Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs Persons Have Committed The Offences As ... on 16 December, 2019

 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
         JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)

      DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

                           PRESENT:
             Sri E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
       XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

                       S.C. No.46/2016

BETWEEN

State by RT Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.                                   .... COMPLAINANT

       (By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND

1.Smt. Deepa
W/o Sokanadan, a/a 40 years,
R/a No.105, 1st cross, 1st Main
Agrahara, Yalahanka,
Bangalore City.
(By Sri JPH., Advocate)

2.Smt. Suneeta C/o Venkatesh
a/a 45 years,
R/a No. 08, Sri. Bilva Nilaya , 8th cross,
Manjunath Layout, R.T Nagar,
Bangalore City.
      (By Sri HJP., Advocate)

3.Sri. Kannappa @ Kollappa,a/a 30 years,
R/a No.05, Kasturbanagar,
P.G.Halli,
Bangalore City.                                    .. ACCUSED

       (By Sri MG., Advocate)

                             *****
                               2                     S.C.No.46/2016


                         JUDGMENT

The Police Inspector, RT Nagar P.S., Bangalore City, has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.370, 342 and 109 of IPC and Sec.3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. The brief story of the prosecution case is as under:-

The accused persons trafficking CW.4 Priya with an false assurance of getting job and wrongfull confined her in the house and against her willingness induced her to indulgeinto prostitution by giving threat at house No.8, Shivanagar, Sri Balwa Nilaya, Chowdeshwari Devi Krupa, 8 th Cross, 3rd Main, Manjunatha Layout, and leading life out of illegal earning through the prostitution business. Such being the case, on the basis of the credible information received by PW.1/CW.1 K.S. Thanvir, Police Inspector, CCB, Bangalore, conducted raid on 8.4.2015 at 5.30 p.m. along with panchas CW.6 to CW.10 and apprehended accused No.1 and 2 and also the accused No.3, who is the customer and rescued CW.4 Priya and also seized MOs1 to MOs3 and thereby the 3 S.C.No.46/2016 accused persons have committed the offences as alleged against them.

3.The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional VIII Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. after furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused persons. The same was numbered as SC No.46/2016.

4.The charge was framed against the accused for the offences as alleged against them. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.The prosecution examined four witnesses as PW.1 to 4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.5, and Mos1 to 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has gave up the police official witnesses CW.6, 7, 8 and 10 in view of the evidence of other police official witnesses. The concerned police failed to execute warrant against vital witnesses CW.2 to CW.5, and keep them present before the Court for the purpose of 4 S.C.No.46/2016 evidence in spite of issuance of NBW and proclamation, and as such the prayer of learned PP was rejected and prosecution side evidence was taken as closed with liberty to examine the said witnesses CW.2 to CW/5, if the concerned police keep them present before the Court, before conclusion of trial.

6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this Court has recorded the statement of accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 to 3 have denied incriminating evidence present against them , and not chosen to lead defense evidence nor submitted anything to Court.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.

8.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 5 S.C.No.46/2016 3 by trafficking CW.4 Priya with an false assurance of getting job and wrongly confined her in the house and against her willingness induced her to involve into prostitution by giving threat at house No.8, Shivanagar, Sri Balwa Nilaya, Chowdeshwari Devi Krupa, 8th Cross, 3rd Main, Manjunatha Layout, and leading life out of wrongful earning through the prostitution business and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 3 with an intention to run prostitution business trafficking CW.4 Priya with an false assurance of getting job and wrongfully confined her in the house and against her willingness induced her into prostitution by giving threat for wrongful gain, and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offences punishable U/s.370, 342 and 109 of IPC?

3. What Order?

9.This Court has answered the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:-

REASONS

10.Points No.1 and 2: Both these points are taken up together as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.

On perusal of the prosecution papers and evidence of police official witnesses, it clearly shows that the accused No.1 and 2 involved in running of prostitution business by giving false assurance of getting job to Victim CW.4 Priya and wrongfully confined her in the house at No.8, Manjunatha Layout, and forcibly indulged her in the prostitution business. The accused No.3 is the customer, but he was also inducted as accused No.3 though no provision under ITP Act attract to punish the customer. As such the prosecution is required only to establish its case against the accused No.1 and 2.

11.It is pertinent to note that the Police Inspector PW.1 Thanvir.K.S., being head of the raided team has deposed about receipt of information with regard to running of prostitution at House No.8 Manjunatha Layout, within the jurisdiction of RT Nagar P.S., As such he had reached the RT Nagar P.S., along his staff CW.8 to CW.10, and thereafter he has also taken the help of jurisdictional Police, i.e., Women Police Constables CW.6 and CW.7 and thereafter reached the spot and conducted raid on the same day i.e., 8.4.2015 at 5.30 p.m. Prior to conducting of raid, he had secured two panchas of locality, but the fact is that the witness PW.1 has failed to secure the Women Pancha as required under ITP Act. It is also noticed from the cross-examination of PW.1 that the said raided house is consisting of two floors, but he has not made any efforts or attempt to record statements of residents of first floor or second floor. So also, not recorded the statements of neighbours to believe conducting of raid. He has admitted no chit signed by the panchas is affixed on the seized MOs1 to MOs3. Now the question is whether the witness PW.2 being in the team of raid has really participated in the raid is the question? It is no doubt the 8 S.C.No.46/2016 chief examination of PW.2 is according to the story of the prosecution and PW.1. But the cross-examination discloses that the said building on which raid was conducted is single floor building. According to him PW.1 has secured the neighbors as panchas, but not recorded the statements of the neighbours. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1 and 2 discloses that there is a contrary in the evidence of PW.1 and 2 about consisting of number of floors in the building on which they conducted alleged raid. More over no panchas or neighbour i.e., independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution due to failure of concerned police in producing them before the Court in spite of issue of NBW and proclamation So, no independent witnesses nor victim expected to support the case of the prosecution. It appears that non-examination of said witnesses CW.2 to 5 is fatal to the case of the prosecution, since doubt arises about the conduct of the raid itself by PW.1. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 and 2 placed by the prosecution on record suffers with doubt.

12.The another police witness PW.3 Mahesh, Police sub-Inspector has given evidence about receiving of complaint from PW.1 along with Mos, panchanama and other relevant documents and also the accusd persons and victim. His further evidence shows that he has registered the crime bearing No.116/2015 against accused persons and brought the seized material objects into PF and recorded statements of CW.2 and 3 and handed over further investigation PW.4 Police Inspector Raghupathi. The said Police Inspector i.e., PW.4 has recorded statements of CW.4 to CW.10 and secured the house documents of CW.5 and submitted charge sheet against accused. The learned accused counsel has denied the entire evidence of PW.3 and PW.4. It is very important to note that the witness PW.3 never deposed regarding sending of victim for medical examination and steps taken against CW.4 Victim as provided under ITP Act. So also, nothing is come out from the evidence of PW.3 regarding legal steps taken against accused persons. This itself shows that there is completely lapse on the part of the police in bring out the guilt against the accused persons by placing proper investigation. So also, the witness PW.3 Police Sub-Inspector 10 S.C.No.46/2016 is not at all empower to carry out the investigation as required under the provision of the ITP Act. So it is very clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused persons as alleged against them. Hence, this court has answered the points No.1 and 2 in the negative.

13. Point No.3: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and 2, this court pass the following:-

ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370, 342 and 109 of Indian Penal Code.

The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand canceled.

MO2 being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.

MO1 Mobile phones(3) and MO3 cash of Rs.2,000/- shall be confiscate to the State after appeal period is over.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 16 th day of December, 2019) (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:

P.W.1:    Thanvir.K.S.
P.W.2:    Manjunath H.C.
P.W.3:    Mahesh.M.
P.W.4:    Raghupathi.

List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Notice to witnesses Ex.P.2: Record of reasons Ex.P.3: Mahazar Ex.P.4: Complaint Ex.P.5: FIR No.116/2015 dated 8.4.2015. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:

NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:-

NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:-

MO1:      Three Mobile phones

MO3:      Condoms

MO4:      Cash of Rs.2,000/-



                               (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)

XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 12 S.C.No.46/2016 Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370, 342 and 109 of Indian Penal Code.

shall stand canceled.

MO2 being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.

MO1 Mobile phones(3) and MO3 cash of Rs.2,000/- shall be confiscate to the State after appeal period is over.

(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)