Karnataka High Court
State By D S P vs Bobbukunte Rudragouda on 25 August, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1163/2007
BETWEEN:
State by Deputy Superintendent
Of Police,
Bellary. ...Appellant
(By Sri. V.M. Banakar, Additional State
Public Prosecutor)
AND:
1. Bobbukunte Rudragouda,
S/o. late Shivanagouda,
Aged about 33 years,
Uppara Hosalli,
Bellary.
2. Bobbunkunte Shankaragouda,
S/o. late Shivanagouda,
Aged about 30 years,
Uppara Hosalli,
Bellary. ...Respondents
(By Sri. U. Basavaraj, Sri. J. Basavaraj
and Sri. Basavarajaiah N, Advocates for Respondent No.1,
Appeal abated against Respondent No.2)
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)
AND (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the State
Additional Public Prosecutor praying to grant leave to file
an appeal against the judgment dated 6.9.2006 in
S.C.No.50/2001 on the file of the Special Judge, Bellary,
acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded
Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 under Section 3(1)(vi)
of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and
under section 374 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused. The background is as follows-
It was the case of the prosecution that in order to abolish the Bonded Labour System and rehabilitate the victims of the bonded labour, in terms of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred 3 to as '1976 Act', for brevity), the Tahsildar, Siruguppa, had formed an official committee to detect the incidents of enforcing the Bonded Labour System and the Committee had thus visited Uppara Hosalli in July 2000 to enquire about the existence of the Bonded Labour System in the village and it was found on enquiry that the P.Ws. 1 and 2 were working as bonded labourers under the accused, and therefore, their statements were recorded, PW-1 had asserted that the accused had been engaging him as a bonded labourer for 25 years. And in addition to it, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- five years prior to his statement, to perform the wedding of his son and therefore, had been engaged continuously as a bonded labourer on the pretext that the amount borrowed was not duly repaid by virtue of such labour and had continued to be engaged as such. P.W.6 had borrowed Rs.2,000/- and since he was unable to repay the same, he had continued to work as a bonded labourer for 20 years continuously and P.W.6 was informed that the debt was not discharged even inspite of his long labour and on the basis of those 4 statements, the Committee concluded that the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6, who were engaged as bonded labourers under similar circumstances by the accused, the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the 1976 Act and also under Section 3(1) (VI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 374 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity). The case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, Bellary, and the matter was contested. The accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried on the basis of the evidence tendered by the prosecution, whereby it had examined P.Ws. 1 to 18 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-
13. Several witnesses whose statements had been recorded were given up. On the basis of the said evidence, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused have committed the offences punishable under 5 Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and under Section 374 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. as alleged in the chargesheet beyond all reasonable doubts?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (VI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, read with Section 34 of I.P.C. as alleged in the chargesheet beyond all reasonable doubt?
3. What order?
3. The point Nos. 1 and 2 were held in the negative and acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to question the reasoning of the Court below on several grounds.
6
5. However, on an examination of the record and the reasoning of the Court below, it is evident that the prosecution had miserably failed to make out any case against the accused. As observed by the trial Court, the only evidence available on record was the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 16 to 18, of these, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the victims of Bonded Labour System. P.W.6, who was one of the alleged victims had turned hostile at the stage of evidence, and therefore, was sought to be cross- examined by the prosecution, which left P.W.3, who was a Village Accountant, in whose presence the statement of P.W.1 was recorded. P.W.4 is the Child Development Project Officer, who had recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 6 in the presence of P.W.3. P.W.5 was another Village Accountant in whose presence the statement of P.W.6 was recorded by P.W.4 and P.W.16 was the Tahsildar, who had forwarded the report of the Committee to the Police along with the complaint. P.W.17 was the Police Sub-Inspector and P.W.18 was 7 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bellary, who took up the investigation and submitted the chargesheet and it is found by the Court below that P.Ws. 3 to 5 being only stated that P.Ws. 1 and 6 have given statements before them, but they were not eye-witnesses to the actual fact of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 acting as bonded labourers and working for the accused.
6. On the other hand, P.W.4 had admitted that they have not made any enquiries with any other persons or visited the house or the lands of the accused. Therefore, the Court below has negated the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5 on the ground that they were not eye- witnesses to the accused having enforced the bonded labour system. P.Ws. 1 and 2 being the alleged victims would naturally speak against the accused, and therefore, the Court below has held that in the absence of any corroboration of their evidence by independent witnesses, their evidence could not be the basis for 8 conviction of the accused. It is further elicited in cross- examination that P.W.1 suffers from failing eye sight since ten years before the trial and that he was also hard of hearing and was incapable of doing any work. P.W.2, in turn, had also stated that he was being engaged by other villagers as a coolie. Therefore, the Court has concluded that, to allege and establish bonded labour, it was necessary for the accused to have engaged the services of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as bonded labourers on a full time basis and the admitted statements of the said victims to the above effect would water down the accusations and in the absence of any corroborating evidence in support of the case of the prosecution by independent witnesses, it could not be said that the case had been established beyond all reasonable doubt, and accordingly, has summarily acquitted the accused on the above reasoning. 9
7. Though the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would endeavour to make out a case inspite of the above infirmities, in the absence of any direct evidence as rightly pointed out by the Court below, the prosecution has not made out any case, and therefore, the acquittal of the accused is affirmed.
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/-