Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Mohammad Junayad on 28 January, 2020
Spl.C.C.483/2018
1
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 28 th Day of January, 2020
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 483/2018
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Cotton Pete Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Mohammad Junayad,
S/o. Mohammad Nazeer, 28 years,
R/at. Lakan Sen Badarva,
Paddana Thola Village,
Badarva Post, Dhaka Police station,
Mothihari District,
Bihar State
Presently residing at:
No.17/1, 1st Cross,
Cheluvadi Palya,
Mysore Road, Cotton Pete
Bangalore
ACCUSED No.2 Mohammad Firdoz,
S/o. Lefakath Ansari, 30 years,
Spl.C.C.483/2018
2
R/at. Chand Mohan Bada Village,
Kundava Jainpur Post & Station,
Mothihari District,
Bihar State
Presently residing at:
No.1126, 1st Cross,
Cheluvadi Palya,
Mysore Road, Cotton Pete
Bangalore
ACCUSED No.3 Mohammad Shameem,
S/o. Sheikh Islam, 40 years,
R/at. Jainpura Dhaka,
Puruvin Chend Paran Dhaka & station,
Mothihari District,
Bihar State
Presently residing at:
No.20, 6th Cross,
Dr.T.C.M. Rayan Road
Cheluvadi Palya,
Mysore Road, Cotton Pete
Bangalore
ACCUSED No.4 M.D. Naushad Split up
Sri.M.G for A-1 to A3-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 10-06-2016
2 Date of report of occurrence 10-06-2016
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1& 2 11-06-2016
Date of release of Accused No.1& 2 23-07-2016
Period undergone in custody 12 days & 1month
by Accused No.1 & 2
Spl.C.C.483/2018
3
Date of arrest of Accused No.3
Date of release of Accused No.3 ON BAIL
Period undergone in custody
by Accused No.3
4 Date of commencement of evidence 26-04-2019
5 Date of closing of evidence 21-11-2019
6 Name of the complainant Narayani
7 Offences complained of Sec. 370(5),374- r/w.
34 IPC, Sec. 75 & 79-
J.J. Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 to 3
are acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
J UD GM EN T
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector, Cotton
Pete Police Station-Bangalore, against accused No.1 to 4 for the
offences punishable under Section 370(5), 374 read with section
34 of IPC and Section 75 and 79 of J.J. Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the
prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused No.1 at building No.17/1, 1 st Cross,
Cheluvadi Palya, within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete Police
Spl.C.C.483/2018
4
Station-Bangalore, is running bag manufacturing factory by
engaging minor boys-Cw.4 and Cw.5 who were brought by way
of human trafficking from outside the State, they were kept in
the factory itself without allowing them to go outside and
without sending them to the school and extracting work for
more hours in a day without paying salary and without
providing basic necessities to them. Likewise the accused No.2
at building No. 1126, New No.16/4, 1 st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya,
engaged child labours Cw.6 and Cw.7, the accused No.3 at
building No.22, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya, engaged
Cw.8 to Cw.10 as child labours and the accused No.4 at
building No.22, 1st floor, 1st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya engaged
child labour-Cw.11. On 10-06-2016 at about 10.30a.m., Cw.1
received information and taken Cw.2 and Cw.3 as Panch
witnesses and Cw.27 to Cw.31 as members of raiding team
went to the spot, raided all the four bag manufacturing units
and taken custody of the accused No.1 and 2 and rescued Cw.4
to Cw.11, produced them before the Cotton Pete Police, lodged
complaint by handing over Spot Panchanama and the accused
Spl.C.C.483/2018
5
No.1 and 2 along with Cw.4 to Cw.11. On the basis of complaint
lodged by Cw.1-Narayani, who is Investigating Officer in this
case also, the police registered case against the accused No.1 to
4 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 370(A) read
with section 34 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act and
Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences
punishable under Section 370(5), 374 read with section 34 of
IPC and Section 75 and 79 of J.J. Act. Thereafter, after filing the
charge sheet, as usual the accused No.1 to 4 appeared before
the committal Court, the committal Court furnished copy of
charge sheet to accused No.1 to 4 as contemplated under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Committal Court passed an order for
committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil &
Session Judge-Bangalore, since the victims are minors and the
said case is exclusively triable by the Child Court and in turn
the said case was made over to this Court for further
Spl.C.C.483/2018
6
proceedings.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, the
summons was issued to accused No.1 to 3. In pursuance of the
said summons, the accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the Court
and they were enlarged on bail, the accused No.4 remained
absent, he has not appeared before Court inspite of issuance of
summons and NBW, as such on 31-01-2019 this Court split up
case against accused No.4 and proceeded against accused 1 to
3. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused No.1 to 3
submitted that there is no argument before framing charge and
requested to frame charge. As a result the charges were framed
against accused No.1 to 3. The contents of charge read over and
explained to the accused No.1 to 3 in Hindi by translating
Kannada version to them. They pleaded not guilty and submit
crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.1 to 3
was set down for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused No.1 to 3 has examined 10 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.10,
Spl.C.C.483/2018
7
got marked 26 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 and closed its
side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared
against the accused No.1 to 3, they are examined under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., by recording their statement. The accused No.1
to 3 denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against
them as false. Earlier to that the accused No.1 to 3 complied the
provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. by executing personal
bonds and surety bonds. Thereafter arguments heard from both
the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
6. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and
arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points
that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. ದನನನಕಕ10.06.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-27 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-
31 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀi ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ
¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ZɮĪÁ¢¥Á¼ÀåzÀ 1£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°è ©°ØAUï £ÀA.
17/1gÀ°è ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ¥sÁåPÀÖj, 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀi ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
£ÀUÀgÀzÀ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ZɮĪÁ¢¥Á¼ÀåzÀ 1£ÉÃ
PÁæ¸ï£À°è ©°ØAUï £ÀA.1126 ºÉƸÀ £ÀA. 16/4 gÀ°è ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ¥sÁåPÀÖj, 3£ÉÃ
DgÉÆæAiÀi ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ
¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ZɮĪÁ¢¥Á¼ÀåzÀ 1£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°è ©°ØAUï £ÀA.22gÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£É
ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ಫನಫಕಕರಗಳಗಗ zÁ½ £ÀqɹzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ1 jAzÀ 3
¸ÁQë-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5, ¸ÁQë- 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-8 jAzÀ 10 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ¨Á®PÀgÀ£ÀÄß
«zsÁå¨sÁå¸ÀPÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀs£ÀzÀ°èlÄÖ
PÉÆAqÀÄ, §®ªÀAvÀªÁV UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ
¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.370(5) ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 34gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ
¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
Spl.C.C.483/2018
8
2. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀܼÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è, DgÉÆæ-1 jAzÀ 3gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ J¼ÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß «zsÁå¨sÁå¸À PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ
ºÉý PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀs£ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ, CªÀgÀ EZÉáUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV CªÀjAzÀ
§®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.374 ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 34
gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
3. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀܼÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è, DgÉÆæ-1 jAzÀ 3gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ J¼ÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß «zsÁå¨sÁå¸À PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ
ºÉý PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀs£ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ, CªÀgÀ EZÉáUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV CªÀjAzÀ
§®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ಮನಡಸಕಗಕನಡಡ CªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀĪÁV zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÄ
zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÀ®A.75gÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 gÀrAiÀÄ°è
²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV
gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
4. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀܼÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è, DgÉÆæ-1 jAzÀ 3gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ J¼ÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß «zsÁå¨sÁå¸À PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ
ºÉý PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀs£ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ, ಸನಬನಧಪಟಕ ಇಲನಖಗಯನದ ಪರವನನಗಗ
ಪಡಗಯದಗ ಅಪನಪಪಪರನದ ಏಳಡ ಮಕಕಳನಡನ ಕಗಲಸಕಗಕ ನಗನಮಸಕಗಕನಡಡ ಅವರನದ 12
ಗನಟಗಗಕ ಹಗಚಡಚ ಕನಲ CªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀĪÁV zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É
¤Ãr PÀ®A.79gÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ
C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV
gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
5. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
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: As per the final orders for the following:
Spl.C.C.483/2018
9
RE AS ON S
8. Point No.1 to 4:- As these points are inter-related,
hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to
avoid repetition of reasons.
9. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, both oral
and documentary, arguments canvassed by the learned
advocate for accused No.1 to 3 and the learned Public
Prosecutor.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the
accused No.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined in all 10
witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.10 and got marked 26 documents as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the
complainant, raiding team head and also the Investigating
Officer, Pw. 2 to Pw.10 are Panch witnesses and circumstantial
witnesses and doctor. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see
whether the available evidence of said witnesses are sufficient
for establishing alleged offences against accused No.1 to 3.
Spl.C.C.483/2018
10
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against
accused No.1 to 3 the prosecution is required to prove that the
accused No.1 at building No.17/1, 1 st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya,
within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete Police Station-Bangalore,
is running bag manufacturing factory by engaging minor boys-
Cw.4 and Cw.5 who were brought by way of human trafficking
from outside the State, they were kept in the factory itself
without allowing them to go outside and without sending them
to the school and extracting work for more hours in a day
without paying salary and without providing basic necessities to
them. Likewise the accused No.2 at building No. 1126, New
No.16/4, 1st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya, engaged child labours
Cw.6 and Cw.7, the accused No.3 at building No.22, 1 st Floor,
1st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya, engaged Cw.8 to Cw.10 as child
labours and the accused No.4 at building No.22, 1 st floor, 1st
Cross, Cheluvadi Palya engaged child labour-Cw.11and thereby
the accused No.1, 3 committed offences punishable under
Section 370(5), 374 read with section 34 of IPC, Section 75 and
79 of J.J. Act. Hence this Court shall proceed to see whether
Spl.C.C.483/2018
11
the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the above said
ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused No.1 to 4
beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available material
evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition
of offences under Section 370(5), 374 read with section 34 of
IPC and Section 75 and 79 of J.J. Act.
Section 370(5) of I.P.C defines that:
Trafficking of person-Where the offence involves
the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may
extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable
to fine.
Section 374 of I.P.C defines that:
Unlawful compulsory Labour- Whoever
unlawfully compels any person to labour against the
will of that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 34 of IPC defines that:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance
of common intention:- When a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of the common intention
Spl.C.C.483/2018
12
of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the
same manner as it were done by him alone.
Section 75 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Punishment for cruelty to child:-Whoever,
having the actual charge of or control over, assaults,
abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the child or
causes or procures the child to be assaulted,
abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner
likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or
physical suffering shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both
Section 79 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Exploitation of child employee-whoever
ostensibly engages a child and keeps him in bondage
for the purpose of employment or withholds his
earnings or uses such earning for his own purpose
shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to five years also be liable to
fine of one lakh rupees.
By going through the facts, circumstances and available
materials both at oral and documentary, it is just and proper to
consider whether the available material evidence attracts the
very ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability
against accused No.1 to 3.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Narayani-
P.S.I-the complainant and Investigating Officer, he has deposed
Spl.C.C.483/2018
13
that on 10-06-2016 at about 10.30a.m., he has received
information about in a bag manufacturing factory run in the
building, situated at 1st cross, Cheluvadi Palya and Pension
Mohalla, the manufacturer engaged minor boys in the work and
exploiting them. As per the said information on the very same
day he has called upon Cw.2 and Cw.3 to the station at about
10.45a.m., issued notice to them as per Ex.P1 with a request to
act as Panchas and also called Cw.22 to Cw.31-the Labour
Officers and other police personnel, taken all of them in Hoysala
vehicle to raid the said places and reached the spot at about
11.45a.m., and conducted raid at about 12hours in the noon
and rescued Cw.4 and Cw.5 at the bag manufacturing unit of
accused No.1, Cw.6 and Cw.7 at the bag manufacturing unit of
accused No.2, Cw.8 and Cw.9 at the bag manufacturing unit of
accused No.3 Cw.10 and Cw.11 at the bag manufacturing unit
of accused No.4 and enquired them. They told that they were
brought from Bihar State by paying some amount to their
parents and assuring them that they are going to provide
education to them, but the accused No.1 to 4 instead of
Spl.C.C.483/2018
14
providing education to them, detained them in the factory,
extracting work from 09.00a.m., to 11.00p.m., and also
threaten them if they made attempt to run from that place and
also not provided basic necessities.
14. Pw.1 further deposed that he has recorded statement
of said children, taken custody of accused No.1 and 2 who were
present there, conducted Mahazar as per Ex.P3 and also
prepared complaint as per Ex.P2, brought to the station,
registered the case in Crime No.186/2016 and conducted
further investigation. On the same day he has recorded the
statement of victim boys as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P11, sent them to
BOSCO for safe custody by giving requisition as per Ex.P12 and
also recorded statement of Cw.27 to Cw.31. On 11-06-2016 he
has produced accused No.1 and 2 before Court along with
remand application. Thereafter he has produced Cw.4 to Cw.11
before CWC on 13-06-2016 and he has produced Cw.4 to Cw.11
for medical check up in respect of their age and received age
estimation certificate as per Ex.P14 to Ex.P21. He has also
Spl.C.C.483/2018
15
recorded the statement of Cw.12 to Cw.22 on 23-06-2016,
collected rental agreement as per Ex.P22 to Ex.P24, after
closing investigation he has filed charge sheet.
15. Here this witness is not only the complainant but
also Investigation Officer, which is contrary to Law. The
accused persons tested his veracity and elicited that:
"F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¦üAiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj £Á£Éà DVzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¢£À
¨ÁwäÃzÁgÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁ»w §AzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÉÝ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀiÁ»w £À£ÀUÉ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 10.00
UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è §AvÀÄ. D ¢£À ªÀiÁ»w §AzÀ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 10.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è oÁuÁ ¢
£ÀZÀjAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀĪÀiÁr oÁuɬÄAzÀ ºÀÉÆgÀnzÉÝãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ §AzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiËTPÀªÁV
£À£Àß »jAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ w½¹ CªÀjAzÀ ªÀiËTPÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ zÁ½UÉ ºÉÆÃgÀnzÉÝãÉ. oÁuÁ
¢£ÀZÀjAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ¥Àæ.ªÀ.ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è DzÀgÉ WÀl£Á¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ
ºÉÆÃV zÁ½ ªÀÄÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀéªÀgÀ¢ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ zÁR°¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥Àæ.ªÀ.ªÀgÀ
¢ ¸À°è¹zÉÝÃªÉ D PÁgÀt CzÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ zÁ½UÉ ºÉÆÃgÀl ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 10.00 UÀAmÉ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É DVgÀĪÀÅ
¢®è. D ¢£À EAvÀºÀ JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVzÀݪÀÅ."
The above said evidence crystallizes, having received
information by this witness, initially he has not registered the
case on his self report, but he went to the spot to ride along
with other police personnels, Labour Officer and Panch
witnesses and raided the said units, conducted mahazar as per
Ex.P3 and then prepared self-report and registered the case.
This act is contrary to section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Spl.C.C.483/2018
16
16. Further the accused persons tested the veracity of
evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and
omission and also denied each and every word of his chief
examination by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the
same. He has also admitted Cw.4 to Cw.11 are the above the
age of 14 years. Admittedly the Investigating Officer has not
investigated as to whether the above said bag manufacturing
unit comes under hazardous Industry or small industry. More
over in order to prove that the accused No.1 to 3 are running
said bag manufacturing unit, this witness not seized any
documents to prove the same. Here the investigation latches on
the part of Investigating Officer in order to consider the guilt of
accused No.1 to 3. Viewing from available material evidence
placed on record through this witness, the prosecution fails to
establish alleged offences against accused No.1 to 3 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Srikanth, he
has deposed that he doesn't know the owner of the building of
the accused No.1 to 3, he has not seen the accused No.1 to 3
Spl.C.C.483/2018
17
earlier, he doesn't know what case filed against them by the
police. He has not given any statement before police against
accused No.1 to 3. The prosecution treated this witness as
hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every
word of the raid conducted and rescue of Cw.4 to Cw.11, for
that he has denied the same. His definite answer is that he
doesn't know anything about the alleged raid. Through the
evidence of this witness the prosecution failed to prove the
alleged offences against accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable
doubt.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Ramamurthy,
he has deposed that he doesn't know the accused No.1 to 3, he
has not seen them earlier, he doesn't know what case filed by
the police against them. When he was working at
Sheshadripuram, the police obtained his LTM on Ex.P3, he
doesn't know what had written in Ex.P3, before obtaining his
LTM, the police have not read out the same. Here Ex.P3 is the
raiding Panchanama. The prosecution treated this witness as
Spl.C.C.483/2018
18
hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every
word of alleged raid conducted on the alleged bag
manufacturing unit of accused No.1 to 3 and rescue of Cw.4 to
Cw.11, for that he has denied the same. His definite answer is
he doesn't know anything about the alleged raid conducted as
per Ex.P3. Through the evidence of this witness the prosecution
fails to prove the alleged process of conducting mahazar as per
Ex.P3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Mani, he has
deposed that he doesn't know the accused No.1 to 3, he has not
seen them earlier, he doesn't know what case filed by the police
against them. When he was working at Sheshadripuram, the
police obtained his signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P3, as per
Ex.P1(b) and Ex.P3(b). He doesn't know what had written in
Ex.P1 and Ex.P3, before obtaining his signature, the police have
not read out the same. Here Ex.P1 is the notice and Ex.P3 is
the raiding Panchanama. The prosecution treated this witness
as hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and
Spl.C.C.483/2018
19
every word of alleged raid conducted on the alleged bag
manufacturing unit of accused No.1 to 3 and rescue of Cw.4 to
Cw.11, for that he has denied the same. His definite answer is
he doesn't know anything about the alleged raid and not
received any notice as per Ex.P1 and the police not conducted
mahazar as per Ex.P3. Through the evidence of this witness the
prosecution failed to prove the process of conducting mahazar
as per Ex.P3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Rafiq Ahmed,
he has deposed that the building bearing No.17/1 of Cheluvadi
Palya having three story's belongs to him. He has rented out the
ground floor to accused-Junayad for a sum of Rs.6,000/- per
month and received Rs.70,000/- as advance, but no such rental
agreement taken place between them. The accused has used the
said building for bag manufacturing unit, nearly 8 children
working there, on enquiry with them he has told they belonged
to his own place. After raiding of the police, he came to know
about the accused engaging children and extracting work from
Spl.C.C.483/2018
20
them in bag manufacturing unit, as such he has got vacated the
accused from the said building.
21. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this
witness and elicited that after 3-4 days of the said raid of the
bag manufacturing unit, he came to know about the incident.
Except stating by the police that the accused has engaged
children for work none of the persons told him. He has not given
any complaint against accused-Junayad. Here it is relevant to
note the rescued children not stepped into the witness box to
give their evidence. Though he has deposed regarding giving his
building for rent to the accused-Junayad, it is not safe to accept
the alleged offences against accused persons.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Mohammad
Kasim, he has deposed that the building bearing No.16/4 of
Cheluvadi Palya having 2 storied building belongs to him, he has
rented out the ground floor to accused No.2-Mohammad Firdoz,
for a sum of Rs.8,000/-per month and received Rs.70,000/- as
Spl.C.C.483/2018
21
advance, no such rental agreement taken place between them.
He has used the said building for bag manufacturing unit,
nearly 8 persons and children working there. On enquiry with
them he has told they belonged to his own place, but after
raiding of the police, he came to know about accused No.2 has
engaged children and extracting work from them in bag
manufacturing unit, as such he has got vacated him from the
said building.
23. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this
witness and elicited that the raiding of the bag manufacturing
unit came to know after 3-4 days of the said raid, except stating
by the police, he has engaged children for work, none of the
persons told him. He has not given any complaint against the
accused-Mohammad Firdoz. Here it is relevant to note the
rescued children not stepped into the witness box to give their
evidence. Though he has deposed regarding given his building
for rent to the accsued-Firdoz, it is not safe to accept the alleged
offence against accused persons.
Spl.C.C.483/2018
22
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Venkatesh, he
has deposed that he doesn't know the owner of the building of
the accused No.1 to 3, he has not seen the accused No.1 to 3
earlier, he doesn't know what case filed against them by the
police. He has not given any statement before police against
accused No.1 to 3. The prosecution treated this witness as
hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every
word of the raid conducted and rescued Cw.4 to Cw.11, for that
he has denied the same. His definite answer is that he doesn't
know anything about the alleged raid. Through the evidence of
this witness the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences
against accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-Vishwas he
has deposed that he doesn't know the owner of the building of
the accused No.1 to 3, he has not seen the accused No.1 to 3
earlier, he doesn't know what case filed against them by the
police. He has not given any statement before police against
accused No.1 to 3. He doesn't know Cw.15 to Cw.19. The
Spl.C.C.483/2018
23
prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of
prosecution and suggested each and every word of the raid
conducted and rescue of Cw.4 to Cw.10, for that he has denied
the same. His definite answer is that he doesn't know anything
about the alleged raid. Through the evidence of this witness the
prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences against accused
No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-Zafarulla
Khan, he has deposed that he has seen the accused No.3
earlier, but he doesn't know what case filed against him, no
such contract taken place between him and the accused No.3.
The police have not enquired him about this case. The building
No.22, 1st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya is not belonged to him and the
same is building to his mother-in-law. He doesn't know for
what purpose the said building used by his mother-in-law, he
has not given any statement before police. The prosecution
treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and
suggested each and every word of Ex.P26, for that he has
Spl.C.C.483/2018
24
denied the same. His definite answer is that he has not given
any statement before police and he don't know anything about
alleged raid conducted by the police. Through the evidence of
this witness the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences
against accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
27. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Dr.Parvin
Khan, she has deposed that she has examined Cw.15 to Cw.19
on 11-06-2016 and issued medical report as per Ex.P14 to
Ex.P21 and her signature is Ex.P14(b) to Ex.P21(b). The
accused tested her veracity and elicited that at the time of
issuing Ex.P14 to Ex.P21 she has subjected the said children
to ossification test, dental test and X-ray and she has not
collected any authenticated document regarding their age. She
has also not mentioned at what time she has conducted medical
check up on the said children. The above said admission
crystallizes that she has not examined said children as per law
and issued Ex.P14 to Ex.P21 as per her whims and fancies. At
this stage this Court opines, since the victim boys are not
Spl.C.C.483/2018
25
stepped into the witness box to give their evidence, it is not safe
to accept the evidence of this witness and the same is formal
one.
28. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences
against accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. The
defense of the accused No.1 to 3 and the facts and
circumstances of the case including materials on record
discussed above probabalises the defense of the accused No.1 to
3 rather than the case of the prosecution.
29. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.9 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P26, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is
insufficient to prove that the accused No.1 at building No.17/1,
1st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya, within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete
Police Station-Bangalore, is running bag manufacturing factory
by engaging minor boys-Cw.4 and Cw.5 who were brought by
way of human trafficking from outside the State, they were kept
Spl.C.C.483/2018
26
in the factory itself without allowing them to go outside and
without sending them to the school and extracting work for
more hours in a day without paying salary and without
providing basic necessities to them, likewise the accused No.2
at building No. 1126, New No.16/4, 1 st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya,
engaged child labours Cw.6 and Cw.7, the accused No.3 at
building No.22, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya, engaged
Cw.8 to Cw.10 as child labours and the accused No.4 at
building No.22, 1st floor, 1st Cross, Cheluvadi Palya engaged
child labour-Cw.11 and thereby the accused No.1 to 3
committed offences punishable under Section 370(5), 374 read
with section 34 of IPC, Section 75 and 79 of J.J. Act, beyond all
reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the
"Negative".
30. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and
discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused No.1 to 3
are entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result,
I proceed to pass the following:
Spl.C.C.483/2018
27
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3, are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 370(5), 374 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 75 and 79 of J.J. Act. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
(Computerized to my dictation by the Judgment Writer. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th Day of January, 2020.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE A NN EX UR E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Narayani Cw.1 26-04-2019 Pw.2 Srikanth Cw.24 01-10-2019 Pw.3 Ramamurthy Cw.3 01-10-2019 Pw.4 Mani Cw.2 06-11-2019 Pw.5 Rafiq Ahmed Cw.20 06-11-2019 Pw.6 Mohammad Kasim Cw.21 06-11-2019 Pw.7 Venkatesh Cw.23 06-11-2019 Spl.C.C.483/2018 28 Pw.8 Dr. Parvin Khan Cw.26 21-11-2019 Pw.9 Vishwas Cw.25 21-11-2019 Pw.10 Jafrulla Khan Cw.22 21-11-2019 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Notice to Panchas Pw.1 26-04-2019 Ex.P 2 Report of Pw.1 Pw.1 26-04-2019 Ex.P 3 Mahazar Pw.1 26-04-2019 Ex.P 4-11 Statements of Cw.4 to Pw.1 26-04-2019 Cw.11 Ex.P 12 Requisition to BOCSO Pw.1 26-04-2019 Ex.P 13 Requisition to CWC-1 Pw.1 26-04-2019 Ex.P 14 to Medical examination Pw.1 26-04-2019 21 certificates of victims Ex.P 22 Copy of rental agreement Pw.1 26-04-2019 Ex.P 23 Electricity bill Pw.1 26-04-2019 Ex.P 24 Tax paid receipt Pw.1 26-04-2019 Ex.P 23 Statement of Pw.2 01-10-2019 Ex.P 24 Statement of Pw.7 Pw.7 06-11-2019 Ex.P 25 Statement of Pw.9 Pw.9 21-11-2019 Ex.P 26 Statement of Pw.10 Pw.10 21-11-2019 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-NIL-
Spl.C.C.483/2018 29 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE