LAWS(KAR)-2016-4-99

STATE Vs. BABU

Decided On April 27, 2016
STATE Appellant
V/S
BABU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.4.2012 passed by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in S.C. No. 1027/2009 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that, the family of the respondent/accused and the family of the prosecutrix (Kumari. Shwetha - P.W. 5) were residing in two different tenements owned by the same person; they were knowing each other; however, the accused and the prosecutrix did not have friendship; at about 7.30 p.m. on 21.3.2009, the accused kidnapped P.W. 5 in a Qualis vehicle bearing registration No. KA -05/AA -1744 from 15th Main Road, BSK I Stage, Bengaluru and took her to the house of P.W. 8 - Muniraju situated at Podu village, Anekal Taluk; the accused as well as the prosecutrix lived in the very house for about two months; the accused was telling the family members of P.W. 8 and other neighbouring persons that he married the victim/prosecutrix; during the said period, he committed forcible sexual assault on P.W. 5 about 10 -15 times; accused used to threaten P.W. 5 with a dire consequence, if she discloses the said incident with anybody; accused even threatened P.W. 5 to kill her brother namely, Ranganath -PW.2.

(3.) Though the incident of kidnapping had taken place on 21.3.2009, the missing complaint came to be lodged by the father of the prosecutrix namely, C.T. Satyanarayanaswamy (PW.4) on 2.5.2009, which came to be registered in Crime No. 178/2009 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Bengaluru. There is no material on record to show as to what steps the Police had taken to find out the missing girl as well as the suspected accused/respondent herein. Ultimately, on 21.5.2009, the prosecutrix allegedly was brought out of the clutches of accused and sent back to her parents' house; she gave the statement before the Police on 21.5.2009 as per Ex. P3, based on which, the offences under Ss. 365, 376, 420, 506 read with Sec. 216 of IPC were alleged against the accused/respondent herein.