Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Police Inspector, Hulimavu police station has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.354(A) of IPC and under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. Gist of the prosecution case is that:

The accused, on 8.1.2015 at about 8.30 P.M., in his office situated at Survey No.1, Pillaganahalli, Hulimavu, Bangalore, with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim girl/CW1 who was aged about 16 years, sent his [accused] mother to Muneshwara temple to lit the lamp and when his mother went out of the house, the accused [who is the younger brother of the victim girl's father i.e, uncle] induced her [victim girl] that he will perform her marriage during Mahadeshwara Jatra to be held on 28th of January, 2015 and asked her to co-operate with him for sex, by saying that, he would give Rs.10,000/- to her and told her to remove her clothes and when the victim girl/CW1 refused to do the same, the accused squeezed her breast, thereby had physical contact with her and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and demanded for sexual favours, thereby the accused committed sexual assault on the victim girl/CW1. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant/victim girl herself, a case in Cr.No.27/2015, came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.354(A) of IPC and under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012. During he course of investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation and arrested the accused and subjected him to the judicial custody. After collecting the materials, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused. Cognizance was taken. The accused was granted with bail.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence and the record on hand. Following Points are formulated for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused on 8.1.2015 at about

8.30 P.M., in his office situated at Survey No.1, Pillaganahalli, Hulimavu, Bangalore, with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim girl/CW1 who was aged about 16 years, sent his [accused] mother to Muneshwara temple to lit the lamp and when his mother went out of the house, the accused [the paternal uncle of the victim girl] induced her [victim girl] that he will perform her marriage during Mahadeshwara Jatra to be held on 28th of January, 2015 and asked her to co-operate with him for sex, by saying that, he would give Rs.10,000/- to her and told her to remove her clothes and when the victim girl/CW1 refused to do the same, the accused squeezed her breast, thereby had physical contact with her and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and demanded for sexual favours, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.354(A) of IPC ?

17. The prosecution has brought on record the evidence of the doctor: Dr.Sahida [CW7] who deposed as PW10, has stated that, she has not medically examined the victim girl/PW1 in this case and she has not issued Ex.P8 and Ex.P8 was issued by Dr.Sridhar(PW-11). She had brought the MLC Register. According to the entry therein, the victim girl was examined on 9.1.2015 at about 7.45 P.M. She was not cross-examine by the learned defence counsel. Therefore, Dr.Sridhar.S.T was examined as Additional Witness he deposed as PW11. He has stated that, on 9.1.2015, at about 7.45 P.M., he has examined the victim girl sent through WPC of Hulimavu police station along with the requisition of Police Inspector, for medical examination with the history of attempt of rape by uncle Siddalingappa. The history was given by the victim girl and he has mentioned the same in MLC Register. With the consent of the victim girl, he has examined her. On physical examination of the victim girl, she was 16 years of age and there were only 4 nail lacerations in the left breast. No other injuries were found. The victim girl did not give the history of intercourse. After examination, he has referred the victim girl for further examination. In this regard, he has issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P8. He identified his signature as per Ex.P8(a). He opined that, injury No.1 i.e., Four Nail Laceration in left breast noted in Ex.P8, is simple in nature. If a person forcefully squeezes the breasts of the girl child, the injury No.1 noted in Ex.P8 would be caused. During his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has explained the process of conducting of medical examination of the victim girl. It is material to note that PW-11 has denied suggestions that, the injury No.1 noted in Ex.P8 was not at all caused by nail scratching and that, the victim girl came into contact with thorns of small trees at the time of playing at that area and the injury No.1 noted in Ex.P8 has been caused. He has also denied that, at the instance of the police, he has created Ex.P8. Thus he has not supported the defence about the said injury was caused by thorns & not by nail scratching. Hence said defence does not sustain. Hence it is corroborative evidence that at the earliest point of time i.e., disclosed before the said doctor that she was sexually abused by accused, specifically noting his name in Ex.P-8, explaining incident, as history pertaining to injury nail scratching on breast.

19. Therefore, viewed from the evidence of the victim girl, and the conduct of the accused during the trial, as discussed above, and non-securing of victim girl on subsequent stage, in view of the provisions of Sec.35 of POCSO Act, 2012, the evidence of the victim girl has duly considered that, a genuine case has been made out by the prosecution by leading evidence of the victim girl, which is corroborating the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, as discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs of this Judgement, as because, unshakened and supporting evidence are indicating the accused that, he has committed sexual assault on the victim girl, in his office when she was alone, by touching the private parts of the victim girl i.e., the breasts of the victim girl and the said offence is certainly falls within the definition clause of Sec.7 of POCSO Act, 2012 which contemplates the nature of the offence defining as sexual assault that, " Whoever with a sexual intent touches the breasts of the child is said to be committed sexual assault on the child". In the present case, it is proved by the prosecution by cogent and clinching evidence as discussed above. Hence, the accused is liable to be punished under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012 for sexual assault on PW1 who was aged about 16 years. Sec.8 of the Act prescribes punishment of imprisonment, with fine. So, also it is defined under Sec. 354(A)(1)(i) of IPC under the head 'Sexual Harassment' and sub-section (2) of Sec.354(A) of IPC provides for punishment for sexual harassment. The nature of the offence, as discussed above committed by the accused on the person of the victim girl, is also coming within the purview of definition clause of the said section 354(1)(i) and (ii) of IPC, i.e., physical contact and the advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and demanded for sexual favours. Hence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by placing clinching and cogent evidence. Even the accused has not proved the defence of his innocence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that the victim girl has filed false complaint to grab his property. Therefore, he [accused] is not entitled for acquittal. There is no rebuttal evidence led by the accused, as such, presumptions are available in favour of the prosecution as well as the victim girl, under Secs. 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012, as well as the guilt of the accused has been proved by the prosecution by clinching and corroborative evidence to convict the accused. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and hence, the accused is liable for punishment under Sec.8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.354(A)(2) of IPC. Accordingly, POINTS-1 AND 2 are held in the AFFIRMATIVE.