State vs Sri. T.M. Srinivas and Others

B.V. Pinto, J.—This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 20.10.2003 passed by the XXV Addl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore is S.C. No. 153/2000 acquitting the Respondents of the offence u/s 366 IPC read with Sections 114 and 506 IPC.

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused on 8.12.1998 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and took the victim PW-3 and kidnapped her and thereafter she was kept at various places in order that she could be compelled to be married to accused No. 1 and thereafter victim was taken to Shimoga and at Shimoga he was forcibly married to accused No. 1, thereby they are alleged to have committed offence u/s 366 and 504 IPC, In order to prove the ease, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and produced MOs-1 to 6. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and have got marked Exs.D1 to D4 in their defense. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of all the offences charged against them. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has challenged the same in this appeal

Heard Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and Sri. C.R. Raghavendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the accused.

Learned HCGP submits that FW-3 in this case is the victim who has stated, that she was forcibly taken by the accused persons from her house in Bangalore to Shimoga by bus and thereafter she was taken to a temple and in that temple she was made to marry accused No. 1 Srinivas. He further submitted that the evidence indicates that the other accused have assisted accused No. 1 in getting married to PW-3. It is further submitted by him that the date of birth of PW-3 is 30.12.1981 and the alleged date of marriage is 8.12.1998 on which date PW-3 did not attain the age of majority. He further submits that from the prosecution materials, it is proved that the accused have performed the marriage of PW-3 by compelling her to marry accused No. 1 and therefore, all the accused are liable to be convicted. He submits that in view of the age and education of PW-3 and also their rustic background, there may be some discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, however, lay the total effect of the evidence of prosecution witness, more particularly that of PW-3 and her mother PW-1, an offence u/s 366 IPC is clearly made out and submits that the accused may he convicted.

On the other hand Sri. Raghavendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the accused submits that the case is artificial in nature, PW-3 in aged about 16 years as on the date of offence and the case of the prosecution is that she was taken in the bus from Bangalore, to Shimoga and she wan made to remain in the house of the relatives of accused No. 3. At no point of time, PW-3 was under arty physical restraint either to scream or to inform other co-passengers while she was in the bus that she was forcibly taken. Even when she was in the house at Shimoga for some days, nothing prevented her from escaping from the alleged forcible custody of the accused and therefore, her story that she was forcibly taken is not believable. He further submits that since there was no priest in the temple, the marriage could not have been officially performed and therefore allegation that accused No. 1 married her is not proved. It is also submitted that no witness have been examined to show that PW-3 was found either in Shimoga or in the temple or in Theertheshwara Betta as alleged by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, he submits that the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court does not call for interference and submits that the appeal may be dismissed.

The prosecution in this case, commenced with the filing of a complaint by PW-1 Padmavathi on 26.12.1998 at about 18 hours before the Chikkajala Police Station, Bangalore District. In the said complaint, it is stated that her first daughter Geetharani is aged about 17 years and due to the work pressure in the house, the said Geetharani was made to discontinue her studies and she was made to stay in her brother''s house in Yelahanka in the Agrahara Layout since herself and hear husband are going to work and her brother had a small child. On 8.12.1998, at about 7.30 a.m., her daughter Geetharani had gone out of the house at Agrahara layout and has not come back. They had searched everywhere but she was not traced. Later on, it was disclosed that Srinivas, the brother of Venkatesh had kidnapped her daughter with the assistance of other accused persons and therefore, she has filed the complaint requesting the police to trace her daughter and to get her daughter back to the house, It is also stated that the accused have threatened her saying that if a complaint is given, they would finish her and her daughter. On the bask of the said complaint, Chikkajala police registered a case in Crime No. 216/1998 for the offence under Sections 366(A), 506; 114 IPC and commenced investigation.

The victim PW-3 was traced, her statement was recorded and based on the materials collected, charge sheet for the offence u/s 366 IPC is filed. In the Court, Padmavathi is examined as PW-1. She has stated that her daughter Geetharani was left in the house of her brother CW-4 (sic) as herself and her husband were going to work as coolies, She has further stated that since her daughter was not found from 8.12.1998, they had filed a complaint It is stated in the evidence of PW-1 that someone phoned up and told them that one Srinivas was taking her daughter and therefore, she went to the house of brother of Srinivas by name Venkatesh and thereafter, they gave a complaint. The police have traced her daughter and Srinivas-accused No. 1 within one week along with two others. Her daughter has stated that one Yuvaraj had taken her from near the house on the date of offence on the pretest that she was being called by her uncle. She has further stated that she was forcibly taken from the place in an auto to the Bangalore bus-stand. Thereafter, she was taken from Bangalore to Shimoga in a KSRTC bus. In Shimoga, she was made to stay in the house of the sister of Paparajanna accused No. 3. It is stated by PW-1 that her daughter was forcibly married to accused No. 1 against bear will. In the cross-examination it is suggested that there is a dispute between one Dhanalakshmi and Munirathna PW-4 regarding a property and since the accused Venkatesh did not support PW-4 in the claim of Dhanalakshmi regarding property, a false case has been filed. Ex.D4 has been produced by the accused to show that there was an agreement between Munirathna and Dhanalalakshmi and that in the said agreement, accused No. 2 Venkatesh is a witness. PW-2 is the father of Geetharani and husband of PW-1. He has also reiterated the version mentioned by PW-1.

PW-3 is the victim. She has stated that her education was discontinued from 8th standard and that she was made to remain in her uncle''s house. Accused No. 1 Srinivas was having a shop near the house of PW-4 and accused No. 2 Venkatesh was in the shop and since she was going to the shop, she came to know about accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused No. 1 informed that he loves her and would marry her. However, since she was afraid, she did not disclose this feet to tier parents or uncle. It is in her evidence that on 8.13.1996, when she went to the shop in. the morning, accused No. 1 told her that she should come in the evening and they have to go somewhere. In the evening, when she was playing with the child, one Yuvaraj came and told her that her uncle is calling her. Since that Yuvaraj was next to her house, she went along with Yuvaraj and accused No. 1 Srinivas was found there. Accused No. 1 held her hand and tack her to the house of Paparajanna accused No. 3. There after she was made to walk on the footpath and made to sit in an auto and they took her to the Bangalore city bus-stand. She was all through crying since she was afraid. Thereafter, she was made to sit in a bus which went to Shimoga. When the co-passengers asked accused No. 1 as to why she was weeping, he told them that she is his sister''s daughter and in Shimoga accused took her to the house of the sister of accused No. 3 and she was made to remain there for about five days. Thereafter, she was taken to Theertheshwara Betta where arrangements were made for her marriage with Srinivas. There was no priest in the temple. However, accused No. 1 tied that to her and the accused also performed the pooja and made her to wear the toe-rings. Thereafter, she was taken back to the house of the sister of accused No. 3. She informed the accused that she is not interested in the marriage. However, she was made to remain in that house for some days. About 8-9 days thereafter, they came to Bangalore along with accused No. 3 and his wife and other relatives. From Bangalore, they straightaway went to Tirupathi. Hence, she could not contact her mother. They remained in Tirupathi for 3 days and again went back to the house of accused No. 3 Paparajanna. Thereafter, police came and took her from the house where she was made to remain and after coming back to the police station, she gave a statement, removed her thali and the toe-rings and gave it to the police. She was medically examined. MOs-1 to 3 are the articles removed by her and given to the police. In the cross-examination, it is stated by her that Srinivas had proposed her 2-3 times and also informed her that he loves her. Since she was scared by Srinivas, she did not inform her parents regarding the proposal of love by accused No. 1. She has stated that since she was scared of accused, she could not run away from the clutches of the accused. However, ahs cannot say the nature of the bus or the route in which she was taken to Shimoga. It is suggested to her that she has deposed falsely.

PW-4 Munirathna is the brother of PW-1 Padmavathi. He has stated that PW-3 was residing in his house and on 8.12.1998 PW-3 was found missing. Thereafter, a complaint has been filed. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-4 that there is a dispute between himself and one Dhanalakshmi in respect of the house site and the said dispute is pending before a Civil Court in the form of the original suit. It is admitted by PW-4 that Venkatesh accused NO. 2 is the witness to Ex.D4, being the site sale agreement entered into between Dhanalakshmi and himself and that accused No. 2 is the brother of accused No. 1. It is admitted by PW-4 that there is dispute between himself and Dhanalakshmi and there are various cases between them. It is suggested to him that at his instigation, this false case has been filed against these accused.

FW-5 Rajeshwari is the relative of PW-1. She has stated that PW-3 was missing. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she knows Dhanalakshmi who has a dispute regarding the site. PW-6 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW-7 Dr. Kashyap has stated that he has examined PW-3 and he is of the opinion that the victim PW-3 is aged between 16-17 years as per the examination conducted by him, PW-8 is the Headmistress of Amarjyothi High School, Bangalore who has stated that according to school records, the date of birth of PW-2 is 30.2.1981 as per Ex.P5 - Transfer Certificate. PW-9 is the WPC who has escorted PW-3 to the Victoria Hospital for medical examination, PW-10 is the Head Constable who has stated that PW-3 was produced before him fey CWs-14 and 15 on 28.12.1998 and he has recorded the statement of PW-3 and arrested the accused. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when PW-3 was produced before him, she was not wearing any jewels nor she was having a thali on her parson. On looking at her it was not appearing that she was married. But she informed only orally regarding the marriage. PW-11 is the Head Constable who was deputed to secure the accused in this case. He has arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also secured PW-3. According to him, the victim was found in the house of one Paparajanna in Bangalore on 29.12.1998. He had secured them and produced before the police. PW-12 is the Sub-inspector of Police, Chikkajala Police Station during the relevant period. He had conducted the investigation and had filed the charge sheet in this case.

From the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge in has judgment has observed that there is dispute between PW-4 and the accused in respect of house property and the esse is pending in Civil Court He has farther found that there is discrepancy regarding seizure of MOs-1 to 3 by the police. It is further seen that the victim PW-3 is aged above 15 years and nothing prevented her from escaping from the alleged custody of the accused and acquitted the accused of the offence charged against them.

On re-appreciation of the entire materials on record, it is seen that no witness have been examined to show that PW-3 was infact taken over to Shimoga or to Theertheshwara Betta or to the temple. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the priest was not present, there would be other people in the temple and no person has been examined to show that PW-3 and accused No. 1 were infect found in the said temple. Under the circumstances, the story of PWs-1 and 3 that the victim PW-3 was taken to Shimoga end thereafter to Theertheshwara Betta has not been proved by cogent and dear evidence. Further, it is the case of the victim PW-3 that she was made to retrain in the house of sister of accused No. 3 in Shimoga for as many as more than 10 days. At no point of time, she has stated that she was under confinement or illegal detention during the said period. Nothing prevented her from either informing her parents or escaping from the accused during the relevant period. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

I have gone through the judgment of the Trial Court and the reasoning assigned for acquittal by the teamed Sessions Judge. I do not find any error or illegality in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, this appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.