Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Ravikiran @ Kiran @ Ragimill on 19 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 19th day of January 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions &
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No:1197/2015
Complainant The State by
Peenya Police Station,
Bengaluru.
By Special Public Prosecutor
Vs
Accused Ravikiran @ Kiran @ Ragimill
Kiran S/o Rangappa, 20 years,
Ramesh Building, Near Srirama
Hospital, Byraveswaranagar, near
Sunkdakatte Bus Stand,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. KNM, Advocate)
1 Date of commission of 27.7.2015
offence
2. Date of report of 27.7.2015
occurrence
2 S.C.No:1197/2015
3. Date of commencement of 9.2.2018
recording evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence 14.12.2018
5. Name of the complainant Siddarju
6. Offences complained of U/Sec:366, 376 of
IPC & Sec.6 of
POCSO Act &
u/s.3(1)(xii),
3(2)(v) of SC & ST
(POA) Act, 1989
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused is
acquitted.
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Yeshwanthpura Sub-Division, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.366, 376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3 S.C.No:1197/2015
2. Based upon the first information lodged by CW1 Sri. Siddaraju on 27.7.2015 regarding missing of his daughter CW2, the Peenya police have registered case in Cr.No.692/2015 for the offences punishable u/s.366(A) of IPC and send the FIR to the court. That on 4.9.2015 CW2 victim came to the house of CW1 complainant and thereafter on the basis of her statement under Sections 376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are added in this case. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.366, 376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under; 4 S.C.No:1197/2015 CW2 victim is the daughter of CW1 and CW3. In the year 2015 CW2 was studying in PUC. CW2 was studied SSLC in Shivapura Srinivasa High School, at that time the accused was coming to that school as a Dance Teacher to teach the dance to the students. The accused also was a Dance Master in the Dance School of CW6 Venkatesh who runs the Dance School by name Mothers Dance School behind Siddarth School of Siddartha Nagar. When CW2 was studying in SSLC in Srinivasa School of Shivapura, at that time the accused pursuading her to marry him. The accused gave Mobile Phone to CW2. This fact came to the knowledge of the parents of CW2 then CW1 and CW3 the parents of CW2 warned the accused.
4. That on 27.7.2015 at about 6.00 a.m. CW2 went to throw the garbage out of the house near her house at Shiva Mutt Main Road, at that time the 5 S.C.No:1197/2015 accused who came there asked her to go along with him as he intend to marry her. The accused in the promise of marriage took her to dance school of C.W.6 Venkaesh situated behind Siddarth School at Siddarth Nagar and kept her in portion of that dance school which had kitchen and other basic facilities. The accused kept her in that dance school portion and he has committed sexual assault on her by sexual intercourse of several times till 4.9.2015. The accused coming to know that the parents of C.W.2 lodged complaint against him. He sent C.W.2 to her house. The victim C.W.2 has gave her statement to the police on 4.9.2015. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation and visited the place of incident and conducted the spot mahazar. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused on 6.9.2015 and recorded his voluntary statement. The accused was 6 S.C.No:1197/2015 produced before the court on 7.9.2015 and remanded to JC. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. C.W.2 and accused were subjected for medical examination. The Investigating Officer after collecting all the material, on completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
5. The Accused released on Bail as per the order dated 19.11.2015. This case which was pending before II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru numbered as S.C. No.1197/2015. After establishing this court, this case transferred to this exclusive special court as per Notification No.ADM-I(A) 599/2017 dt.29.7.2017. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby, the provision u/s.207 of Cr.P.C is duly complied with.
7 S.C.No:1197/2015
6. After hearing on both sides, charge came to be framed against the accused on 25.9.2017 for the offences punishable u/s.366, 376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, 13 witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and documents Ex.P.1 to P.18 are marked. After closure of evidence on the side of prosecution, statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C is recorded on 8.1.2019 by putting all incriminating evidence available on the side of prosecution to the accused. Accused has denied all the incriminating evidence and no defence evidence is led on the side of the accused.
8 S.C.No:1197/2015
8. I have heard the arguments of learned Spl.P.P and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the entire case papers.
9. The following points arises for my determination:-
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27.7.2015 at about 6.00 am the accused kidnapped C.W.2 near her house at Shiva Mutt Main Road, when she went to throw the garbage and the accused took her to the Mothers Dance School, Siddarth Nagar by promising to marry her with an intention to have forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereby, the accused has committed offence punishable u/s.366 of IPC?9 S.C.No:1197/2015
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed sexual assault on C.W.2 by sexual intercourse from 27.7.2015 till 4.9.2015 in Mothers Dance School, Siddarth Nagar and thereby, the accused has committed offence punishable u/s.376 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused knowing very well C.W.2 is minor committed sexual assault on her by sexual intercourse from 27.7.2015 till 4.9.2015 in Mothers Dance School, Siddarth Nagar and thereby, accused has committed offence punishable u/s 6 of POCSO Act?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt 10 S.C.No:1197/2015 that the accused knowing very well C.W.2 child victim belongs to Scheduled Caste committed sexual assault on her and thereby the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 3(1)(xii),3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989?
5. What order?
9. My findings on 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: - As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 4:- Since these points are interlinked with each other in order to avoid repetition and for convenience I have taken them 11 S.C.No:1197/2015 up together for discussion. P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2 Siddaraju is the father of PW.1, P.W.2 is the informant before the police. PW.3 is the mother of PW.1 and wife of P.W.2. PW.4 Dr. Sujatha B.L. has examined the victim PW.1 and issued her report as per Ex.P7. PW.5 Manjunatha who brought M.O.1 to 5 and medical report from the hospital to the police station. PW.6 Neeladevi who took the victim to the hospital. PW.7 Somashekaraiah has issued Ex.P9 school certificate of accused. PW.8 Ramalakshman, Thasildar has issued Ex.P10 report regarding caste of PW.1 and accused. PW.9 Shivakumar has brought 6 articles collected by the Doctor to the police station. PW.10 Shivu is the brother of PW.2. PW.10 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.11 B.I. Reddy, Police Inspector who has conducted part of investigation. PW.12 is the spot mahazar witness has not 12 S.C.No:1197/2015 supported the case of the prosecution. PW.13 who is the brother of PW.2 also has not supported the case of the prosecution. In this case, PW.2, 3 who are the parents, PW.10, PW.13 who are the relatives of PW.1 have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.12 also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.1 victim even though supported the case of the prosecution in her examination-in-chief but during the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused she has completely go-bye to the case of the prosecution.
11. P.W.1 has deposed that she belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste. Accused belongs to Thigalaru community. She states that she had studied SSLC in Srinivas High School situated at Shivapura in NTTF Peenya. The accused used to come to school 13 S.C.No:1197/2015 to teach dance. She states that she had joined the dance class. Thereafter she and accused started loving each other. She has deposed that the accused used to talk her over phone frequently and they used to meet in the dance class. The accused used to told her that he loves her and will marry her. She states that the parents came to know about this on seeing her phone and thereafter her father called the accused and warned him and told her not to talk with the accused. She states that at the time of this incident she was studying in 1st PUC Arts in Govt. College. That on 27.7.2015 she had gone to throw garbage at 6 a.m. at that time accused took her to the dance class from there and kept her there for 2 days. She states that the accused committed sexual assault on her by sexual intercourse 2 to 3 times. She has deposed that her parents started searching for her, she 14 S.C.No:1197/2015 came to know and telephoned her parents and informed them about the sexual assault committed by the accused. She has deposed that she gave her statement to the police as per Ex.P1. The police took her to the Sapthagiri Hospital for medical examination at that time the doctor collected M.O.1 to M.O.3. She has deposed that the police took her before Magistrate at that time she has given her statement to the Magistrate as per Ex.P2.
12. During the course of her cross-
examination by the learned counsel for accused PW.1 has deposed that the accused is her husband. She has deposed that she do not know anything about the contents of Ex.P1. She has admitted the suggestion that on 27.7.2015 the accused has not took her to Mothers Dance School and not committed sexual assault on her. She has 15 S.C.No:1197/2015 deposed that on the say of the police she has given statement as per Ex.P2 before the Magistrate. She has admitted the suggestion that she was not subjected for sexual assault and there was no such sexual intercourse as mentioned in Ex.P7 Doctor's Report. She has admitted the suggestion that her parents performed her marriage with the accused. she has also admitted the suggestion that her marriage with the accused also registered in Sub- Registrar's office. She has admitted the suggestion that out of their marriage wedlock child is born. She has admitted the suggestion that she is living with the accused happily.
13. Even though PW.1 in her examination-in- chief has supported the case of the prosecution, during the course of her cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused PW1 has given go-bye to the case of the prosecution and deposed that the 16 S.C.No:1197/2015 accused has not kidnapped her and not committed any sexual assault with her. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined the PW.1 in detail. During the course of her cross-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor PW.1 has denied the suggestion that as the accused is her husband in order to avoid the punishment she is giving false evidence in favour of the accused.
14. PW.2 Siddaraju has deposed that he and his wife working in Garments Factory, his daughter PW.1 had studied SSLC in Srinivas School in the year 2015. After SSLC PW.1 joined 1st PUC Arts in Govt. Collage, Malleshwaram. He states that his daughter PW.1 was going to learn dance, the accused used to teach dance. PW.2 deposed that one day he has seen mobile phone in possession of PW.1 and on enquiry he came to 17 S.C.No:1197/2015 know that the accused given the phone to her for talking. In July 2015 his daughter PW.1 gone to throw the garbage thereafter did not returned. Hence, he has lodged missing complaint as per Ex.P3. He has deposed that the police arrested the accused. He has deposed that the police sent his daughter PW.1 to Sapthagiri Hospital for medical examination. PW.2 in his further chief- examination has deposed that marriage of his daughter PW.1 performed with the accused and they are now living together and they had a child. He has deposed that he do not know whether the accused has committed sexual intercourse with PW.1. Since PW.2 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined him in detail. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor PW.2 has denied all the 18 S.C.No:1197/2015 suggestions made to him. He has denied the suggestion that accused kidnapped PW.1 on 27.7.2015 and thereafter committed sexual assault on her by committing sexual intercourse in Mothers Dance School till 4.9.2015. PW.2 has denied all the suggestions made to him. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.2 to support the case of the prosecution. During the course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused PW.2 has admitted the suggestion that the accused has not kidnapped his daughter PW.1 and not given any physical torture to her.
15. PW.3 Chandrakala is the mother of PW.1 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that the accused has not committed any offence. She has deposed that her daughter PW.1's marriage was performed with the accused at about 2 years back. She has deposed 19 S.C.No:1197/2015 that the accused has not kidnapped PW.1 and not committed sexual assault on her by sexual intercourse. She has deposed that she has not given statement before the police. She states that the police took her signature on Ex.P4 mahazar in the police station. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.3 in detail. During the course of her cross-examination PW.3 has denied of giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P5. She has denied the entire contents of the document Ex.P4. Nothing is elicited from her mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
16. PW.4 Dr. Sujatha, P.L. has deposed that on 4.9.2015 she has received requisition of Police Inspector of Peenya Police station in order to examine the victim who brought by WPC No.11469 Smt. Neeladevi. She has deposed that she has 20 S.C.No:1197/2015 examined the victim after taking consent o the victim and her mother Chandrakala by taking their signature on Ex.P6. She has examined the victim between 12.30 PM and 1.30 PM. She has collected M.O.1 to M.O.5 at the time of examination of the victim. She has deposed that she has ascertained the age of victim by physical, dental and radiological examination and she opined that the victim's age was above 16 years below 17 years. PW.4 has opined that the victim is used to act like tht of sexual intercourse and there are signs suggestive of recent act like with sexual intercourse. She has issued examination report as per Ex.P7. During the course of her cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused PW.4 has denied all the suggestions made to her. She has deposed that according to her, victim had sexual intercourse within 2 to 3 days of her 21 S.C.No:1197/2015 examination. She has admitted the suggestion that if sexual intercourse taken place 2 to 3 days back no evidence could be collected.
17. PW.5 Manjunath, HC No.8883 has deposed that he was deputed by ACP on 24.9.2015 in order to bring the report of the doctor and the articles, accordingly he went to Sapthagiri Hospital and brought medical report Ex.P7 and M.O.1 to 5 articles and he has submitted his report as per ExP8. In his cross-examination on the side of the defence nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his version.
18. PW.6 Smt. Neeladevi, WPC No.11469 has deposed that as per the order of C.W.26 Police Inspector, she took C.W.2/PW.1 to the Sapthagiri Hospital on 4.9.2015 for medical examination and thereafter brought her back to the police station. The oral evidence of PW.6 is remained 22 S.C.No:1197/2015 unchallenged as the learned counsel for the accused has not cross-examined her.
19. PW.7 Somashekaraiah has deposed that Yeshwanthpura ACP has given requisition for the school records of Kiran.R. He after verifying the school records issued Ex.P9 certificate by stating that the date of birth of Kiran (accused) is 18.1.1995. During the course of his cross- examination by the learned counsel accused nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his version and document Ex.P9.
20. PW.8 Grade-II Tahasildar has deposed that on 7.9.2015, he has received the requisition of ACP, Yeshwanthpur who sought caste certificate of victim and accused. Accordingly he has collected the report of Revenue Inspector and thereafter he sent his report as per Ex.P10 by stating that victim is belongs to Adi Karnataka community which 23 S.C.No:1197/2015 comes under Schedule Caste Karnataka and accused belongs to Thigala caste. During his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.8 has denied the suggestion that he has issued false report as per Ex.P10.
21. PW.9 Shivakumar has deposed that on 18.9.2015 he went to Sapthagiri Hospital and collected M.O.6 to M.O.11 articles and brought the same to the police station and produced before ACP and submitted his report as per Ex.P11. He has also identified the document Ex.P12 report of the Doctor. In his cross-examination by the defence nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his version.
22. PW.10 Shivu is the brother of PW.2 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that he do not know anything about this case. He has deposed that he 24 S.C.No:1197/2015 do not know the accused. He has deposed that the accused has not kidnapped PW.1 and not committed any sexual assault on her by committing sexual intercourse. He has not given any statement before the police. Having turned hostile to the prosecution learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined him in detail. During the course of his cross-examination PW.10 has denied of giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P13. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.10 to support the case of the prosecution.
23. PW.11 B.I. Reddy, Police Inspector has deposed that he took up the further investigation on 27.7.2015 and on the same day he visited to the place of incident and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P14. He has deposed that on 4.9.2015 PW.1 was brought by C.W.22 and hence he directed C.W.25 Chandrakala WPSI to record the 25 S.C.No:1197/2015 statement of PW.1 and accordingly she has recorded the statement of PW.1 and on the basis of the same he has sent requisition to the court in order to add sections 376 of IPC and u/s 6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) 3(2) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He has identified document Ex.P15 statement given by PW.1 to C.W.25. He has deposed that he has sent PW.1 victim to Sapthagiri Hospital for medical examination. He has further deposed that on 6.9.2015 as per the instructions of Investigating Officer, he has apprehended the accused and produced the accused before ACP. During the course of his cross-examination by learned counsel for accused he has denied all the suggestions made to him.
24. PW.12 Venkatesh is the mahazar witness completely turned hostile to the case of the 26 S.C.No:1197/2015 prosecution. PW.12 has deposed that at about 3 years back the police called him to the police station and took his signature on Ex.4 in the police station. He states that the police have not conducted any mahazar as per Ex.P4 in his presence. He states that he do not know anything about the incident. Since PW.12 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined him in detail. During the course of his cross- examination PW.12 has denied of giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P17. He has denied the entire contents of the document Ex.P4 mahazar. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.12 to support the case of the prosecution.
25. PW.13 Ashok who is the brother of PW.2 also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that he do not know anything about this 27 S.C.No:1197/2015 case. He has not given any statement before the police. Even though the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.13 in detail, nothing is elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution. PW.13 has denied of giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P18.
26. Based on the above evidence, it is to be examined that if the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no much dispute about the caste of PW.1 to PW.3. PW.1 and PW.2 have deposed that they belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste and accused is belongs to Thigalara caste. These versions of PW.1 and PW.2 remained unchallenged as the learned counsel for the accused has not denied in their cross-examination by asking the 28 S.C.No:1197/2015 questions regarding the caste. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 regarding their caste is also supported by PW.8 Tahasildar who has issued Ex.P10 report regarding the caste of PW.1 and accused. PW.8 Tahasildar who is the best person to say about the caste of PW.1 and accused has deposed that PW.1 belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste and accused belongs to Thigalara caste. The oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.8 and documents Ex.P10 are establishes that PW.1 belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under SC or and accused belongs to Thigalara caste which does not comes under SC or ST. Mere proof of the caste of PW.1 and accused is not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed offence.
27. Even though PW.1 in her examination-in-chief supported the case of the 29 S.C.No:1197/2015 prosecution, but during the course of her cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused PW.1 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that the accused has not kidnapped her and not committed any sexual intercourse with her. PW.1 has deposed that her date of birth is 25.11.1999. It is alleged that incident was occurred in the year 2015. It is not the defence of the accused is that in the year 2015 PW.1 was major. If the date of birth which is deposed by PW.10 taken into consideration it can be said that in the year 2015 she was minor. PW.1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that she was loving with the accused. PW.1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that the on 27.7.2015 the accused took her to the dance class and kept her there for 2 days and committed sexual assault on her by sexual intercourse 2 to 3 30 S.C.No:1197/2015 times. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused who took PW.1 to the dance class room on 27.7.2015 kept her there till 4.9.2015. But quite contrary to this PW.1 has deposed that the accused kept her in the dance class room for 2 days. Admittedly, the marriage of PW.1 was performed with the accused. PW.1 has deposed that the accused is her husband. PW.2 who is the father of PW.1 has deposed that he has performed the marriage of his daughter PW.1 with the accused. PW.1 and PW.2 have deposed that out of marriage wedlock of PW.1 with accused a child is born. PW.1 who is the main witness in this case during the course of her cross-examination on the side of the defence has clearly stated that the accused has not kidnapped her and not committed any sexual intercourse with her.
31 S.C.No:1197/2015
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Thimmappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2011)14 SCC 475 held that in criminal cases the rule is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, if the court is of the opinion that on the evidence two view are reasonably possible; one that the appellant is guilty and the other that he is innocent then the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. If the above said principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applied to this case, in this case, even though PW.1 in her examination-in-chief supported the case of the prosecution but during the course of her cross- examination by the learned counsel she has completely go-bye the case of the prosecution by stating that the accused has not kidnapped her and not committed sexual assault on her by committing sexual intercourse with her. The 32 S.C.No:1197/2015 wavering version of PW.1 which is given in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination is not safe to believe. Since the PW1 herself turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, hence, the oral evidence of PW.4 Doctor is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution. PW.2 and PW.3 who are the parents of PW.1 have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.10, PW.12, PW.13 who are independent witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the remaining witnesses PW.5, PW.6, PW.7,PW.8, PW.9 and PW.11 are official witnesses and their evidence is not sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the charges framed against him.
29. Thus, on an overall assessment and appreciation of evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the 33 S.C.No:1197/2015 charges framed against him. Under these circumstances, benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 366, 376 of IPC and u/s 6 of POCSO Act, u/s 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal for the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to Point No.4 in the Negative.
30. Point No:5: In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 4 and for foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: 34 S.C.No:1197/2015
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused R. Ravikiran @ Kiran @ Ragimill Kiran is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s.366, 376 of IPC and u/s 6 of POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(xii) & 3(2)(v) of The Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety shall stand cancelled.
However the bail given u/s 437 (A) of Cr.P.C., will be in force till statutory period.
The properties seized in this case M.O.1 to M.O.11 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
35 S.C.No:1197/2015(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of January 2019) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Kavya.S PW2 Siddaraju PW3 Chandrakala PW4 Dr. Sujatha PW5 Manjunath PW6 Neeladevi PW7 Somashekaraiah PW8 Ramalaxman PW9 Shivakumar PW10 Shivu PW11 B.I. Reddy PW12 Venkatesh PW13 Ashok
2.Documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Statement of PW.1 Ex.1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P2(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2(b) CD Ex.P.3 Complaint 36 S.C.No:1197/2015 Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.4 Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.3 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.12 Ex.P.5 Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.6 Documents for consent for examination of victim Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.7 Medical Report issued by PW.4. Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.8 Report of PW.5 Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.9 School Records issued by PW.7 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.10 Report regarding caste of PW.1 and accused. Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.11 Report of PW.9 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P12 Doctor's Report regarding examination of accused. Ex.P13 Statement of PW.10 Ex.P14 Panchanama Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW.1. Ex.P15 Statement of PW.1. Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.11. Ex.P16 Requisition given by PW.11 to the court. Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW.11 Ex.P17 Statement of PW.12. Ex.P18 Statement of PW.13. 37 S.C.No:1197/2015
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil
4. Documents marked for the defence:
Nil
5. List of material objects:
M.O.1 Green colour slip
M.O.2 Dark green coloured underwear
M.O.3 Maroon coloured shorts
M.O.4 Blood sample
M.O.5 Pubic hair
M.O.6 Shirt
M.O.7 Pant
M.O.8 Underwear
M.O.9 Blood sample
M.O.10 Urine sample
M.O.11 Pubic hair
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.