Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs In Spl. 1 Syed Saleem Pasha @ Saleem on 4 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 4th Day of January 2019
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No.183/2016
CLUBBED WITH
SPECIAL C.C. No.181/2016
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka
in Spl.C.C.No.183/2016 By H.S.R. Layout Police Station,
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016 Bangalore.
[Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED in Spl. 1 Syed Saleem Pasha @ Saleem,
C.C.No.183/2016 S/o.Hajmathulla, 38 years,
R/at. No.18, 3rd Main Road,
1st Cross, Afrat Nagar,
Haleguddada Halli,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru
ACCUSED in Spl. 2 M.D. Jakaulla @ Munna,
C.C.No.181/2016 S/o. Late Mohammed Hussain,
35 years,
R/at. No.1454, Basemate,
Chamundi Nagar, R.T. Nagar Pot,
Bengaluru-32
2 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
ACCUSED 3 Mohammed Shukkar Split up in
Spl. C.C.No.180/2016
ACCUSED 4 Sohel Split up in
Spl. C.C.No.180/2016
ACCUSED in Spl. 5 Hayaj,
C.C.No.183/2016 S/o. Wazeer Khan, 28 years,
R/at. 6th Main Road, 2nd Cross,
Modi Garden, J.C. Nagar,
Bengaluru
ACCUSED in Spl. 6 Arjun Ali,
C.C.No.183/2016 S/o. Marpat Ali, 29 years,
R/at. Novpad Village, Ashood Post,
North Chabbis Paragana District,
Calcutta,
West Bengal.
ACCUSED 7 Mousin Sheikh Split up in
Spl. C.C.No.180/2016
ACCUSED 8 Mrutyunjay Bepari Split up in
Spl. C.C.No.180/2016
ACCUSED 9 Shabhana @ Najma Split up in
Spl. C.C.No.180/2016
ACCUSED 10 Priyank Split up in
Spl. C.C.No.180/2016
ACCUSED 11 Dhikha Khatoon Split up in
Spl. C.C.No.180/2016
[By Sri.H.R.K.-Advocate for A-1, 3 & 5 in
Spl. C.C.No.183/2016 &
Sri. S.M.-Advocate for A-2 in
Spl. C.C. No.181/2016.]
1 Date of commission of offence 18-04-2012
2 Date of report of occurrence 18-04-2012
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1 19-04-2012
Date of release of Accused No.1 02-06-2012
Period undergone in custody 01 months & 13 days
by Accused No.1
3 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
Date of arrest of Accused No.2 10-12-2012
Date of release of Accused No.2 09-01-2013
Period undergone in custody 29 days
by Accused No.2
Date of arrest of Accused No.5 19-04-2012
Date of release of Accused No.5 25-08-2012
Period undergone in custody 04 months & 04 days
by Accused No.5
Date of arrest of Accused No.6 19-04-2012
Date of release of Accused No.6 29-08-2012
Period undergone in custody 04 months & 10 days
by Accused No.6
4 Date of commencement of 16-12-2016
evidence
5 Date of closing of evidence 29-10-2018
6 Name of the complainant Hanumesh.G.
7 Offences complained of in Spl. Sec. 366-A, 376, 372, 373,
C.C.No.183/2016 341, 342, 506 r/w. 34-IPC &
Sec.3, 4, 5, 6, 7,9-ITP Act.
Offences complained of in Spl. Sec. 366-A, 372, 373,
C.C.No.181/2016 341, 342, 506 r/w. 34-
IPC & Sec.3, 4, 5, 6, 7,9-
ITP Act.
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1,3, 5 &
accused No.2 are
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
COMMON JUDGMENT
The charge sheet filed by Police Inspector and S.H.O of
H.S.R. Layout Police Station-Bengaluru against the accused
No.1 to 11 for the offences punishable under Section 366-A,
4 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
376, 372, 373, 341, 342, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and
Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of I.T.P. Act.
2. Since it is a case of prostitution of minor girl, as
such the name of the victim girl is no where shown in the
course of judgment as mandated under Section 227(A) of
Cr.P.C. However her name is referred to as 'victim girl' wherever
her name is necessary.
3. During the trial VI A.C.M.M. Court-Bengaluru
committed the case to Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, against accused No.1, 3 to 11 by spitting up
case against accused No.2. After receiving record from the
committal Court, due to abscond of accused No.3, 4, 7 to 11,
the case was splitted up against them and proceeded against
accused No.1, 5 and 6 only. The case against accused No.3, 4,
7 to 11 is registered in Special C.C.No.180/2016, hence this
Special C.C.No.183/2016 proceeded against accused No.1, 5
and 6 for further proceedings. The case against accused No.2
was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was
registered in S.C.No.186/2016 on 01-02-2013 and the same
5 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
was pending in FTC-XVI. In the mean time the said case
transferred to this Court as per Notification No.CRL. BRANCH
/38/16 dated 14-03-2016 and the same was registered in
Special C.C.No.181/2016. On 22-07-2017 the learned advocate
for accused No.2 submitted that the matter involved in
Spl.C.C.No.181/2016 and Spl.C.C.No.183/2016 are one and
the same and requested to club the case for recording of
common evidence and to pronounce common judgment vide
separately and also further the learned Public Prosecutor and
also the learned advocate for accused No.1, 5 and 6 of Special
C.C.No.183/2016 consented for clubbing of both the cases for
the purpose of recording of common evidence and to pronounce
judgment separately, accordingly both the cases were clubbed
and proceeded further and the common evidence recorded in
Special C.C.No.183/2016. With these observations, now left
with the available evidence to consider the offences alleged
against accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the
prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
6 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
That on 18-04-2012 at about 12.00 hours in the noon, the
accused No.1 to 11 with common object procured the minor
girl-Cw.5-the victim, aged about 16 years, in a car bearing
No.KA-05-D-4861 near Big Bazaar, Bellandur Gate within the
jurisdiction of H.S.R. Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the
purpose of letting her to prostitution and also brought other
girls/women viz., Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various places by using
car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda
Activa Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-05-EL-9760 and wrongfully
restrained them for the purpose of prostitution and also
detained them in the house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village,
Sarjapur for five days, wherein the accused No.1 forcibly had
sexual intercourse and raped Cw.5-the victim girl against her
will, by criminal intimidation to her life with dire consequences
and also abetted them with seduction for prostitution and let
them for prostitution by maintaining the said premises as
brothel home and depended on their earning from prostitution.
The same came to the knowledge of Cw.1-the complainant, after
receiving credible information by Cw.1 he has taken the police
personnel as raiding team members viz., Cw.8 to Cw.26 along
7 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
with Panch witnesses Cw.2 and Cw.3 and also decoy-Cw.7 and
raided said brothel home run by the accused No.1 to 11 on the
earnings of Cw.6 to Cw.16 through prostitution, during raid
they came to know that the accused No.9 to 11 brought Cw.5 to
Cw.16 by influencing money on them that they are going to
provide job to them and after bringing them to Bengaluru they
involved Cw.5 to Cw.16 in prostitution as stated supra. On the
basis of complaint lodged by Cw.1, the complainant/police
registered the case in Crime No.114/2012 for the offences
punishable under Section 366-A, 376, 372, 373, 341, 342, 506
read with section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of I.T.P.
Act.
5. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against accused No.1, 3 to 11 by showing
the accused No.2 as absconded and for the offences punishable
under Section 366-A, 376, 372, 373, 341, 342, 506 read with
section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of I.T.P. Act.
Thereafter, the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet
to the accused No.1, 3 to 11 as contemplated under Section 207
of Cr.P.C. Since the victim-Cw.5 is minor, the committal Court
8 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
passed an order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for further
proceedings and the same was registered in S.C.No.899/2012
on 18-07-2012 and the same was pending in FTC-XVI. In the
mean time the said case transferred to this Court as per
Notification No. CRL. BRANCH/53/16 dated 18-04-2016 and
the same was registered in Special C.C.No.183/2016. In the
mean time, in the case against accused No.2 charge sheet was
filed before the committal court. Thereafter, the committal Court
furnished copy of charge sheet to the accused No.2 as
contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the victim-
Cw.5 is minor, the committal Court passed an order for
committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for further proceedings.
6. After receiving the record by this Court, as usual
summons was issued to the accused No.1 to 11. During the
course of proceedings, the accused No.3, 4, 7 to 11 remained
absent, this Court splitted up the case against them in Special
C.C.No.180/2016 and proceeded against accused No.1, 5 and 6
in Special C.C. No.183/2016 and proceeded against accused
9 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
No.2 in Special C.C.No.181/2016. In both the cases the
accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2 were on bail. Thereafter,
the learned advocate for the accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused
No.2 submitted no arguments before framing charge and
requested to frame charge. As a result the charges framed the
accused No.1, 5, 6 under Section 366-A, 376, 372, 373, 341,
342, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7 of I.T.P. Act, and accused No.2 under Section 366-A, 372,
373, 341, 342, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7 of I.T.P. Act. The contents of the charge read over
and explained to the accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2 in
Kannada. The accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2 pleaded not
guilty and submits crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against
the accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2 set down for recording
of common evidence of prosecution.
7. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2 has examined in all 10
witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.10, got marked 17 documents as Ex.P1
to Ex.P17 and 18 material objects as MO1 to MO18 and closed
its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared
10 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
against the accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2, they were
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording their
statement. They denied the alleged incriminating evidence
appeared against them as false. Earlier to that they have
complied the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, by executing
personal bond and surety bond. Thereafter arguments heard
from both the sides. The learned advocate for the accused No.1,
5 and 6 relied on the orders passed in Criminal Petition No.
10442/2013 dated 18-03-2013 and 15941/2012 clubbed with
15852/2012 dated 05-05-2013 for perusal and the matter is set
down for judgment.
8. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and
arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that
arise for my consideration are as under:-
In Spl.C.C.No.183/2013
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 18-04-2012
at about 12.00 in the after noon the accused No.1, 5
and 6 along with other accused persons in
prosecution with common object procured the minor
girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16
years, in a Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, near Big
Bazaar, Bellandur Gate with in the limits of H.S.R.
Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the
purpose of letting her to the prostitution and thereby
the accused No.1, 5 and 6 committed the offence
11 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
punishable under section 366-A read with section 34
of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, in a
Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861 near Big Bazaar,
Bellandur Gate with in the limits of H.S.R. Layout
Police Station, Bengaluru City, and let her on hire
for the purpose of the prostitution and thereby the
accused No.1, 5 and 6 committed the offence
punishable under section 372 read with section 34 of
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured and obtained the
possession of the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, in a Car bearing
No.KA-05-D-4861 near Big Bazaar, Bellandur Gate
with in the limits of H.S.R. Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru City, and let her on hire for the purpose
of the prostitution and thereby the accused No.1, 5
and 6 committed the offence punishable under
section 373 read with section 34 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt?
4. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and
also other girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor
Cycle bearing No.KA-05-EL-9760, wrongfully
restrained for the purpose of prostitution and
thereby the accused No.1, 5 and 6 committed the
offence punishable under section 341 read with
section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
5. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above said
date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6 along
12 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
with other accused persons in prosecution with
common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim,
D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and also
other girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor
Cycle bearing No.KA-05-EL-9760, wrongfully
detained and confined for the purpose of prostitution
and thereby the accused No.1, 5 and 6 committed
the offence punishable under section 342 read with
section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
6. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above said
date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6 along
with other accused persons in prosecution with
common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim,
D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years unlawfully
and detained and confirmed in the house of Cw.17,
where the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual
intercourse and raped her against her will and
thereby the accused No.1 committed the offence
punishable under section 376 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt?
7. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years
unlawfully and detained and confirmed in the house
of Cw.17, where the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual
intercourse and raped her against her will, by
criminally intimidating to her life with dire
consequences and thereby the accused No.1
committed the offence punishable under section 506
of IPC?
8. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and
also other girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor
Cycle bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in
the house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
13 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully and abetted them
with seduction for the prostitution, and let them for
the prostitution, by maintaining the said premises as
brothel and thereby the accused No.1, 5 and 6
committed the offence punishable under section 3 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with
section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
9. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and
also other girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor
Cycle bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in
the house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully, and abetted them
with seduction for the prostitution, and let them for
the prostitution, and depended on the earning there
from the prostitution and thereby the accused No.1,
5 and 6 committed the offence punishable under
section 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable
doubt?
10. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and
also other girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor
Cycle bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, by inducing them
for sake of prostitution and thereby the accused
No.1, 5 and 6 committed the offence punishable
under section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956 read with section 34 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt?
11. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and
14 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
also other girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor
Cycle bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in
the house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully, where prostitution
was carried and thereby the accused No.1, 5 and 6
committed the offence punishable under section 6 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with
section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
12. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and
also other girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor
Cycle bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in
the house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully, for the prostitution
in the vicinity of the public place and thereby the
accused No.1, 5 and 6 committed the offence
punishable under section 7 of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 read with section 34 of IPC
beyond all reasonable doubt?
13. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.1, 5 and 6
along with other accused persons in prosecution
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-
victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and
also other girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor
Cycle bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in
the house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully, and abetted them
with seduction for the prostitution, and let them for
the prostitution, and depended on the earning there
from the prostitution and thereby the accused No.1,
5 and 6 committed the offence punishable under
section 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
15 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable
doubt?
14. What Order?
In Spl.C.C.No.181/2013
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 18-04-2012 at
about 12.00 in the after noon the accused No.2 along
with other accused persons in prosecution with
common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim,
D/o. Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, in a Car
bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, near Big Bazaar,
Bellandur Gate with in the limits of H.S.R. Layout
Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the purpose of
letting her to the prostitution and thereby the
accused No.2 committed the offence punishable
under section 366-A read with section 34 of IPC
beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, in a Car bearing
No.KA-05-D-4861 near Big Bazaar, Bellandur Gate
with in the limits of H.S.R. Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru City, and let her on hire for the purpose
of the prostitution and thereby the accused No.2
committed the offence punishable under section 372
read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable
doubt?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured and obtained the possession of the
minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o. Manshood Khatoon,
aged 16 years, in a Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861
near Big Bazaar, Bellandur Gate with in the limits of
H.S.R. Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, and let
her on hire for the purpose of the prostitution and
thereby the accused No.2 committed the offence
16 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
punishable under section 373 read with section 34 of
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
4. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above said
date, time, place the accused No.2 along with other
accused persons in prosecution with common object
procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o. Manshood
Khatoon, aged 16 years and also other girls/women
such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various places by using
Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-04-B-3116 and
Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-05-
EL-9760, wrongfully restrained for the purpose of
prostitution and thereby the accused No.2 committed
the offence punishable under section 341 read with
section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
5. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above said
date, time, place the accused No.2 along with other
accused persons in prosecution with common object
procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o. Manshood
Khatoon, aged 16 years and also other girls/women
such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various places by using
Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-04-B-3116 and
Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-05-
EL-9760, wrongfully detained and confined for the
purpose of prostitution and thereby the accused No.2
committed the offence punishable under section 342
read with section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable
doubt?
6. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, unlawfully and
detained and confirmed in the house of Cw.17, where
the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse and
raped her against her will, by criminally intimidating
to her life with dire consequences and thereby the
accused No.2 committed the offence punishable
under section 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable
doubt?
17 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
7. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and also other
girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various
places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-
04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle
bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in the
house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully and abetted them
with seduction for the prostitution, and let them for
the prostitution, by maintaining the said premises as
brothel and thereby the accused No.2 committed the
offence punishable under section 3 of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with section 34 of
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
8. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, and also other
girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various
places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-
04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle
bearing No.KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in the
house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully, and abetted them
with seduction for the prostitution, and let them for
the prostitution, and depended on the earning there
from the prostitution and thereby the accused No.2
committed the offence punishable under section 4 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with
section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
9. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, and also other
girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various
places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-
04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle
bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, by inducing them for
sake of prostitution and thereby the accused No.2
18 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
committed the offence punishable under section 5 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with
section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
10. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, and also other
girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various
places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-
04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle
bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in the
house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully, where prostitution
was carried and thereby the accused No.2 committed
the offence punishable under section 6 of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with section 34 of
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
11. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years and also other
girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various
places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-
04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle
bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in the
house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully, for the prostitution
in the vicinity of the public place and thereby the
accused No.2 committed the offence punishable
under section 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956 read with section 34 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt?
12. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time, place the accused No.2 along with
other accused persons in prosecution with common
object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-victim, D/o.
Manshood Khatoon, aged 16 years, and also other
girls/women such as Cw.6 to Cw.16 from various
places by using Car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-
04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle
19 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
bearing No. KA-05-EL-9760, detained them in the
house of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village in
Sarjapur for five days unlawfully, and abetted them
with seduction for the prostitution, and let them for
the prostitution, and depended on the earning there
from the prostitution and thereby the accused No.2
committed the offence punishable under section 9 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with
section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
13. What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:-
In Spl.C.C.No.183/2013
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: In the Negative.
Point No.9: In the Negative.
Point No.10: In the Negative.
Point No.11: In the Negative.
Point No.12: In the Negative.
Point No.13: In the Negative.
20 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
Point No.14: As per the final orders for the following:
In Spl.C.C.No.181/2013
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: In the Negative.
Point No.9: In the Negative.
Point No.10: In the Negative.
Point No.11: In the Negative.
Point No.12: In the Negative.
Point No.13: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 13 in Spl.C.C.No.183/2013 and
Point No.1 to 12 in Spl.C.C.No.181/2013: As these points are
inter-related, hence, I have taken up together for my
consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasonings.
21 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
11. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence
produced both at oral and documentary and arguments
canvassed by the learned advocate for accused No.1, 5, 6 and
accused No.2 and coupled with relied on decisions arguments
canvassed by the learned Public Prosecutor. In order to prove
the alleged offences against accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused
No.2 the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses as Pw.1
to Pw.10, got marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and 18
material objects as MO1 to MO18 and this Court perused the
same. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is Dy.S.P., the
complainant and also head of the raiding team, Pw.2 is SJPU,
Pw.3, Pw.7, Pw.9 and Pw.10 are the members of raiding team
and Pw.8 is the Investigating Officer. Hence, this Court shall
proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses
is sufficient for establishing the offences alleged against accused
No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. In order to establish the alleged offence against
accused No.1 the prosecution is required to prove that accused
No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2 that on 18-04-2012 at about 12.00
hours in the noon, the accused No.1 to 11 with common object
22 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
procured the minor girl-Cw.5-the victim, aged about 16 years,
in a car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861 near Big Bazaar, Bellandur
Gate within the jurisdiction of H.S.R. Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru, for the purpose of letting her to prostitution and
also brought other girls/women viz., Cw.6 to Cw.16 from
various places by using car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861, KA-04-
B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-05-
EL-9760 and wrongfully restrained them for the purpose of
prostitution and also detained them in the house of Cw.17
situated at Harloor Village, Sarjapur for five days, wherein the
accused No.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse and raped Cw.5-
the victim girl against her will, by criminal intimidation to her
life with dire consequences and also abetted them with
seduction for prostitution and let them for prostitution by
maintaining the said premises as brothel home and depended
on their earning from prostitution and thereby accused No.1, 5,
6 have committed offences punishable under Section 366-A,
372, 373, 341, 342, 376, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of ITP Act and accused No.2 has
committed offences punishable committed offences punishable
23 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
under Section 366-A, 372, 373, 341, 342, 506 read with Section
34 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of ITP Act. Hence, this
Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of the
alleged offence against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. Before venturing into scan, the available materials
on record, it is necessary to mention whether the head of the
raiding team or the Investigation Officer is competent authority
to conduct raid under I.T.P Act, has to be considered. Further
it is also to be looked into whether the prosecution placed
authenticated documents to prove the head of the raiding team
and the Investigation Officer is competent person to do said Act.
14. Here it is relevant to note the definition of Section 13
of I.T.P. Act, the relevant portion of statute in section 13(1) and
13(2) of the Act which defines that:
"Special police officer and advisory body.-(1)There
shall be for each area to be specified by the State
Government in this behalf a special police officer appointed
by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences
under this Act in that area.
(2) The special police officer shall not be below the
rank of an Inspector or police.
24 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
(2A)................."
Further it is relevant to note that notifying Special Officers
under the Act in the State, which is as below mentioned:
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1)
of Section 13 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
(Central Act 104 of 1956) read with Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act X of 1897) and in
super session of all the notifications issued earlier in this
behalf the Government of Karnataka here by appoints the
officers mentioned in column(2) of the Schedule below as
Special Police Officer in respect of the areas specified in the
corresponding entries within the jurisdiction mentioned in
column (3) for the purpose of the said Act:
Sl.
Officers Area
No.
1 Superintendents of Police Within their respective
In charge of the Districts jurisdiction
2 Additional Superintendents Within their respective
of Police jurisdiction
3 Sub-Divisional Police Within their respective
Officers jurisdiction
4 Inspector of Police In Within their respective
Charge of Circles jurisdiction
5 Deputy Commissioners of Within their respective
Police, Law & Order East, jurisdiction
West & DCP Crime in
Bangalore City
6 Assistant Commissioners of Within their respective
Police of Divisions in jurisdiction
Bangalore City
7 Assistant Commissioners Within their respective
of Police, Special Squad, jurisdiction
Bangalore City
8 Police Inspectors in charge Within their respective
of Sub-Divisions in jurisdiction
Bangalore City
9 Police Inspector Speical Within their respective
Squad, Bangalore City jurisdiction
10 The Deputy Within their respective
Superintendent of Police of jurisdiction
C.A. Squad, C.O.D.
25 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
As per the said notification whether Cw.1-the complainant
and also Head of the raiding team having power or not is to be
looked into and whether the prosecution produces any
authenticated documents to substantiate the said stand is to be
considered herein.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Hanumesh-
Dy.S.P. of C.I.D., he has deposed only in respect of conducting
of raid as per the case of prosecution, but no such evidence
produced by the prosecution through this witness in respect of
whether this witness was notified as per Section 13 of I.T.P. Act,
as Special Officer to deal with these cases as Special Police
Officer appointed by Government or on behalf of Government.
Even on perusal of Ex.P1 to Ex.P17, no such documents
forthcoming to believe that this witness is having authenticated
power to conduct raid as per Section 13 of I.T.P. Act.
16. On perusal of evidence of Pw.8-N.T.Srinivasa Reddy-
Dy.S.P., Railways and at that time Police Inspector of H.S.R.
Layout Police station, he has also deposed only in respect of
conducting investigation of the offences after receiving
26 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
complaint and spot Panchanama from the complainant and no
such evidence is forth coming of having authenticated power to
investigate the offence under I.T.P. Act. At this stage, this Court
feels to observe that the prosecution has not produced any
authenticated documents to show the complainant/Pw.1/head
of raiding team was designated as Special Officer by the
Government under section 13 of I.T.P. Act and also Pw.8-N.T.
Srinivasa Reddy-Police Inspector having authenticated power
and he has been appointed as Special Officer to investigate
under the Act of the offences involved in this case and offences
under section I.T.P. Act. At this stage, this Court opines that
the complainant and the Investigation Officer having no
authenticated power to enquire into the matter in dispute in
this case in respect of the offences mentioned under I.T.P. Act
and other Act is illegal and vitiated.
17. Further, here in this case the trial already completed
and the matter is set down for judgment, as such it is also just
and proper to consider this case on merits by observing basic
informalities in lodging complaint by the complainant. At this
stage, it is worthless to emphasis on the order passed by the
27 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.8055/
2016 dated 31-03-2017 and Criminal Petition No.5330/2015
dated 03-02-2016 and the ratio of principle is also applicable to
the present case on hand. Here also apart from the above said
legal defect, the registration of the FIR is also seen to have been
done after the commencement of the investigation by the
complainant/Pw.1 as it is an admitted fact that before
registration of the FIR, he rushed to the spot and arrested the
culprits and drew up the Panchanama as recorded in the FIR.
This procedure adopted by the complainant/police renders the
proceeding vitiated.
18. Now left with the available evidence of complainant-
Pw.1-Hanumesh-Dy.S.P., he has deposed that on 18-04-2012
after receiving information about human trafficking of females
and enticed them to do prostitution through his unit S.P., and
in order to ride, he has accompanied with three inspectors viz.,
Susheela, Nagabhushan, H.C. Prasanna Kumar, P.C.Prasanna
Kumar, Hafeezunnissa and Kavitha, secured Mohan Kumar,
Manjunath and Puneeth as Decoy and Panch witnesses. He
has paid Rs.500/- denomination five notes to the decoy in front
28 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
of the Panchas after obtaining their signatures and told Decoy-
Mohan Kumar to come near Big Bazaar, accordingly in a
Government jeep all the raiding team members went near Big
Bazaar and also got credible information about coming of
persons along with girls through Decoy-Mohan Kumar, raided
at that place, taken custody of Mousin, Sohil, Nazma and other
two girls and also seized Rs.2,500/- paid by Decoy-Mohan
Kumar to Mousin.
19. Pw.1 further deposed that after receiving information
from them, they went to Haralur Village, raided the house of
Rajashekar Reddy and secured 11 girls. On enquiry he came to
know that some seven persons influencing money on those girls
that they are going to provide good job, brought them from
Bangla Desh and made them to do prostitute. At that time the
wife of Rajashekar Reddy told that her husband is not in
station. He has also seized two cars, driving license of Mousin,
Rs.7,000/- earned from prostitution and 9 mobiles and
conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1 from 03.00 p.m., to 07.00
p.m., and his signature is Ex.P1(a). He has also lodged
complaint as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a). He has
29 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
also identified the material objects and photos as per Ex.P3 and
Ex.P4. Ex.P5 is the D.L. and also produced electricity bills of
house of Rajashekar Reddy as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and also
identified mobile phones at MO1 to MO7. He has also identified
Rs.2,500/- amount paid to decoy as per MO8 and also identified
Rs.7,000/- amount collected from prostitution as per MO9.
20. Pw.1 further deposed that he brought the accused
persons, 11 rescued girls along with Panchanama and seized
material objects and produced before SHO of H.S.R. Layout
Police along with his complaint as per Ex.P2. Here it is relevant
to note before raiding the incident spot, it is very clear that this
witness has not lodged any complaint before the jurisdictional
police. On the other hand after raiding the spot, conducted
mahazar, taken custody of the accused persons, seized articles
and rescued girls and produced before the SHO of H.S.R.
Layout Police station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P2.
21. No doubt it is true the accused No.1, 5, 6 and
accused No.2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by
eliciting some commission and omission, except denial
30 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense
taken by them. At the same time it is relevant to note that this
witness shown his ignorance about the names of the Panchas
who signed Ex.P1. He has also admitted that he has not
secured any local persons as Panch witnesses, on the other
hand he has taken them from the police station. He has also
admitted that he has not summoned any local persons to
participate in the Panchanama.
22. Further the accused No.2 elicited that he has not
mentioned at what time he left the office and went to the
incident spot in his complaint. Earlier to raid he has not
searched for himself personally and also not searched
personally the other members of the team. He has also not
mentioned about what are all things taken by them in order to
conduct raid to the spot. He has not given any written notice to
decoy-Manjunath. Further he has admitted that he has not
given any prior intimation over phone to the jurisdictional police
about prostitution taking place in the house situated with in the
jurisdiction of said station and summoned them to assist for
raid.
31 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
23. Here it is relevant to note through this witness the
prosecution has not placed for non-obtaining earlier permission
from higher authority for raid and also records of reasonings
also not written and produced along with the charge sheet for
perusal. Through this witness no notification placed by the
prosecution to believe that he is having special power to
conduct raid in respect of offence under I.T.P. Act. Further,
earlier to raiding of the spot, he has also not filed any complaint
before the jurisdictional police and case was registered. Even
while seizing MO1 to MO18, no such procedure followed in
respect of sealing of said property in accordance with law and
obtaining signature of the Panchas at the spot itself. It is also
relevant to note that this witness at the time of conducting raid
and drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P1, he has not secured local
persons as Panch witnesses to draw mahazar. With these
observation, now left with the available other material evidence
produced by the prosecution to know whether the alleged
offences proved by the prosecution against accused No.1, 5, 6
and accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
32 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-R.Susheela-
Police Inspector, she is also one of the members of raiding team
in her chief examination, she has deposed in support of case of
the prosecution in respect of Ex.P1 and seizing of MO1 to
MO18. But in the cross-examination, the accused persons
tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission
and also elicited that:
"ºÉZïJ¸ïDgï ¯ÉÃOmï ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ F §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w
PÉÆqÀ®Ä £À£U À É D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C¢üPÁgÀ EgÀ°®è PÁgÀt £À£ßÀ »jAiÀÄ
C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgtÀ ªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUw
É P
Û ÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ
dgÀÄV¸ÀÄwÛzg ÀÝ ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ zÁ½UÉ ºÉÆgÀqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß ¥Àg¸ À gàÀ À CAUÀ
±ÉÆÃzÀ£s A
É iÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, D jÃw CAUÀ ±ÉÆÃzÀ£ s É ªÀiÁr
PÉƼÀî®Ä £ÀªÀÄUÁåªÀÅzÉà C¨ÀsåAvÀgÀ EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸À¼ Ü PÀ ÌÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ
£Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýPÀA É iÀÄ°è ºÉý®è
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
25. Further she has stated on enquiry with the victim
girl, she has told one Priyanka with an assurance to provide job
to her brought her to Bengaluru and made her to involve in
prostitution. Further she was tested her veracity in respect of
taking custody of victim girl near Big Bazaar of Bellandur Gate
and also other girls and accused persons in the house of Raja
Shekara Reddy and conducting of mahazar by denial suggestion
and nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken
33 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
by the accused persons. 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.7-K.Prasanna
Kumar-Head Constable, he is also one of the member of the
raiding team, in his chief examination he has supported the
case of prosecution in respect of Ex.P1 and securing of 11 girls
and arresting of 7 accused persons and seizing of MO1 to MO4.
In the cross-examination, the accused persons tested the
veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission
and omission and also elicited that he has not stated in his
statement in respect of summoning of decoy-Manjunath to the
spot by the complainant. At the time of payment of amount to
decoy, he was present along with Cw.1, but he has not stated
the same in his statement. He has shown his ignorance about
Panch witnesses, their names and their address. He has also
shown his ignorance about the car in question and its
registration number. He has also admitted that he has not
stated in his statement in respect of decoy and Panch witnesses
summoned near Big Bazaar. He has also admitted that at that
time on which accused he was escorted. He has also shown his
34 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
ignorance about the boundaries of the raided house. Further
the accused persons denied the process of conducting of raid as
per the case of prosecution by denial suggestion, for that he has
denied the same, since this witness is also a police personnel,
the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-H.
Nagabhusan-Dy.S.P., he is also one of the member of the
raiding team, in his chief examination he has supported the
case of prosecution in respect of Ex.P1 and seizing of MO1 to
MO9 and arresting of 7 accused persons. In the cross-
examination, the accused persons tested the veracity of
evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and
omission and also elicited that:
"D ¢£À ¥ÀAZÀgÁV ªÉiÁúÀ£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆߧg â ÄÀ EzÀÄÝ
CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸g À ÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä FUÀ £É£¦ À gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸Àzj À ªÉƺÀ£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï
£À£Àß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀÜ£® À .è D ¢£À ©Uï§eÁgï §½ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ5
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 gÀªg À ÀÄ EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è EgÀ°®è DzÀgÉ
£ÀAvÀgÀ §AzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛg.É D ¢£À D ¸À¼ Ü z
À °
À è PÁgÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀÄvÀĪ
Û jÀ zÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPª À ÁV AiÀiÁgÀ£ÀÆß »rAiÀÄ°®è DzÀgÉ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀÄvÀĪ
Û jÀ zÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ EzÀA Ý vÀºÀ EvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ
PÁj£À°z è ÀÝ D¸Á«ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. ºÀg¼ À Æ À gÀÄ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ
ºÉÆAzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ C°èzÀÝ C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAn£À ªÁ¹UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß
«ZÁj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D jÃw «ZÁj¸À®Ä £À£U À ÁåªÀÅzÉà vÀÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÁ½ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è zÁ½ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄîAvÀ¹£ Û °
À z è A
ÝÀ vÀºÀ
ªÁ¹UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÀg¹ É ¥ÀAZÀgÁV ¸ÀºP À j
À ¸À®Ä PÉýPÉƼÀî®Ä £À£U À ÁåªÀÅzÉÃ
vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë zÁ½AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÁ¼ÀvÀ骣 À ÄÀ ß ZÁ.¸Á.1 gÀªg À ÀÄ
vÉUzÉ ÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ D §UÉÎ «ZÁj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ
£ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛg.É "
35 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
The above said evidence clinches the issue unequivocally
points out there is no latches found regarding raiding made by
the complainant along with this witness. He has also shown his
ignorance about names of 12 girls there at the spot and
admitted that he has not signed on MO1 to MO9. Since this
witness is also a police Officer, it is quite natural to depose
favourable to the prosecution and at this stage this Court
opines the evidence of this witness is also a formal one.
28. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-D.V.
Shivanna-Dy.S.P., he is also one of the members of the raiding
team, in his chief examination he has deposed in support of the
case of the prosecution and also he has deposed, he has filed
separate charge sheet against accused No.2. In the cross-
examination, the accused No.2 tested the veracity of evidence of
this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited
favourable to the defense taken by him. The accused No.1, 5
and 6 also tested the veracity of the evidence of this witness,
except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to
the defense taken by him. At this stage, this Court feels to
observe that the evidence of this witness is also a formal one.
36 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
29. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Meenakshi
Yeragatti-S.J.P.U Co-ordinator, she has deposed that she has
made counseling of the victim girl who is Cw.5 in the H.S.R.
Layout Police Station on 18-04-2012 and recorded the
statement as per Ex.P8, her signature is Ex.P8(a) and the
signature of victim is Ex.P8(b). Here it is relevant to note that
the victim girl not stepped into the witness box go give her
evidence. Moreover, none of the 11 rescued girls stepped into
the witness box go give their evidence in support of the case of
prosecution. With these observations, on perusal of cross-
examination of this witness by the accused No.1, 5 and 6, they
have elicited some commission and omission and also elicited
that she has not received any written notice from P.S.I. of
H.S.R. Layout Police Station but she has received only phone
call from the station. She has enquired Cw.5 in Hindi, since
Cw.5 knew only Hindi language and recorded Ex.P8, but Ex.P8
is in Kannada language and no such Shara mentioned by this
witness that she has translated the said contents to Hindi and
after ascertaining the facts as mentioned in Ex.P8, the victim
girl signed the same. They have denied the process of
37 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
counseling made by this witness and recording of Ex.P8 by
denial suggestion, for that she has denied the same. The
accused No.2 also tested her veracity by denial suggestion,
nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by
him.
30. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Dr.Babu Rao,
he has deposed that he has examined the accused No.1-Syed
Saleem Pasha and issued certificate-Ex.P9 his signature is
Ex.P9(a) and the signature of accused No.1 is Ex.P9(b). At the
same time he has not identified the accused No.1 before the
Court. The accused No.1, 5 and 6 tested the veracity of
evidence of this witness, nothing has been elicited favourable to
the defense taken by them. At this stage, the evidence of this
witness is a formal one.
31. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Raja Shekara
Reddy, the alleged house owner of the incident spot, he has
denied about the prostitution taken place in the house given for
rent by him. He came to know about the said fact during the
year 2012 through police, except that he has not stated
38 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
anything as mentioned in Ex.P10. The prosecution treated this
witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each
and every word of Ex.P10, for that he has denied the same.
Through the evidence of this witness, the prosecution fails to
establish the alleged offences alleged to have been taken place
in his house.
32. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Dr. Geeth
Monnamma, she has deposed that she has examined the victim
girl who was brought and produced before her, at that time one
Amitha accompanied with the victim girl. According to her the
age of victim girl was 16 to 18 years as per dental and bones
examination. Further she has stated the victim girl was
subjected to sexual activity, but at the same time she has not
found any external injuries or forcible injuries on her private
parts. She has collected MO10 to MO15 from the victim girl and
issued medical report as per Ex.P11 and her signature is
Ex.P11(a)/ The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this
witness and also elicited that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV PÀ£Áå¥ÉÇgÉAiÀÄÄ M§â ºÉtÄÚªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉʹPÀ¯ï
ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, zÉÊ»PÀ MvÀq
Û ¢
À AzÀ®Æ ºÀjzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ
EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.11 gÀ PÀ®A 10 gÀ°è UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ JA§ ¸À¼ Ü z
À °
À è
39 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
E®è JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÉÄÁAzÀ¨Á®Q £À£ßÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉAiÀiÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ °TvÀ ¤ªÉÃzÀ£A É iÀiÁUÀ° £À£U À É
PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®Q £À£Àß ¸ÀªÄÀ PÀëªÀÄ vÀ£U
À É
AiÀiÁjAzÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£ÀåªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ vÀ£UÀ É
ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration,
coupled with non-examination of victim girl in respect of
identification of accused persons, it is absolutely fatal to the
case of prosecution. Now left with the available material
evidence produced by the prosecution through Pw.8.
33. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Srinivasa
Reddy. N.T., Investigating Officer he has deposed that on 08-04-
2012 at about 09.00 p.m., the complainant-Hanumesh-Dy.S.P.
came to the station and lodged complaint, produced mahazar
along with seized 7-mobile phones, Rs.9,500/- cash with
Driving License, the same was received by him, after verifying
the complaint, he has registered the case in Crime No.141/2012
for the offences punishable under Section 366-A, 376, 372, 373,
341, 342, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and section 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 and 9 of I.T.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC. He has also
identified Ex.P2-the complaint, his Shara and signature as per
Ex.P2(b) and Ex.P1 is the mahazar. On the basis of said
40 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
complaint he has prepared FIR as per Ex.P12 and his signature
is Ex.P12(a). He has also made the articles subjected to P.F.
No.48/2012. He has also identified MO1 to MO7, photos as per
Ex.P3 and Ex.P4- car and two wheeler, driving license-Ex.P5
and electricity bills as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.
34. Here it is relevant to note that on perusal of cross-
examination made by the accused No.1, 5 and 6 of this witness,
he has deposed that:
"¢£ÁAPÀB18-04-2012 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÁ C¢üPÁgÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è
ªÉñÁåªÁnPÉ £ÀqA É iÀÄÄwÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÁ¸Á.1 gÀªg À ÄÀ ¤.¦.2
gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £À£U À É zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄ£Àß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w
§A¢gÀ°®è. zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß ZÁ¸Á.1 gÀªg À ÀÄ zÁ½AiÀÄ
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ ¤ÃrgÀ°®è. £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ ZÁ¸Á.1 gÀªg À ÀÄ
zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¸À®Ä §AzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ZÁ¸Á.2 jAzÀ
16 ºÁUÀÆ ZÁ¸Á.21 jAzÀ ZÁ¸Á.31 ªÀgV É £ÀªgÀ ÀÄ EzÀg
Ý ÀÄ. CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ
CgÉÆæ-1, 3 jAzÀ 10 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀg Ý ÀÄ. ¤.¹.1-¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ¥Àqz É À §UÉÎ
£Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DzÀgÉ ¤.¹.2 zÀÆj£À°è µÀgÁ
§gÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÉÃÝ £É. ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ®Ä-1 jAzÀ 7 ªÀ¸ÀÄU Û ¼
À £
À ÀÄß
ZÁ¸Á.1 jAzÀ 7gÀªg À ÀÄ zÁ½ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è d¥ÀÅÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ©½ §mÉÖAiÀÄ°è ¹Ã¯ï
ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß D ªÀ¸ÀÄU Û ¼
À À ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ
¥ÀqzÉ ÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, it is
very clear that before lodging of complaint he has not received
any information about prostitution taking place in the incident
spot. Cw.1 has not lodged any complaint before conducting of
raid before the jurisdictional police. At this stage it is
41 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
worthwhile to emphasis on the order passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka, in Criminal Petition No.5931/2012
dated 18-02-2013, wherein his lordship observed that:
"The principles laid-down in the aforesaid decisions
clearly apples to the facts of this case, since the search
and seizure were conducted without registering FIR as
required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C and based on the
alleged search and seizure, subsequently, the FIR has
been registered. In this view of the matter, the FIR
registered by the respondent-police is illegal and contrary
to law, as such liable to be quashed."
Here also the complainant without registering the FIR as
required under section 154 of Cr.P.C., and this witness based
on the alleged search and seizure subsequently the case
registered and FIR prepared the spot mahazar. As such though
the facts and circumstances of the above case decision and the
facts and circumstances of the case on hand are different one,
but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable to the present case
on hand.
35. Further in Criminal petition No.3213/2012, 2142,
2877, 2910 and 2942/2012 dated 03-09-2012, the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka also stated that it is mandatory upon
the police officer that he has to register the complaint of the
information at first and then proceed further. Here in the case
42 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
on hand, the said mandatory provisions not followed by either
by the complainant or by the Investigation Officer. The
complainant directly proceeded to the spot by way of raid,
conducted Panchanama, seized the articles and thereafter he
has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police, as such at
this stage, this Court feels to observe that the mandatory
required of under Section 154 of Cr.P.C, is not followed in the
instant case and the FIR is quashed on the said section alone.
36. Further in 2002 Cri.L.J. Page 3205, wherein it had
been observed that:
"Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, S.14-Arrest-
Sanction given by Special Police Officer before raiding
house of accused-Not sufficient for effecting arrest."
"Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, S.15-Search
without warrant-Conducted by Sub-Inspector of Police-
Invalid-Sub-Inspector of police is not an officer competent
to conduct search-Proceedings liable to be quashed."
"Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, S.15(2)-Search-Two
women inhabitant of locality present to attend and witness
search-Requirement of sub-section(2) of S.15, not complied
with-Entire proceedings and trial, however, not liable to be
quashed."
Here also in the case on hand filed against accused the
prosecution not produced evidence to prove that the
complainant or the Investigation Officer was competent to
43 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
conduct the search and investigation and at the time of
conducting raid two women inhabitant of locality also not
present and as such the provisions as contemplated under
Section 15 of I.T.P. Act is not followed in the instant case. As
such though the facts and circumstances of the above case
decision and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand
are different one, but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable
to the present case on hand.
37. Further it is worth while to emphasize on the
decision reported in 2016(3) AKR 561- wherein it is pertinent to
observe that:
"Evidence Act, Ss.3, 24-Circumstantial evidence-
Recovery of gold ornaments of deceased at instance of
accused-No proper slips containing signature of police as
well as Panchyatdars affixed on material objects seized-
Process of seizure being improper, can led to inference that
material objects were planted by prosecution to suit
purpose of case-Moreover, though it was prosecution case
that face and neck of deceased were crushed by throwing
stone on face of deceased however, no bloodstains found on
seized ornaments-Also non-mention in mahazar as to
weighing and valuing of seized ornaments on spot itself-
Circumstance of recovery, not reliable.
Here also seizing of MO1 to MO9 by the complainant, he
has not seized the same in accordance with law, simply he has
produced before this witness and in turn this witness seized
44 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
MO1 to MO7 with white cloth and sealed, even the pinch
witnesses signature also not obtained on the paper slips. As
such though the facts and circumstances of the above case
decision and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand
are different one, but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable
to the present case on hand. Further the evidence of Pw.11 also
crystallizes non-compliance of mandatory provisions at the time
of sizing of MO1 to MO9 at the spot.
38. Pw.8 further deposed that he has arrested the
accused persons and recorded their voluntary statement, he has
also sent the rescued women to the State Home Board and sent
victim to the State Balakiyara Bala Mandir. He has also
recorded the statement of Panch witnesses-Cw.2 and Cw.3, but
they have not stepped into the witness box to give their
evidence. He has also recorded the statement of Cw.5 to Cw.16,
but they have also not stepped into the witness box to support
the case of prosecution. He has also recorded statement of
Cw.21 to Cw.37, who are police official witnesses accompanied
with the raiding team.
45 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
39. He has further deposed that on 19-04-2012 again he
brought the victim girl and other rescued women from State
Home, the victim girl was counseled through Meenakshi-APSA-
Social worker and she has given statement as per Ex.P8, to
corroborate the contents of Ex.P8, the victim girl not stepped
into the witness box. Further this witness deposed on 22-04-
2012 he sent the victim girl and other rescued women to their
respective home towns through escort. He has also recorded
statement of Cw.12, but Cw.12 being owner of the house of the
incident spot, turned hostile to the case of prosecution. On 15-
05-2012 he has received medical report of the victim girl and
MO1 to MO15 from the doctor, made it subject to P.F.No.66/
2012. He has also received requisition as per Ex.P13 and sent
MO1 to MO15 for chemical examination to F.S.L. on 17-05-
2012 and received acknowledgement along with report as per
Ex.P14.
40. He has further deposed that on 06-06-2012 he has
received articles from the doctor pertaining to the accused No.1
along with requisition as per Ex.P15 and made it subject to P.F.
46 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
No.83/2012 and the said articles are MO16 and MO18 and after
closing of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against
accused persons. He has also sent the articles pertaining to
accused No.1 for chemical examination and received FSL report
as per Ex.P16 and Ex.P17. The doctor certified the age of victim
girl from 16 to 18 years. No doubt it is true the victim girl not
stepped into the witness box to give her evidence, no supporting
documents placed in respect to prove the age of the victim girl
and she was minor at the time of the incident, the doctor
certified the age of victim girl from 16 to 18 years, under these
circumstances even if it is taken into consideration that the
victim is minor, but the Investigating Officer has not
investigated into the same in accordance with law. Further
conducting of mahazar as per Ex.P1, lodging of complaint as per
Ex.P2, he is not followed the mandatory provision as
contemplated under I.T.P. Act. The accused persons tested the
veracity of evidence of this witness, except denial suggestion,
nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by
them.
47 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
41. At this stage it is worthwhile to emphasis on the
decision reported in 2014 Cri.L.J. Page 2261, wherein it had
been observed that:
"Criminal P.C.(2 of 1974), S.482-Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act (104 of 1956), Ss.3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14-
Quashing of criminal proceedings-Offence of immoral
trafficking-No evidence to attract offence under S.7 of Act
that person who carrying on prostitution-No case for
prosecution that incident happened from notified area as
mentioned under S.7 of Act-Investigation done and final
report filed by inferior officer in rank who was not even
empowered officer to conduct investigation of such cases-
Thus procedure adopted by officials in filing final report was
itself against law-Criminal proceedings liable to be
quashed."
Further in 2014 Cri.L.J. Page 2936, wherein it had been
observed that:
"Criminal P.C.(2 of 1974), S.482-Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act (104 of 1956), Ss.3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14-Final
report and order taking cognizance-Quashing of-Offence
punishable under provisions of 1956 Act-Act empowering
only special officer to deal with offences under Act-
Investigation, conducted by S.I. of police, not proper
according to Act-Final report submitted by him, not in
accordance with law-Final Report and order taking
cognizance, liable to be quashed."
Her also, the Act empowering to file case in respect of ITP
Act only Special Officer is empowered to deal with the offences
under the said Act, but no such notification or special power
empowered either to Pw.1-the complainant or to Pw.8-the
Investigation Officer produced by the prosecution. As such
48 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
though the facts and circumstances of the above case decision
and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are
different one, but the ratio of principle is clearly applicable to the
present case on hand.
42. The learned counsel for accused persons relied on
the orders passed in Criminal Petition No.10442/2013, wherein
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, observed in respect of
Section 154 of Cr.P.C., and held that the raid and mahazar was
not preceded by registering FIR as per Section 154 of the
Cr.P.C., and quashed the said FIR. Here, also the complainant
conducted raid and mahazar as per Ex.P1 without registering
FIR as per Section 154 of Cr.P.C., as such the ratio of principle
is clearly applicable to the present case on hand. The learned
counsel for accused persons relied on the orders passed in
Criminal Petition No.15941/2012 clubbed with Criminal
Petition No. 15852/2012, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, observed that:
"With regard to the question whether registration of
FIR should precede the investigation or that FIR could be
registered under the midst of the process of investigation
would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. In a situation where an offence is committed
right in the presence of a police officer, it would be
49 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
imprudent to insist that he should rush to the police
station to record the FIR. The police officer should
immediately act, like apprehending the accused, sending
the victim to medical treatment etc., and thereafter
registration of FIR would be an ideal investigation
procedure. Otherwise, in all other types of cases,
registration of FIR is mandatory since an FIR is to be sent
to the Court at the earliest stage, so that no manipulating
and tampering of facts would be possible. If the FIR is sent
to the Court, all further investigation should necessary be
consistent with the FIR."
Here also, the complainant without registering FIR,
conducted raid and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P1 and seized
MO1 to MO9, as such the ratio of principle is clearly applicable
to the present case on hand.
43. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the alleged offences
against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. The
defense of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the
case including materials on record discussed above probablizes
the defense of the accused rather than the case of the
prosecution.
44. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.10, got marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17
and 18 material objects as MO1 to MO18, placed on record in
50 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
respect of alleged offences is insufficient to prove that on 18-04-
2012 at about 12.00 hours in the noon, the accused No.1 to 11
with common object procured the minor girl-Cw.5-the victim,
aged about 16 years, in a car bearing No.KA-05-D-4861 near
Big Bazaar, Bellandur Gate within the jurisdiction of H.S.R.
Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the purpose of letting her
to prostitution and also brought other girls/women viz., Cw.6 to
Cw.16 from various places by using car bearing No.KA-05-D-
4861, KA-04-B-3116 and Hero Honda Activa Motor Cycle
bearing No.KA-05-EL-9760 and wrongfully restrained them for
the purpose of prostitution and also detained them in the house
of Cw.17 situated at Harloor Village, Sarjapur for five days,
wherein the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse and
raped Cw.5-the victim girl against her will, by criminal
intimidation to her life with dire consequences and also abetted
them with seduction for prostitution and let them for
prostitution by maintaining the said premises as brothel home
and depended on their earning from prostitution and thereby
the accused No.1 committed offences punishable under section
366-A, 372, 373, 341, 342 read with section 34 of IPC, Section
51 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
376 and 506 of IPC and section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of I.T.P. Act
read with Section 34 of IPC, the accused No.5 and 6 committed
offences punishable under section 366-A, 372, 373, 341, 342
read with section 34 of IPC and section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of
I.T.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC and accused No.2
committed offences punishable under section 366-A, 372, 373,
341, 342, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and section 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 and 9 of I.T.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC.
Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 13 in Spl.C.C.No. 183/2013
and Point No.1 to 12 in Spl.C.C.No.181/2013 in the
"Negative".
45. Point No.14 in Spl.C.C.No.183/2013 and Point
No.13 in Spl.C.C.No.181/2013:- For the above said reasons
and discussions on Point No.1 to 13 in Spl.C.C. No.183/2013
and on Point No.1 to 12 in Spl. C.C.No.181/2013, I hold that
the accused No.1, 5, 6 and accused No.2 are entitled for an
order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass
the following:
52 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
ORDER
In Spl.C.C.No.183/2016 Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 366-A, 372, 373, 341, 342 read with section 34 of IPC, Section 376 and 506 of IPC and section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of I.T.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused No.5 and 6 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 366-A, 372, 373, 341, 342 read with section 34 of IPC and section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of I.T.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.1, 5 and 6 stand cancelled.
In Spl.C.C.No.181/2016 Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 366-A, 372, 373, 341, 342, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of I.T.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
Office is directed to keep MO1 to MO18 as it is until disposal of Special C.C.No.180/2016.
53 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016 Office is directed to keep the original judgment in Spl.C.C.No.183/2016 and its copy in Special C.C.No.181/2016 (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 4th Day of January 2019) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Hanumesh Cw.1 16-12-2016 Pw.2 Meenakshi Yeragatti Cw.20 09-11-2017 Pw.3 Dr. Babu Rao Cw.18 24-11-2017 Pw.4 H.R. Rajashekar Cw.17 24-11-2017 Reddy Pw.5 Dr. Geeth Monnamma Cw.19 03-01-2018 Pw.6 R.Susheela Cw.6 16-04-2018 Pw.7 K. Prasanna Kumar Cw.23 06-06-2018 Pw.8 Srinivasa Reddy N.T. Cw.32 06-09-2018 Pw.9 H. Nagabushan Cw.30 29-10-2018 Pw.10 D.V.Shivanna Cw.31 29-10-2018 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Mahazar Pw.1 16-12-2016 54 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016 & Spl.C.C.No.181/2016 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 16-12-2016 Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 16-04-2018 Ex.P 1c Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 06-06-2018 Ex.P 1d Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 29-10-2018 Ex.P 1e Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 29-10-2018 Ex.P 2 Complaint Pw.1 16-12-2016 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 16-12-2016 Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 3, 4 Photos of seized Pw.1 16-12-2016 vehicles Ex.P 5 D.L. of Mousin Pw.1 16-12-2016 Sheikh Ex.P 6, 7 Electricity bills of Pw.1 16-12-2016 Rajashekar Reddy Ex.P 8 Statement of victim Pw.2 09-11-2017 girl Ex.P 8a Signature of victim Pw.2 09-11-2017 Ex.P 8b Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 09-11-2017 Ex.P 8c Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 9 Medical examination Pw.3 24-11-2017 report of A-1 Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 24-11-2017 Ex.P 9b Signature of A- Pw.3 24-11-2017 Ex.P 9c Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 10 Statement of Pw.4 Pw.4 24-11-2017 Ex.P 11 Medical examination Pw.5 03-01-2018 report of victim Ex.P 11a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 03-01-2018 Ex.P 11b Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 12 FIR Pw.8 06-09-2018 55 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016 & Spl.C.C.No.181/2016 Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 13 Report of Cw.24 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 13a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 13b Signature of Cw.24 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 14 Report of Cw.25 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 14a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 14b Signature of Cw.25 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 15 Report of P.C.9031 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 15a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 15b Signature of 9031 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 16 FSL Report Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 16a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2018 Ex.P 17 FSL Seal Pw.8 06-09-2018 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION MO1 to Seven mobile phones Pw.1 16-12-2016 MO7 MO8 Cash amount of Pw.1 21-07-2017 Rs.2,500/-
MO9 Cash amount of Pw.1 21-07-2017 Rs.7,000/-
MO10 Vaginal Smear Pw.5 03-01-2018
MO11 Hair Pw.5 03-01-2018
MO12 Cervical swab Pw.5 03-01-2018
MO13 Pubic Hair Pw.5 03-01-2018
MO14 High vaginal Smear Pw.5 03-01-2018
MO15 Blood sample Pw.5 03-01-2018
MO16 Scalp hair Pw.8 06-09-2018
56 Spl.C.C.No.183/2016
& Spl.C.C.No.181/2016
MO17 Pubic swab Pw.8 06-09-2018
MO18 Blood sample Pw.8 06-09-2018
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE