Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs (By Sri Vsp on 19 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
PRESENT:
Sri E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.770/2017
BETWEEN
State by Byappanahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
K. C. Pramod Mouli S/o Late Chandramouli
a/a 24 years,
R/a No.21, 3rd Cross, Shivanandanagar,
Bangalore-72. ..
ACCUSED
(By Sri VSP., Advocate)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Byappanahalli P.S., Bangalore City, has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/s.370 of IPC and Sec.4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. The brief story of the prosecution case is as under:- 2 S.C.No.770/2017
On 7.3.2015 at about 3.30 p.m. CW.1 T. Somashekar, PSI had received information regarding indulging in prostitution business by trafficking women into prostitution to earn more money near Big Bazaar Old Madras Road. On the basis of the said information CW.1 along with panchas CW.2 and Cw.3, police staff Cw.5 to 7 reached near the spot and observed that the accused has instigated CW.4 to indulge in prostitution to earn more money. After confirming information, CW.1 has conducted raid and caught hold the accused and rescued the Victim CW.4 and seized the material objects such as mobile phone, cash of Rs.1,000/- and Honda Dio two wheeler and thereby the accused has committed the offences as alleged against him .
3.The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional X 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.770/2017.
3 S.C.No.770/2017
4. The charge was framed against the accused for the offences as alleged against him. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.The prosecution examined three witnesses as PW.1 to 3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.3, and Mos1 to
3. The witnesses Cw.5 and CW.6 were reported as dead. The concerned police failed to execute warrant against vital witnesses CW.3 and 4, and to keep present before the Court for the purpose of 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.3 and 4, 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 has denied incriminating evidence present against him, and not chosen to lead defense evidence nor submitted anything to Court. 4 S.C.No.770/2017
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 indulging in prostitution business by trafficking CW.4 into prostitution to earn money near Big Bazaar Old Madras Road, for illegal gain and thereby the accused has committed an offences punishable U/s.4 and 5 of ITP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused with an intention to indulge in the prostitution business by trafficking CW.4 and induced her in indulging in prostitution business for illegal gain, and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.370 of IPC
3. What Order?5 S.C.No.770/2017
9.This Court findings on the above points are as hereunder:
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.
It is the case of the prosecution that the Sub-Inspector of Police by name Somashekar examined as PW.2, has conduced the raid and caught the accused and rescued CW.4, who were indulged in prostitution and seized MO1 to 3 The said PSI has given evidence according to the story of the prosecution regarding riad, conducting of mahazar at the spot and seizure of MOs1 to 3. Thereafter he was returned to the Police Station and lodged self complaint, and registered FIR and thereafter brought the seized MO1 to 3 into PF and submitted to the Court and recorded statements of CW.4 to CW.7. Later he has also submitted charge sheet against the 6 S.C.No.770/2017 accused. Even the police witness Umme Salma, who was also in the alleged team of raid has deposed according to the prosecution story. In the cross-examination of accused counsel, the witness PW.2 PSI has denied that the Big Bazaar is located near and opposite to the Police Station, and it is visible if any body come and stand out of the said Police Station. According to PW.2, they reached the spot in the vehicle and watched and noticed indulging of accused in the prostitution by trafficking CW.4 Smt. Rashmi. He has not answered about presence of the CCTV camera in front of the Big Bazaar. But the cross-examination of PW.3 discloses that they reached the spot by walk from the Police Station with the police uniform. She has admitted the presence of CCTV Camera in front of Big Bazaar and also Police Station. She has also admitted that the Big Bazaar is located in front of the Police Station. It is surprise to note how the I.O., who is not empower to conduct raid and investigation, has failed to collect the footages of CCTV Camera to establish his version. More over according to the provisions of ITP Act, the learned PSI has not followed any procedure prescribed in the ITP Act in securing the women pancha and sending of victim to the 7 S.C.No.770/2017 medical examination etc., More over he is not aware himself about his power under the ITP Act. According to the provisions of ITP Act, the I.O., shall not below the rank of Police Inspector, as such the entire procedure i.e.,conducting of raid recording of mahazar, and statement of the witnesses, and seizure of MOs1 to 3 by PSI is not recognized and same is against to the provisions of ITP Act. Even otherwise, the evidence present on record is not enough to hold or consider accused has involved in commission of the offences alleged against him by trafficking CW.4 Smt. Rashmi. The prosecution has also failed to examine Smt. Rashmi, who is the prime witness. Hence, the evidence given by the police witnesses PW.2 and 3 is not at all worthful to the cse of the prosecution.
11.It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has succeeded to examine one pancha by name Bharath Kumar, who is examined as PW.1. The said pancha has completely turned hostile by deposing that he had gone to Police Station about three years back with regard to lodging of complaint about loss of his mobile phone. At that time, the 8 S.C.No.770/2017 police have obtained his signature in the Police Station. He has not aware about conducting of raid and seizure of Material objects and also the contents of panchanama. The learned Public Prosecutor treated him as hostile and cross- examined, but unable to get any useful evidence to belive the raid and involvement of the accused in the alleged offences. As already discussed above, the police Officer PW.2 Police Sub-Inspector has no locus standing or he is not empowered under the ITP Act to conduct raid and proceed with the investigation and file charge sheet. So in view of the above reasons, it is very clear that the prosecution has failed in establishing its case against the accused to believe that the accused was indulging in prostitution business by wrongfully restraining CW.4, as alleged in the charge sheet. Hence, this court has answered the points No.1 and 2 in the negative.
12. Point No.3: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and 2, this court pass the following:- 9 S.C.No.770/2017
ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused shall stand canceled.
Interim order dated 23.05.2015 of MO3 Honda Dio bearing No.KA-43-K-1946 is made absolute after appeal period is over.
MO1 and MO2 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 19 th day of November, 2019) (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.10 S.C.No.770/2017
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Bharath Kumar P.W.2: T. Somashekar P.W.3: Umme Salma.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Mahazar Ex.P.2: complaint Ex.P.3: FIR.
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: Mobile phone
MO2: Cash of Rs.1,000/-
MO3: Honda Dio two wheeler.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 11 S.C.No.770/2017 Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused shall stand canceled.
Interim order dated 23.05.2015 of MO3 Honda Dio bearing No.KA-43-K-1946 is made absolute after appeal period is over.
MO1 and MO2 shall be confiscate to the State after appeal period is over.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)