Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Ajith Kumar @ Ajith on 19 December, 2019
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
1
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 19 th Day of December, 2019
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA. B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No. 38/2017
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Peenya Police Station,
Bangalore
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED Ajith Kumar @ Ajith,
S/o. Late Rajani, 21 years,
R/at. No.429, 3rd Block,
St. Anthony Church, K.R.C. Cycle shop,
Siddartha Nagar, Jalahalli West,
Bangalore-560 015.
Sri.R.P.R.-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 26-10-2016
2 Date of report of occurrence 29-10-2016
3 Date of arrest of accused 01-11-2016
Date of release of accused 28-11-2016
Period undergone in custody 27 days
by accused
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
2
4 Date of commencement of evidence 10-01-2019
5 Date of closing of evidence 29-11-2019
6 Name of the complainant Lakshmi
7 Offences complained of Sec. 506, 366, 354(A)
IPC && Sec 8, 12-
POCSO Act, 2012.
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
J UD GM EN T
This charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Peenya Police Station-Bangalore, against the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 366, 354(A), 506 of IPC and
Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Since it is a case of sexual abuse of 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:
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
3
That on 26-10-2016 at about 08.00a.m., the minor victim
girl-Cw.6, the daughter of Cw.1-Lakshmi, resident of House
No.4, 1st Main, near Ideal School, Vijayalakshmi Layout,
Mallasandra, T. Dasarahalli, Bangalore, was with her friend-
Cw.11-Pooja, at that time the accused being the friend of
Cw.12-Deepak, came there talked with victim girl and also
demanded her to love him, for that the victim girl told if the
same is brought to the notice of her mother, she will not leave
him, for that the accused threatened her with dire
consequences stating that he is going to murder the victim girl
and her mother and also enticed her when she was on her way
to the college, near T. Dasarahalli Bus stop that he is going to
marry her and taken her to his house situated at House No.439,
3rd Cross, St. Anthony Church Road, K.R.C. Cycle shop,
Siddaratha Nagar, Jalahalli west, and kept her up to 28-10-
2016, outraged her modesty and made attempt to cause sexual
abuse on her and also on 28-10-2016 he had taken her to
Tirupathi, roamed with her in that place and on 31-10-2016 he
brought her back to Bangalore. On the basis of complaint
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
4
lodged by the complainant, the police registered the case
against the accused in Crime No.1007/2016 for the offence
under Section 363 of IPC.
4. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable under Section 366-A, 354A, 506 of IPC and Section
8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Thereafter, after filing charge
sheet, as usual the accused appeared before the Court and the
copy of charge sheet furnished to him as contemplated under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned counsel for
accused submitted no arguments before framing charge. On
perusal of charge sheet, the learned predecessor in office
framed charge under section 506, 366, 354(A) of IPC and
Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. The contents of charge
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 was set down for
prosecution evidence.
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
5
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused has examined in all 15 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.15, got
marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and closed its side
evidence. 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. Earlier to that he
complied the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, by executing
personal bond and surety. Thereafter arguments heard from
both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
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. ದನನನಕಕ26-10-2016 ರನದದ ಬಬಳಗನ ಸದಮನರದ 8 ಗನಟಬ
ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಪಪಣನಣ ಪಲಪಸಸ ಠನಣನ ವನಣಪಪಯ ಟ.ದನಸರಹಳಳ,
ಮಲಲಸನದದ, ವಜಯಲಕಕಕ ಲಬಪಔಟಸ ಐಡಯಲಸ ಶನಲಬ ಹತಪರ, 1 ನಬಪ ಮಮನಸ,
ಮನಬ ನನ.4 ರಲಲ ವನಸವನಗರದವ ಸನಕಕ-1 ರವರ ಅಪನದಪಪವಯಸಸನ ಬನಲಕ-
ಸನಕಕ-6 ರವರದ ತಮಮ ಸಬಸಪಹತಬ ಸನಕಕ-11 ರವರ ಜಬಜತಬಯಲಲದನದಗ ಸನಕಕ-11 ರವರ
ಸಬಸಪಹತನನದ ಸನಕಕ-12 ರವರನದಸ ಮನತನನಡಸಲದ ಆರಬಜಪಪ ಬರದತಪದದದ ಆ
ಸಮಯದಲಲ ನಬಜನದ ಬನಲಕ-ಸನಕಕ-6 ರವರಗಬ ಪದಪತಸದ ಎನದದ ಪದಪಡಸದತಪದದದ
ಸನಕಕ-6 ರವರದ ತನಸ ತನಯಗಬ ವಷಯ ತಳದರಬ ಸದಮಮನಬ ಬಡದವವದಲಲವಬನದದ
ಹಬಪಳದರಜ ಸಹನ ಅರಬಜಪಪ ಸನಕಕ-6 ರವರಗಬ ನನಸನದಸ ಮತದಪ ನನಸ
ತನಯಯನದಸ ಸನಯಸದತಬಪಪನಬನದದ ಪನದಣಬಬದರಕಬ ಹನಕ ಭನರತಪಯ ದನಡ
ಸನಹತಬ ಕಲನ.506 ರ ಅಡಯಲಲ ಶಕನಕಹರವನದ ಅಪರನದವನದಸ
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
6
ಎಸಗದನದರಬನದದ ಅಭಯಪಜನದವರದ ಸನಶನಯತಪತವನಗ ರದಜದವನತದ
ಪಡಸದತನಪರಬಯ?
2. ಆರಬಜಪಪಯದ ಮಪಲಬ ಹಬಪಳದ ದನನನಕ, ಸಮಯ ಹನಗದನ
ಸದಳದಲಲ ಸನಕಕ-6 ರವರಗಬ ಪನದಣ ಬಬದರಕಬ ಹನಕದದಲಲದಬ, ಅಕಬ ಕನಲಬಪಜಗ
ಹಬಜಪಗಲದ ಟ.ದನಸರಹಳಳ ಬಸದಸನಲನದಣಕಬಕ ಹಬಜಪಗದತಪದನದಗ ಅವಳನದಸ
ಮದದವಬ ಅಗದವವದನಗ ಪವಸಲನಯಸ, ತನಸ ಮನಬಗಬ ಕರಬದದಕಬಜನಡದ ಹಬಜಪಗ
ದನನನಕಕ 28-10-2016 ರನದದ ತರದಪತಗಬ ಕರಬದದಕಬಜನಡದ ಹಬಜಪಗ ಭನರತಪಯ
ದನಡ ಸನಹತಬ ಕಲನ.366 ರ ಅಡಯಲಲ ಶಕನಕಹರವನದ ಅಪರನದವನದಸ
ಎಸಗದನದರಬನದದ ಅಭಯಪಜನದವರದ ಸನಶನಯತಪತವನಗ ರದಜದವನತದ
ಪಡಸದತನಪರಬಯ?
3. ಆರಬಜಪಪಯದ ಮಪಲಬ ಹಬಪಳದ ದನನನಕ, ಸಮಯ ಹನಗದನ
ಸದಳದಲಲ ಸನಕಕ-6 ರವರನದಸ ಮದದವಬಯನಗದವವದನಗ ಪವಸಲನಯಸ ತನಸ ಮನಬ
ಸನಖಬಣಕ439, 3 ನಬಪ ಕನದಸಸ, ಸಬನಟಸ ಆನತಬಜಪನ ಚಚರ ರಸಬಪ ಸದನದರರನಗರ
ಜನಲಹಳಳ ವಬಸಸಸ ನಲಲರದವ ತನಸ ಮನಬಗಬ ಕರಬದದಕಬಜನಡದ ಹಬಜಪಗ ದನನನಕಕ28-
10-2016 ರವರಬಗಬ ತನಸ ಮನಬಯಲಲ ಇರಸಕಬಜನಡದ, ಆ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಅಕಬಯ
ಮಮ, ಕಬಮ ಮದಟಸ ತಬಬಕಬಜನಡದ ಲಬಮನಗಕ ದದಜರನಣವಬಸಗ ಭನರತಪಯ ದನಡ
ಸನಹತಬ ಕಲನ.354(ಎ)ರ ಅಡಯಲಲ ಶಕನಕಹರವನದ ಅಪರನದವನದಸ
ಎಸಗದನದರಬನದದ ಅಭಯಪಜನದವರದ ಸನಶನಯತಪತವನಗ ರದಜದವನತದ
ಪಡಸದತನಪರಬಯ?
4. ಆರಬಜಪಪಯದ ಮಪಲಬ ಹಬಪಳದ ದನನನಕ, ಸಮಯ ಹನಗದನ
ಸದಳದಲಲ ಸನಕಕ-6 ರವರನದಸ ಮದದವಬಯನಗದವವದನಗ ಪವಸಲನಯಸ ತನಸ ಮನಬ
ಸನಖಬಣಕ439, 3 ನಬಪ ಕನದಸಸ, ಸಬನಟಸ ಆನತಬಜಪನ ಚಚರ ರಸಬಪ ಸದನದರರನಗರ
ಜನಲಹಳಳ ವಬಸಸಸ ನಲಲರದವ ತನಸ ಮನಬಗಬ ಕರಬದದಕಬಜನಡದ ಹಬಜಪಗ ದನನನಕಕ28-
10-2016 ರವರಬಗಬ ತನಸ ಮನಬಯಲಲ ಇರಸಕಬಜನಡದ, ಆ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಅಕಬಯ
ಮಮ, ಕಬಮ ಮದಟಸ ತಬಬಕಬಜನಡದ ಲಬಮನಗಕ ದದಜರನಣವಬಸಗ ಕಲನ.8 ಲಬಮನಗಕ
ಅಪರನಧಗಳನದ ಮಕಕಳ ಸನರಕಕಣನ ಅಧನಯಮ, 2012 ರ ಅಡಯಲಲ
ಶಕನಕಹರವನದ ಅಪರನದವನದಸ ಎಸಗದನದರಬನದದ ಅಭಯಪಜನದವರದ
ಸನಶನಯತಪತವನಗ ರದಜದವನತದಪಡಸದತನಪರಬಯ?
5. ಆರಬಜಪಪಯದ ಮಪಲಬ ಹಬಪಳದ ದನನನಕ, ಸಮಯ ಹನಗದನ
ಸದಳದಲಲ ಸನಕಕ-6 ರವರನದಸ ಮದದವಬಯನಗದವವದನಗ ಪವಸಲನಯಸ ತನಸ ಮನಬ
ಸನಖಬಣಕ439, 3 ನಬಪ ಕನದಸಸ, ಸಬನಟಸ ಆನತಬಜಪನ ಚಚರ ರಸಬಪ ಸದನದರರನಗರ
ಜನಲಹಳಳ ವಬಸಸಸ ನಲಲರದವ ತನಸ ಮನಬಗಬ ಕರಬದದಕಬಜನಡದ ಹಬಜಪಗ ದನನನಕಕ28-
10-2016 ರವರಬಗಬ ತನಸ ಮನಬಯಲಲ ಇರಸಕಬಜನಡದ, ಆ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಅಕಬಯ
ಮಮ, ಕಬಮ ಮದಟಸ ತಬಬಕಬಜನಡದ ಲಬಮನಗಕ ದದಜರನಣವಬಸಗ ಕಲನ.12 ಲಬಮನಗಕ
ಅಪರನಧಗಳನದ ಮಕಕಳ ಸನರಕಕಣನ ಅಧನಯಮ, 2012 ರ ಅಡಯಲಲ
ಶಕನಕಹರವನದ ಅಪರನದವನದಸ ಎಸಗದನದರಬನದದ ಅಭಯಪಜನದವರದ
ಸನಶನಯತಪತವನಗ ರದಜದವನತದಪಡಸದತನಪರಬಯ?
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
7
6. ಯನವ ಅದಬಪಶ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: In the Negative.
Point No.5: In the Negative.
Point No.6: As per the final orders for the following:
RE AS ON S
8. Point No.1 to 5: 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 15 witnesses as Pw.1
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
8
to Pw.15 , got marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and
this Court perused the same. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1
is the victim, Pw.2 is the complainant and mother of victim,
Pw.4, Pw.10 to Pw.13 are the circumstantial witnesses, Pw.3
and Pw.5 are the Panch witnesses, Pw.6 is the doctor, Pw.9 is
the Principal, Pw.7, Pw.8, Pw.14 and Pw.15 are the police
personnel and Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court shall
proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses
is sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against the
accused.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against
accused the prosecution is required to prove that on 26-10-
2016 at about 08.00a.m., the minor victim girl-Cw.6 the
daughter of Cw.1-Lakshmi, resident of House No.4, 1 st Main,
near Ideal School, Vijayalakshmi Layout, Mallasandra, T.
Dasarahalli, Bangalore, was with her friend-Cw.11-Pooja, at
that time the accused being the friend of Cw.12-Deepak, came
there talked with victim girl and also demanded her to love him,
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
9
for that the victim girl told if the same is brought to the notice of
her mother, she will not leave him, for that the accused
threatened her with dire consequences stating that he is going
to murder the victim girl and her mother and also enticed her
when she was on her way to the college, near T. Dasarahalli Bus
stop that he is going to marry her and taken her to his house
situated at House No.439, 3rd Cross, St. Anthony Church Road,
K.R.C. Cycle shop, Siddaratha Nagar, Jalahalli west, and kept
her up to 28-10-2016, outraged her modesty and made attempt
to cause sexual abuse on her and also on 28-10-2016 he had
taken her to Tirupathi, roamed with her in that place and on
31-10-2016 he brought her back to Bangalore and thereby the
accused committed offences punishable under Section 506,
366, 354(A) of IPC and section 8 and 12 of POCSO 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 materials
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
10
evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition
of offences under Section 506, 366, 354(A) of IPC and section 8
and 12 of POCSO Act.
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 likely
that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with
another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.
Section 506 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for criminal intimidation-Whoever
commits the offence or criminal intimidation 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 I.P.C defines that
Sexual harassment and 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
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
11
woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be
guilty 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 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 description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 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 12 of POCSO Act defines that:
Punishment for Sexual harassment: Whoever,
commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
With these now left with the available material evidence to
consider whether the facts and circumstances of the case and
given evidence attracts the definitions of above said sections to
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
12
believe alleged offences against accused has to be looked into.
At the same time it is just and proper to mention the admitted
facts between prosecution and the accused as per prosecution
witnesses' evidence.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Lakshmi the
complainant and the mother of victim girl, she has deposed that
Cw.6-the victim girl is her daughter, Cw.7 and Cw.8 are her
sisters, Cw.9 is the husband of Cw.8 and Cw.10 is the husband
of Cw.7. Her husband is not living along with her, he has
deserted her about 12 years back, as such she along with her
two children viz., the victim girl and a son are residing on the
given address as per charge sheet. At the time of the incident
the age of victim girl was 16 years, she was born on 16-08-1999
and at that time she was studying 1st PU. Every day the victim
used to go to college at about 08.00a.m., and returning to home
at about 06.00p.m. She is working as tailor in garments, every
day she used to go to her work at about 08.00a.m., and return
to home at about 08.00p.m. At the time of incident her son was
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
13
studying 2nd PUC.
14. Further she has deposed that on 26-10-2016 as
usual her daughter went to college at 08.00 am., but she didn't
return to home, she searched the victim girl everywhere and
also enquired her friend-Cw.11-Pooja, said Pooja told her since
from the morning the victim girl not attended the college and
she has not seen her anywhere. Further, but she has enquired
with Cw.11 as she is close to victim girl and she know about her
daughter but she didn't say anything about victim. Due to non-
tracing of victim on the next day she has lodged the complaint
on 28-10-2016 in the night. On the same day she received
phone call from her daughter and came to know through her
that she is in Tamil Nadu, she has married and also told her not
to search of her. At the same time through the very same
mobile one elderly women talked with her stating that they got
married and leave them to lead their matrimonial life and at
that time she told to bring victim girl within 10a.m., otherwise
she is going to lodge complaint, after hearing the said word the
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
14
said lady switched off the phone.
15. Further she has deposed that again she contacted
Cw.11-Pooja since the victim girl always used to accompany
with her, for that said Pooja told that the victim girl left the
house along with accused-Ajith, after hearing the said
information she went to the house of accused, narrated about
abduction of victim girl by the accused, for that the mother of
accused refused to hear her words and also told she doesn't
know whereabout of accused as such she has lodged complaint
on 29-10-2017. Further she has deposed that Ex.P4(a), Ex.P5(a)
are signatures and the said documents are complaint and spot
Mahazar. Thereafter on 8 th date the victim girl return to home.
She had given her statement as per Ex.P1. Thereafter, the
police had taken the victim girl to the hospital and also
subjected her to medical examination. Ex.P3 is the age
estimation report of the victim and her signature is Ex.P3(a).
On 8th her daughter was produced before CCH-55, the Officer
talked with the victim girl, but she don't know what was talked
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
15
with her. On enquiry with the victim girl she told the accused
enticed her and taken to his home, after that the mother of
accused taken her to home and not allowed her to go out of the
house and insisted her to marry her son, but the accused has
not done anything to her.
16. The prosecution treated her as hostile to the case of
prosecution and suggested each and every word of her
statement, for that she has accepted the same. But in the cross-
examination she has admitted that she doesn't know the read
and write of Kannada, Ex.P4-complaint got typed in the station
itself, but by whom she doesn't know and she doesn't know the
contents of Ex.P4. Only after receiving a phone call from a lady
she came to know that the accused enticed the victim girl with
an intention to marry her, but she doesn't know who is that
lady. The said fact not written in Ex.P4, she has also not stated
the phone number to the police. She has admitted about using
of mobile phone by her daughter, the said number given to the
police. At the time of lodging complaint the police obtained 5
signatures in the station. She has not given any statement
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
16
separately on 30, 31 and 1st. Further she has admitted that she
has not seen the alleged illegal detention of her daughter by the
accused. She doesn't know whether the accused ill-treated her
daughter. Further she has admitted that her daughter not
stated any sexual abuse caused on her by the accused. By going
through the evidence of Pw.2-the complainant it creates doubt
about the case of prosecution, since she has changed version in
her chief examination, treating her as hostile and cross-
examination by the accused. Under these circumstances in
order to believe the evidence of Pw.2, whether the prosecution
produced any corroborative evidence of victim girl and other
circumstantial and eye-witnesses evidence has to be looked
into.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-the victim
girl, she has deposed that Cw.1 is her mother, Cw.7 and Cw.8
are her aunts, Cw.11 is her friend, Cw.9 and Cw.10 are her
uncles, Cw.12 is her husband's friend, Cw.13 and Cw.14 are
the neighourers of her husband's house. She know the accused,
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
17
he is her husband. During the year 2016 she was studying
PUC at Srirampura College and her age was 17 years, she and
Cw.11-Pooja studying in the same college. The accused has not
created any problem to her, he has not taken her to any where.
He has not committed any violence on her, he has not
threatened her, except that she doesn't have anything to say
before Court. Ex.P1(a), Ex.P2(a), Ex.P3(a) are her signatures.
Here Ex.P1 is the statement given by her before police, Ex.P2 is
the statement given by her before Magistrate and Ex.P3 is her
medical report.
18. Further she has also deposed that about 2 years
back she went to her friend's house due to angry with her
mother, for that her mother has lodged complaint, the police
called upon her and obtained her signature, except that she
doesn't know anything about Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The Police had
taken her to the station and also to the Court, the Magistrate
enquired her, at that time also she has stated in favour of
accused. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
18
case of prosecution and suggested each and every word of Ex.P1
and Ex.P2, for that she has denied the same as false and her
definite answer is that she has not given statement as per Ex.P1
and Ex.P2. Here she has admitted her marriage with the
accused, when such being the case and also she has turned
hostile to the case of prosecution, it is not safe to accept the
evidence of Pw.2 against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Manjula-the
sister of complainant, she has deposed the admitted fact of
relationship with complainant and the victim girl and also
deposed that about two years back her sister called her over
phone stating that the victim girl not return to home from the
college and also lodged complaint, After three days of lodging
complaint the victim girl return, on enquiry with her, she told
she went along with the accused. Before reaching the house the
victim girl called her over phone stating that she is in Tamil
Nadu and the accused is loving her, except that she doesn't
know anything about the case. The accused tested her veracity
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
19
by elicitating that she was not accompanied with her sister to
lodge complaint, on what date the complaint was lodged.
Further denied the evidence of this witness by denial
suggestion. Here the victim girl turned hostile to the case of
prosecution, question of believing the evidence of this witness
doesn't arises.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-Parvathi,
she has deposed that she is residing at Kengeri along with her
family members, her parents got five children, out of them
three are daughters and two are sons, the daughter's name are
Lakshmi, Manjula and herself. Lakshmi got two children viz.,
the victim and a son by name Vijay. The husband of Lakshmi is
not residing with her, he has married another girl and Lakshmi
is residing at T. Dasarahalli, along with her children. At the
time of registering the case, the victim girl was studying 1 st PUC.
About three years back, her sister-the complainant called her
over phone stating that the victim girl was found missing, after
three days of hearing said fact, the victim girl returned to home,
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
20
but she has not enquired where she had gone and she doesn't
know anything about the case. She has not seen the accused
earlier, she has not given any statement before police. Through
the evidence of Pw.10, the prosecution failed to prove the
alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.11-Shiva
Kumar, the husband of Pw.10, he has deposed in respect of
admitted fact of relationship as deposed by Cw.10 and also
deposed that he doesn't know anything about the case, he has
not seen the accused earlier, at no point of time the victim girl
left the house, no such problem caused to the victim girl from
anybody and also he doesn't know anything about the case and
he has not given any statement before the police. Through the
evidence of Pw.10 the prosecution failed to prove the alleged
offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-
Gangadharaiah, he has deposed in respect of admitted fact of
relationship and Cw.7 is his wife. He has also deposed that he
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
21
doesn't know anything about the case, he doesn't know what
happened and when happened to the victim girl, he doesn't
know what case filed against accused, he has not given any
statement before police. He doesn't know whether the accused
caused injustice to the victim girl. He has not given any
statement before police. Through the evidence of Pw.10 also the
prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences against accused
beyond all reasonable doubt.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.13-Amu, she
has deposed that she doesn't know anything about the case,
she doesn't know the complainant and the victim girl. She is
neighbour of house of accused. She doesn't know what case
filed against him. The police not enquired her in this case. The
prosecution treated her as hostile witness and elicited in respect
of the accused brought the victim girl on 26-10-2016 to his
house, on enquiry with him he has not stated anything about
her. Thereafter, after sometime the police came and arrested
him. Since this witness deposed hostile evidence, the accused
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
22
also cross-examined and elicited the admitted facts that she has
not enquired about the case of accused with his mother and
also admitted that on 26-10-2016 the accused has not brought
any girl to his house. She doesn't know anything about the
arrest of the accused and also admitted she has not given any
statement before police. Since the evidence of this witness is
vague and dual in nature and at the same time the victim girl
turned hostile to the case of prosecution, it is not safe to believe
the evidence of this witness to fix the penal liability on the
accused.
24. By going through the evidence of Shivanna-Pw.13-
the Principal, he has deposed that as per request of police on
19-11-2016 he has given Ex.P9-study and date of birth
certificate of victim girl, as per record the victim girl was born
on 16-08-1999. The accused tested his veracity, except denial
suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense
taken by him. At this stage the evidence of this witness is a
formal one.
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
23
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-
Dr.Sujatha.P.L., she has deposed that on 01-11-2016 she has
examined the victim girl and also given report as per Ex.P7 and
age estimation certificate as per Ex.P3. According to her as on
the date of examination, the victim girl was aged about more
than 17 years and below 18 years. Further she has opined that
no such sexual abuse or sexual act done on the victim girl. At
the same time on perusal of Ex.P7, the hymen of victim is
intact. At this stage this Court opines the evidence of this
witness is a formal one.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.15-Chickka
Veerabharaiah-A.S.I., he has deposed that on 29-10-2016 he
was the SHO in the station, at about 11.45a.m., the
complainant came and lodged complaint as per Ex.P4. He has
verified the same and registered the case in crime No.
1007/2016 under section 363 of IPC. He had entered Shara
and signed as per Ex.P4(c). He has prepared FIR as per Ex.P14
and submitted the same to the Court, after that he has handed
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
24
over the record to Cw.21. The accused tested his veracity
stating that he has registered a false complaint, for that he has
denied the same. At this stage, this Court opines the evidence of
this witness is a formal one.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.14-Vasimulla-
P.S.I., an Investigating Officer, he has deposed that after
receiving record from Pw.15, he has conducted further
investigation on the very same day he has conducted mahazar
at the spot as per Ex.P5, before Cw.2 and Cw.3 and also
recorded statement of Cw.7 to Cw.10.
28. Here to substantiate the process of conducting
mahazar the prosecution produced the evidence of Pw.3-
M.Lokesh. He has deposed that in Ex.P5 no such his signature
found. He doesn't know anything about the case, the police
have not taken him to anywhere for the purpose of Mahazar. In
the year 2016 the complainant has not shown any incident spot
to the police before him. The prosecution treated this witness as
hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
25
word of Ex.P5 in respect of conducting of Mahazar near the
house of complainant, for that he has denied the same.
Through the evidence of Pw.3, the prosecution failed to prove
the process of conducting Mahazar by Pw.14 as per Ex.P5
beyond all reasonable doubt.
29. Further Pw.14 deposed that on 31-10-2016 the
complainant produced victim girl to the station. At that time he
has recorded restatement of Cw.1 and made the victim girl
subject to counselling from SJPU. The victim girl has given her
statement as per Ex.P1. Here while giving evidence by victim girl
as Pw.1, she turned hostile to the case of prosecution and her
definite stand is that she has not given any statement before
SJPU or any body. Further Pw.14 deposed that on the very
same day he has recorded the restatement of Cw.7 to Cw.10.
On 01-12-2016 he has given requisition for permission to insert
POCSO offences as per Ex.P10. On the very same day Cw.18
produced accused by giving report as per Ex.P8. He arrested the
accused, recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P11.
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
26
30. To substantiate the said evidence the prosecution
produced the evidence of Pw.7-K.M. Gangaraju-HC8713, he has
deposed that as per the instruction of Cw.21, he has searched
the accused on 01-11-2016, traced him and produced before
Cw.21 by giving report as per Ex.P8 and also identified the
accused before Court. The accused tested his veracity by
eliciting some commission and omission and also the witness
admitted about non-returning of the names of the complainant
who assisted him to trace out accused. At this stage this Court
opines the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
31. Further Pw.14 deposed that on the very same day he
has conducted mahazar at the incident spot before Cw.4 and
Cw.5 as per Ex.P6 and the spot shown by the accused. He has
also sent the accused and the victim girl for medical check up
through the escort of Cw.17 and Cw.19. After medical check up
the accused was produced before the Court along with remand
application.
32. To substantiate the process of conducting mahazar
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
27
as per Ex.P6, the prosecution produced the evidence of Pw.5-
Kiran Kumar. He has deposed that Ex.P6(a) is his signature,
about three years back he went to the police station for his
work, at that time the police obtained said signature. The police
have not conducted any mahazar before him and the accused
has not shown the said spot. The police have not taken him to
anywhere and obtained his signature. Since this witness turned
hostile to the case of prosecution, the prosecution treated him
as hostile witness and suggested each and every word of Ex.P6
in respect of process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P6 near
the house of accused for that he has denied. Through the
evidence of this witness, the prosecution failed to prove the
process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P6 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
33. By going through the evidence Pw.8-
Shankaralingaiah-HC-8910, he has deposed that as per the
instruction of Cw.21, on 01-11-2016 he had escorted the
accused to the Sapthagiri Hospital for medical check, after
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
28
medical check up of accused, again he brought the accused to
the station and produced before Cw.21. He has also identified
the accused before Court. The accused tested his veracity and
denied his evidence by denial suggestion, for that he has denied
the same. At this stage the evidence of this witness is a formal
one.
34. Further Pw.14 deposed that on 03-11-2016 he has
given requisition to Court as per Ex.P12, for recording of
statement of victim girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C. On the very
same day he has recorded statement of Cw.17. On 05-11-2016
he has recorded statement of Cw.11 to Cw.14 and Cw.19. On
08-11-2016 he has produced the victim girl before 32 nd
A.C.M.M. Court to give her statement and she has given
statement as per Ex.P2. Here it is relevant to note that the
victim girl/Pw.1 deposed that she has not given any statement
as per Ex.P2. Further Pw.14 deposed that on 19-11-2016 he
has received Ex.P9-study certificate, on 25-11-2016 and on 26-
11-2016 he has received medical report of victim girl and
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
29
accused as per Ex.P3, Ex.P7 and also Ex.P13. Thereafter he
has filed charge sheet against accused.
35. The accused tested his veracity by eliciting some
commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing
has been elicited favourable to the defence. At the same time
the victim girl and her relatives who are circumstantial
witnesses not supported the case of prosecution and they
turned hostile to the case of prosecution and at the same time
the victim girl has married the accused after attaining majority,
Hence the question of considering the evidence of this witness
doesn't arises. The complainant evidence is vague in nature, to
corroborate her evidence, the prosecution has not produced any
material witnesses evidence, as such the evidence of this
witness is a formal one.
36. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the alleged offences
against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of
the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
30
including materials on record discussed above probablise the
defense of the accused rather than the case of the prosecution.
37. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.15 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14, placed on record in
respect of alleged offences is insufficient to prove that the on
26-10-2016 at about 08.00a.m., the minor victim girl-Cw.6 the
daughter of Cw.1-Lakshmi, resident of House No.4, 1 st Main,
near Ideal School, Vijayalakshmi Layout, Mallasandra, T.
Dasarahalli, Bangalore, was with her friend-Cw.11-Pooja, at
that time the accused being the friend of Cw.12-Deepak, came
there talked with victim girl and also demanded her to love him,
for that the victim girl told if the same is brought to the notice of
her mother, she will not leave him, for that the accused
threatened her with dire consequences stating that he is going
to murder the victim girl and her mother and also enticed her
when she was on her way to the college, near T. Dasarahalli Bus
stop that he is going to marry her and taken her to his house
situated at House No.439, 3rd Cross, St. Anthony Church Road,
Spl.C.C.No.38/2017
31
K.R.C. Cycle shop, Siddaratha Nagar, Jalahalli west, and kept
her up to 28-10-2016, outraged her modesty and made attempt
to cause sexual abuse on her and also on 28-10-2016 he had
taken her to Tirupathi, roamed with her in that place and on
31-10-2016 he brought her back to Bangalore and thereby
committed offences punishable under section 506, 366, 354(A)
of I.P.C., and section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 5 in the
"Negative".
38. Point No.6:- For the above said reasons and
discussions on Point No.1 to 5, I hold that the accused is
entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 506, 366, 354(A), 506 of IPC and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
(Computerized to my dictation by the Judgment Writer. It is then Spl.C.C.No.38/2017 32 corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19 th Day of December 2019.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE A NN EX UR E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Victim girl Cw.6 10-01-2019 Pw.2 Lakshmi Cw.1 04-04-2019 Pw.3 M. Lokesh Cw.2 27-06-2019 Pw.4 Manjula Cw.7 27-06-2019 Pw.5 Kiran Kumar Cw.4 27-06-2019 Pw.6 Dr. Sujatha P.L. Cw.16 05-11-2019 Pw.7 K.M. Gangaraju Cw.18 05-11-2019 Pw.8 Shakaralingaiah Cw.19 05-11-2019 Pw.9 Shivanna Cw.15 05-11-2019 Pw.10 Parvathi Cw.8 14-11-2019 Pw.11 Shiva Kumar Cw.9 14-11-2019 Pw.12 Gangadharaiah Cw.10 14-11-2019 Pw.13 Amu Cw.13 14-11-2019 Pw.14 Vasimulla Cw.21 14-11-2019 Pw.15 Chikka Veerbhadraiah Cw.20 22-11-2019 Spl.C.C.No.38/2017 33 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Statement of victim Pw.1 10-01-2019 before SJPU Ex.P 2 Statement of victim Pw.1 10-01-2019 before Magistrate Ex.P 3 Age estimation Pw.4 15-06-2019 certificate of victim Ex.P 4 Complaint Pw.2 06-05-2019 Ex.P 4b Photo of victim Pw.2 06-05-2019 Ex.P 5 Mahazar Pw.2 06-05-2019 Ex.P 6 Mahazar Pw.5 27-06-2019 Ex.P 7 Medical examination Pw.6 05-11-2019 of victim girl Ex.P 8 Report of Pw.7 Pw.7 05-11-2019 Ex.P 9 Study-date of birth Pw.9 05-11-2019 certificate of victim Ex.P 10 Requisition Pw.14 14-11-2019 Ex.P 11 Voluntary statement Pw.14 14-11-2019 of accused Ex.P 12 Requisition to Court Pw.14 14-11-2019 Ex.P 13 Medical Examination Pw.14 14-11-2019 report of accused Ex.P 14 FIR Pw.15 22-11-2019 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION NIL Spl.C.C.No.38/2017 34 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MAKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE