AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Waingankar, J.—By judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 in S.C. No. 699/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Bengaluru City, accused No. 1 has been tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 366-A r/w Section 34 of IPC. Challenging the order of acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
The facts in brief which gave rise to this appeal are as under:
"Complainant-P.W. 2-Meer Mohammed Ali came down to Mysore, his native place from Sharja, where he is working along with his daughter-Kum. Sayeeda Shahira Banu. From Mysore both of them came to Bengaluru on 03.04.2010 as the daughter of the complainant was to appear for All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test in a college at Bengaluru. Accused No. 1 met P.W. 2 in the college premises and introduced himself as the relative of the people known to P.W. 2 at Sharja. That is how accused No. 1 got acquainted with P.W. 2 and his daughter-Sayeeda Shahira Banu in the college premises. After writing examination, P.W. 2 and his daughter came to the house of P.W. 3-Aga Sulthan, relative of P.W. 2 at Indiranagar, Bengaluru. Sayeeda Shahira Banu was playing along with other children of the locality adjacent to the house of P.W. 3 at Indiranagar. At that time, accused No. 1 came there on a motorcycle. By seeing accused No. 1, Sayeeda Shahira Banu went away along with accused No. 1 on his motorcycle without informing anyone else. She could not be traced by her father and her relatives in the vicinity. A missing report was lodged before the Indiranagar Police by P.W. 2 father of Sayeeda Shahira Banu. It appears that Habeas Corpus petition was also filed before the High Court in pursuance of which Sayeeda Shahira Banu was produced before the High Court. Before the High Court, she expressed her inclination to go along with her parents. A complaint came to be lodged by father of Sayeeda Shahira Banu as per Ex. P2 stating that at the instigation of other accused Nos. 2 to 5, accused No. 1 induced Sayeeda Shahira Banu/daughter of the complainant, aged about 17 years with an intent to force her to illicit intercourse with accused No. 1 and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 366-A r/w Section 34 of IPC. On the strength of the complaint, crime came to be registered and upon investigation charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. During the course of the trial before the Court below, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were discharged. Accused No. 5, since absconding, case against him was split up. Thus, the trial proceeded only against accused No. 1." In order to establish the charges levelled against accused No. 1, the prosecution in all examined 6 witnesses as P.W. 1 to P.W. 6, marked Exs. P1 to P6 apart from M.O. 1 and M.O. 2. On behalf of accused, no evidence was led either oral or documentary. The Court below upon appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt, which resulted in acquittal of the accused. Therefore, this appeal is preferred by the complainant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned Government Pleader for the State. Perused the records and the judgment and order passed by the Court below.
Out of six witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 2-Meer Mohammed Ali is the father of the victim girl who lodged the complaint as per Ex. P2. P.W. 3-Aga Sulthan is the relative of P.W. 2 who is residing at Indiranagar, where P.W. 2 and his daughter had been for dinner. P.W. 1-Aga Salman, P.W. 4-Mohamed Abbas and P.W. 5-Jamsheed Hyder are the panchas to the spot panchanama. P.W. 6 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the accused persons.
If we peruse the evidence, it is evident that at about 4.30 p.m. on 03.04.2010, accused No. 1 came on a motorcycle near the house of P.W. 3-Aga Sulthan, relative of P.W. 2 and by seeing him the victim girl-Sayeeda Shahira Banu went along with him in his motorcycle without informing either her father or any of her relatives. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused No. 1 forcibly took her on his motorcycle or for that matter accused No. 1 induced her at the instigation of other accused who are none other than the parents of accused No. 1. It is also seen from the judgment of the Court below that when the girl was missing, her father-P.W. 2 lodged missing complaint as per Ex. P1 before the police and he also filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court, in pursuance of which the girl was produced by the police before the High Court. On enquiry, the girl made a statement that she went in the company of the accused No. 1 on her own and that she realized her mistake. She also made a statement that she wants to join her parents and accordingly she was given to the custody of her father. In view of the statement made by the victim girl before the High Court, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the girl was not forcibly taken by accused No. 1 or for that matter she was not induced by accused No. 1 with an intention to have illicit intercourse with her.
Another ground which made the Court below to acquit accused No. 1 is that victim girl-Sayeeda Shahira Banu who was cited as charge-sheet witness No. 14 was not at all examined before the Court below. The victim girl has not given her evidence before the Court below. Under such circumstances, the Court below was left with no other alternative than to acquit accused No. 1 of all the charges levelled against him. Thus, on my re-appreciation of evidence, I am in agreement with the judgment and order passed by the Court below. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, I pass the following
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.