Bangalore District Court
State By Hal Police vs Chinnarasu on 19 February, 2020
BEFORE THE CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Dated this the, 19 th day of , February, 2020.
Present: SMT.R.SHARADA,B.A. M.L
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55]
SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SPL CC NO.423/2018
COMPLAINANT: State by HAL Police,
Bangalore City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs -
ACCUSED: Chinnarasu,
Son of Ravi,
Aged 22 years,
Residing at No.135,
Jungle Palli (Grama), Moradan Post, ,
Gudiyattam Taluk, Vellur Mavattam,
Tamil Nadu State.
[By Advocate Sri. G.Veerendra Babu]
1. Date of commission of offence 12.12.2016
2. Date of report of occurrence 12.12.2016
of the offence
3. Date of arrest of accused 19.12.2016
Date of release of the accused
18.01.2017
on bail
Period undergone by the
30 Days
accused in the judicial
custody
2 Spl CC No.423/2018
4. Date of commencement of 25.3.2019
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence 11.2.2020
6. Name of the complainant Smt. Gayathri, complainant as well as the
mother of the victim girl
7. Offences complained of Secs. 366, 376, 342, 506 of IPC and
[As per charge-sheet] Secs. 4, 5(l), 5(n), 6 of POCSO Act 2012
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector, HAL police station has filed charge- sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 366, 376, 342, 506 of IPC and Secs. 4, 5(l), 5(n), 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, CW2/ victim girl being the minor aged daughter of CWS-1 and 3 was residing with her parents, the accused is the relative of CW1 and knowing that CW2 is minor in age, loved her, and on 12.12.2016, the accused forced and secured her to Chennai and threatened CW2 that if she does not go to Chennai he will kill her and when CW2 came to Chennai, the accused took her to his house situated at Jungle Palli Grama, Gudiyattam Taluk, Velur District, Tamil Nadu State and confined her in his house for 2 days and during the said period of 2 days, the accused committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on CW2 repeatedly.
3 Spl CC No.423/2018Initially on the basis of the missing complaint lodged by the complainant who is none other than the mother of the victim girl stating that, her daughter/ victim girl aged 17 years that on 12.12.2016 in the morning at 7 A.M., went out of the house for her work, but did not turn up. Inspite of her search, she was not traced out. The complainant suspected that her elder brother son who is the accused herein might have kidnapped her daughter. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant police have registered a case in Cr.No.713/2016 for the offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the victim girl was traced out and on her enquriy, she has stated that the accused eloped her and took her to his house and kept her in his house for 2 days and during the said period, he has committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly. Based on the said statement, the complainant police have continued with the investigation by arresting the accused, taken him to remand and remanded him to the judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused which is numbered as Spl CC No.423/2018 for the offences punishable under Secs. 366, 376,342, 506 of IPC and Secs. 4, 5 (l), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act 2012
3. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused on 19.12.2016, thereby he was remanded to the judicial custody. Thereafter as per the Orders of this court dated: 18.1.2017, the accused was released on bail.
4 Spl CC No.423/2018As per the provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, copies of the charge- sheet furnished to the accused. Accordingly charge is framed, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty, claims to be tried. Accordingly, the trial is fixed, summons issued to the prosecution witnesses.
4. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as PWs-1 to 13 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Thereafter Statement of the accused recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the incriminating evidence told to him, but he has not examined any witnesses on his behalf and no documents are marked.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, at this stage, following Points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that, CW2/ victim girl being the minor aged daughter of CWS-1 and 3 was residing with her parents, the accused is the relative of CW1 and knowing that CW2 is minor in age, loved her, and on 12.12.2016, the accused forced and secured her to Chennai, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.366 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused forced and asked CW2/ victim girl to go over to Chennai, and if she does not go to Chennai, he will kill her, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 of IPC?5 Spl CC No.423/2018
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that, on the same day and at the same time and at the same place, the accused not only secured CW2/ victim girl to Chennai, and when CW2/ victim girl came to Chennai, the accused took her to his house situated at Jungle Palli Grama, Gudiyattam Taluk, Velur District, Tamil Nadu State and confined her in his house for 2 days, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.342 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves , the accused not only confined CW2/ victim girl in his house for 2 days, but, also committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly, knowing that she was minor in age, thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sec.376 of IPC and under Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012 ?
5. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 to 4: In the Negative, Point No .5: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NOS.1 TO 4:- These Points are inter-linked to each other, hence, they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in order to prove the prosecution case totally 13 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 13 and 15 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P15. Though the victim 6 Spl CC No.423/2018 girl and other her parents have not supported the case of the prosecution but the court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case along with available evidence of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the police officials have totally supported the case of the prosecution the complainant approached the police with a complaint, registered as FIR, taken up investigation, traced out the victim girl as well as the accused recorded statements drawn mahazar finally after completion of investigation, submitted charge-
sheet against the accused. Even the doctor who has conducted physical examination of the victim girl has supported the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault by the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not contradicted by the counsel for the accused. Apart from that, according to Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012, there is burden casted upon the accused to prove his innocence, but, he has failed to chose to examine any of the witness on his behalf, thereby, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused has to be convicted and he prays to convict the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The victim girl and her parents have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case when they were subjected to the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, these witnesses have denied all the suggestions put to 7 Spl CC No.423/2018 them supporting their chief evidence. When all these material witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution, considering only the evidence of the Lady Doctor who physically examined the victim girl and the evidence of the police officials the court cannot convict the accused for the offences as alleged. Even the prosecution has not examined the Investigation Officer who has completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused. Hence, the learned counsel for the accused prays to acquit the accused in the interest of justice and equity.
10. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence furnished by the prosecution before this court. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 13 witnesses, out of them, PW1/CW1 is the complainant as well as the mother of the victim girl who set criminal law into motion by filing the complaint as per Ex.P1. PW2/CW2 is the victim girl. PW3/CW3 is the father of the victim girl. PW4/CW4 is the younger brother of CW1. PW5/CW7 is the doctor who has examined the accused physically. PW6/CW8 is the Lady doctor who has examined the victim girl physically. PW7/CW11 is the Head constable. PW8/CW14 is the Head Constable. PW9/CW9 is the Doctor who has issued the Age Estimation certificate of the victim girl . PW10/CW15 is the Woman HC. PW11/CW16 is the ASI.
PW12/CW10 is the SJPU Co-ordinator. PW13/CW17 is the ASI. In support of its case, the prosecution has also produced the following documents: Ex.P1 is the Complaint. Ex.P2 is the statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the Statement of PW2. Ex.P4 is the 8 Spl CC No.423/2018 Panchanama. Ex.P5 is the Statement of the victim girl given under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is the statement of PW3. Ex.P7 is the statement of PW4. Ex.P8 is the Medical Report of the accused. Ex.P9 is the Medical Report of the victim girl. Ex.P10 is the FSL. Ex.P11 is the acknowledgement issued by FSL. Ex.P12 is the Passport. Ex.P13 is the Age Estimation Certificate of the victim girl. Ex.P14 is the Report of PW10 and Ex.P15 is the FIR.
11. Now coming to the evaluation of the evidence given by the above stated prosecution witnesses , I would like to take up firstly the evidence given by the PW1-Gayathri who is the mother of the victim girl as well as the complainant . In her evidence before the court, she has stated that CW2 is her daughter and now CW2 is aged 20 years. She has further deposed that, she knows the accused as he is her elder brother's son. She has identified the accused in the accused platform located in the court hall. Three years back to the date of giving her evidence, she has lodged the complaint. At that time, her daughter was aged 18 years. She has identified the complaint which is as per Ex.P1 and her signature is as per Ex.P1(a). She do not know the contents of the complaint. The accused has not caused any trouble to them. She has not given any further statement. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and she was subjected to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that, the accused is her elder brother's son. At the time of lodging the complaint, her daughter had went to her friend's house, but she had suspected the accused. 4 to 5 days after 9 Spl CC No.423/2018 lodging the complaint, her daughter had returned back, as she had lodged the complaint, she had taken her daughter to the police station and the police station enquired with her daughter and her daughter had told that she went to her friend's house. She has denied that, she has stated before the police that the accused kidnapped her daughter to Gudiyattam and kept her in his house and committed rape on her daughter. She has also denied that likewise she has given her statement as per Ex.P2. She has also denied that, as the accused is her elder brother's son, and as her daughter's marriage is fixed with another boy, she is deposing falsely in order to protect her daughter's future life. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that, she do not know the contents of Ex.P1. She has also admitted that, the accused has not caused any trouble to her daughter.
12. PW2 is the victim girl . In her evidence before the court she has deposed about her family status and further deposed that, the accused is her maternal uncle's son. The accused has not taken her anywhere and he has not committed rape on her and she has not given any statement before the police. She has identified her signature on the statement given by her Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C which is as per Ex.P3 and her signature is as per Ex.P3(a). She has also identified her statement on the Mahazar which is as per Ex.P4 and her signature is as per Ex.P4(a). She has also identified her signature on the statement given by her under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C which is marked as Ex.P5 and her signature is marked as 10 Spl CC No.423/2018 Ex.P5(a). She do not know the contents of these documents. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and she was subjected to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she has denied all the suggestions that, the accused had enticed her and took her to Chennai and kept her for 5 days and committed rape on her. Further she has denied that, as the accused is her relative and as marriage is fixed with some other boy, if she discloses the truth, her future life will be affected as such she is deposing falsely. Thereby, the evidence of the Victim girl who is material witness in the case is not helpful to the prosecution case to link the accused for the alleged crime.
13. PW3-Munirathnam in his evidence before the court has deposed that, CW2 is his eldest daughter. He knows the accused as the accused is his brother-in-law. As CW2 was missing, his wife-CW1 had lodged the complaint. 2 to 3 days after lodging the complaint, CW2 had returned back to the house. The accused has not caused any trouble to his daughter and he has not taken his daughter anywhere and he has not committed any rape on his daughter. He has not given any statement to the police. Other than this he do not know anything. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and he was subjected to cross- examination. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that, the accused is the elder brother's son of his wife. At the time of lodging the complaint, his daughter had went to her friend's house, 4 to 5 days after lodging the complaint, his daughter had returned back, as they had lodged the complaint, they had taken 11 Spl CC No.423/2018 their daughter to the police station and the police enquired with her and she had told that she went to her friend's house. He has denied that, his daughter had stated before the police that the accused kidnapped his daughter to Gudiyattam and kept her in his house and committed rape on his daughter. He has also denied that likewise he has given his statement as per Ex.P6. He has also denied that, as the accused is his relative and as his daughter's marriage is fixed with another boy, he is deposing falsely in order to protect his daughter's future life. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that, he do not know the contents of Ex.P6. He has also admitted that, the accused has not caused any trouble to his daughter.
14. PW4-Chittibabu in his evidence before the court has deposed that, CW1 is his elder sister and CW2 is the daughter of CW1. He knows the accused and he is his relative. As CW2 went missing, her elder sister had lodged a complaint. 2 to 3 days after lodging the complaint, CW2 had returned back to the house. The accused has not caused any trouble to CW2. He has not given any statement to the police. Other than this , he do not know anything. This witness was treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and he was subjected to cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has stated that, at the time of lodging the complaint, his elder sister's daughter had went to her friend's house, 4 to 5 days after lodging the complaint, she had returned back. He has stated all these things at the time of his enquiry by 12 Spl CC No.423/2018 the police. But he has denied that, accused kidnapped CW2 to Gudiyattam and kept her in his house and committed rape on CW2. He has also denied that likewise he has given his statement as per Ex.P7. He has also denied that, as the accused is his relative and as the marriage of CW2 is fixed with another boy, he is deposing falsely in order to protect CW2's future life. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that, he do not know the contents of Ex.P7. He has also admitted that, the accused has not caused any trouble to CW2. On looking into the evidence of PWS-1 to4 who are none other than the Victim girl and her parents and brother, who have turned hostile to the prosecution case denying the alleged allegations made by the Investigating Officer against the accused. Thereby, their evidence is not helpful to convict the accused for the alleged offences.
15. Now coming to the evidence given the Doctors, among them, PW5-Dr.K.V.Sathish has deposed before the court that, on 21.12.2016, he has conducted the medical examination of the accused and accordingly given his Report which is as per Ex.P8 and his signature is as per Ex.P8(a). This witness was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
16. PW6-Dr.Prathima.S, in her evidence before the court has deposed that, on 19.12.2016, at about 3.15 P.M., the victim girl of this case was produced before her by HAL Police for medical examination. After taking the consent of the victim girl, she has 13 Spl CC No.423/2018 examined the victim girl. The victim girl has given the history. On local examination, the victim girl was 17 years and she was moderately built. On genital examination, the hymen of the victim girl was not in-tact. Accordingly she has given the Medical Report which is as per Ex.P9 and her signature is as per Ex.P9(a). She has collected the articles from the victim girl at the time of her genital examination and sent to the Investigation Officer. She has further deposed that, after seeing the FSL Report which is as per Ex.P10, she has opined that, the victim girl is used to an act like that of sexual intercourse, but there are no signs of recent sexual intercourse. This witness was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
17. PW9-Dr.Arul Dasan in his evidence before the court has deposed that, on 20.12.2016, he has conducted the Age estimation of the victim girl of this case and given opinion that the victim girl was above 16 years and below 18 years of age. Accordingly he has issued Age Estimation Certificate of the victim girl which is as per Ex.P13 and his signature is as per Ex.P13(a). This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he has not conducted the age estimation of the victim girl and that he has given false Certificate as per Ex.P13. He has also denied that,, he has falsely mentioned the age of the victim girl, in order to assist the Investigation Officer.
14 Spl CC No.423/201818. Now coming to the evidence of the Police Officials, among them, PW7-Ramachandra, Head Constable and PW11- H.C.Basappa- ASI, have deposed that, on 17.12.2016 as per the orders of CW19, they went to Gudiyattam, Chennai in search of the accused and they traced out the accused in his house, apprehended him, brought him to Bangalore to HAL police station and produced him before CW19 and they have given their statements in this regard. They have identified the accused who was present before the court. Thereby these 2 witnesses have performed their statutory duties. These 2 witnesses were cross- examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In their cross- examination, they have denied that CW19 had not instructed them to trace out the accused. They have also denied that, they have not gone to Gudiyattam and they have not taken the custody of the accused and they have not brought the accused to Bangalore and produced him before CW19. They have also denied that, at the instance of their higher officers, they are deposing falsely.
19. PW8-Ramesh, Head Constable in his evidence before the court has deposed that, on 21.12.2016, as per the orders of Police Inspector, he took the accused of this case to Bowring Hospital for medical examination and after his medical examination, he brought back the accused and produced him before the Investigation Officer and given his statement. He has identified the accused who was present before the court. Thereby this witness has performed his statutory duties. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his 15 Spl CC No.423/2018 cross-examination, he has denied that, he has not taken the accused for medical examination. He has also denied that, he is deposing falsely.
20. PW10-Lakshmamma, Woman Head constable in her evidence before the court has deposed that, on 19.12.2016, as per the orders of Police Inspector-CW20, she took the victim girl of this case to Bowring Hospital for medical examination and after her medical examination, she brought back the victim girl and produced her before the Police Inspector along with 6 sealed articles of the victim girl and given her Report as per Ex.P14 and her signature is as per Ex.P14(a). Thereby this witness has performed her statutory duties. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she has denied that, she has not taken the victim girl for medical examination. She has also denied that, she has given Report as per Ex.P14 at the instance of her higher officers. She has also denied that, she is deposing falsely.
21. PW12- Meenakshi, SJPU Co-ordinator, in her evidence before the court has deposed that on 18.12.2016, as per the requisition of CW20 she went to HAL police station for recording the statement of the victim girl. The victim girl was aged 17 years as on the date of giving her statement. The victim girl in her statement stated that, the accused was in love with her and she told that she is still young in age and after she attains the age of 18 yeas, they both can marry. On 12.12.2016, when the victim 16 Spl CC No.423/2018 girl had gone to her work, the accused called her over phone and asked her to come over to Chennai, and if she refused to come there, he will kill her, as such, the victim girl told that, she went to Chennai. The accused kept the victim girl in his house at Chennai and committed rape on her. This statement of the victim girl was recorded by this witness which is as per Ex.P3 and the signature of this witness is as per Ex.P3(b), the signature of the victim girl is as per Ex.P3(a) and the signature of CW13 is as per Ex.P3(c). Thereafter she has handed Ex.P3 to CW20. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination she has denied that she has not recorded the statement of the victim girl. She has also denied that she has prepared Ex.P3 in the police station itself. She has also denied that, in order to help the police, she is deposing falsely. She has also denied that, the victim girl has not given any statement before her as per Ex.P3.
22. PW13-Bhaskar, ASI, in his evidence before the court has deposed that, on 12.12.2016 when he was the Investigation Officer, CW1 had appeared before him and lodged a complaint. He received the Complaint which is as per Ex.P1 and his signature is as per Ex.P1(b). After receipt of the complaint, he has prepared FIR and registered a case in Cr.No.713/2016. The FIR is as per Ex.P15 and his signature is as per Ex.P15(a). He has sent the FIR to the jurisdictional court and copy of the same to his higher officers. Thereafter he has handed over the case file to CW19 for further investigation. Thereby this witness has performed his 17 Spl CC No.423/2018 statutory duty. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that, he has not verified Ex.P1. He has also denied that, for statistical purpose, he has registered a false case.
23. Considering the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of the victim girl and her parents and the brother of CW1 all these 4 witness have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused eloped the victim girl, took her to his native place at Chennai and confined her in his house for 4-5 days and committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly, knowing fully well that the victim girl was a minor. Hence, there is no chain to link the accused with the alleged crime. Though the evidence of the police officials are corroborative that, the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault by the accused and the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and the accused was arrested, but, they do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as because PWs-1 to 3 have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and they have not supported the prosecution case. Even the Lady doctor who has physically examined the victim girl and given the Medical Report and opined that, the hymen of the victim girl was not in-tact, but this evidence also do not come to the aid of the prosecution, as the victim girl herself has not supported the prosecution case. The Investigation Officer of this case who has filed charge-sheet after collecting 18 Spl CC No.423/2018 materials against this accused, has not been examined before this court which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Though the SPJU Co-ordinator has been examined before the court as PW12, who has recorded the statement of the victim girl as told by the victim girl to her, but this witness is only a hear-say witness as told to her by the victim girl, but when the Victim girl herself has not supported the prosecution case, the statement given by her which is as per Ex.P3 before the SJPU, only basing on the evidence of PW12, the accused cannot be convicted, hence, this evidence is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution. When the victim girl herself has not supported the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed rape/ aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, even she has been subjected to cross-examination by the Learned Public Prosecutor at length but the prosecution miserably failed to elicit any single piece of evidence from the mouth of this witness. The Victim girl except identifying her signatures nothing has deposed against the accused to hold that the accused has committed the offence as alleged against him. Thereby, I am of the view that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal from the hands of this court. Of course, the presumption under Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012 goes against the accused but, the prosecution has to prove its case by furnishing cogent evidence but it failed to do so, thereby, I hold that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 to 4 in the Negative.
19 Spl CC No.423/201824. In the present case, as per the discussions made by me herein above, the victim girl has deposed before the court that, she has not suffered any sexual assault on her from the accused and further she deposed that, her marriage is already fixed with another boy and she is going to have a better future. Considering these aspects, I find no reasons to award compensation to the victim girl as per the provisions under Rule 7 of POCSO Rules 2012, as such no compensation is awarded to the victim girl.
25. POINT NO.5:-:- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 4 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Secs. 366, 506 and 342 of IPC and under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused
stands cancelled.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19 th day of February, 2020] [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.20 Spl CC No.423/2018
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Gayathri CW1 25.3.2019
PW.2 Victim girl CW2 10.4.2019
PW.3 Munirathnam CW3 14.6.2019
PW.4 Chittibabu CW4 14.6.2019
PW.5 K.V.Sathish CW7 20.8.2019
PW.6 Dr.Prathima.S CW8 20.8.2019
PW.7 Ramachandra CW11 19.11.2019
PW.8 Ramesh CW14 25.11.2019
PW.9 Dr.Arul Dasan CW9 9.1.2020
PW.10 Lakshmma CW15 9.1.2020
PW.11 H.C.Basappa CW16 9.1.2020
PW.12 Meenkashi CW10 11.2.2020
PW.13 Bhaskar CW17 11.2.2020
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint dated: 12.12.2016 lodged by the
complainant /PW1/mother of the victim girl to the complainant police Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW13 Ex.P2 Statement of PW1 given to the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P3 Statement of PW2/ victim girl given before the complainant police Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW2/ victim girl Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P3(c) Signature of CW15 Ex.P4 Panchnama Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW2/ victim girl Ex.P5 Statement of PW2/ victim girl given before the Learned Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW2/ victim girl 21 Spl CC No.423/2018 Ex.P6 Statement of PW3 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P7 Statement of PW4 given before the complainant police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P8 Medical Report of the accused Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P9 Medical Report of PW2/ victim girl Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P10 FSL Report Ex.P11 Acknowledgement issued by RFSL [consent marked] Ex.P12 Passport [consent marked] Ex.P13 Age Estimation Certificate of PW2/ victim girl Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P14 Report given by PW10 regarding taking PW2/ victim girl to the Bowring Hospital for medical examination and collecting the articles of the victim girl and handing over them to the Police Inspector of the complainant police station Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P15 FIR Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW13 Witness examined, documents, marked for the accused: NIL [R.SHARADA] LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.22 Spl CC No.423/2018
19.2.2020 Judgment pronounced in open court:
[ Vide separate detailed Judgment] Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, I hereby acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Secs. 366, 506 and 342 of IPC and under Sec.376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act 2012.
The bail bond and surety bond of the
accused stands cancelled.
[R.SHARADA]]
LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH:55] SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.23 Spl CC No.423/2018