Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya vs Meena on 24 August, 2022
1
SC No.557/2015
KABC010110592015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 24 th day of August 2022
PRESENT
SRI.R.RAVI, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXI Addl. C.C. & S.J., Bangalore.
S.C.No.557/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Kamakshipalya
Police Station,
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
ACCUSED : 1. Meena
W/o.Honnegowda
Aged bout 28 years
No.8, 9th Cross Road,
Hoysalanagara,
Sunkadakate
Bengaluru-91.
(Accused No.1)
(By Sri.H.K., Advocate)
2. Varalakshmi
D/o.Munivenkatappa
2
SC No.557/2015
No.29 years
R/a.Near SLN Bar
Herohalli
Mahadeshwaranagara
Sunkadakatte
Bengaluru-91.
(Accused No.2)
(By Sri.K.J., Advocate)
1. Date of 16.03.2015
Commission :
of Offence
2. Date of Report :
of Offence 16.03.2015
3. Status of the :
Accused are on bail
accused
4. Name of the : Balegowda
complainant
5. Date of : 28.03.2019
Commenceme
nt of evidence
6. Date of : 13.07.2022
Closing of
Evidence
7. Offences : Offences punishable
complained of under 3, 4, 5, 7 of
Immoral Traffic
Prevention Act R/w.
Section 370 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the : Accused No.1 & 2 are
3
SC No.557/2015
Judge acquitted for the offences
punishable under section
3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral
Traffic Prevention Act
R/w. Section 370 of IPC.
J UD GM E N T
This is a charge sheet one filed by the Kamakshipalya
Police Station against the accused No.1 & 2 for the offences
punishable under Sections under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral
Traffic Prevention Act R/w. Section 370 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that;
The accused No.1 along with accused No.2 have taken the
house No.8 on rent situated at 9 th Cross Road, Hoysala Nagara,
Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya P.S., and
used it as a brothel and on 16.03.2015 at about 1.45 p.m., noon
the accused No.1 & 2 had induced CW-5/Roopa @ Jyothsna to
involve in prostitution assuring her that she can earn money
and used to bring customers to have physical access and
received money from the customers and used to earn money for
livelihood and thereby committed the offence punishable under
4
SC No.557/2015
Section 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act R/w. Section
370 of IPC.
3. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned V ACMM,
Bengaluru took cognizance of the offences cited above and since
the alleged offences are exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions then the above case was committed to this Court and
after receipt of the records, the accused No.1 & 2 were secured
and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and so also the
defence counsel under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the charges for the
offences under Section 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
R/w. Section 370 of IPC against the accused is framed and since
the above accused did not plead guilty and claims to be tried then
the matter is posted for trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused person, the
prosecution has got examined four witnesses from PW-1 to PW-4
and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 & 2 and further got marked
material objects at MO's-1 to 4 and after closer of the prosecution
side evidence the statement of the accused under Section 313 of
5
SC No.557/2015
Cr.P.C. is recorded and since the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appearing against them and did not chose
to lead any defence evidence then the matter was posted for
arguments.
5. And I have heard the arguments of both sides and
perused the entire materials placed on record and the points that
would arise for my consideration are as below;
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that
accused No.1 & 2 had taken the
house No.8 on rent situated at 9 th
Cross Road, Hoysala Nagara,
Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of
Kamakshipalya P.S., and used it as a
brothel and on 16.03.2015 at about
1.45 p.m., noon the accused No.1 &
2 had induced CW-5 Roopa @
Jyothsna to involve in prostitution
assuring her that she can earn
money and used to bring customers
to have physical access and received
money from the customers and used
to earn money for livelihood and
thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 3, 4, 5, 7
of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
R/w. Section 370 of IPC.?
2. What order?
6
SC No.557/2015
6. My answer to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:-
R E A SON S
7. POINT NO.1:- In order to prove the facts of the above
point though the prosecution has got examined four witnesses
from PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 & 2
and further got marked four material objects at MO's-1 to 4, the
same do not hold any water as there are lot of variations and
contradictions in the said oral and documentary evidence of the
prosecution that are placed on record. Now let me examine it.
8. First of all though the prosecution has got examined the
police official witnesses of CW-6, 11, 9 and 7 at PW-1 to 4 and
though the said witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution by deposing that the accused No.1 along with
accused No.2 have taken the house No.8 on rent situated at 9 th
Cross Road, Hoysala Nagara, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction
7
SC No.557/2015
of Kamakshipalya P.S., and used it as a brothel and on
16.03.2015 at about 1.45 p.m., noon the accused No.1 & 2 had
induced CW-5 Roopa @ Jyothsna to involve in prostitution
assuring her that she can earn money, the same are of no help
to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt as the versions of the above PW-1
to 4 is neither corroborated by the material witness of CW-
5/induced girl witness nor even corroborated by the CW-
4/Owner of the alleged house building.
9. On the above point of non examination of the material
witness of CW-5/induced girl witness in a ruling of 1984
Crl.L.J. 1324 (Allahabad) it has been has clearly held that
'Unless an offence under Section 7 of the Act against any
one of the girls is established, the charge against the
petitioner for an offence under Section 3 cannot be said to
be made good. Before considering whether the petitioner
was running a brothel with the hep of the said girls, it is
necessary to decide whether the said girls had carried on
prostitution in the said premises'.
8
SC No.557/2015
10. And further though the above police official witnesses
have supported the conducting of the panchanama at Ex.P.2
and so also seizer of MO-1 to 4, the same are also of no help to
the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt as the above facts are not at all
corroborated by the versions of alleged independent punch
witnesses of CW.2 & CW.3 and also by the versions of
CW.4/alleged owner of the house in question and CW.5/the
induced girl.
11. And even otherwise since there is no corroborative
proof of presence of seminal stains on the victim or on the
clothes & since in a ruling of 1974 Crl.L.J 377 it has been
held that ' In the absence of the corroborative proof of
presence of seminal stains in the victim or on the cloths,
the deposition of decoy witness would not be acted upon
as such the police officers evidence is unacceptable and
offence under Section 4(1) was not established ' then it has
to be held in unequivocal terms that the prosecution has failed
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
9
SC No.557/2015
12. Secondly though the I.O of the present case i.e., CW-
11/PW.2 has allegedly filed a charge sheet against the said
accused No.1 and 2 that they are wholly depending upon the
earnings of the induced girl/CW-5 through the alleged
prostitution, the same once again do not hold any water as
none of the police official witnesses of PWs.1 to 4 have
whispered single word with regard to the said alleged facts.
13. And even otherwise since the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove or place any cogent material evidence
to prove that the said accused No.1 & 2 were living wholly or in
part on the earnings of the prosecution and since in a ruling of
AIR 1970 Madras 491 it has been clearly held that 'If the
prosecution has not chosen to adduce any evidence for the
purpose of proof of accused living wholly or in part on the
earnings of the prostitution then the offence under
Section 4(1) of the said Act is not proved' then it has to be
held in unequivocal terms that the prosecution has failed to
10
SC No.557/2015
prove the guilt of the above accused No.1 & 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt and accordingly, I have answered the above
Point No.1 in the negative.
14. POINT No.4:- In view of the above reasons, I proceed
to pass the following:-
O R DE R
Acting under Section 235(1) of the
Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 & 2 are hereby
acquitted of the offences punishable under
Section 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic
Prevention Act R/w. 370 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of
accused No.1 & 2 if any stands cancelled.
Since M.O.1 & 2 are worthless then
they are ordered to be destroyed & MO-3 & 4
is hereby ordered to be confiscated to the
state after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of August, 2022).
(R.RAVI)
LXI Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE CITY.
11
SC No.557/2015
A N NE X U R E
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 Ramakrishna
P.W.2 Bhoraiah
P.W.3 Veerabhadraiah.V
P.W.4 Rajanna
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Requisition
Ex.P.2 : Panchanama
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: -
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:-
NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :-
MO-1 : Two Nirodh Packets
MO-2 : Mobile Phone
MO-3 : Currency note of denomination Rs.500/-
MO-4 : Currency note of denomination Rs.100/-
(R.RAVI)
LXI Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE CITY.
12
SC No.557/2015
24.08.2022
S-PP
A1-HK
A2-KJ
Judgment pronounced in the open
court (vide separate judgment) with
the following operative portion:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 & 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act R/w. 370 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No.1 & 2 if any stands cancelled.
Since M.O.1 & 2 are worthless then they are ordered to be destroyed & MO-3 & 4 is hereby ordered to be confiscated to the state after the appeal period is over.
(R.RAVI) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
13SC No.557/2015
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 02.08.2013 at about 7.00 p.m., accused being the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-21-V-2499 drove the same in rash and negligent manner on public road from Binni Mill Circle to Hunisemara Circle in Magadi Road so as to endanger human life and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place 14 SC No.557/2015 accused drove the said bus in rash and negligent manner by consuming alcohol knowing fully well that it may cause death of any person on the road and on account of rash and negligent driving dashed the bus against TVS Scooty pep bearing No.KA-01-EL-1515 and as a result of which the pillion rider by name Nagaraj.B.M. fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused drove the bus by consuming alcohol in contravention of provision of Motor Vehicle Act and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act?
6. What order?