Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Venkatesh @ Venkata Nayak on 9 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 5th Day of May 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No.562/2015
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka
By Kothanur Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Special Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
Venkatesh @ Venkata Nayak,
S/o. Gopal Nayak, 37 years,
R/at. C/o.Muniraju's house,
Near Anjaneya Temple, Byrathi,
Kothanur post,
Bengaluru-77
[By Sri.V.V.S-Advocate.]
1 Date of commission of offence 04-10-2015
2 Date of report of occurrence 05-10-2015
3 Date of arrest of Accused 05-10-2015
Date of release of Accused Accused is in J.C.
Period undergone in custody till this day
by Accused
2 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
4 Date of commencement of evidence 21-10-2017
5 Date of closing of evidence 10-01-2018
6 Name of the complainant Victim girl
7 Offences complained of Sect.354,354-A-I.P.C.,
Sec.7 r/w 8, 9(n) r/w.
10-POCSO Act & Sec.23
J.J. Act
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 and SHO of Kothnur Police Station-Bangalore against accused for the offences punishable under Section 354, 354-A of IPC, Section 7, 9(n), 10 of POCSO Act and Section 23 of J.J. Act.
2. Since it is a case of sexual abuse on minor girl, 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 girl' wherever her name is necessary.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused is the father of Cw.1-the complainant and 3 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 also the victim girl who was aged about 14 years and was studying in 9th Standard at Siddhartha School. About 8 months back when the mother of victim girl went for work, she was sleeping at that time the accused who is her father sexually abused her by touching her body with his hands. At that time she scolded her father. On 04-10-2015 at about 01.30 p.m., when none of the members of the family was there in the house and only the victim girl was in the house the accused caught hold her, hugged her and asked her to come and sleep on the bed and dragged her and scratched her body and ran away from that house. The victim girl lodged complaint against accused.
On the basis of said complaint, the police registered the case against accused for the offences punishable under Section 354, 354-A of IPC, Section 7, 9(L), 11 and 12 of POCSO Act and Section 23 of J.J. Act.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 354, 354-A of IPC, Section 7, 8, 9(n), 10 of POCSO Act and Section 23 of J.J. Act. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet, as usual accused appeared before the 4 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 Court, the copy of charge sheet furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since from the date of arrest the accused is in judicial custody, the learned advocate for the accused submitted no arguments before framing charge. Hence, the contents of the charge read over and explained to him in Kannada. The accused pleaded not guilty and submit crimes to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused was set down for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined in all 13 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.13 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and closed its side evidence. At the time of cross-examination, the accused got marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D1(a). Thereafter, in view of incriminating evidence appeared against accused, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. He denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false, but no defense evidence produced. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
5 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
6. 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. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ vÀAzÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ 8 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ CPÉAiÀÄ vÁ¬Ä PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q ªÀÄ®VzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-1¼À ªÉÄʪÉÄÃ¯É PÉÊAiÀiÁr¹ CªÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É CvÁåZÁgÀ J¸ÀUÀĪÀ GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ §®¥ÀæAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁr ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 354, 354-JgÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgAÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
2. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB04-10-2015gÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 01.30gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁgÀÄ E®è¢zÁÝUÀ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ-£ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©VAiÀiÁV »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÊPÉÊ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÉ ªÀÄÄnÖ PÀ®A.7 ¸ÀºªÀ ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A.8gÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsU½ À AzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 2012gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀªs £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
3. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Þ À, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀg Ý ÀÆ PÀÆqÀ CPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAZÀz À À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ®VPÉÆà JAzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr ªÉÄÊPÉÊ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÉ ªÀÄÄnÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉʬÄAzÀ CPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀa, CPÉUÉ UÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÀ®A.9(J£ï) ¸ÀºªÀ ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A.10gÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsU½ À AzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 2012gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÀ ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
4. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁtô¹zÀ ¢£À, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð sÀ zÀ°è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À vÀ£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §®ªÀAvÀªÁV J¼ÉzÁr ªÉÄÊPÉÊ ªÀÄÄAnÖ §®vÁÌgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹ CPÉUÉ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr PÀ®A 23gÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁVgÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
5. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.6 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
Point No.2: In the Affirmative.
Point No.3: In the Affirmative.
Point No.4: In the Affirmative.
Point No.5: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4: As these points are inter-related, hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasonings.
9. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence produced both at oral and documentary and arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.12 got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and during the cross-examination the accused got marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D1(a). As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant and victim girl, Pw.2 is the mother of victim girl and wife of the accused. Pw.5 and Pw.7 are brothers of complainant, Pw.6 is the senior uncle and Pw.9 is the senior 7 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 aunt of victim girl, Pw.3, Pw.4 and Pw.8 are the doctors, Pw.10 is the Panch witness and Pw.10 to Pw.13 are the police personnel and the Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the offences alleged against the accused.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused the prosecution is required to prove that the accused being the father of minor victim girl sexually abused her by touching her body with his hands, caught hold her, hugged her and asked her to come and sleep on the bed and dragged her and scratched her body and thereby the accused has committed offences punishable under Section 354, 354-A of IPC, Section 7, 8, 9(n), 10 of POCSO Act and Section 23 of J.J. Act. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition 8 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 of offences under Section 354, 354-A of IPC, Section 7, 8, 9(n), 10 of POCSO Act and Section 23 of J.J. Act.
Section 354 of IPC defines that:
Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
Section 354-A of IPC defines that:
Sexual harassment an punishment for sexual harassment-(1) A man committing any of the following acts-
(i) Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) A demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) Showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) Making sexually coloured remarks, Shall be guilt of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2)Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1)shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrcription for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 7 of POCSO Act defines that:
Sexual assault.-Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.9 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
Section 8 of POCSO Act defines that:
Punishment for sexual assault.-Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 9(n) of POCSO Act defines that:
Aggravated sexual assault.-Whoever, being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care, or having domestic relationship with a parent of the child, or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits sexual assault on such child. Section 10 of POCSO Act defines that:
Punishment for aggravated sexual assault.-Whoever, commits aggravated sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 23 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Punishment for cruelty to juvenile of child:-Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.
With this observation, now left with the available evidence produced by the prosecution to consider whether the prosecution proved the alleged offences against accused beyond 10 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 all reasonable doubt or it probablizes the defense of accused.
13. Here it is relevant to note that when the incident was taken place the victim girl and the accused were only present at the incident spot. Further it is relevant to note the admitted facts between the parties. The victim girl is none other than the daughter of the accused. As per the prosecution Pw.1 is victim girl, Pw.2 is her mother, Pw.5, Pw.7 are the brothers of victim girl, Pw.6 and Pw.9 are the senior uncle and aunt of victim girl and elder sister of Pw.2. The accused, the victim girl, her mother and two brothers are residing under common roof, the senior uncle and senior aunt are residing separately. The mother of victim girl doing house keeping work in some other place, for her and her family members' livelihood. Earlier the accused was doing business of Tea vending and thereafter he was working as mason. Further it is also an admitted fact that at the time of alleged incident, the victim girl was studying in 9th standard, her brothers were also studying in different schools.
The accused was not doing any work and he was vagabond. Further with regard to the character of accused at the cross- examination of Pw.1, he, himself has suggested that: 11 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
"£ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÁgÀtPÉÌ £À£U À É ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ, §qÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£ßÀ vÀAzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÁgÀtPÉÌ PÀÄrzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgÀt £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £À£Àß ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À馅 ªÀiÁr DgÉÆæ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è ."
At the cross-examination of Pw.2 it is the suggestion of accused that:
"£À£Àß UÀAqÀ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ¸ÉêÀ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ C¨sÁå¸À DvÀ¤UÉ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ D jÃw vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ WÀl£ÉUÉ 8 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ MªÉÄä D jÃw DVvÀÄÛ ºÁUÀÆ F WÀl£É £Àq¬É ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÃÝ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
Further Pw.2 was suggested that:
"£À£Àß UÀAqÀ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ZÀl¢AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀ ºÀªÁå¸ÀU¼ À À PÁgÀt¢AzÁV ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ gÀÆ. 2 ®PÀë RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.."
During the evidence of Pw.5-Darshan it reveals that:
"£À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ¸ÉêÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ZÀlªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ£ Ý ÄÀ .
£Á£ÀÄ DlªÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ £À£Àß CPÀÌ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QUÉ KmÁVvÀÄÛ,"
In the cross-examination of Pw.7-Madan also the accused elicited that:
"£À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£ÀzÀ ZÀl £Á£ÀÄ ¸Àtª Ú À¤zÁÝV¤AzÀ®Æ EzÀÄÝ DvÀ PÀÄrzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÄÀ vÁÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ZÀl¢AzÀ SÁ¬Ä¯É ©zÀÄÝ D¸Àv à ÉæÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ®PÀë RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr DvÀ££ À ÀÄß G½¹PÉÆAqÀ¼ÄÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D jÃw RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr SÁ¬Ä¯É ¸Àj ªÀiÁr ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgv É A À zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£ÀzÀ ZÀlªÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¸°À ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. "
Even the cross-examination of Pw.9-Nirmala crystallizes that the accused elicited that:
"£À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ DgÉÆæ ªÉAPÀmÃÉ ±À¤UÉ ªÉÆzÀ°¤AzÀ®Æ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ¸ÉêÀ£A É iÀÄ ZÀl«vÉA Û zÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ZÀlªÀ£ÄÀ ß 12 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 ©r¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £À£Àß vÀAV §ºÀ¼µ À ÀÄÖ ºÀt RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ZÀl ©r¸ÀĪÀ PÉÃAzÀæPÀÆÌ ¸ÉÃj¹ aQvÉì PÉÆr¹zÀ¼ Ý A É zÀgÉ ¸ÁQë £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAV E§âgÀÆ ¸ÉÃj DgÉÆæUÉ D aQvÉì PÉÆr¹zɪ Ý ÀÅ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛg.É D aQvÉìUÉ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÀ«Ää £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAV¬ÄAzÀ gÀÆ. 2 ®PÀë RZÁðVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévBÀ gÀÆ. 20000/- £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÃÝ £ÉAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛg.É D¸Àv à Éæ RaðUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ZÀlªÀ£ÀÄß ©r¸À®Ä PÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ aQvÉìAiÀÄ RZÀÄð J¯Áè ¸ÉÃj ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ®PÀë RZÁðVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. EµÉÖ¯Áè RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr aQvÉì PÉÆr¹zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ZÀlªÀ£ÀÄß ©nÖgÀ°®èªAÉ zÀgÉ ¸Àj."
The above said elicitation clinches the issue unequivocally points out that the accused himself admitted that he was having bad character, he was not taking care of his wife and children and also harassing them without doing any work in the house. With these now left with the material evidence of Pw.1 the victim girl.
14. Pw.1 has deposed that she was born on 26-12-2001, now she is studying 1st PUC, at the time of alleged incident she was minor. During the year 2015 she was studying in 8th standard. On 04-10-2015 at about 01.30 p.m., she was alone in the house, at that time her father the accused came and hugged her, pushed her on the cot, scratched on her cheek and she got injuries to her mouth also. At that time she ran away from the house and went to her uncle's house and informed about the same to her mother over phone and immediately her mother 13 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 came and questioned her father and thereafter herself and her mother went to police station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and her signature is Ex.P1(a). Thereafter the police came near her house and drawn mahazar at the spot shown by her as per Ex.P2 and her signature is Ex.P2(a). Ex.P3 is the certificate issued by her school with photo and her signature is Ex.P3(a) and thereafter the police sent her to hospital for treatment.
15. On perusal of Ex.P1 she has stated the admitted fact, the character of the accused and also stated about the incident taken place on 04-10-2015 which corroborates with the evidence given by her in her chief examination. The complaint was lodged on 05-10-2015, as such there was delay in lodging complaint. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, but nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. On the other hand she confirms her stand taken in chief examination.
16. It is the defense of accused that since she knew read and write Kannada, she herself able to written the complaint by 14 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 hand writing, but it was typed. Here it is relevant to note either in hand written or in typing but the victim girl clearly stated what had happened on her from her father. She was also tested in respect whether she herself went to the police station or her mother went to the police station, for that she has clearly deposed that her mother went to the police station and thereafter she has gone to the police station. The accused denied conducting of mahazar as per Ex.P2, for that she has denied the same. Except that nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the victim girl as Pw.1 has deposed what had happened on her on the fatal day of the incident by corroborating evidence and the contents of Ex.P1. When such being the case, question of disbelieving the evidence of Pw.1 doesn't arises. Section 29 of POCSO Act is also very clear that presumption of culpable mental state-(1)In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had 15 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. (2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability. At the same time the accused has not produced his defense by rebutting the evidence of Pw.1 as contemplated under section 30 and 31 of POCSO Act.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Roopa, the mother of victim girl and wife of accused, she has also corroborated the evidence of Pw.1 and alleged statement given before police. She has also deposed on the date of incident she went for work as house keeping work, the victim girl was alone in the house. The accused by consuming alcohol came to the house and after came to know that the victim girl was alone in the house he has scratched her face, caused injuries to her mouth and by pushing her on the cot made attempt to commit rape on her. At that time the victim girl ran out of the house and informed the same to this witness over phone, immediately she returned to home and enquired with her daughter and came 16 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 to know that the accused attempted to commit rape on the victim girl. She has also enquired with her husband, but he showed ignorance of the alleged incident and thereafter she went to police station and lodged the complaint through the victim girl. The police sent her daughter to the hospital for treatment.
18. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused and also tested the veracity of the evidence through whose phone the victim girl called her over phone and what was the phone number. No doubt it is true that she has shown her ignorance about the phone number, but she has clearly deposed that her daughter informed her about the incident over phone of her neighbour. The accused has also tested her evidence with regard to who had given information to the police in respect of Ex.P1, for that she has clearly deposed that her daughter has given complaint to the police. Here, it is relevant to note that the accused himself elicited with regard to his behaviour through this witness. When such being the case, 17 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 there is no ground to disbelieve the act done by him on his daughter when she was alone in the house. Through the evidence of Pw.2-the mother of victim girl also the prosecution established the offences alleged against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Madan-the elder brother of the victim girl, he has deposed that on 05-10- 2015, but he cannot remember the exact date of the incident, on that day he had been to write examine and when he return home he found that:
"¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀÄÄV¹ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÀAVUÉ ¨Á¬Ä ªÀÄÄRzÀ §½ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVvÀÄ.Û ¸Àzj À UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ GUÀÄj¤AzÀ vÀga À zÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀª Ý ÀÅ. F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉýzÉ. DUÀ £À£Àß vÀAV £À£Àß vÀAzÉ DPÉAiÀÄ PÉÊ »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ J¼Ézg À A É zÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §¯ÁvÁÌgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀgAÉ zÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ F §UÉÎ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÄÀ ß PÉÆmÉÖªÀÅ. £À£Àß vÀAV £À£Àß §½ ºÉýzÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÃÝ £É."
The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and also elicited that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀÉÆðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ FUÉÎ 8 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ £ÁªÀÅ ±Á¯ÉUÉ, £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝUÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ £À£ßÀ vÀAV ªÀÄ®VzÁÝUÀ CªÀ¼À ªÉÄʪÉÄïÉPÉÊAiÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ DUÀ £À£Àß vÀAV £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ ¨ÉÊ¢gÀÄvÁÛgA É zÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É."18 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
But at the same time the accused not denied the suggestions made on this witness. Except the above stand taken by the accused, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of the accused. At this stage this Court opines that through the evidence of Pw.7 the prosecution proved the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Darshan-the younger brother of the victim girl, he has shown his ignorance about the alleged incident and also deposed that he doesn't know anything about the incident. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to prosecution case and suggested each and every contents of Ex.P6, for that he has deposed that he has not given statement before police as per Ex.P6. Here, it is relevant to note that at the time of alleged incident he was aged about 12 years and he is younger brother of victim girl and she being elder sister to this witness has not stated anything about the incident to him, as such he has shown ignorance or innocence of the alleged incident and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Merely one of the member of the family turned 19 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 hostile to the case of prosecution, is not a ground to disbelieve the alleged offences against accused.
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-Nirmala, the senior aunt of the victim girl, she has deposed that she was in her hotel when she received the phone call from her sister- Roopa, the mother of victim girl about the incident and immediately she went to her sister's house, the police also enquired her and recorded her statement. She has also deposed about the behaviour of the accused with the victim girl. The accused cross-examined this witness and tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused herein. At the same time the suggestion in respect of his behaviour itself is very clear that he is having bad character. Further it is the defense of the accused that she is running hotel by the side of Kothnur Police Station and their house is situated far away from the house of this witness. When such being the case the hotel of this witness is situated by the side of Kothanur Police Station is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence given by this witness against 20 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 accused. Through the evidence of this witness the prosecution proved the alleged offences against accused.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-K.Manjunath- Senior uncle of victim girl he has also deposed that the police called him near the house of accused as Panchas and conducted mahazar at the spot shown by the victim girl as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(b). The accused tested the above said evidence of this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to his defense. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that with regard to process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P2, this witness supported the case of the prosecution.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-Jacob another Panch witness he has also deposed that about 2-2½ years back, the police called him over phone near the house of accused at about 03.00 p.m. He went near the house of accused, at that time the accused being the father of victim made attempt to rape on his daughter and at that spot the police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and his signature is 21 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 Ex.P2(c). The accused tested his veracity and also denied his participation at the time of alleged process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P2, but he has denied the same. Even in the cross-examination he has also deposed that he signed Ex.P2 along with Cw.6-Manjunath at the time of conducting mahazar. He was also elicited that he is doing car driving work and his owner-Vinod Kumar, who is doing real estate business, he has sent him to participate as Panchas at the time of conducting spot mahazar by assisting the police. Having elicited the said fact the accused has not denied the same. Here it is relevant to note that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.10, mere denial suggestion made on him that, he has not participated in the process of conducting mahazar at the spot by the police and he has signed Ex.P2 in the police station on say of police. At this stage this Court has no impediment to believe the process of conducting of mahazar as per Ex.P2 by the Investigation Officer through the evidence of Pw.6 and Pw.10.
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.11- Sowbhagyamma-WPC-8221, she has deposed that on 05-10- 22 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 2015 when she came to the station at about 02.00 p.m., the Police Inspector told her to take the victim girl to Bowring Hospital for medical examination and on that direction she had taken the victim girl and at that time her mother also accompanied with the victim girl. She has produced the victim girl before the doctor, after medical examination again she brought the victim girl and her mother to the station. The accused denied the above said act of this witness by denial suggestion but nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. At this stage, this Court opines the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.3- Dr.T.Aruldasan, he has deposed that on 10-10-2015 the Kothnur police produced the victim girl through escort of woman police and he has conducted X-ray and submitted report as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(a). On perusal of Ex.P4 the doctor stated the age of victim girl at the time of the alleged incident as per examination was above 16 years and below 18 years. His evidence remains unassailed. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission 23 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 and omission, nothing has been elicited favourable to his defense. Here, it is relevant to note the victim girl is not stranger to the accused and he knew the age of the victim girl.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Dr.Satish, he has deposed that on 05-10-2015 at about 04.30 p.m., Kothanur Police brought the accused for medical examination and he has conducted medical examination between 04.30 p.m., to 05.15 p.m., and issued certificate as per Ex.P5 and his signature is Ex.P5(a). He has stated that there is nothing to suggest that the person is incapable of performing sexual intercourse. At this stage the evidence of this witness remains unassailed.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.8- Dr.Tejeshwini, she has deposed that on 05-10-2015 at about 03.00 p.m., WPC-5184 brought the victim girl and submitted requisition. She has examined the victim girl from 03.00 p.m., to 04.00 p.m., and recorded the history of stated by the victim girl i.e., on 04-10-2015 when the victim girl was alone in the house. Her mother went out for work, at that time her father made attempt to commit rape on her, at that time she pushed 24 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 her father and ran away from that house and also screamed for the help. The same was recorded by this witness and issued report as per Ex.P7 and her signature is Ex.P7(a). The victim girl and her mother refused to examine the genital organ of the victim girl, as such she has not examined the genital organ of the victim girl. Here, it is relevant to note that the evidence of this witness and statement given by victim girl before her remains unassailed. Even the accused has not denied the statement given by the victim girl before the doctor. When such being the case, this Court has no impediment in believing the incident on the victim girl caused by the accused.
28. By going through the evidence of Pw.13-G.R. Ramanjaneya, retried P.S.I., he has deposed that on 05-10-2015 at about 10.30 a.m., the complainant/victim came to the station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and on the basis of said complaint he has registered the case in Crime No.159/ 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 354, 354-A of IPC, section 7, 9(l), 11 and 12 of POCSO Act and section 23 of J.J. Act, 2000. He made Shara and signed as per Ex.P1(b). On the basis of said complaint he has prepared FIR as per Ex.P12 25 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 and his signature is Ex.P12(a). Thereafter Cw.16 conducted further investigation.
29. The accused cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that the contents of Ex.P1 given by the victim girl and her mother. 05- 10-2015 and alleged date of receiving of complaint was Monday. The accused denied by denial suggestion suggesting that on that day at that time, the victim girl has not come to the station and she came to the station in the evening and signed the same. For that, he has denied the same. Though there is suggestion that the mother of the victim girl came to the station at about 02.00 p.m., and lodged complaint and the victim girl not come the station, he has clearly deposed that the victim girl came to the police station at about 10.30 a.m., and also lodged complaint as per Ex.P1. No doubt it is true that he was elicited about non-signing of Ex.P12 by the victim girl, at this stage this Court feels to observe that mere non-signing of FIR by the complainant, it is not a fatal to the case of prosecution. With regard to the registration of case on the basis of complaint and 26 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 preparing FIR, the prosecution produces the evidence of this witness and the same is formal one.
30. Now left with the evidence of Pw.12-V.Krishnappa- A.C.P. He has deposed that on 05-10-2015 he has received record from Cw.14 and conducted further investigation. He has entrusted the police personnel for tracing of accused and went to the spot, conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 from 01.45 p.m., to 02.30 p.m., and the spot shown by the victim girl. He has prepared sketch as per Ex.P8 and his signature is Ex.P8(a). He has sent the victim girl for medical examination and recorded the statement of Cw.2 to Cw.5. Cw.5 given statement as per Ex.P6. He has also produced the victim girl before the Magistrate by giving Ex.P9-requisition. Thereafter he has sent the requisition to the hospital as per Ex.P10, on the same day the accused was produced before him. He has taken him to his custody, enquired him, arrested him and recorded his voluntary statement. The accused in his voluntary statement accepted his guilt. He has sent the accused for medical examination. Thereafter he has produced the accused before Court along with remand application. He has recorded statement of Cw.11 and 27 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 Cw.13. He has received report as per Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(b). On 08-10-2015 the victim girl given statement before Magistrate as per Ex.P11.
31. On perusal of Ex.P11 she has stated that on 04-10- 2015 her brothers went outside for playing since the day was Sunday and she was alone in the house. The accused came to the house at about 01.30 p.m., and asked her give pant to him, when she went to give pant to him, at that time he told why you have to go outside and forcibly pushed her on cot, at that time she tried to escape from him, but he has scratched her chin and also removed her pant. But she has escaped from him and ran away towards another room, he has also chased her, at that time she fell down and he has also fell on her, thereafter she pushed him and went outside. He has also chased her outside also, at that time one old lady asked him why he has beaten the victim girl. At that time the victim girl ran towards the house of her mother-in-law-the sister of her father and told the incident to them and she has also told the same to her mother. Further the prosecution got marked Ex.P3-School record and Ex.P5- Medical report, Ex.P4 is age estimation certificate, Ex.P11 is the 28 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 statement of victim girl given under section 164 of Cr.P.C, and closed the investigation and filed charge sheet against accused. He has also identified the accused before the Court.
32. The accused cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and tested the genuinty of existence of Ex.P2 which was written by the writer of the police station and he has not signed the same and also denied the fact that Cw.6 and Cw.7 not present at the spot and obtained their signature in the station, for that he has denied the same. He has also marked Ex.D1-arrest intimation given to the house owner-Ashok, but according to him at the time of conducting mahazar the house owner was not present i.e., he has not taken his signature on Ex.P2. Further the accused denied the process of conducting investigation by this witness by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. Except that nothing has been elicited favorable to the defense taken by the accused herein.
33. Here the learned advocate for accused argued that there is delay in lodging complaint, but no explanation is given by the complainant and also with regard to the signing of 29 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 complaint by the complainant, there is discrepancy of the evidence, as such complainant lodged false complaint. Further the learned advocate for the accused also argued that at the time of cross-examination of Pw.12, Ex.D1 was marked. When the owner of the house was very much available at that time, but the Investigation Officer has not enquired about the incident with him and not made him as a charge sheet witness, as such no such offence committed by the accused and the alleged offences are falsely implicated against him.
34. Here on perusal of Ex.D1, it is compliance of 11 points guidelines at the time of the arrest of the accused, his arrest made known to accused, according to the defense, he is the owner of the house of the accused. As per the persecution case he is not a witness to the incident and he is the owner of the house of the accused only. Under such circumstances this Court feels to observe that a mere non-mentioning of the name of the owner of the house of accused in the charge sheet is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover the available material evidence produced by the prosecution through Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.6, Pw.7 and Pw.9 is very clear about the commission 30 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 offence by the accused. Further the contents of Ex.P11-the statement given by the victim girl before the Magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C, remains unchallenged. At the same time Section 29 of POCSO is very clear presumptive value of evidence of Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.6, Pw.7 and Pw.9 and this Court opines the prosecution proved the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
35. On perusal of ingredients of section 354 of IPC, there is assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, here also the accused with intent to outrage the modesty of the victim girl used criminal force by scratching her cheek and mouth and caused injuries. Further Section 354-A of IPC is also very clear-sexual harassment on the woman. On perusal of complaint coupled with prosecution witness evidence, it is very clear that the accused having an intention to sexually harass the victim girl and by holding her, hugged her, pushed her on the cot and made attempt to harass her sexually. Even while giving statement before Magistrate, the victim girl has stated that the accused removed her pant and pushed on the cot. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. When the 31 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 accused sexually harassed the victim girl, that too his own daughter, it is not safe to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further on perusal of section 7 of POCSO Act, it is mentioned sexual assault, who ever with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault and the punishment is under section 8 of POCSO Act. The facts and circumstances and evidence also discloses the accused touched the breast of the victim girl, as such the ingredients of above said section is also attracted and the punishment is under Section 8 of POCSO Act. In respect of section 9(n) of POCSO Act, it reads whoever, being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care, or having domestic relationship with a parent of the child, or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits sexual assault on such child. Here the victim girl is the daughter of accused and he has shared house hold with the child and commits sexual assault on her, as such the penal liability under section 10 of POSCO Act is very clear, if a person commits offences which attract section 9, 32 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 he shall be punished under section 10 of POCSO Act. Even Section 23 of J.J. Act is also very clear about the cruelty on the victim girl who is juvenile, the accused shall be punished on the said provision.
36. 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 the cross- examination of Pw.1 to Pw.13 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablizes the case of the prosecution rather than the defense of the accused.
37. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.13 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 with Ex.D1 and ExD1(a) placed on record in respect of alleged offences is sufficient to prove that the accused being the father of minor victim girl sexually abused her by touching her body with his hands, caught hold her, hugged her and asked her to come and sleep on the bed and dragged her and scratched her 33 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 body and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 354, 354-A of IPC, Section 7, 8, 9(n), 10 of POCSO Act and Section 23 of J.J. Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the "Affirmative".
38. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 4, 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 354, 354-A of I.P.C., Section 7 read with section 8, section 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and section 23 of J.J. Act, 2000.
(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 5th Day of May 2018) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE 34 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the arguments from the accused and taken as not addressed from the prosecution side regarding sentence.
2. The accused submits that he is the only earning member in his family. He has not committed any offences as alleged against him and requested to take lenient view in respect of imposing sentence on him.
3. It is not in dispute that the accused forcibly outraged the modesty of the victim girl knowing fully well that she is his daughter and also sexually abused her. This fact is deposed by Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.6, Pw.7 and Pw.9. When such being the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met by imposing the minimum sentence to accused for the offences punishable under section 354, 354-A of IPC, section 7 read with section 8, Section 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act. 2012 and under Section 23 of J.J. Act, 2000.
4. Further, the punishment for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., fixed imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Further in respect of offence under section 354-A of I.P.C., the punishment prescribed with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. In respect of offence under Section 8 of POCSPO Act, 2012, the punishment 35 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 prescribed is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. In respect of offence under Section 10 of POCSPO Act, 2012, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. In respect of offence under Section 23 of J.J. Act, 2000, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both. Thus in my opinion, if the Court has to impose sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go simple imprisonment for a period of two months in respect of offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., fixed to accused and rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of offence under Section 354-A of IPC fixed to accused and rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of offence Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 is fixed to the accused and rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of offence Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 is fixed to the accused and imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of 36 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 fine, to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month in respect of offence Section 23 of J.J. Act, 2010 is fixed to the accused, no impediments will be caused to him. Hence, I proceed to pass the sentence as under:
ORDER The accused is sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused is sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 354-A of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused is sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 7 read with section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused is sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a 37 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015 fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused is sentenced to under go imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 23 of J.J. Act, 2000, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
All the above five 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.
Out of deposit of fine amount of Rs.36,000/- by the accused, Pw.1-the victim girl is entitled to Rs.30,000/- as compensation. The remaining amount of Rs.6,000/- is considered as State expenses. Office is directed to return Rs.30,000/- to Pw.1-the victim girl as compensation in accordance with law.38 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
Issue conviction warrant against accused in accordance with law.
Furnish free copy of judgment and order of sentence to the accused 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 9th Day of May 2018) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 Victim girl Cw.1 21-10-2017
Pw.2 Roopa Cw.2 21-10-2017
Pw.3 Dr.T.Arul Dasan Cw.9 04-11-2017
Pw.4 Dr.Satish Cw.10 04-11-2017
Pw.5 Darshan Cw.5 04-11-2017
Pw.6 Madan Cw.3 04-11-2017
Pw.7 Dr.Tejeshwini Cw.8 16-11-2017
Pw.8 Nirmala Cw.4 16-11-2017
Pw.9 Jacob Cw.7 16-11-2017
Pw.10 Sowbhagyamma Cw.11 30-11-2017
Pw.11 V.Krishnappa Cw.16 30-11-2017
Pw.12 Victim Cw.3 18-12-2017
Pw.13 G.T.Ramanjenya Cw.14 10-01-2018
39 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 21-10-2017
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 21-10-2017
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.13 Pw.13 10-01-2018
Ex.P 2 Mahazar Pw.1 21-10-2017
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 21-10-2017
Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 04-11-2017
Ex.P 2c Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 16-11-2017
Ex.P 2d Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 30-11-2017
Ex.P 3 School certificate of Pw.1 21-10-2017
victim girl
Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 21-10-2017
Ex.P 3b Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 4 Age estimation Pw.3 04-11-2017
certificate
Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 04-11-2017
Ex.P 4b Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 5 Medical examination Pw.4 04-11-2017
report of accused
Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 04-11-2017
Ex.P 5b Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 6 Statement of Pw.5 Pw.5 04-11-2017
Ex.P 7 Medical examination Pw.8 16-11-2017
report of victim
Ex.P 7a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 16-11-2017
Ex.P 7b Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 8 Spot sketch Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 8a Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 9 Requisition to Court Pw.12 30-11-2017
40 Spl.C.C.No.562/2015
Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 10 Requisition to Pw.12 30-11-2017
hospital
Ex.P 10a Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 11 Statement of victim Pw.12 30-11-2017
before Magistrate
Ex.P 11a Signature of Pw.12 Pw.12 30-11-2017
Ex.P 12 FIR Pw.13 10-01-2018
Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.13 Pw.13 10-01-2018
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Ex.D1 Guidelines of Pw.12 30-11-2017 Supreme Court Ex.D1a Signature of Ashok Pw.12 30-11-2017 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE