Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Nanjappa on 8 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 8th Day of May 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 501/2014
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Rajgopal Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Nanjappa,
S/o. Late Nanjundappa, 53 years,
R/at. No.9, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main
Near Rajyoshtava Flag,
Annapoorneshwari Nagar,
Hegganahalli
Bengaluru.
ACCUSED No.2 Uchith Mahotho Splitted up
Sri.M.G.S..-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 23-12-2013
2 Date of report of occurrence 23-12-2013
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1 24-12-2013
Date of release of Accused No.1 09-01-2014
Period undergone in custody 15 days
by Accused No.1
4 Date of commencement of evidence 24-07-2017
2 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014
5 Date of closing of evidence 02-02-2018
6 Name of the complainant Divya Nrayanappa
7 Offences complained of Section 370, 374-
IPC, Sec.23, 26-J.J.
Act.
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 is
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector of Rajgopal Nagar Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C., Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
2. The charge sheet is filed by the police against accused No.1-Nanjappa and the accused No.2-Uchith Mahatho. The committal Court committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bengaluru. In turn the said case was made over to this Court. The accused No.1 and 2 appeared before this Court and were enlarged on bail. Since the accused No.2 was irregular in appearing before the Court, the learned predecessor in office splitted up the case against 3 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 accused No.2 on 13-02-2017 and continued case against accused No.1-Nanjappa only.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused No.1 is the owner of plastic pipe factory running in No.37/1, situated at 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, Annapoorneshwari Nagar, within the jurisdiction of Rajgopal Nagar Police Station and accused No.2 brought child labours from outside the State by way of human trafficking and joined them in the factory of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 knowing fully well they are minors, by influencing them of payment of money and out of their will, he extracted work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labours without providing proper food and shelter. On 23-12-2013 at about 06.00p.m., Divya Narayanappa received credible information from Cw.5-Suresh-News Reporter of Samaya News channel, went along with Cw.7 to Cw.13 and Panchas-Cw,2 and Cw.3 near factor and raided the said factory and rescued seven child labours, brought them to Balakara Bala Mandira and handed over them to the custody of Superintendent of Balakara 4 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 Bala Mandira and thereafter lodged complaint and on the basis of said complaint, the complainant/police registered the case in Crime No.629/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C., Section 3, 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition) Act and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
4. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C., Section 3, 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition) Act and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The committal Court passed an order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bengaluru, since the victims are minors and the said case is exclusively triable by the Child Court and in turn the said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
5. After receiving the record by this Court, the summons was issued to accused No.1 and 2. In pursuance of 5 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 the said summons, the accused No.1 a 2 appeared before the Court and they were enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the accused No.2 was irregular in appearing before the Court, as such the accused No.2 was splitted up on 13-02-2017 and proceeded against accused No.1 only. The learned advocate for accused No.1 submitted that there is no argument before framing charge and requested to frame charge. As such the learned predecessor in office framed charge under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, but discharged the offence under Section 3, 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The contents of charge read over and explained to accused No.1 in Kannada. The accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and submit crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.1 set down for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined 6 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.6, got marked as many as 18 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and closed its side evidence. At the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused No.1 marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the accused No.1, 6 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 he is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused No.1 denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. The accused No.1 complied the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. by executing personal bond and surety bond. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
7. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£ÀÀ, gÁdUÉÆÃ¥Á®£ÀUg À À ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ C£ÀߥÀÇuÉðñÀéj £ÀUg À À, 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï, 2£Éà ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ, £ÀA.37/1gÀ ¥Áè¹ÖPï ¥ÉÊ¥ï ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ ¸Àzj À ¥sÁåPÀÖjUÉ ¥ÀævÉåÃQvÀ 2£Éà DgÀÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ºÉÆgÀgÁdå¢AzÀ K¼ÀÄ d£À C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀg£ À ÀÄß UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV PÀgv É A À zÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ©nÖzÀÄ,Ý ¸Àzj À ¨Á®PÀgÀÄ C¥Áæ¥Àª Û A À iÀĸÀÌgÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¢zÀg Ý ÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, CªÀg£ À ÄÀ ß vÀ£Àß ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ £ÉëĹPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ EZÉáUÉ «gÀÄzÀª Þ ÁV CPÀæªÀĪÁV zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.370gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
2. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¼ Þ z À °À è ¥ÀævÉåÃQvÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ºÉÆgÀgÁdåzÀ PÀgv É A À ¢zÀÝ K¼ÀÄ d£À ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀg£ À ÀÄß UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV vÀ£Àß ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ°è zÀÄr¹ PÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀjAzÀ PÀ® É ¸ÀzÀ CªÀ¢üVAvÀ ºÉa£ Ñ À CªÀ¢üAiÀĪÀgU ÉÀ É CªÀgÀ EZÉáUÉ «gÀÄzÀª Ý ÁV MvÁÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀ PÁgÀt ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.374gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
3. 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¼ Ü z À °À è ¥ÀævÉåÃQvÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ºÉÆgÀ gÁdå¢AzÀ J¼ÀÄ d£À C¥Áæ¥Àª Û AÀ iÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀg£ À ÀÄß PÀgv É A À zÀÄ, CªÀjUÉ ºÀtzÀ C«ÄµÀ vÉÆÃj¹, CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀ£ s z À À °l è ÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «gÀÄzÀª Ý ÁV ºÀaÉ £Ñ À 7 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 ªÉÃ¼É zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸Àª® À vÀÄÛ ¤ÃqÀzÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÀ®A 23 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgAÉ iÉÄ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3:- As these points are inter-related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasons.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.1, the prosecution has examined in all 6 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.6, got marked 18 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. As per the prosecution case, Pw.2 is the complainant and Pw.1, Pw.3 to Pw.6 are the members of raiding team, police personnel and Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses 8 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused No.1.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.1 is the owner of plastic pipe factory running in No.37/1, situated at 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, Annapoorneshwari Nagar, within the jurisdiction of Rajgopal Nagar Police Station and accused No.2 brought child labours from outside the State by way of human trafficking and joined them in the factory of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 knowing fully well they are minors, by influencing them of payment of money and out of their will, he extracted work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labours without providing proper food and shelter and on 23-12-2013 at about 06.00p.m., the complainant along with her team raided the said spot and thereafter lodged complaint and thereby the accused No.1 committed offences punishable under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C., and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act. Hence this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the above said ingredients of the alleged offences against the 9 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C., and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
Section 370 of I.P.C defines that:
Trafficking of persons-[1] Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation,(a) recruits, (b)transports, (c) harbours,
(d)transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by-First
-using threats, or Secondly-using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly -by abduction, or Fourthly-by practicing fraud, or deception, or Fifthly -by abuse of power, or Sixthly -by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
Section 374 of I.P.C defines that:
Unlawful compulsory Labour-Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 23 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Punishment for cruelty to juvenile of child:-Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with 10 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.
Section 26 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Exploitation of Juvenile or child employee-whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years also be liable to fine. By going through the facts, circumstances and available materials both at oral and documentary, it is just and proper to consider whether the available material evidence attracts the very ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability against accused No.1.
13. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence produced by the prosecution, it is just and necessary to consider whether the prosecution establishes the accused No.1 was the owner of the plastic pipe factory or not.
14. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Divya Narayanappa-District Child Welfare Officer, in her chief examination she has identified the accused No.1, but no such evidence produced by the prosecution through her to accept the 11 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 accused No.1 was extracting said work from minor children. At the same time she has shown her ignorance about the identification of the accused No.1-Nanjappa. In the cross-
examination, the accused No.1 tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and she has also admitted that either at the place of factory or at house or at any other place, within the limits of alleged factory, she found name board which alleged to have shown the accused No.1 was the owner of the said factory. Further no such supporting documentary evidence placed to show the accused No.1 was the owner of the said alleged plastic pipe factory.She is unable to identify the accused No.1 before the Court was Nanjappa. Further she has admitted that in Ex.P1 she has mentioned Nanjappa, S/o.Nanjundappa, 53 years, Annapoorneshwari Nagar, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, and she has admitted that the address mentioned in Ex.P2 are different address. Even she has admitted the address mentioned in motor driving license also differs with that of the address mentioned in Ex.P1 and it is mentioned as Nanjappa, S/o. Nanjundappa, I.B. Nagar, 2nd Main Road, Near Nanjundeshwara Temple, House No.36. She has also admitted the house in 12 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 question was mortgaged to one Devendra Singh as per the documents shown by the accused No.1, wherein the address was mentioned as Nanjappa, S/o. Nanjundappa, Vishwanidam Post, Hegganahalli, Annapoorneshwari Ngar, 2nd Main Road, 2nd Cross, House No.9. Further the raiding place situated at 2nd Cross, 2nd Main road, but this witness deposed it is Chowdeshwari Nagar and in Ex.P1 it is mentioned as Annapoorneshwari Nagar, but she doesn't know the difference between Annapoorneshwari Nagar and Chowdeshwari nagar. The above said evidence of Pw.2 clearly clinches the issue unequivocally points out that the prosecution fails to establish the accused No.1 was the owner of alleged plastic pipe factory beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Arogyamma, in her chief examination, she has deposed that at the time of alleged raid, she has not observed the name of the factory in whose name the said factory was running, but she came to know that the accused No.1 is the owner of said factory. Further in her chief examination, she has deposed that she has not seen any documents at the spot to believe the accused No.1 13 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 was the owner of the said factory and also she has not examined the accused No.1 to that effect. In the cross- examination the accused No.1 also tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and also she has shown her ignorance about the residential address of the accused No.1 and she doesn't know in which name and style the said factory was running and also she doesn't know the license number of said factory. Further she has admitted that the display of Autorickshaw license discloses that the accused No.1 was the owner of said Autorickshaw and he is Autorickshaw driver. Further the rental agreement also discloses that he was the owner of said building and not the owner of the alleged factory. She has shown her ignorance the accused No.1 was not the owner of said factory and one Lokesh was the owner of said factory. She doesn't know the name of another person who accompanied with the accused No.1 at that time. She doesn't know the said person also residing in a rented house in the said area. The above said evidence of Pw.1 also crystallizes that no such supporting evidence both at oral and documentary placed by the prosecution to believe the accused No.1 was the owner of 14 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 the alleged plastic pipe factory.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-N.P.Rajendra Prasad-C.D.P.O., he was also accompanied with the raiding party and the raid was taken place on the small house, where the plastic pipes were melted in the factory situated near temple of Chowdeshwari Nagar. On enquiry with the local people he came to know the accused No.1 was the owner of said house. Here it is relevant to note that he has not deposed anything about the owner of the alleged factory running plastic pipe melting factory. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, but no such evidence produced to believe the accused No.1 was the owner of the alleged plastic pipe factory.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Prakash- Retired Head Constable, he has also deposed that on 24-12- 2103 as per the instructions of P.S.I., he went to search the accused No.1 along with Hoysala driver-Rajesh. At about 06.00 p.m., the P.S.I. called him to come near Laggere, 15 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 Rajeshwari Nagar, Near Nanjundeshwara Temple, when he reached the said place the raid was taken place and the accused No.1 was the owner of the said factory. Except that he has not deposed anything about he is the owner of the said factory. The accused No.1 cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission. He has shown his ignorance that he doesn't know who is the owner of the factory, but through the accused No.1 only he came to know that he is the owner of the building of said factory. Except that no supporting corroborative documentary evidence placed by the prosecution to believe the accused was the owner of the plastic pipe factory. He has also deposed that the address mentioned in Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 differs with that of address of alleged plastic pipe factory, for that both the addresses are in the same area, but little bit distance between the said places. Further he has admitted that as per the rental agreement the accused No.1 is the owner of the said building and one Devendrra Singh was the mortgagor of the said factory. Through this witness also no such corroborative and cogent oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution to believe that the accused NO.1 is the owner of the 16 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 factory in question.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-A.Ramesh- Head Constable, he has deposed that on 24-12-2013 along with Cw.15 he has traced the accused No.1-at Annapoorneshwari Nagar Main road and taken him to their custody at about 12.00 hours in the noon and produced before the SHO at about 12.55 p.m., and also given report as per Ex.P18. The accused No.1 cross-examined this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to his defense. Here, as per the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4, the accused No.1 was very much available at the time of alleged raid. If really the accused No.1 was very much available at the time of alleged raid, question of searching him by this witness and producing him before the SHO doesn't arises. At this stage there is a doubt of taking custody of accused No.1 by this witness and Ex.P18 is falsify one.
19. Viewing from the available material on record through Pw.1 to Pw.6, this Court has no impediment in arriving into conclusion that the prosecution fails to produce 17 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 corroborative, cogent oral and documentary evidence to prove that the accused No.1 was the owner of the plastic pipe factory as per the address mentioned by the prosecution.
20. Now left with the available material evidence to know whether the prosecution proved engaging of child labours by the accused No.1 for melting of heated pipes in the said factory. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Divya Narayanappa-District Child Welfare Officer, she has deposed that on 23-12-2013 as per the phone call of reporter of Samaya News Channel, she went along with Superintendent of Balakara Bala Mandira- Rajendra Prasad, S.J.P.U-social worker-Aroygya Mari, I.C.P.S. Project Manager-Veeranna Shalavadi, Legal-cum-Probationary Officer-Babu Reddy to Laggere, Chowdeshwari Nagar, and visited a old small house where seven children were working by burning plastic pipes with the help of stove and she saw there the situation was worst in condition, some of the children received injuries and no such basic necessities provided to them. On enquiry with the children they told that the owner extracted work from them from 06.00 a.m., to 07.00 p.m., by providing food, breakfast in the same house itself and also 18 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 accommodated them to sleep in the said house. They have also told that they were given Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and they were brought from Bihar and they were talking in Hindi. Therefore she has informed the same to police over phone, the police came and arrested the accused No.1, brought him to the police station along with the children and she has lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and her signature is Ex.P1(a). The police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and her signature is Ex.P2(a). She has also identified the accused No.1.
21. Here it is relevant to note that in order to prove the facts and circumstances of engaging of seven children to work in that factory, the Investigation Officer has not made them as charge sheet witness, nor the prosecution filed application to list them as additional witnesses and produced before the Court to give their evidence. Non-production of seven children, coupled with their oral testimony, it is absolutely fatal to the case of the prosecution herein.
22. The accused No.1 tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that she wrote 19 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 in a chit about the facts of the case and by seeing the same chit she has deposed before the Court. Further she was also tested in respect of accompanying of Arogya Mari, whether since from the beginning or she came afterwards. He has also denied the alleged raid by denial suggestion, for that she has denied the same. She has also admitted that she has not seen any registers for appointing of said children as workers and payment of wages to them. She has shown her ignorance about the identification of accused No.1 who appeared before the Court, but her answer is one Nanjappa was brought to Police station. At this stage, this Court opines unless and until produces any other corroborative, cogent, oral and documentary evidence either through independent witnesses or the local persons or through the seven children, it is not safe to accept the alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Arogyamma, she has deposed by corroborating her statement given before the police in respect alleged raid. According to her evidence the seven children are aged about 13 to 17 years. She has deposed 20 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 that out of seven children, one boy by name Udaya and another's name is Lalu. Here, as per Ex.P11-Lalan Kumar is 19 years old and he is not a child labour. The accused tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission. There is discrepancy in giving evidence both at Pw.1 and Pw.2. Further she has shown ignorance about maintaining of register alleged to have been maintained in the factory in respect of attendance of the workers and wages given to them. She has also shown her ignorance about other four major labours name and address and she has also deposed that she doesn't know what the work was done by elder workers. Here, there is a doubt of accompanying of this witness in the alleged raid, since in her cross-examination she has shown her ignorance about the situation alleged to available at the time of raid. Further she has admitted that as per the J.J. Act above 18 years old person can work in a factory and as per the Labour Act below 14 years children cannot work in a factory . Further she has also shown her ignorance that if a person aged about 14 years is healthy physically he can do a work in a factory. Here also, this court feels to observe that unless and until produces the other 21 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 independent witness evidences, coupled with evidence of child labours, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness.
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-N.P.Rajendra Prasad-C.D.P.O., he is also an official witness, deposed by corroborating the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 in respect of alleged raid. According to him Ashok, Udaya Kumar, Mukesh, Lalith, Lalan Kumar, Santhosh are the children who were rescued. In the cross-examination, the accused No.1 tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. At the same time he was elicited that the parents of seven children came to said Balakara Bala Mandira, produced Aadhar Card, Ration Card and application before CWC, but he is not the member of CWC and he doesn't know what had happened. Further he has admitted that the children who had given statement before him, they have not stated about any injuries received by them. At this stage this Court opines the prosecution except producing official witness evidence, no such any other independent corroborative cogent evidence 22 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 produced to believe the evidence of this witness beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Prakash- retired Head Constable, he has also deposed by corroborating the evidence of prosecution with regard to alleged raid. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 denied the same by denial suggestion and nothing has been elicited favaourable to the defense taken by him. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-B.P.Girish- Police Inspector, he has deposed that on 23-12-2013 at about 07.00 p.m., the complainant-along with seven children came and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and on the basis of said complaint, he has registered the case in Crime No.621/2013 under Section 23,26 of J.J. Act, Section 3, and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and made shara on the complaint and his signature is Ex.P1(b). On the basis of said complaint he prepared F.I.R. as per Ex.P3 and his signature is Ex.P3(a). He has sent seven children to CWC for their custody. 23 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 He has given requisition as per Ex.P4 on 24-12-2013 for insertion of section 370 and 374 of IPC. On the same day he went to spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(b). But the Panch witnesses not stepped into witness box to give their evidence about genuinty of process of conducting of mahazar as per Ex.P2 by this witness. He has also taken custody of accused No.1 on the very same day, arrested him, recorded his voluntary statement and produced before Court along with remand application. He has also recorded the statement of charge sheet witnesses who are- Suresh, Veeranna, Rajendra Prasad, Babu Reddy, Argogyamma, Prakash-H.C.-1617, Rajesh-P.C.-8723, Holeyappa Mati-P.C.- 11871, Rajesh-P.C.8167.
27. He has further deposed that he recorded statement of rescued children before the Superintendent of Balakara Bala Mandira as per Ex.P5 to Ex.P10. On perusal of said statements, it is in Kannada language, but there is no Shara about who had written the said statement and translated the same from Kannada to Hindi and Hindi to Kannada and the signature of translator is not found. Here it is relevant to note unless and 24 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 until produces the evidence of said children, it is not safe to accept the alleged statement as per Ex.P5 to Ex.P10. Further he has deposed that he has received medical report of children as per Ex.P11 to Ex.P17. On perusal of Ex.P11 to Ex.P17, no such details mentioned about what procedure followed by the doctor to fix the age of said children, except mentioning about general examination and mentioning their age, no such reports mentioned in the said document. Even the doctor also not stepped into the witness box to give corroborative, cogent evidence of Ex.P11 to Ex.P17, which is absolutely fatal to the case of the prosecution. He has also arrested the accused No.2 and released him on bail and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.1 herein. At this stage this Court opines the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
28. Here the prosecution fails to establish the accused No.1 is the owner of the alleged plastic pipe factory and also 25 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 failed to establish that seven children were working in the said factory by producing their evidence before the Court. Even the Investigation Officer has not listed them as charge sheet witnesses. During the course of trial also the prosecution not filed any application for production of their evidence. When such being the case, it is not safe to accept the alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
29. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.1 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablizes the defense of the accused No.1 rather than the case of the prosecution.
30. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.6, got marked 18 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that the accused No.1 is the owner of plastic pipe factory running in No.37/1, situated at 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, 26 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 Annapoorneshwari Nagar, within the jurisdiction of Rajgopal Nagar Police Station and accused No.2 brought child labours from outside the State by way of human trafficking and joined them in the factory of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 knowing fully well they are minors, by influencing them of payment of money and out of their will, he extracted work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labours without providing proper food and shelte and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 3 in the "Negative".
31. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused No.1 is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 370, 374 of IPC and Section 23 and 27 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 26 of J.J. Act. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th Day of May 2018.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 Arogyamma Cw.10 24-07-2017
Pw.2 Divya Narayanappa Cw.1 07-08-2017
Pw.3 N.P.Rajendra Prasad Cw.8 09-08-2017
Pw.4 Prakash Cs.11 16-11-2017
Pw.5 B.P.Girish Cw.15 28-11-2017
Pw.6 A.Ramesh Cw.14 02-02-2018
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.2 07-08-2017
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 07-08-2017
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 28-11-2017
Ex.P 2 Mahazar Pw.2 07-08-2017
28 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 07-08-2017
Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 28-11-2017
Ex.P 3 FIR Pw.5 28-11-2017
Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 28-11-2017
Ex.P 4 Requisition to Court Pw.5 28-11-2017
Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 28-11-2017
Ex.P 5 to 10 Statements of victim Pw.5 28-11-2017
boys
Ex.P 5a to Signatures of Pw.5 Pw.5 28-11-2017
10a
Ex.P 5b to Signatures of victims Pw.5 28-11-2017
10b
Ex.P 11 to Medical examination Pw.5 02-04-2018
17 certificates of victims
Ex.P 11a to Signatures of Pw.5 Pw.5 02-04-2018
17a
Ex.P 18 Report Pw.6 02-02-2018
Ex.P 18a Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 02-02-2018
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON
BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Ex.D1 Driving License Pw.2 07-08-2017 details Ex.D2 Driving License copy Pw.2 07-08-2017 29 Spl.C.C.No.501/2014 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
***