Bangalore District Court
Byatarayanapura Ps vs Girish A S on 13 January, 2025
KABC010184552020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2025.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.757/2020
COMPLAINANT: The State
Represented by
Byatarayanapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Girish.A.S.
S/o. Shivalingegowda,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Hattihalli Grama,
Sathanuru Hobali,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
(Adv. By Sri.ML for accused)
1. Date of commission of : 01-07-2019
offence
2. Date of report of Offence : 11-07-2020
3. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Manasa.S.N.
2 Spl.C.757/2020
4. Date of commencement : 24-08-2024
of recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of : 16-12-2024
evidence
6. Offences Complained : Under Sections. 376, 417,
are 420, 506 of IPC and sec.3(1)
(r),(s),(w) and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused not found guilty.
JUDGMENT
This case is registered on the basis of the
charge sheet submitted by ACP, Kengeri Gate Sub
Division against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections. 376, 417, 420, 506 of
IPC and sec.3(1)(r),(s),(w) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(POA) Act 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.7.2020
the complainant reported before the jurisdictional
police that the complainant and accused were
working in Pai International as Sales Executives. The
Girish was also working therein, both fell in love, the
victim was residing in her grand mother’s house
along with her father and mother and another
sister. The complainant belongs to schedule caste
3 Spl.C.757/2020
Bhovi community, she had completed her Diploma
in the year 2019 April, the complainant submits
Girish was following her and was forcing her to love.
After this, both were visiting numerous places
together and they used to exchange whatsapp
messages from their mobile phone and talking with
each other. In July 2019 one day, Girish came to the
house of the complainant, no other person of
victim’s family present in the house then the victim
was asked by Girish, to marry him and to that
effect she has to co-operate to have sex with him
otherwise he cannot marry her. Then by putting the
victim in fear, the said Girish had forceful sexual
intercourse. The said Girish after this threatened
that he will inform the family members of the victim
if she tried to disclose the same with any other
person, after this he several times forced her to
agree, that he will marry her today, tomorrow and
so on and he took her to Nandi Hills, Amester Hotel
on 15.07.2019, 01.10.2019, 01.01.2020 which is
situated near Nayandalli Metro and also to Nandi
4 Spl.C.757/2020
Hills on 29.08.2019. The victim was forced to have
sex against her will.
The complainant has complained before the
jurisdictional police that after this when victim
forced Girish to marry her, he started avoiding her
to that effect his father and mother, sisters and
brother-in-laws on 12.05.2020 threatened the
victim with dire consequences and as victim was
deceived by the Girish, even though she tried to
contact him he has avoided and she has been
abused by making call from phone No.9740780692
to 7899065820. Accordingly, complainant being
deceived and aggrieved by the conduct of the said
Girish made complaint before the jurisdictional
police.
3. After filing of charge sheet this Court took
cognizance of the offences and charge sheet copy
furnished to the accused s as contemplated under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As
there was sufficient materials available, charge was
framed for the afore said offences, read over and
5 Spl.C.757/2020
explained to the accused in vernacular language
and he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
4. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution
examined 4 witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got
exhibited 19 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19.
After completion of evidence of prosecution, the
statement of the accused U/Sec.313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused
denied incriminating evidence appeared against
him and he did not choose to lead defence
evidence.
5. Heard arguments and perused the documents and
other materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for the
determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1.Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that
C.W.1 and accused were working in
the company of C.W.9 and were in
contact and accused informed C.W.1
if she assists for sexual intercourse
he will marry or he will inform their
love to her family members and
6 Spl.C.757/2020
threatened and on 5.7.2019,
10.8.2019, 1.10.2019 and 1.1.2020
accused took C.W.1 to Amester Inn
Hotel of C.W.7 situated at No.31, Ist
cross, Jyothi Nagar, Deepanjali
Nagar, Nayandanahalli, within the
limits of Byatarayanapura police
station, and pretending to marry her
had sexual intercourse with her and
on 8.12.2019 took C.W.1 to Sai
Grand Hotel Room No.9, Ist cross,
Hosaguddanahalli, Mysore road, and
pretending to marry her had sexual
intercourse with her forcefully and
thereby had committed an offence
u/sec.376 of IPC?
2.Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
aforesaid date, time and place,
accused pretending to marry C.W.1
had sexual intercourse with her and
thereby cheated her and thereby
committed an offence u/sec.417 of
IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
aforesaid date, time and place,
accused has criminally intimidated
by threatening the CW.1 that if she
informs the offence of sexual
intercourse committed by him to
anyone he will kill her and her family
members and with injury to her
person with intent to cause alarm to
her and thereby committed the
7 Spl.C.757/2020
offence Punishable under Section
506 of IPC?
4.Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that
accused though not belonging to
SC/ST has intentionally insulted as
“ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದೀಯಾ” with
intent to humiliate CW1 being the
member of Scheduled Caste in a
place within the public view and
thereby committed offence
punishable u/sec 3(1)(r) of SC and
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
5.Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused not being the member of
SC/ST has abused CW1 being the
member of Scheduled Caste by
taking the name of her caste as
“ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದೀಯಾ ” in a
place within public view and thereby
committed offence punishable u/sec
3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act?
6.Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused not being the member of
SC/ST has committed sexual
intercourse forcefully and abused
her as “ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದೀಯಾ”
and cheated her and thereby
committed offence punishable u/sec
3(1)(w) of SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act?
8 Spl.C.757/2020
7.Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused is not being the member of
SC/ST has committed forcible sexual
intercourse with CW1, who belongs
to scheduled caste and thereby you
have committed offence which is
punishable with more than 10 years
or imprisonment for life, which is
punishable under Section 376 of IPC
and thereby you have committed
offences punishable under section
3(2)(va) of the SC and ST(Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, within cognizance
of this court?
8.What order?
7. My findings to 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 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : As per final order,
for the following;
9 Spl.C.757/2020
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: The prosecution to prove the
ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.376 of
IPC, the complainant has specifically pleaded in
page 1 of her complaint that Girish got acquainted
with her as both were working in Pai International
as Sales Executive’s since April 2019. The
acquaintance became love affair and the victim was
taken to different places namely Amester Hotel and
Nandi Betta on the following dates i.e on
15.07.2019, 01.10.2019 and 03.01.2020 . After this
when the victim requested the accused to marry
her, he threatened her and started avoiding her
and in that regard he abused, along with his family
members.
9. The complainant has specifically mentioned
on one day in July 2019 accused came to her
house. There were no other inmates of the victim,
he forced her to have sexual intercourse as he is
going to agree to marry her. After the sexual
10 Spl.C.757/2020
intercourse she was threatened that he will
disclose the fact to her family members if she
forced him to marry and he put her in fear and
thereafter had sexual intercourse again and again
several times.
10. In proof of this the victim in her examination
in chief has deposed about she was in love with
accused and she had made complaint before the
police as per Ex.P.1. This witness in page-2 does
not depose about suffering at the hands of the
accused with regard to forcing her to have sexual
intercourse by the accused at any point of time.
She had completely turned hostile with regard to
her statement given before the jurisdictional
Magistrate as per sec.164 of Cr.PC as per Ex.P.4
and she admits photographs in which she is seen.
However she does not support the prosecution case
as such the learned SPP treated her as hostile and
subjected her to cross examination, even though
she does not depose about sexual intercourse is
forced one by the accused.
11 Spl.C.757/2020
11. In the case on hand, with regard to medical
examination of the accused, there is no dispute.
The learned SPP argues as the victim is belonging
to schedule caste, the physical intimacy of the
accused with the victim itself is sufficient and as
per the medical report, it discloses there is physical
intimacy between the parties as per Ex.P.8 accused
is capable of having sex. As per the Medical Officer
opinion even victim has been examined and where
opinion has been given by the Medical Officer of the
victim is well developed and having no any clinical
problem with regard to having sex and her hymen
is ruptured. Therefore all these materials discloses
the accused did had sexual intercourse with the
victim against her will, since as the complaint itself
is written personally by the victim herself.
12. The learned counsel for the accused argues as
per complaint Ex.P.1 in page-1 itself victim has
mentioned she was in relationship with the accused
as they were in love. Therefore this fact actually
goes against the case of prosecution. Accordingly,
12 Spl.C.757/2020
when there is consent with regard to physical
intimacy the question of considering that accused
had abused the victim does not arise. The learned
counsel for the accused brings to the court notice
the citations namely of Hon’ble Apex Court in
reported dictum AIR 2020 SC 4535 in a case of
Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCR of Delhi) and also
brings to notice the citation of Maheswari Tigga Vs.
The State of Jharkhand, submits that false promise
is not a fact with in the meaning of IPC-1860.
Further, the citation reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 in
a case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that
what are the ingredients to be satisfied by
prosecution to seek the commission of offences
punishable u/sec.375, be fulfilled by the
prosecution. In para 9, the consent known to be
given under fear or misconception should not be
considered as per sec.90 of Cr.P.C has been
observed as per the Part-B, the prosecution has to
prove that the consent is under misconception. The
13 Spl.C.757/2020
twin conditions to be satisfied by prosecution are a
false promise and secondly it is made in a
misconception. In para 10 of the citation, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows;
“Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
in the context of Section 375 of the Indian Penal
Code, which is a special provision, the general
provision, namely, Section 90 of the Indian Penal
Code was not of much assistance to the
prosecution. According to him, Section 375 Thirdly,
Fourthly and Fifthly exhaustively enumerate the
circumstances in which the consent given by the
prosecutrix is vitiated and does not amount to
consent in law. According to him, one has to look
to Section 375 alone for finding out whether the
offence of rape had been committed. Secondly, he
submitted that even under Section 90 of the Indian
Penal Code the consent is vitiated only if it is given
under a misconception of fact. A belief that the
promise of marriage was meant to be fulfilled is
not a misconception of fact. The question of
misconception of fact will arise only if the act
consented to, is believed by the person consenting
to be something else, and on that pretext sexual
intercourse is committed. In such cases it cannot
be said that she consented to sexual intercourse.
He sought to illustrate this point by reference to
English cases where a medical man had sexual
intercourse with a girl who suffered from a bona-
14 Spl.C.757/2020
fide belief that she was being medically treated, or
where under the pretence of performing surgery a
surgeon had carnal intercourse with her. In
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (5th Edn.) p. 510 f
“consent” has been given the following meaning:
"Consent is an act of reason,
accompanied with deliberation, the
mind weighing, as in a balance, the
good and evil on each side”.
It refers to the case of Holman v. R.¹ wherein it
was held that; “there does not necessarily have
to be complete willingness to constitute consent.
A woman’s consent to intercourse may be
hesitant, reluctant or grudging, but if she
consciously permits it there is consent”.
Similar was the observation in R. v. Olugboja²
wherein it was observed that “consent in rape
covers states of mind ranging widely from actual
desire to reluctant acquiescence, and the issue of
consent should not be left to the jury without
some further direction”. Stephen, J. in R. v.
Clarence³ observed: (All ER p. 144 C-D)
“It seems to me that the proposition that
fraud vitiates consent in criminal matters is
not true if taken to apply in the fullest sense
of the word, and without qualification. It is
too short to be true, as a mathematical
formula is true.”
Wills, J. observed: (All ER P. 135 I)
15 Spl.C.757/2020
“That consent obtained by fraud is no
consent at all is not true as a general
proposition either in fact or in law. If a man
meets a woman in the street and knowingly
gives her bad money in order to procure
her consent to intercourse with him, he
obtains her consent by fraud, but it would
be childish to say that she did not
consent.”
13. As per the decision laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in (2003) 4 SCC 46 between
Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, wherein Hon’ble Apex
Court by relying on citation of Rao Harnarain Singh
Sheoji Singh Vs. State, it has been observed in para
7 and similarly in para 14 as follows;
“7.A mere act of helpless resignation in the face
of inevitable compulsion, quiescence, non-
resistance, or passive giving in, when volitional
faculty is either clouded by fear or vitiated by
duress, cannot be deemed to be ‘consent’ as
understood in law. Consent, on the part of a
woman as a defence to an allegation of rape,
requires voluntary participation, not only after
the exercise of intelligence, based on the
knowledge, of the significance and moral quality
of the act, but after having freely exercised a
choice between resistance and assent.
Submission of her body under the influence of
fear or terror is no consent. There is a difference
between consent and submission. Every consent
involves a submission but the converse does not
follow and a mere act of submission does not
16 Spl.C.757/2020involve consent. Consent of the girl in order to
relieve an act, of a criminal character, like rape,
must be an act of reason, accompanied with
deliberation, after the mind has weighed as in a
balance, the good and evil on each side, with the
existing capacity and power to withdraw the
assent according to one’s will or pleasure” &
“14-A woman is said to consent only when she
agrees to submit herself while in free and
unconstrained possession of her physical and
moral power to act in a manner she wanted.
Consent implies the exercise of a free and
untrammeled right to forbid or withhold what is
being consented to; it always is a voluntary and
conscious acceptance of what is proposed to be
done by another and concurred in by the former”
14. Therefore, the case in hand, there is consent
on the part of victim and she knows the accused ,
under such circumstances, the consent given by
the victim is not as per section 90 of Cr.P.C., is to
be brought out by the prosecution itself and there is
no presumption to that effect. Therefore, in the
present case, the facts and circumstances, tried to
be proved, or are not by the prosecution in
accordance with law. As such complainant is having
a sound knowledge as she is educated person, the
allegations made. Therefore, the actual allegation
made is not substantiated is the observation, to be
applicable to the case on hand.
17 Spl.C.757/2020
15. Further the citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India namely in Crl.A.No.257/2023 between Naim
Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), dated 30.01.2023
at para 20 the accused had consented to had
sexual relationship . The evidence of complainant
does not inspire that the consent given by her falls
under the exception to the section 90 of IPC from
the materials placed by prosecution. Accordingly,
submits as per para 20 of the Judgment which is as
follows;
“The bone of contention raised on behalf of the
respondents is that the prosecutrix had given her
consent for sexual relationship under the
misconception of fact, as the accused had given a
false promise to marry her and subsequently he did
not marry, and therefore such consent was no
consent in the eye of law and the case fell under
the Clause – Secondly of Section 375 IPC. In this
regard, it is pertinent to note that there is a
difference between giving a false promise and
committing breach of promise by the accused. In
case of false promise, the accused right from the
beginning would not have any intention to marry
the prosecutrix and would have cheated or
deceived the prosecutrix by giving a false promise
to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust,
18 Spl.C.757/2020whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot
deny a possibility that the accused might have
given a promise with all seriousness to marry her,
and subsequently might have encountered certain
circumstances unforeseen by him or the
circumstances beyond his control, which prevented
him to ful fill his promise. So, it would be a folly to
treat each breach of promise to marry as a false
promise and to prosecute a person for the offence
under Section 376. As stated earlier, each case
would depend upon its proved facts before the
court”.
16. Further relies on AIR 2020 SC 4535 in a case
of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand wherein
how the rape is to be proved and consent is to be
interpreted by Court has been relied by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, wherein para 18 & 19
discloses that the question of marriage between the
complainant and accused is only an after thought
there was no any such intention either expressed
by the accused to the complainant or not, the
benefit is to be given to the accused. Accordingly,
in case of complainant completely turned hostile to
the case of prosecution based on the citation even
by considering the documents placed on record, the
19 Spl.C.757/2020
answers given by victim goes against the case of
prosecution. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is
answered in the Negative.
17. POINT NOS.2 & 3: In the case on hand with
regard to false promise made by the accused and
accused by making the promise utilised, the victim
innocence and forced her to have sexual
intercourse and thereby deceived her. The
prosecution brings to the court notice the complaint
wherein in page-2 of complaint the accused was
having physical intimacy with the victim on several
dates. Accordingly, when the victim had asked for
marriage with the accused on 12.05.2020 accused
took her to his house is the evidence of the
complainant, the complainant has specifically
deposed she was in love with the accused, however
she does not provide any information with regard to
threat given by the accused nor she deposed about
she has been deceived by the accused when
promised to marry and later he turned down the
same. Even after treating this witness as hostile,
20 Spl.C.757/2020
nothing has been elicited. Moreover the
Investigating Officer who registered crime, the
Investigating Officer who took up investigation have
specifically deposed about part of the investigation
done. The complainant does not support drawing of
spot Mahazar in the spot Mahazar was conducted
on 12.07.2020 the next date of the incident being
reported before the Investigating Officer. The
learned counsel for the accused argues on which
date the accused refused the victim from marrying
is not specified, as such there is considerable delay
from the last date of alleged incident on 12.05.2020
the complaint has been made only on 11.07.2020.
Therefore the ingredients of alleged offence
punishable u/s.420 and 417 of IPC are not made out
seems reasonable. Under theese circumstances, on
the basis of the material on record, this court is of
the firm opinion that the ingredients of alleged
offence punishable u/s.420 and 417 of IPC are not
made out is my firm view. Accordingly, these two
Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the Negative.
21 Spl.C.757/2020
18. POINT NO.4: With regard to giving life threat
by the accused to the complainant, in the complaint
the complainant has specifically mentioned in page-
2 last para where she has been abused and by
taking her caste and gave life threat through
phone. Therefore as argued by the learned counsel
for the accused, it is not a public place where the
victim had been given life threat, victim is unable to
secure the call details with regard to the incident
happened on 12.05.2020. The learned SPP argues
in fact the whatsapp chat between the victim and
accused are being placed on record, those are
sufficient to prove the accused and victim were in
relationship and he had abused her and threatened
her. From page-72 to 76 whatsapp chat between
the victim and the accused are evident to prove the
marriage proposal being rejected.
19. On going through the material on record,
giving of lfe threat is not in any place as specified
by the complainant. Moreover the Investigating
Officer has conducted spot Mahazar. The hostility of
22 Spl.C.757/2020
the complainant with regard to giving life threat
cannot be considered and moreover as she has
specified she was in love with accused and the
ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.506 of
IPC cannot be considered based on the material on
record. The actual phone conversation is not
available even the CDR is not available, accordingly
this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.4 in
the Negative.
20. POINT NOS.5 & 6: The prosecution to prove
the ingredients of alleged offence punishable
u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 relies on the
complaint wherein complainant has specifically
mentioned in page-2 of her complaint, on
12.05.2020 the accused took the victim to his
sister’s house Ramya where there were accused,
sister and brother-in-law, all of them were
introduced by the accused as he is going to marry
her, later sister and brother-in-laws enquired the
victim to which caste she belongs, when the victim
informed about her caste all of them abused her as
23 Spl.C.757/2020
“ಭೋವಿಜಾತಿಯವಳು ನಮ್ಮ ಗೌಡರ ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಬರುತ್ತೀಯ ನಿನಗೆ
ನಾಚಿಕೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ವ ಮಾನ ಮಯಾರ್ದೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ವ ನಮ್ಮ ಗೌಡರ
ಹುಡುಗನೆ ಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತ ನಿನಗೆ ,ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ಹುಡುಗ ಮದುವೆ
ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆ ಹೊಲಸಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಊರಿನ ಜನ
ಆಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತಾರೆಂದು ಮದುವೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳ ಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ “.
Further the complainant has specified over phone
the victim has abused that she belongs to low
caste and over phone parents of the accused did
abused by mentioning her caste as low caste. In the
evidence of P.W.1 she has turned hostile and
deposed that she has not made any complaint as
per Ex.P.1. Further in her further statement on
12.7.2020 she has deposed similarly as of the
complaint and mentioned about the incident, the
abuse made by the sister and brother-in-law of the
accused and parents of accused as per sec.162 of
Cr.PC. Further in her 164 statement before
Magistrate dated:17.7.2020 she has reiterated the
same in page-2 she mentions that sister and
brother-in-law of the accused had abused and she
informed the same to the parents of the accused
24 Spl.C.757/2020
who also abused her over phone. There is
contradiction with regard to the statement given by
the complainant before the police and before the
jurisdictional Magistrate and also mentioned in the
complaint. IN the complaint it has been mentioned
that accused himself called his parents. The learned
counsel for the accused submits the accused had
no intention to deceive the victim and he actually
proposed to marry the victim but other than the
accused person the abuse is made by the family
members is the mention made in the complaint.
Therefore the ingredients of alleged offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
i.e. the abusive is made in public view or public
place is not forthcoming and moreover the
complainant has mentioned in her complaint and in
all the subsequent events as per Ex.P.3 and 164
statement Ex.P.4 that she has been to the house of
the sister of the accused namely Ramya. Therefore
it does not becomes either public place or public
view which can be considered as a abuse. The
25 Spl.C.757/2020
prayer of the learned counsel for the accused
seems reasonable. Accordingly, these two Point
Nos.5 and 6 in the Negative.
21. POINT NO.7: My Predecessor in Office has
framed charge u/s.3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
against the accused that accused had touched a
SC/ST person knowing that she belongs to SC/ST
and did had a sexual intercourse as such
committed offence punishable u/s.3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. In fact as per sec.3(1)(w)(ii)
of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 even if there is consent
with regard to any sexual act is committed against
the SC/ST person it attracts the offence. In the case
on hand, in the complaint, the 162 statement and
164 statement of the complainant and complaint
with regard to accused having sexual intercourse
with the victim. In the complaint, the complainant
has not specified that even though accused was
knowing as on July 2019 that victim belongs to
schedule caste only he had forced her to have
physical relationship. However she has specifically
26 Spl.C.757/2020
mentioned she was in love with the accused. In her
further statement dated:12.07.2020 she has
mentioned accused had promised her to marry, he
put her in fear and had sexual intercourse. After
that she though requested to marry several times
the accused mentioned that if she wants to marry
him she has to agree for sexual intercourse. At this
context they have visited Amester Inn Hotel on
05.07.2019, 01.10.2019, 03.01.2020 and the hotel
has been took took by the accused even in page-2
she has specified. In 164 statement before the
jurisdictional Magistrate mentioned in July 2019
when no one is there accused touched her, after
this when the victim mentioned this is not proper,
he threatened her that he will disclose this aspect
in the work place and also to everybody in the
family. Further he mentioned if she does not agree
for sexual intercourse he will disclose the same.
After having sex he mentioned he will marry her
and once again he exploited her on 05.07.2019,
01.10.2019 in Nayandalli, Amester Inn Hotel and
27 Spl.C.757/2020
even on 29.08.2019 in Nandi Hills. However as
brought to the notice of the court, the victim has
not specified that they had sexual intercourse on
20.08.2019 at Nandi Hills. But she has mentioned
accused had put her in fear and had sexual
intercourse. However in the case on hand, while
deposing before this court victim and specifically
deposed she was in love with the accused. The
learned counsel for the accused submits when she
was in love with the accused, the question of
accused without her consent he had sexual
intercourse does not comes in the picture.
Moreover the alleged incident are of the year 2019-
20 however complainant had made complaint only
on 11.07.2020. As per the whatsapp chat, as per
page-74 on 22.03.2019 the accused has mentioned
as ‘my wife’. The accused had actually avoided the
victim in marrying is not the case of complainant.
Even as per the statement made before the police.
The allegations are made against the family
members of the accused but actually refused to
28 Spl.C.757/2020
take her as the wife of the accused. Under such
circumstances the materials placed on record
definitely goes against the prosecution rather
prosecution is able to prove that the consent
obtained by the accused is a forced one or against
the principles enumerated u/s.3(1)(w) of SC/ST
(POA) Act 1989. Under such circumstances in the
absence of any material evidence to show that
accused was guilty of the alleged offence, then the
consideration of the registration of the FIR by
Investigating Officer who registered the crime
further the Investigating Officer who conducted the
spot Mahazar and the Investigating Officer who
recorded the statement of the victim u/s.162 of
Cr.P.C had no any sequence is my firm view.
Accordingly, in the absence of corroborative
material evidence to bring home the guilt of the
accused this court is satisfied to answer this Point
No.7 in the Negative.
22. POINT NO.8: To prove the ingredients of
alleged offence punishable u/s.3(2)(va) of SC/ST
29 Spl.C.757/2020
(POA) Act 1989, sec.376 of IPC is punishable with
imprisonment for more than 10 years. However the
charge framed u/s.3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
does not hold proper to the alleged offence.
Moreover the offence punishable u/s.376, 417, 420,
506 of IPC being not established, in the absence of
proof with regard to the alleged offence, this Point
No.8 is answered in the Negative.
23. POINT No.9 :- The accused does comply the
provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by providing
personal bond before this court, for his appearance
before the Hon’ble Appellate court. In view of my
foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby
acquitted for the offence punishable
under Section 376, 417, 420, 506 of
IPC and sec.3(1)(r),(s),(w) and 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
The accused is set at liberty.
30 Spl.C.757/2020
However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.,
shall be in force till appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcription thereof corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13 th day of January, 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Manasa.S.N.
P.W.2 Ambika
P.W.3 Sanjeev Nayak
P.W.4 U.D. Krishna Kumar
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1, P.W.3
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1,4
Ex.P.3 : Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.3(a)(b) Signature of P.W.1,2
31 Spl.C.757/2020
Ex.P. 4 Statement u/s.164 of Cr.PC
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.5 Photos
Ex.P.6 : Caste report of complainant
Ex.P.7 Caste report of accused
Ex.P.8 Medical report of accused
Ex.P.9 : Medical report of complainant
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.10 FIR
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.11 Reminder
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.12 Report
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.13 Photos
Ex.P.14 Pen drive
Ex.P.15 DCP order
Ex.P.16 Sketch
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.17 Letter
Ex.P 17(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.18 Hotel Endorsement
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.4.
32 Spl.C.757/2020
Ex.P19 Covering Letter
Ex.P19(a) Signature of P.W.4.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
: NIL
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
: NIL
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
: NIL
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bangalore.