Bangalore District Court
4. Name Of The Accused Mohammed Samsad ... vs Is Acquitted on 28 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 28th day of April 2022.
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO. 16290-2013
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 16290/2013
2. The date of commission 22/01/2013
of the offence
3. Name of the State by Cottonpet Police Station.
complainant
4. Name of the accused Mohammed Samsad Alam,
S/o.M.D. Ayub, 37 years, No.33,
Rajamani Nilayam, Kaddi
Venkatachari Street, C.M.
Lane,Jolimohalla, Cottonpet,
Bengaluru.
5. The offence complained U/sec. 370. 374 of IPC and Section
of or proved - 23 and 26 of J.J. Act, 2000.
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.NKG Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 28/04/2022
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Cottonpet Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 370. 374 of IPC and Section - 23 and 26 of J.J. Act, 2000.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 22.01.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. at Building No.33, situated at Jolimohalla KV Sreet, within the jurisdiction of Cottonpet Police Station , accused in order to recruit and have illegally gain brought CWs.7 to 11, who are minors from Bihar and Nepal knowingly well that they are minors and unlawfully compelled them to work as bonded laborers in bag manufacturing unit without providing basic necessities and gave mental torture to the CW.7 to 11 and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the offences punishable U/sec. 370. 374 of IPC and Section - 23 and 26 of J.J. Act, 2000 and read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 3. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the accused have placed no evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides .
6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that
on 22.01.2013 at about 3.30 p.m.
at Building No.33, situated at
Jolimohalla KV Sreet, within the
jurisdiction of Cottonpet Police
Station , accused in order to recruit
and have illegally gain brought
CWs.7 to 11, who are minors from
Bihar and Nepal knowingly well that
they are minors and unlawfully
compelled them to work as bonded
laborers in bag manufacturing unit
without providing basic necessities
and gave mental torture to the CW.7
to 11 and thereby committed the
offences punishable U/sec. 370. 374
of IPC and Section - 23 and 26 of J.J.
Act, 2000.?
2) What order?
7.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8.Point No.1 :-
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused brought CWs.7 to 11, who are minors from Bihar and Nepal knowingly well that they are minors and unlawfully compelled them to work in his bag manufacturing unit without providing basic necessities and gave mental torture to the CW.7 to 11. Therefore the Cottonpet Police has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.
370. 374 of IPC and Section - 23 and 26 of J.J. Act, 2000.
9.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and got marked 3 documents. Out of them PW.1 is the Labour Officer, PW.2 is the investigating officer, PW.3 is the Police Constable and PW.4 is the Medical Officer.
10.CW.1 is examined as PW.1. He deposed that he got information on 22.01.2013 about trafficking of children from out of State and engaging them as bonded laborers. So, he along with the police officers and NGO by name Bachapan Bachavo members together divided into 4 groups and one group is headed by him went to Joli Mohalla Cottonpet to a bag manufacturing unit and found 5 children, who are less than aged about 15 years they are from Bihar and Utter Pradesh. He did not found the owner of the said bag manufacturing unit in the said place. He also deposed about the name of the child laborers as Mohammed Ismail, Gani Mohammed, Ibrahim, Parvez Alam and Mohammed. He took the said children and handedover to a State Home and thereafter filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. He also deposed about conducting of spot mahazar as per Ex.P 2 and he also given further statement to the police. He is considered as partly hostile and in cross-examination he admitted the suggestion that the accused is the owner of said bag manufacturing unit.
11.In the cross-examination PW.1 is not able to say how many persons are there in each group while committing raid. He admits that he has not mentioned in the complaint and mahazar about the name of the said bag manufacturing unit and also which types of bags were preparing in the said unit and also types of machines used in the said unit. He is unable to say the names of mahazar witnesses.
12.CW.18 is examined as PW.2. She is the investigating officer she deposed regarding registration of the crime, submission of the FIR, conducting of mahazar, recording of statements and further statements. She also recorded the statement of the child laborers, who are CW.7 to 11 and also arrest and release of the accused. She identified the complaint and mahazar and voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P3. In the cross-examination she admits that the CW.1 has not produced the child laborers before her and she saw the said children for the first time in the State Home.
13.CW.17 is examined as PW.3. He is a police constable. He also deposed about the conducting of raid along with the investigating officer and the members of NGO and Labor Officer. He also admits that when they visited the said bag manufacturing unit they have not found the owner of the said unit in that place. He is unable to say the names of the company pertains to which the bags were prepared in the said unit. He is also unable to say the company names of the machineries, which were alleged to be there in the unit.
14.CW.15 is examined as PW.4. She is a Medical Officer. She also deposed that as per instructions of her higher officers on 22.01.2013 she went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner and found other medical officers. She has examined CW.8 and 9 and found that CW.8 is less than 12 years and CW.9 is less than 14 years, based on their body structure and teeth. She also stated she has given certificates about her examination regarding their age of the children, but the original certificates were not produced before the court only the xerox copies are there in the file. Therefore, they are not marked. In the cross- examination she is unable to say how many children she examined in the office of Deputy Commissioner .
15.The witness summons has been issued several times to CW.2 to 14, but the concerned police were not able to secure the said witnesses. Therefore evidence of other witnesses has been dropped.
16.It is the clear allegation of the prosecution that, accused has kept the CW.7 to 11, who are child laborers in his bag manufacturing unit without providing the basic necessities and kept them as bonded laborers. In order to prove the case, the prosecution ought to have been examined the CW.7 to 11 in order to strengthen the case, but inspite of granting sufficient time the concerned police has not secured the said alleged child laborers. Without the examination of the child laborers, the story of the prosecution cannot be believed. Moreover, the prosecution has not produced the certificates issued by PW.4 regarding the age of the child laborers . If at all the PW.4 has examined the child laborers in order to believe her version, the certificates regarding age of the child laborers is must necessary.
17.PW.1 to 4 are the police witnesses. They have deposed in formal manner about the official acts. Except the PW.1 to 4, the prosecution has not examined any of the independent witnesses to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Only based on the evidence of official witnesses, the accused cannot be convicted. Moreover, there are somany contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 to 4.
18.Looking from any angle, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the accused. Therefore, the suspicion arises from the story of the prosecution. Whenever suspicion arises, the benefit of doubt will goes in favour of the accused. Hence, the above point is held in negative.
19. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed herein above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 370. 374 of IPC and Section - 23 and 26 of J.J. Act, 2000.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 28 th day of April 2022.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
1. Subhash
2. Smt.Soumya
3. Mamtaz Pasha
4. Dr.Vedavathi.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Spot Mahazar
3. Statement of PW.2
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Nil.
4. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
Dws:- Nil.
5. List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.Ds:- Nil.
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 370. 374 of IPC and Section - 23 and 26 of J.J. Act, 2000.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.