State of Karnataka vs Srinivasa Murthy

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J—The judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.11.2010 passed by the 45th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city in Sessions Case No. 823/2009 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

The respondent is tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that while prosecutrix Kum. Ramya (P.W. 6) was attending the computer classes situated about 4-5 kms. from her residence, accused used to talk to her; at about 12.30 p.m. on 15.5.2008 when the prosecutrix was coming back to her house from her computer classes, the accused and his friends kidnapped Kum. Ramya in a maruti car and she was kept in the house of one of the friends of accused and thereafter, she was taken to Anjaneyaswamy temple situated at Savandurgabetta road, wherein accused married the victim forcibly on 18.5.2008 and committed sexual assault on her against her will. Thereafter, victim was taken to various places by the accused and of late, the accused and his parents started demanding dowry from the parents of the victim and were ill-treating the victim. Ultimately, the parents of the victim took the victim to their house. On these among other allegations, complaint came to be lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W. 6) as per Ex. P1 on 26.2.2009, which came to be registered in Peenya police station, Bangalore city, in Crime No. 145/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. While lodging the complaint, victim has stated her age as 16 years 9 months. However, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC. The trial Court has framed the charges against the respondent for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC.

In order of prove its case, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and got marked 5 exhibits. On behalf of the accused no witnesses are examined. As aforementioned, the trial Court acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt.

P.W. 1 is the neighbour of the victim. She has deposed that the victim had told before her that accused had kidnapped her and sexually abused her. P.W. 2 though stated to be the eyewitness, his evidence is of no use, in as much as, he has not tendered himself for cross-examination. P.W. 3 is the mother of the victim and P.W. 4 is the father of the victim; both of them have deposed about kidnapping of the victim by the accused. P.W. 5 is another neighbour. He has also deposed on par with the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 6 is the victim/prosecutrix who lodged the complaint. P.W. 7 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He registered the complaint lodged by P.W. 6 and issued FIR as per Ex. P4. P.W. 8 is the Inspector of Police who investigated into the crime in part. P.W. 9 has laid the charge sheet.

The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of P.W. 6, the prosecutrix. As aforementioned, complaint was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It seems, at the time of lodging the complaint victim was particular with regard to the harassment by the accused. We have already mentioned supra that the complainant herself has mentioned in her complaint that she was aged about 16 years 9 months at the time of lodging the complaint. Though the complaint reveals that the incident has taken place on 15.5.2008 and that the marriage has taken place on 18.5.2008, the complaint came to be lodged only on 26.2.2009 i.e., after lapse of about 9 months. Absolutely no reason, much less valid reason, is forthcoming as to why complaint came to be lodged with such a huge delay of about 9 months.

It is also relevant to note that not even a missing complaint is lodged by anybody including the parents of the victim. The incident has taken place within Bangalore city. Victim was educated. There is nothing on record to show that the parents of the victim are uneducated. The victim was going to computer classes during the relevant point of time. The complaint Ex. P1 discloses that the incident of alleged kidnapping has taken place at about 12.30 p.m. on the national highway NH. 4. The alleged incident has taken place in a busy area of Peenya-Dasarahalli, which is an industrial hub of Bangalore city. More than that, number of buses, cars and other vehicles ply on the national highway. Factory workers will be moving regularly in that area. It is not as if the incident has taken place in an isolated area. The complaint does not disclose that the victim tried to raise hue and cry for drawing the attention of public at large.

P.W. 6/prosecutrix has deposed in support of her case as made out in Ex. P1. She has re-iterated that she was kidnapped by the accused and his friends on 15.5.2008 and got forcibly married to the accused on 18.5.2008. Thereafter, victim was taken to various places including the relatives'' houses of the accused. The victim did not try to escape from the clutches of the accused at any point of time. Since the victim was an educated lady, it is unthinkable that she could keep quiet for 9 long months after the alleged incident. If really, the victim was kidnapped against her will, she would have tried to contact her parents at least by phone. The very conduct that the parents of the victim had not even filed the missing complaint alleging missing of the girl itself would clearly reveal that the marriage must have taken place with the consent of the accused and the victim and their respective parents and it seems the troubles have started only when the accused allegedly started demanding dowry. Be that as it may. The material on record is not sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was kidnapped by the accused and his friends.

The registration number of the car in which the victim was kidnapped is not forthcoming. The car is not seized. So also, none of the friends of the accused who have allegedly assisted the accused have been arrayed as accused. Not even a single material is collected during the course of investigation against the friends of the accused, who allegedly helped him. Though allegations were made against the parents of the accused, charge sheet was not filed against them, since the police did not find any case against them.

In the matter on hand, the Doctor is not examined before the Court. There is no record to show that the victim was married to the accused when she was a minor. Further, there is nothing on record to show that she was sexually abused when she was below 16 years of age. Looking to the over all facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused, in as much as, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. As aforementioned, the complaint came to be lodged after 9 months of the alleged incident, when the victim was aged about 16 years 9 months.

P.W. 3, the mother of the victim, has deposed that the parents of the victim did not give any complaint against the accused under the guise that victim was residing with the accused happily. Even the parents of the victim went to Nanjangud wherein the accused and the victim were residing and they stayed there for one day and returned back to their house. Subsequently, it seems, the victim has started alleging that accused was demanding money for purchasing motorcycle etc., All the aforementioned facts, more particularly, in the light of the evidence of parents of the victim, we are of the clear opinion that the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused.

The SSLC marks card of the victim no doubt reveals that the date of birth of the victim was 7.3.1993. Though it is alleged by the victim that she was kidnapped on 15.5.2008 and though she was subjected to force to marry the accused on 18.5.2008, no document whatsoever is on record to believe the said aspect of the matter. The complaint lodged at Ex. P1 on 26.2.2009 clearly reveals that the victim was aged about 16 years 9 months at the time of lodging the complaint. The date in the SSLC marks card would be generally entered based on the admission register maintained by the school, which in turn is based on the age given by the parents of the student at the time of admission to school. Therefore, the margin of error to be given is 2 years. However, in the light of the specific statement of the victim in the complaint Ex. P1 that she was aged about 16 years 9 months at the time of incident, we are of the opinion that the victim had crossed 16 years at the time of incident.

Looking to entire evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has failed to make out the case against the accused and the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused. Hence, no interference is called for. Appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed.