.G.VIJAYA KUMARI) LIII ADDL, CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS, JUDGE, BANGALORE.