Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs V.Mani on 22 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SITTING AT CHILDREN'S COURT ,(CCH 51) BENGALURU.
Dated this the 22 nd Day of September, 2021
- : PRESENT: -
Smt. B.K. KOMALA, B.A.L., LL.M.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Sitting at Children's Court, Bengaluru.
Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka
By Byatarayanapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED : V.Mani,
S/o Venkatesh
R/at No.65, 2nd Floor,
3rd Cross, Mysore Road,
Toll Gate Near Hanchepalya,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. Sri. T.Y.N Advocate]
2 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
1 Date of Commission of offence 18/10/2014
2 Date of report of occurrence 22/10/2014
3 Date of arrest of Accused 07/11/2014
Date of release of Accused 17/12/2014
From June 2019 is in JC
under Body warrant.
Period undergone in custody
01 Month 10 Days
by accused
4 Date of commencement of 23-03-2021
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 21-08-2021
7 Name of the complainant Smt. Ramakka
8 Offences complained of Section. 366 and 343 IPC.
9 Opinion of the Judge Accused is found not guilty.
JU DG MEN T
This is a charge sheet filed by Byatarayanapura Police against
the accused for the offences publishable under Section 366 and
343 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the
accused kidnapped the victim, CW2 on 18/10/2014 at about 7.
pm from near the house of her aunt situated in Kasturaba
3 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
Nagar, Mysore Road Bengaluru, with the false promise of marrying
her and confined her in the house of CW.1 in Tamilnadu from
18/10/2014 to 22/10/2014. As per the complaint given by the
mother of the victim on 22/10/2014, a case was registered under
Sec.363 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet
has been filed under Section.366 and 343 IPC, where in the
victim is shown as aged 17 years.
3.Initially accused was on bail. However subsequently the
accused having remained absent, NBW and proclamation were
issued. In June 2019 accused was produced under body warrant
and since then he is in Judicial Custody. Accused has been
furnished with the copies of prosecution papers as per Sec.207
Cr.P.C. Charges were framed and read over to accused. Accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the
prosecution case, 10 witnesses have been examined as PW 1 to
10. 8 documents have been marked as Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.8.
4 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
4. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
has been recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating
evidence. There is no defence evidence. However Ex.D1 has been
marked.
5. Heard the arguments. Perused the records.
6.From the materials placed before the court following
points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the
accused kidnapped the victim CW2 on 18/10/2014
at 7.00 pm with the false promise of marriage and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
Sec.366 IPC.?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved that the
accused having kidnapped CW2 wrongfully
confined her from 18/10/2014 to 23/10/2014 in
Puduru Mariayamma Temple at Tamilnadu and in
the house of CW11 at Pudupalam Pattu village,
Villupuram Taluk Tamilnadu District and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Sec. 343
IPC?
5 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
3. What order?
7. After the close scrutiny of the entire oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments my
findings to the above points are as below:-
Point. No. 1 :- In the Negative
Point. No 2:- In the Negative
Point. No 3:- As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No 1 and 2: Both these points are
interconnected and require discussion on the same set of
facts and evidence. Therefore both the points are considered
together.
9. One of the offences alleged in the above case is
under Sec.366 IPC. To prove the said offence, the
prosecution must prove the following ingredients:
a. The accused kidnapped the victim or
b. The accused abducted the victim
c. The accused kidnapped or abducted the victim with an
6 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
intention to compel her for marriage or
d. With an intention to seduce her for illicit intercourse.
10. Sec.360 and 361 IPC define kidnapping from India and
kidnapping from lawful guardianship. According to Sec.361 IPC
when any female aged below 18 years is taken away or enticed
or kept out of the keeping of lawful guardian, such female is
said to have been kidnapped by a person.
11. In the case on hand according to the prosecution case,
the accused had taken away the victim from near the house of
her aunt and had taken to various places at Tamilnadu.
Therefore it is not the case of kidnapping from beyond India and
hence Sec.360 IPC is not attracted to the present case. To
attract Sec.361 IPC the prosecution has to prove that the victim
was aged below 18 years as on the date of alleged incident. In
this regard the prosecution has not produced any documentary
evidence like birth certificate or school records or even
7 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
the medical report showing the age estimation of the
victim.
12. The prosecution has produced the complaint given
by the mother of the victim on the basis of which the present
case has been registered. It is marked as Ex.P3. In Ex.P3
there is a specific recital that the age of the victim was 18
years.
13. The informant has been examined as PW.4. In chief
examination she has deposed the age of the victim as 16
years. The father of the victim who has been examined as
PW.1 has deposed that he does not know the age of the
victim. PW.5, brother of the victim has deposed that at the
time of alleged incident the victim was aged 13-14 years. The
victim who has been examined as PW.3 has deposed that at
the time of alleged incident she was aged about 16-17 years.
Therefore it can be seen that the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.3
PW.4 and PW.5 are quite inconsistence with each other as
8 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
regards the age of the victim. Therefore the prosecution has
failed to prove that the victim was aged below 18 years as on
the date of alleged incident. Therefore the prosecution has
failed to prove that the accused kidnapped the victim as
defined under Sec.361 IPC.
14. Sec.362 IPC defines abduction as who ever by force
compels or by any deceitful means induces any person to go
from any place is said to abduct that person. Therefore the
prosecution has to prove that the accused forcefully induced
the victim to go from one place to another place. In this
regard the prosecution has adduced the evidence of PW.1,
PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.9. Where as PW.1 who is the father of
the victim has deposed at one instance that he had not given
statement to the police that the accused had taken away the
victim with an intention to marry her, later he has deposed
that he had given statement, PW.4 the mother of the victim
has deposed that the accused had taken the victim in his
9 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
auto to railway station and from their in Tamilnadu in a
train. PW3 the victim has deposed that the accused
intimating her that if she did not accompany him, he would
kill her brother, forcibly took her in a auto to Lalbag and
from their to their Tiruvanamalai in a bus. PW.5 the brother
of the victim on the other hand has deposed that the accused
had taken the victim to Tirvanamalai as a bus. Therefore it
can be seen that the oral evidence of the above witness are
quite contradictory to each other. PW.6, the aunt of the
victim has deposed that later she came to know that the
accused had taken the victim in a auto to Tamilanadu. PW.9
has turned hostile and has denied that she has given
statement as Ex.P5.
15. In Ex.P2 which is a statement of the victim
recorded under Sec.164 Cr.PC it has been recited that the
accused forcibly took the victim to Lalbag in his auto and
their to Chennai a bus. Ex.D1 is a statement
10 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
of the victim recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C confronted
during cross examination by counsel for accused. In Ex.D1
it is stated as below:-
Ex.D.1: ಇತತತಚಚಗಚ ನನನ ತತದಚ ತತಯ ನಮಮ ಸಚಸತದರ ಮತವನ ಜಚಸತಚ ನನನನನನ
ಮದನವಚ ಮತಡಲನ ತಯತರನ ಮತಡನತತದದರನ. ನನಗಚ ಇಷಷವಲಲದದರತದ ಮಣ ಹತತರ ಈ
ವಚತರ ತಳಸದಚ. ಅವನನ ನನಗಚ ಇನಸನ 18 ವಷರ ಆಗಲಲವಚತದನ ಹಚತಳದ. ನತನನ
ಹತಗತದರಚ ಏನತದರಸ ಮತಡಕಚಸಳನಳತಚತತನಚ. ಎತದನ ತಳಸ ಮದನವಚ ಆಗನವವದತದರಚ
ನನನನಚನತ ಆಗನತಚತತನಚತದನ ಹಚತಳದಚನನ.
16. Whereas in Ex.P2 the victim has stated that she
was taken to Chennai in bus, in her oral evidence she has
deposed that the accused had taken her to Tiruvanamalai.
Therefore from the above evidence it can be made out that
the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had
forcibly took the victim out of the keeping of lawful guardian
or abducted her as defined under Sec.362 IPC.
11 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
17. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the
accused had abducted or kidnapped the victim with the false
promise of marrying her or to compel her for marriage. But
none of the witnesses have deposed at any point of time that
the accused compelled or forced the victim to marry him. On
the other hand the recitals of Ex.D1 state that the victim had
given the statement that she was in love with the accused.
PW.3 has deposed that even after the alleged kidnap or
abduction the accused was staying in the temple leaving her
in her aunt's house. According to the prosecution the
accused and the victim were in Tamilanadu from
18/10/2014 to 23/10/2014. There is no piece of material to
show that at any point of time the accused forced the victim
to marry him or attempted to seduce her for illicit
intercourse.
18. It is also important note that according to PW.1
PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5, the police brought the accused
12 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
and the victim from Tiruvnamalai on 23/10/2014.
According to PW.7 they took custody of the accused and
victim in the house of CW.11 at Pudupalam Patti. Therefore
even as regards the place from where the accused and the
victim were traced out there is contradiction. On this ground
also it is to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove
ingredients of Sec.366 IPC either in law or on facts beyond
reasonable doubt .Hence I answer point No 1 in the Negative.
19. The prosecution has further alleged an offence
under Sec.343 IPC. It is the contention of the prosecution
that the accused had wrongfully confined the victim from
18/10/2014 to 23/10/2014. To prove the same the
prosecution has to invariably prove the place where the
victim was confined and also that the victim was
prevented by the accused from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits. As already discussed above
in Ex.P.2 it is stated that the victim was
13 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
taken to Chennai in a bus and on 23/10/2014 the police
rescued her in Chennai. During oral evidence the victim has
deposed that she was taken to Thiruvanmalai and was
rescude from the said place. In Ex.P4 and also in the oral
evidence of PW.7 it is stated that the accused and the victim
were traced out in the house of CW.11 situated at
Vadupalampatu Village, Villupuram Taluk, Tamilnadu State.
In Ex.D1 it is stated that the accused took her to a place
called Changam in Tamilnadu and from there to Mariyamma
Temple of Puduru where they stayed for 2 days. It is further
stated that later the accused took her to the house of his
relative Vadivelu situated in Yelanapatti. It is further stated
that the police took them to their custody near shankapura
of Tamilnadu. But during oral evidence and also in Ex.D1
the victim has stated that during their stay together in
Tamilnadu, the accused and herself were sleeping in
difference places. Therefore the above evidence adduced
14 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
by the prosecution neither provesthat the accused had
wrongfully confined the victim from 18/10/2014 to
23/10/2014 in any particular place nor it proves that the
victim was prevented from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits as contemplated under Sec.340 IPC.
Therefore it is to be held that the prosecution has also failed
to prove the guilt of the accused under Sec.343 of IPC
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence point No 2 is also answered
in the Negative.
20. Point No 3: In the result I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C I acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.366 and 343 IPC.
The jail authority is directed to release the accused forthwith if not required in any other case. 15 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015 Accused is directed to comply Sec.437 A Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on 22nd day of September 2021.) (B.K. KOMALA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHILDRENS' COURT, BENGALURU .
AN N E XU RE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
P.W.1/CW.5 Ramanna
P.W.2/CW.4 Balakrishna
P.W.3/CW.8 Victim Girl
P.W.4/CW.1 Ramakka
P.W.5/CW.6 Mahadev
P.W.6/CW.7 Bhagya
P.W.7/CW.13 Maleshaiah K.S.
P.W.8/CW.18 K.P. Sathyanarayana
P.W.9/CW.8 Sangeetha
P.W.10/CW.17 Krishnamurthy
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1 Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of witness PW.10
16 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015
Ex.P.2 164 Statement
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.3 Statement of witness PW.4
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.4 Report given by PW.7
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of witness PW.10
Ex.P.5 Statement
ExP.6 FIR
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.7 report
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.8 Medical bill
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-Nil-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Ex.D.1 Statement of victim girl. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & M.O'S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-Nil-
(B.K. KOMALA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, Sitting at Children's Court, BANGALORE. 17 Spl, C.C.No.184/2015