Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Mohammad Yousuf @ Sheikh Yousuf on 7 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th Day of June 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 366/2015
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Mohammad Yousuf @ Sheikh Yousuf,
S/o. Jamaluddin, 38 years,
R/at. No.1, New Market Road,
Nala Road, Shivaji Nagar,
Bengaluru-51.
Permanent resident of:
No.1775, Mohammad Pur,
Banjeria Thana, Bihar State.
ACCUSED No.2 Sharief Alam,
S/o. Jamaluddin, 28 years,
R/at. Mohammad Pur,
Sisonia Post, Motihar District,
Bihar State.
ACCUSED No.3 Mohammad Ansar Sheik ,
S/o. Sheik Yakoob, 50 years,
2 Spl.C.C.366/2015
R/at. Madhava Pur, Mahavava,
Khuraiyya Post, Motihar District,
Bihar State.
Sri.R.V.P-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 16-10-2014
2 Date of report of occurrence 16-10-2014
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1
Date of release of Accused No.2 Anticipatory Bail
Period undergone in custody
by Accused No.1
Date of arrest of Accused No.2 & 3 17-10-2014
Date of release of Accused No.2 & 3 11-11-2014
Period undergone in custody 24 days
by Accused No.2 & 3
4 Date of commencement of evidence 05-04-2017
5 Date of closing of evidence 27-03-2018
6 Name of the complainant Srinivas.B.N.
7 Offences complained of Section 370, 374
r/w. 34 IPC &
Sec.23, 26-J.J. Act,
16, 17-Bonded
Labour Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 to 3
are acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector, Shivaji Nagar Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 read with 3 Spl.C.C.366/2015 Section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused No.1 is the owner of a bag manufacturing unit situated in 1st and 2nd floor of building No.1/2, New Market Road, opposite to Old Evening Bazaar, Nala Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru and the accused No.2 and 3 are the Managers of said bag manufacturing units. The accused No.1 to 3 engaged Cw.2 to Cw.4 who are aged about 10 to 15 years and Cw.5 to Cw.13-the adult workers in said bag manufacturing unit as workers, who were brought from Bihar and Nepal by way of human trafficking and by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- to the parents of above said children. The accused persons used to extract work from 09.00 a.m., to 12.00 p.m., in a day from them and detained them in a room without providing proper payment, food, clothing and shelter. On 16-10-2014 at about 12.00 noon, Cw.1-Police Inspector along with Cw.16 to 4 Spl.C.C.366/2015 Cw.25 in the presence of Cw.14 and Cw.15 raided the said bag manufacturing unit and rescued Cw.2 to Cw.13 who were working as child labours and bonded labours by violating labour laws prevailing in the society. On the basis of said raid-
Cw.1-the complainant lodged complaint before Shivaji Nagar police, the police registered the case against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 read with section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 read with section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet, as usual the accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the Committal Court, the Committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to accused No.1 to 3 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Committal Court passed an order for committing the case to the 5 Spl.C.C.366/2015 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.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, the summons was issued to accused No.1 to 3. In pursuance of the said summons, the accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the Court and they were enlarged on bail. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused No.1 to 3 submitted that there is no argument before framing charge and requested to frame charge. As a result the charge was framed against accused No.1 to 3 in respect of offences punishable under section 370, 374 read with section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the contents of charge read over and explained in Hindi by translating Kannada version to the accused No.1 to 3. The accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and submit crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.1 to 3 set down for prosecution evidence.
6 Spl.C.C.366/2015
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 has examined 10 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.10, got marked as many as 22 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22, two material objects as MO1 and MO2 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the accused No. 1 to 3, they were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording their statement. The accused No.1 to 3 denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against them as false. The accused No.1 to 3 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.
6. 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 ²ªÁf£ÀUg À À ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À ¢ À £ Ý À £Á¯Á gÀ¸,ÉÛ N¯ïØ FªÀ¤AUï §eÁgï JzÀÄgÀÄ, £ÀÆå ªÀiÁPÉðmï gÀ¸,ÉÛ £ÀA.1/2 gÀ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄ,Ý 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸Àzj À ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÉÃdgïUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄ,Ý CgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀB16.10.2014QÌAvÀÀ, MAzÀÄ MAzÀƪÀgÉ ªÀµð À PÀÆÌ »A¢¤AzÀ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-2 jAzÀ 4 gÀªg À £À ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-5 jAzÀ 13 gÀªg À ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ gÁdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À zÉñÀ¢AzÀ gÀÆ. 5,000/- jAzÀ 6,000/-UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ ¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁr PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
7 Spl.C.C.366/2015 §AzÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A. 370 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ 34gÀrAiÀÄ°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?
2. 1 jAzÀ 3£Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às zÀ°è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À 3 ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÁzÀ 9 ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À zÉñÀ¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ «¢ü«gÀÄzÀÝ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ zÀÄrªÉÄ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.374 ¸ÀºªÀ ÁZÀPÀ 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgAÉ iÉÄ?
3. 1 jAzÀ 3£Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às zÀ°è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À 3 ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÁzÀ 9 ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À zÉñÀ¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «gÀÄzÀª Ý ÁV ºÉa£Ñ À ªÉÃ¼É zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸Àª® À vÀÄÛ ¤ÃqÀzÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr 23 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgAÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgAÉ iÉÄ?
4. 1 jAzÀ 3£Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às zÀ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ 4 d£À C¥Áà¥ÀÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÁzÀ 9 d£Àg£ À ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ gÁdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À zÉñÀ¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ PÀgz É P À ÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «gÀÄzÀª Ý ÁV ºÉa£ Ñ À CªÀ¢A ü iÀÄ°è zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀ, ªÀÄÆ® ¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÃÉ , ªÁ¸ÀPÉÌ AiÉÆÃUÀåªÀ®z è À ¸À¼Ý zÀ°è PÀÆr ºÁQ, ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀA§¼À ¤ÃqÀzÃÉ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÁ ©qÀzÉ fÃvÀzÁ¼ÀÄUÀ¼A À vÉ zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀ®A.16 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 17gÀ ¨ÁAqÉqï ¯Éçgï ¹¸ÀÖªÀiï C¨Á°±À£ï PÁ¬ÄzÉ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgAÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
5. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
8 Spl.C.C.366/2015 Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: In the Negative.
Point No.5: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4:- As these points are inter-related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasons.
9. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.10, got marked 22 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and MO1 and MO2. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.2 to Pw.4 are the Labour department officials, Pw.5 is the social worker, Pw.6 is the Panch witness, Pw.8 is the doctor, Pw.7, Pw.9 and Pw.10 are the police officials and Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused No.1 to 3.
9 Spl.C.C.366/2015
10. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 to 3, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.1 is the owner of a bag manufacturing unit situated in 1st and 2nd floor of building No.1/2, New Market Road, opposite to Old Evening Bazaar, Nala Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru and the accused No.2 and 3 are the Managers of said bag manufacturing units. The accused No.1 to 3 engaged Cw.2 to Cw.4 who are aged about 10 to 15 years and Cw.5 to Cw.13- the adult workers in said bag manufacturing unit as workers, who were brought from Bihar and Nepal by way of human trafficking and by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- to the parents of above said children. The accused persons used to extract work from 09.00 a.m., to 12.00 p.m., in a day from them and detained them in a room without providing proper payment, food, clothing and shelter and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370, 374 read with section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Hence this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in 10 Spl.C.C.366/2015 establishing all the above said ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 370, 374 read with section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
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.
11 Spl.C.C.366/2015 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 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.
Section 16 of Bonded Labour System Act Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour- whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
Section 17 of Bonded Labour System Act Punishment for advancement of bonded debt.- whoever, advances, after the commencement of this Act, any bonded debt shall be punishable with imprisonment
12 Spl.C.C.366/2015 for a term which may extend to three years also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
By going through the facts, circumstances and available materials both at oral and documentary, it is just and proper to consider the available material evidence attracts the very ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability against accused No.1 to 3.
12. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-the complainant and also the Police Inspector, he has corroborated his evidence in his chief examination as per the contents of complaint and also as per the spot Panchanama. Further he has deposed that he was accompanied with the labourers and accused persons to Shivaji Nagar Police Station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 by handing over Ex.P1-spot Panchanama and also seized articles. In the cross-examination the accused persons tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused herein. At the same time Pw.1 deposed that out of 12 children only two children are below the age of 14 years and also 13 Spl.C.C.366/2015 admitted as per Child Labour Act, 14 years child also entitled to do work in non-hazardous factory. Further he has admitted that he has not seen any name board of the factory in the factory premises. The children were talking only Hindi and they were brought from Nepal and Bihar. He has shown his ignorance about examination by the doctor with reference to the age of the children. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that when the accused persons have taken drastic stand against the offences alleged against them, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to produce material witnesses, but the child labours failed to appear before the Court to give their evidence stating that they were working in the said factory, wherein the accused No.1 is the owner, the accused No.2 and 3 are the Managers. Non-production of the same, it is absolutely fatal to the case of the prosecution.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Fameeda Khanm-Senior Labour Inspector, she has also deposed in her chief examination by supporting the case of the prosecution. But in her cross-examination the accused persons tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also 14 Spl.C.C.366/2015 denied the alleged process of conducting mahazar and she was one of the member of the riding team, for that she has denied the same. She has also deposed that she cannot remember the names of all the rescued 12 children, but they were talking in Hindi language and she knew Hindi language. She admitted that Bhojpuri is the language of Bihar and it is different from Hindi language. She has also admitted that the rescued children doesn't know Kannada to read and write and she has not seen any injuries on their body at the time of inquiry. But on perusal of statement of victim children, they are all in Kannada language, as such there is doubt that the said children by knowing the contentions of their statements and signed the same. She has also admitted that at the time of alleged raid, the local people gathered, but while conducting mahazar, no such independent person signature obtained. Even Pw.1 not stated anything about the same. Further it is her evidence that said building belongs to one Chand. She is also one of the interested official witnesses and it is quite natural to depose favourable to the prosecution. Unless and until independent and material child witness evidence 15 Spl.C.C.366/2015 produced, it is not safe believe the evidence of this witness also.
14. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Bharathi- Senior Labour Inspector, she has deposed in her chief examination by supporting the case of the prosecution. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also denied the alleged process of conducting mahazar and she was one of the members of the riding team, for that she has denied the same. She has also deposed that she cannot remember the names of all the rescued 12 children, but they were talking in Hindi language and she knew Hindi language. She admitted that Bhojpuri is the language of Bihar and it is different from Hindi language. She has also admitted that the rescued children don't know Kannada to read and write and she has not seen any injuries on their body at the time of inquiry. But on perusal of statement of victim children, they are all in Kannada language, as such there is doubt that the said children by knowing the contents of their statements and signed the same. She has also admitted that at the time of alleged raid, the local people gathered, but while conducting mahazar, no such 16 Spl.C.C.366/2015 independent person obtained. Even Pw.1 not stated anything about the same. Further it is her evidence that said building belongs to one Chand. She is also one of the interested official witnesses and it is quite natural to depose favourable to the prosecution. Unless and until independent and material child witness evidence produced, it is not safe to believe the evidence of this witness also.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Srikanth. B.Patil, another Labour Officer, he has also supported the case of the prosecution in his chief examination. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting that earlier to the alleged incident, no such case filed against accused persons with regard to engaging child labours. He has also deposed that out of 12 labourers, two are child labours and others are adult labours. He has also admitted that at the time of alleged raid, no such documents seized in respect of age of children. He has also admitted that the said children doesn't know the read and write Kannada, they were talking in Hindi, he doesn't know the language of Bihar, he doesn't know the difference of Hindi and Bhojpuri language, he doesn't know the names of 12 children.
17 Spl.C.C.366/2015 Here this witness is also one of the official interested witnesses and it is quite natural to support the case of the prosecution and he has deposed favouring to the prosecution. But no such independent witnesses evidence placed by the prosecution to believe the evidence of these official witness. Unless and until the prosecution produces evidence of other local independent witnesses, with regard to the raid conducted by the complainant as per Ex.P4, it is not safe to believe the evidence of this witness to believe the alleged offences against accused No1 to 3.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Madan Kumar-a social worker and NGO, he has deposed that he was one of the members of the raiding team. The CCB police taken him to Shivaji Nagar, New Market Road, where the bag manufacturing unit was running in one of the building, where 12 to 14 children were working, their age was 12 to 14 years, and they came from Bihar. The Police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1 and his signature is Ex.P1(c). The accused persons cross-examined this witness and tested is elicitation, but he has shown his ignorance how many NGOs accompanied to the raid, he doesn't. He has not enquired with the children at the time of 18 Spl.C.C.366/2015 raid and he has signed Ex.P1 outside the building and he doesn't know what was written in Ex.P1. He has not accompanied with the raiding team to raid. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, there is a doubt whether he was accompanied raiding team or not. Unless and until produces other corroborative, cogent, oral evidence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness to believe the alleged offences against accused persons.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Haneef-Ur- Rehman @ Chand, he has turned hostile to the case of prosecution and deposed that the building in question belongs to his mother and she rented out the same, but he doesn't know whether the said building was rented out to accused persons or not. At the same time he has admitted his signature on Ex.P3- rental agreement. He doesn't know to read and write Kannada, as such he doesn't know the contents of Ex.P3. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to prosecution case and suggested the contents of Ex.P3, for that he has denied the same. Through this witness the prosecution fails to establish the bag manufacturing unit in question was rented out to 19 Spl.C.C.366/2015 accused No.1 and he was running the sad unit in the building. Moreover, the Investigation Officer has not collected any valid documentary evidence to prove the accused No.1 was the owner of the bag manufacturing unit and the accused No.2 and 3 are the Managers of said unit as maintained in Labour Department and Commercial Tax Departments and license obtained from B.B.M.P. and non-production of said documents, it is absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.8- Dr.Jayanthi.K.R., she has deposed that she has examined 10 children on 16-10-2014 and issued Ex.P11 to Ex.P20 and Ex.P22 certifying their age. In the cross-examination the accused persons tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also she has shown her ignorance as to how many children were brought on that day and how many persons accompanied for raid. She has admitted that no such name board affixed to the bag manufacturing unit. She has admitted that in order to fix the age of a person, ossification test and radiological test are necessary, but she has not conducted any ossification test and radiological test on the 20 Spl.C.C.366/2015 children, only on seeing the physique of children and on dental examination, she has given the certificates assessing their age as per Ex.P11 to Ex.P20 and Ex.P22. Further she has admitted that no such examination details find place in the said documents. She has also admitted that at the time of said examination, the parents of the children were not present. Here it is relevant to note that the evidenced of this witness is a formal one to prove the age of the children. But the children not stepped into the witness box and accepted the evidence of this witness and issuance of age certificates found correct. Non-examination of said children, it is absolutely fatal to the case of the prosecution.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-C. Hanumanthaiah-retired A.S.I., he is also one of the raiding team member, in his chief examination he has deposed by supporting the case of prosecution and admitted Ex.P1(d) as his signature. In the cross-examination the accused persons tested his veracity and also elicited that he has not enquired with the neighbours at the spot. He cannot say who are the children doing stitching on machine and who are the children doing 21 Spl.C.C.366/2015 stitching by hand. He has admitted that the children doesn't know to read and write Kannada. Though he was present at the time of recoding of the statement of the children, but he didn't understand what they told, since he didn't knew the language of the children. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that though he is one of the members of the alleged raid, but he is an interested official witness and at the same time the prosecution has not produced any corroborative, cogent, independent witnesses evidence to believe the evidence of this witness beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-Byresh- H.C.7345, he has deposed that he was also one of the members of the raiding team. He has deposed favouring the prosecution and he has admitted his signature as per Ex.P1(e). The accused persons tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also denied the alleged evidence of this witness by denial suggestion. He has also admitted that there was no name board to the factory, he cannot say the name and address of the children. As per the direction of complainant/Pw.1 he has typed Ex.P1 in is laptop. He has admitted that no such injury 22 Spl.C.C.366/2015 found on the children, but the clothes were dirty. Except that nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of the accused person. Here also this witness is interested official witness and it is quite natural that he has deposed favourable to the prosecution. At the same time no child witness stepped into the witness box to give evidence against accused No.1 to 3, as such it is not safe to accept his evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
21. Now left with the available evidence of Investigation Officer-Pw.7-Nayaz Ahmad-P.S.I., he has deposed that on 16- 10-2014 at about 05.30 p.m., he has received complaint as per Ex.P2 from the complainant and he has registered the same in Crime No.256/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 344, 370(5), 370(A), 374 of IPC, Section 14 of Child Labour Act, Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act and section 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act and his signature is Ex.P2(b). He has prepared FIR as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(a). He has also received spot Panchanama as per Ex.P1 and seized MO1 and MO2 and also seized Ex.P5 to Ex.P10-documents pertaining to Voters' I.D., in respect of some of the children.
23 Spl.C.C.366/2015 Thereafter, he has sent the children to State Balakara Bala Mandira. He has arrested the accused No.2 and 3 and produced them before the Court on 17-10-2014. He has recorded the statement of Cw.14 to Cw.25 and on 23-10-2014 he has recorded the statement of victims at Bala Mandir and also received their age estimation certificates as per Ex.P11 to Ex.P22 and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against accused persons.
22. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and elicited some commission and omission. He has admitted that earlier to alleged raid, he has not received any complaint from the local person or NGOs or the parents of the alleged child labours. He has not conducted any mahazar at the spot. Further he has admitted that he has not seized any documents to believe that the accused No.1 was the owner of the said bag manufacturing unit and the accused No.2 and 3 are the Managers of said unit. He has admitted that the children doesn't know to read and write Kannada, but he knew Hindi language and he has enquired the children in Hindi and recorded their statement. The accused persons denied the 24 Spl.C.C.366/2015 process of conducting investigation by this witness by denial suggestion. He has also admitted that he has not enquired about the name board of the said bag manufacturing unit at the time of investigation.
23. At this stage this Court opines that the evidence of this witness is also a formal one and he has deposed in respect of process of conducting investigation. When there is a drastic stand taken by the accused persons with regard to the alleged offences, the prosecution ought to have produced the evidence of children and other independent witnesses who are available at the time of the incident, since the alleged bag manufacturing unit is situated in a busy area and no such problem to secure independent Panchas to conduct raid, but the prosecution witnesses are all official interested witnesses and it is quite natural they have supported the case of the prosecution, as such it is not safe to believe the alleged against accused persons.
24. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences 25 Spl.C.C.366/2015 against accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.1 to 3 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablizes the defense of the accused No.1 to 3 rather than the case of the prosecution.
25. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.10 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and MO1 and MO2, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that the The accused No.1 is the owner of a bag manufacturing unit situated in 1st and 2nd floor of building No.1/2, New Market Road, opposite to Old Evening Bazaar, Nala Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru and the accused No.2 and 3 are the Managers of said bag manufacturing units. The accused No.1 to 3 engaged Cw.2 to Cw.4 who are aged about 10 to 15 years and Cw.5 to Cw.13-the adult workers in said bag manufacturing unit as workers, who were brought from Bihar and Nepal by way of human trafficking and by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- to the parents of above said children. The accused persons used to extract work from t09.00 a.m., to 12.00 p.m., in a day from 26 Spl.C.C.366/2015 them and detained them in a room without providing proper payment, food, clothing and shelter and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370, 374 read with section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
26. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused No.1 to 3 are 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 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable under section 370, 374 read with section 34 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
MO1 and MO2 are treated as worth properties, Office is directed to confiscate the said property to 27 Spl.C.C.366/2015 Government in accordance with law after appeal period is over.
(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 7th Day of June 2018.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 B.N.Srinivas Cw.1 05-04-2017
Pw.2 Fameed Khan Cw.16 13-11-2017
Pw.3 Bharathi Cw.17 13-11-2017
Pw.4 Srikanth.B.Patil Cw.15 16-01-2018
Pw.5 Madan Kumar Cw.20 16-01-2018
Pw.6 Haneef-ur-Rehman @ Cw.26 30-01-2018
Chand
Pw.7 Nayaz Ahmed Cw.24 19-02-2018
Pw.8 Dr.K.R.Jayanthi Cw.17 05-03-2018
Pw.9 C.Hanumathaiah Cw.23 19-03-2018
Pw.10 Byresh Cw.24 27-03-2018
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Mahazar Pw.1 05-04-2017
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 05-04-2017
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 16-01-2018
28 Spl.C.C.366/2015
Ex.P 1c Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 16-01-2018
Ex.P 1d Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 19-03-2018
Ex.P 1e Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 27-03-2018
Ex.P 2 Complaint Pw.1 05-04-2017
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 05-04-2017
Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 19-02-2018
Ex.P 3 Statement of Pw.6 Pw.6 30-01-2018
Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 30-01-2018
Ex.P 4 FIR Pw.7 19-02-2018
Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 19-02-2018
Ex.P 5 Note Book Pw.7 19-02-2018
Ex.P 6-8 Voters' I.D. Cards Pw.7 19-02-2018
Ex.P 9 & 10 I.D. Cards Pw.7 19-02-2018
Ex.P 11 to Medical Examination Pw.7 19-02-2018
20 & 22 certificates of victims
Ex.P 11(a) to Signatures of Pw.7 Pw.7 19-02-2018
20(a) &
22(a)
Ex.P 21 Statement of victim 19-02-2018
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON
BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
MO1 & 2 Mobiles Pw.7 19-02-2018
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE