Bangalore District Court
Byatarayanapura Ps vs Girish A S on 13 January, 2025
KABC010184552020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2025.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.757/2020
COMPLAINANT: The State
Represented by
Byatarayanapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Girish.A.S.
S/o. Shivalingegowda,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Hattihalli Grama,
Sathanuru Hobali,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
(Adv. By Sri.ML for accused)
1. Date of commission of : 01-07-2019
offence
2. Date of report of Offence : 11-07-2020
3. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Manasa.S.N.
2 Spl.C.757/2020
4. Date of commencement : 24-08-2024
of recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of : 16-12-2024
evidence
6. Offences Complained : Under Sections. 376, 417,
are 420, 506 of IPC and sec.3(1)
(r),(s),(w) and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused not found guilty.
JUDGMENT
This case is registered on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by ACP, Kengeri Gate Sub Division against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections. 376, 417, 420, 506 of IPC and sec.3(1)(r),(s),(w) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.7.2020 the complainant reported before the jurisdictional police that the complainant and accused were working in Pai International as Sales Executives. The Girish was also working therein, both fell in love, the victim was residing in her grand mother's house along with her father and mother and another sister. The complainant belongs to schedule caste 3 Spl.C.757/2020 Bhovi community, she had completed her Diploma in the year 2019 April, the complainant submits Girish was following her and was forcing her to love. After this, both were visiting numerous places together and they used to exchange whatsapp messages from their mobile phone and talking with each other. In July 2019 one day, Girish came to the house of the complainant, no other person of victim's family present in the house then the victim was asked by Girish, to marry him and to that effect she has to co-operate to have sex with him otherwise he cannot marry her. Then by putting the victim in fear, the said Girish had forceful sexual intercourse. The said Girish after this threatened that he will inform the family members of the victim if she tried to disclose the same with any other person, after this he several times forced her to agree, that he will marry her today, tomorrow and so on and he took her to Nandi Hills, Amester Hotel on 15.07.2019, 01.10.2019, 01.01.2020 which is situated near Nayandalli Metro and also to Nandi 4 Spl.C.757/2020 Hills on 29.08.2019. The victim was forced to have sex against her will.
The complainant has complained before the jurisdictional police that after this when victim forced Girish to marry her, he started avoiding her to that effect his father and mother, sisters and brother-in-laws on 12.05.2020 threatened the victim with dire consequences and as victim was deceived by the Girish, even though she tried to contact him he has avoided and she has been abused by making call from phone No.9740780692 to 7899065820. Accordingly, complainant being deceived and aggrieved by the conduct of the said Girish made complaint before the jurisdictional police.
3. After filing of charge sheet this Court took cognizance of the offences and charge sheet copy furnished to the accused s as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge was framed for the afore said offences, read over and 5 Spl.C.757/2020 explained to the accused in vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
4. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got exhibited 19 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of the accused U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused denied incriminating evidence appeared against him and he did not choose to lead defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments and perused the documents and other materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that C.W.1 and accused were working in the company of C.W.9 and were in contact and accused informed C.W.1 if she assists for sexual intercourse he will marry or he will inform their love to her family members and 6 Spl.C.757/2020 threatened and on 5.7.2019, 10.8.2019, 1.10.2019 and 1.1.2020 accused took C.W.1 to Amester Inn Hotel of C.W.7 situated at No.31, Ist cross, Jyothi Nagar, Deepanjali Nagar, Nayandanahalli, within the limits of Byatarayanapura police station, and pretending to marry her had sexual intercourse with her and on 8.12.2019 took C.W.1 to Sai Grand Hotel Room No.9, Ist cross, Hosaguddanahalli, Mysore road, and pretending to marry her had sexual intercourse with her forcefully and thereby had committed an offence u/sec.376 of IPC?
2.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, accused pretending to marry C.W.1 had sexual intercourse with her and thereby cheated her and thereby committed an offence u/sec.417 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, accused has criminally intimidated by threatening the CW.1 that if she informs the offence of sexual intercourse committed by him to anyone he will kill her and her family members and with injury to her person with intent to cause alarm to her and thereby committed the 7 Spl.C.757/2020 offence Punishable under Section 506 of IPC?
4.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused though not belonging to SC/ST has intentionally insulted as "ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದೀಯಾ" with intent to humiliate CW1 being the member of Scheduled Caste in a place within the public view and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(r) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
5.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused not being the member of SC/ST has abused CW1 being the member of Scheduled Caste by taking the name of her caste as "ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದೀಯಾ " in a place within public view and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
6.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused not being the member of SC/ST has committed sexual intercourse forcefully and abused her as "ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದೀಯಾ"
and cheated her and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(w) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
8 Spl.C.757/2020
7.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is not being the member of SC/ST has committed forcible sexual intercourse with CW1, who belongs to scheduled caste and thereby you have committed offence which is punishable with more than 10 years or imprisonment for life, which is punishable under Section 376 of IPC and thereby you have committed offences punishable under section 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, within cognizance of this court?
8.What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows;
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 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : As per final order,
for the following;
9 Spl.C.757/2020
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: The prosecution to prove the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.376 of IPC, the complainant has specifically pleaded in page 1 of her complaint that Girish got acquainted with her as both were working in Pai International as Sales Executive's since April 2019. The acquaintance became love affair and the victim was taken to different places namely Amester Hotel and Nandi Betta on the following dates i.e on 15.07.2019, 01.10.2019 and 03.01.2020 . After this when the victim requested the accused to marry her, he threatened her and started avoiding her and in that regard he abused, along with his family members.
9. The complainant has specifically mentioned on one day in July 2019 accused came to her house. There were no other inmates of the victim, he forced her to have sexual intercourse as he is going to agree to marry her. After the sexual 10 Spl.C.757/2020 intercourse she was threatened that he will disclose the fact to her family members if she forced him to marry and he put her in fear and thereafter had sexual intercourse again and again several times.
10. In proof of this the victim in her examination in chief has deposed about she was in love with accused and she had made complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. This witness in page-2 does not depose about suffering at the hands of the accused with regard to forcing her to have sexual intercourse by the accused at any point of time. She had completely turned hostile with regard to her statement given before the jurisdictional Magistrate as per sec.164 of Cr.PC as per Ex.P.4 and she admits photographs in which she is seen. However she does not support the prosecution case as such the learned SPP treated her as hostile and subjected her to cross examination, even though she does not depose about sexual intercourse is forced one by the accused.
11 Spl.C.757/2020
11. In the case on hand, with regard to medical examination of the accused, there is no dispute. The learned SPP argues as the victim is belonging to schedule caste, the physical intimacy of the accused with the victim itself is sufficient and as per the medical report, it discloses there is physical intimacy between the parties as per Ex.P.8 accused is capable of having sex. As per the Medical Officer opinion even victim has been examined and where opinion has been given by the Medical Officer of the victim is well developed and having no any clinical problem with regard to having sex and her hymen is ruptured. Therefore all these materials discloses the accused did had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will, since as the complaint itself is written personally by the victim herself.
12. The learned counsel for the accused argues as per complaint Ex.P.1 in page-1 itself victim has mentioned she was in relationship with the accused as they were in love. Therefore this fact actually goes against the case of prosecution. Accordingly, 12 Spl.C.757/2020 when there is consent with regard to physical intimacy the question of considering that accused had abused the victim does not arise. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice the citations namely of Hon'ble Apex Court in reported dictum AIR 2020 SC 4535 in a case of Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCR of Delhi) and also brings to notice the citation of Maheswari Tigga Vs. The State of Jharkhand, submits that false promise is not a fact with in the meaning of IPC-1860. Further, the citation reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 in a case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that what are the ingredients to be satisfied by prosecution to seek the commission of offences punishable u/sec.375, be fulfilled by the prosecution. In para 9, the consent known to be given under fear or misconception should not be considered as per sec.90 of Cr.P.C has been observed as per the Part-B, the prosecution has to prove that the consent is under misconception. The 13 Spl.C.757/2020 twin conditions to be satisfied by prosecution are a false promise and secondly it is made in a misconception. In para 10 of the citation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows;
"Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the context of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a special provision, the general provision, namely, Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code was not of much assistance to the prosecution. According to him, Section 375 Thirdly, Fourthly and Fifthly exhaustively enumerate the circumstances in which the consent given by the prosecutrix is vitiated and does not amount to consent in law. According to him, one has to look to Section 375 alone for finding out whether the offence of rape had been committed. Secondly, he submitted that even under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code the consent is vitiated only if it is given under a misconception of fact. A belief that the promise of marriage was meant to be fulfilled is not a misconception of fact. The question of misconception of fact will arise only if the act consented to, is believed by the person consenting to be something else, and on that pretext sexual intercourse is committed. In such cases it cannot be said that she consented to sexual intercourse. He sought to illustrate this point by reference to English cases where a medical man had sexual intercourse with a girl who suffered from a bona-
14 Spl.C.757/2020 fide belief that she was being medically treated, or where under the pretence of performing surgery a surgeon had carnal intercourse with her. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5th Edn.) p. 510 f "consent" has been given the following meaning:
"Consent is an act of reason,
accompanied with deliberation, the
mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side".
It refers to the case of Holman v. R.¹ wherein it was held that; "there does not necessarily have to be complete willingness to constitute consent. A woman's consent to intercourse may be hesitant, reluctant or grudging, but if she consciously permits it there is consent". Similar was the observation in R. v. Olugboja² wherein it was observed that "consent in rape covers states of mind ranging widely from actual desire to reluctant acquiescence, and the issue of consent should not be left to the jury without some further direction". Stephen, J. in R. v. Clarence³ observed: (All ER p. 144 C-D) "It seems to me that the proposition that fraud vitiates consent in criminal matters is not true if taken to apply in the fullest sense of the word, and without qualification. It is too short to be true, as a mathematical formula is true."
Wills, J. observed: (All ER P. 135 I) 15 Spl.C.757/2020 "That consent obtained by fraud is no consent at all is not true as a general proposition either in fact or in law. If a man meets a woman in the street and knowingly gives her bad money in order to procure her consent to intercourse with him, he obtains her consent by fraud, but it would be childish to say that she did not consent."
13. As per the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2003) 4 SCC 46 between Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court by relying on citation of Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh Vs. State, it has been observed in para 7 and similarly in para 14 as follows;
"7.A mere act of helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion, quiescence, non- resistance, or passive giving in, when volitional faculty is either clouded by fear or vitiated by duress, cannot be deemed to be 'consent' as understood in law. Consent, on the part of a woman as a defence to an allegation of rape, requires voluntary participation, not only after the exercise of intelligence, based on the knowledge, of the significance and moral quality of the act, but after having freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent.
Submission of her body under the influence of fear or terror is no consent. There is a difference between consent and submission. Every consent involves a submission but the converse does not follow and a mere act of submission does not 16 Spl.C.757/2020 involve consent. Consent of the girl in order to relieve an act, of a criminal character, like rape, must be an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, after the mind has weighed as in a balance, the good and evil on each side, with the existing capacity and power to withdraw the assent according to one's will or pleasure" & "14-A woman is said to consent only when she agrees to submit herself while in free and unconstrained possession of her physical and moral power to act in a manner she wanted. Consent implies the exercise of a free and untrammeled right to forbid or withhold what is being consented to; it always is a voluntary and conscious acceptance of what is proposed to be done by another and concurred in by the former"
14. Therefore, the case in hand, there is consent on the part of victim and she knows the accused , under such circumstances, the consent given by the victim is not as per section 90 of Cr.P.C., is to be brought out by the prosecution itself and there is no presumption to that effect. Therefore, in the present case, the facts and circumstances, tried to be proved, or are not by the prosecution in accordance with law. As such complainant is having a sound knowledge as she is educated person, the allegations made. Therefore, the actual allegation made is not substantiated is the observation, to be applicable to the case on hand.
17 Spl.C.757/2020
15. Further the citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India namely in Crl.A.No.257/2023 between Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), dated 30.01.2023 at para 20 the accused had consented to had sexual relationship . The evidence of complainant does not inspire that the consent given by her falls under the exception to the section 90 of IPC from the materials placed by prosecution. Accordingly, submits as per para 20 of the Judgment which is as follows;
"The bone of contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had given a false promise to marry her and subsequently he did not marry, and therefore such consent was no consent in the eye of law and the case fell under the Clause - Secondly of Section 375 IPC. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceived the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, 18 Spl.C.757/2020 whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to ful fill his promise. So, it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376. As stated earlier, each case would depend upon its proved facts before the court".
16. Further relies on AIR 2020 SC 4535 in a case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand wherein how the rape is to be proved and consent is to be interpreted by Court has been relied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein para 18 & 19 discloses that the question of marriage between the complainant and accused is only an after thought there was no any such intention either expressed by the accused to the complainant or not, the benefit is to be given to the accused. Accordingly, in case of complainant completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution based on the citation even by considering the documents placed on record, the 19 Spl.C.757/2020 answers given by victim goes against the case of prosecution. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
17. POINT NOS.2 & 3: In the case on hand with regard to false promise made by the accused and accused by making the promise utilised, the victim innocence and forced her to have sexual intercourse and thereby deceived her. The prosecution brings to the court notice the complaint wherein in page-2 of complaint the accused was having physical intimacy with the victim on several dates. Accordingly, when the victim had asked for marriage with the accused on 12.05.2020 accused took her to his house is the evidence of the complainant, the complainant has specifically deposed she was in love with the accused, however she does not provide any information with regard to threat given by the accused nor she deposed about she has been deceived by the accused when promised to marry and later he turned down the same. Even after treating this witness as hostile, 20 Spl.C.757/2020 nothing has been elicited. Moreover the Investigating Officer who registered crime, the Investigating Officer who took up investigation have specifically deposed about part of the investigation done. The complainant does not support drawing of spot Mahazar in the spot Mahazar was conducted on 12.07.2020 the next date of the incident being reported before the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the accused argues on which date the accused refused the victim from marrying is not specified, as such there is considerable delay from the last date of alleged incident on 12.05.2020 the complaint has been made only on 11.07.2020. Therefore the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.420 and 417 of IPC are not made out seems reasonable. Under theese circumstances, on the basis of the material on record, this court is of the firm opinion that the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.420 and 417 of IPC are not made out is my firm view. Accordingly, these two Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the Negative.
21 Spl.C.757/2020
18. POINT NO.4: With regard to giving life threat by the accused to the complainant, in the complaint the complainant has specifically mentioned in page- 2 last para where she has been abused and by taking her caste and gave life threat through phone. Therefore as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, it is not a public place where the victim had been given life threat, victim is unable to secure the call details with regard to the incident happened on 12.05.2020. The learned SPP argues in fact the whatsapp chat between the victim and accused are being placed on record, those are sufficient to prove the accused and victim were in relationship and he had abused her and threatened her. From page-72 to 76 whatsapp chat between the victim and the accused are evident to prove the marriage proposal being rejected.
19. On going through the material on record, giving of lfe threat is not in any place as specified by the complainant. Moreover the Investigating Officer has conducted spot Mahazar. The hostility of 22 Spl.C.757/2020 the complainant with regard to giving life threat cannot be considered and moreover as she has specified she was in love with accused and the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.506 of IPC cannot be considered based on the material on record. The actual phone conversation is not available even the CDR is not available, accordingly this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.4 in the Negative.
20. POINT NOS.5 & 6: The prosecution to prove the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 relies on the complaint wherein complainant has specifically mentioned in page-2 of her complaint, on 12.05.2020 the accused took the victim to his sister's house Ramya where there were accused, sister and brother-in-law, all of them were introduced by the accused as he is going to marry her, later sister and brother-in-laws enquired the victim to which caste she belongs, when the victim informed about her caste all of them abused her as 23 Spl.C.757/2020 "ಭೋವಿಜಾತಿಯವಳು ನಮ್ಮ ಗೌಡರ ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಬರುತ್ತೀಯ ನಿನಗೆ ನಾಚಿಕೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ವ ಮಾನ ಮಯಾರ್ದೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ವ ನಮ್ಮ ಗೌಡರ ಹುಡುಗನೆ ಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತ ನಿನಗೆ ,ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ಹುಡುಗ ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆ ಹೊಲಸಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಊರಿನ ಜನ ಆಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತಾರೆಂದು ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳ ಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ ". Further the complainant has specified over phone the victim has abused that she belongs to low caste and over phone parents of the accused did abused by mentioning her caste as low caste. In the evidence of P.W.1 she has turned hostile and deposed that she has not made any complaint as per Ex.P.1. Further in her further statement on 12.7.2020 she has deposed similarly as of the complaint and mentioned about the incident, the abuse made by the sister and brother-in-law of the accused and parents of accused as per sec.162 of Cr.PC. Further in her 164 statement before Magistrate dated:17.7.2020 she has reiterated the same in page-2 she mentions that sister and brother-in-law of the accused had abused and she informed the same to the parents of the accused 24 Spl.C.757/2020 who also abused her over phone. There is contradiction with regard to the statement given by the complainant before the police and before the jurisdictional Magistrate and also mentioned in the complaint. IN the complaint it has been mentioned that accused himself called his parents. The learned counsel for the accused submits the accused had no intention to deceive the victim and he actually proposed to marry the victim but other than the accused person the abuse is made by the family members is the mention made in the complaint. Therefore the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 i.e. the abusive is made in public view or public place is not forthcoming and moreover the complainant has mentioned in her complaint and in all the subsequent events as per Ex.P.3 and 164 statement Ex.P.4 that she has been to the house of the sister of the accused namely Ramya. Therefore it does not becomes either public place or public view which can be considered as a abuse. The 25 Spl.C.757/2020 prayer of the learned counsel for the accused seems reasonable. Accordingly, these two Point Nos.5 and 6 in the Negative.
21. POINT NO.7: My Predecessor in Office has framed charge u/s.3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 against the accused that accused had touched a SC/ST person knowing that she belongs to SC/ST and did had a sexual intercourse as such committed offence punishable u/s.3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. In fact as per sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 even if there is consent with regard to any sexual act is committed against the SC/ST person it attracts the offence. In the case on hand, in the complaint, the 162 statement and 164 statement of the complainant and complaint with regard to accused having sexual intercourse with the victim. In the complaint, the complainant has not specified that even though accused was knowing as on July 2019 that victim belongs to schedule caste only he had forced her to have physical relationship. However she has specifically 26 Spl.C.757/2020 mentioned she was in love with the accused. In her further statement dated:12.07.2020 she has mentioned accused had promised her to marry, he put her in fear and had sexual intercourse. After that she though requested to marry several times the accused mentioned that if she wants to marry him she has to agree for sexual intercourse. At this context they have visited Amester Inn Hotel on 05.07.2019, 01.10.2019, 03.01.2020 and the hotel has been took took by the accused even in page-2 she has specified. In 164 statement before the jurisdictional Magistrate mentioned in July 2019 when no one is there accused touched her, after this when the victim mentioned this is not proper, he threatened her that he will disclose this aspect in the work place and also to everybody in the family. Further he mentioned if she does not agree for sexual intercourse he will disclose the same. After having sex he mentioned he will marry her and once again he exploited her on 05.07.2019, 01.10.2019 in Nayandalli, Amester Inn Hotel and 27 Spl.C.757/2020 even on 29.08.2019 in Nandi Hills. However as brought to the notice of the court, the victim has not specified that they had sexual intercourse on 20.08.2019 at Nandi Hills. But she has mentioned accused had put her in fear and had sexual intercourse. However in the case on hand, while deposing before this court victim and specifically deposed she was in love with the accused. The learned counsel for the accused submits when she was in love with the accused, the question of accused without her consent he had sexual intercourse does not comes in the picture. Moreover the alleged incident are of the year 2019- 20 however complainant had made complaint only on 11.07.2020. As per the whatsapp chat, as per page-74 on 22.03.2019 the accused has mentioned as 'my wife'. The accused had actually avoided the victim in marrying is not the case of complainant. Even as per the statement made before the police. The allegations are made against the family members of the accused but actually refused to 28 Spl.C.757/2020 take her as the wife of the accused. Under such circumstances the materials placed on record definitely goes against the prosecution rather prosecution is able to prove that the consent obtained by the accused is a forced one or against the principles enumerated u/s.3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. Under such circumstances in the absence of any material evidence to show that accused was guilty of the alleged offence, then the consideration of the registration of the FIR by Investigating Officer who registered the crime further the Investigating Officer who conducted the spot Mahazar and the Investigating Officer who recorded the statement of the victim u/s.162 of Cr.P.C had no any sequence is my firm view. Accordingly, in the absence of corroborative material evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.7 in the Negative.
22. POINT NO.8: To prove the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.3(2)(va) of SC/ST 29 Spl.C.757/2020 (POA) Act 1989, sec.376 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for more than 10 years. However the charge framed u/s.3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 does not hold proper to the alleged offence. Moreover the offence punishable u/s.376, 417, 420, 506 of IPC being not established, in the absence of proof with regard to the alleged offence, this Point No.8 is answered in the Negative.
23. POINT No.9 :- The accused does comply the provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by providing personal bond before this court, for his appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate court. In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby
acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376, 417, 420, 506 of IPC and sec.3(1)(r),(s),(w) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
The accused is set at liberty.
30 Spl.C.757/2020
However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till appeal period. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcription thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13 th day of January, 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Manasa.S.N.
P.W.2 Ambika
P.W.3 Sanjeev Nayak
P.W.4 U.D. Krishna Kumar
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1, P.W.3
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1,4
Ex.P.3 : Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.3(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1,2
31 Spl.C.757/2020
Ex.P. 4 Statement u/s.164 of Cr.PC
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.5 Photos
Ex.P.6 : Caste report of complainant
Ex.P.7 Caste report of accused
Ex.P.8 Medical report of accused
Ex.P.9 : Medical report of complainant
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.10 FIR
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.11 Reminder
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.12 Report
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.13 Photos
Ex.P.14 Pen drive
Ex.P.15 DCP order
Ex.P.16 Sketch
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.17 Letter
Ex.P 17(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.18 Hotel Endorsement
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.4.
32 Spl.C.757/2020
Ex.P19 Covering Letter
Ex.P19(a) Signature of P.W.4.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
: NIL
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
: NIL
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
: NIL (Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.