Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs No.1 1. Rajesh.K on 11 April, 2023
KABC010230432017
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 11 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C.No.1146/2017
Complainant State of Karnataka
By Central P S,
Bengaluru.
Accused No.1 1. Rajesh.K,
S/o Late.Krishnappa,
Aged about 35 years
R/at No.283, Opp. BGS
Hospital, 7th Stage,
BEML Layout, 10th
Cross, Mylasandra,
Bengaluru.
Accused No.2 2. Shyam,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 30 years
R/at C/o
Chandrashekar, 7th
2 S.C.No.1146/2017
Cross, Bapujinagar,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru.
Date of offence 13.04.2017
Date of report of 13.04.2017
offence
Name of the Sri.M.Mallikarjun
complainant
Date of 16.04.2018
commencement of
recording of evidence
Date of closing of 16.11.2022
evidence
Offences complained U/sec.3 to 5 of ITP Act
of and U/s. 370 of Indian
Penal Code
Opinion of the Judge Accused persons not
found guilty
State represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by Smt. M.V.Usha,
Advocate.
J UD GME N T
Kengeri Police has filed charge-sheet against the
accused persons of the offences punishable under
Section 3 to 5 of ITP Act and Sec.370 Indian Penal
Code.
3 S.C.No.1146/2017
2. The facts are as under:
On 13.04.2017, at about 3.00p.m, C.W.1
received credible information of prostitution at New
Hairland Salon and Spa, 1st Floor, RPS Tower No.147,
Opp. JSS College, Uttarahalli Road, Srinivasapura.
Immediately, he along with staff and panchas raided
the massage centre running by accused persons.
C.W.9 & 10 were instructed to act as Decoys by giving
Rs.2,000/-. All of them entered the premises, seized
mobiles, Condom packets, swiping machine, cash of
Rs.4,000/-, conducted mahazar, rescued C.W.11 to 14
and registered the case. Hence this charge sheet.
3. The accused persons are on bail.
4. The charge has been framed against accused
persons. The accused persons have denied the charge
and claims to be tried.
4 S.C.No.1146/2017
5. The prosecution has examined its witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.12. The documents are marked as Ex.P.1
to P.813 and M.O.1 to M.O.6. The learned prosecutor
has given up C.W.5 to 8 and C.W.16.
6. The statement of the accused U/s.313 of
Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused persons have denied
incriminating evidence and not chosen to lead defence
evidence.
7. Heard arguments.
8. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 13.04.2017, at about 3.00p.m, the accused persons were running prostitution at New Hairland Salon and Spa, 1st Floor, RPS Tower No.147, Opp. JSS College, Uttarahalli Road, Srinivasapura. and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3 of ITP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above stated place, date 5 S.C.No.1146/2017 and time, accused persons running prostitution with an intention to gain illegally and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of ITP Act?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above stated place, date and time, accused persons running prostitution by forcing C.W.11 to 14 to indulge in the illegal trade and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 5 of ITP Act?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above stated place, date and time, accused persons running prostitution at a public place by exploiting C.W.11 to 14, forced them to indulge in the illegal business and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 370 of IPC?
5. What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as hereunder:
Points No.1 to 5 : In the Negative Point No.6: As per final order for the following:6 S.C.No.1146/2017
:R E A S O N S:
10. Points No.1 to 7: All the points involve common discussion. C.W.17 has deposed as P.W.1. According to him, he recorded voluntary statement of accused No.2 and statement of C.W.2 to 10 and C.W.15. He has stated that, he collected rent agreement from C.W.15. It is marked as Ex.P.1. He has identified the signature of C.W.16. FIR is marked as marked as Ex.P.2.
11. C.W.15 has deposed as P.W.2. According to the prosecution, he is the owner of the premises in which the alleged incident was occurred. He has stated that, in the month of April 2014, he let out his first floor premises to the accused No.1 on monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- and collected advance amount of Rs.4 Lakh. According to him, the accused No.1 had taken the said premises to run Saloon. P.W.2 has further stated that, police told him that the accused 7 S.C.No.1146/2017 persons were running illegal activities in the said premises. The counsel for the accused persons has cross-examined. He has admitted that, the police were not visited the alleged place of incident for the purpose of investigation.
12. C.W.4 has deposed as P.W.3. According to the prosecution, he had accompanied C.W.1 to raid the alleged place of incident. He has stated that, on 13.04.2017 about 3.30p.m, C.W.1 requested him to assist her to conduct raid and both of them had been to the said spot along with staff and panchas. He has stated that, C.W.1 had requested C.W.9 & 10 to act as decoys and paid Rs.2,000/- each.
13. P.W.3 has stated that they raided the said spot, arrested the accused persons, rescued C.W.11 to C.W.14, conducted mahazar, seized swiping machine, mobile, condoms and Rs.4,000/-. He has identified 8 S.C.No.1146/2017 these articles. Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.3. Seized articles are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5.
14. C.W.1 has been examined as P.W.4. Her evidence is the repetition of the testimony of P.W.3. She has identified M.O.1 to 5 and accused persons.
15. C.W.12 to 14 have been examined as P.W.5, P.W.6 & P.W.7. According to the prosecution, they are the victims. They turned hostile and failed to support the case. The learned prosecutor has cross-examined. They have denied the contents of the statement marked as per Ex.P.7, P.8 and P.12.
16. C.W.18 has been examined as P.W.8. According to him, he verified the entire record and filed charge-sheet.
17. C.W.2 & 3 have deposed as P.W.9 & 10. They identified their signature found on mahazar, notice and Record of Reasons. They are not aware of the contents of the documents. Notice and Record of 9 S.C.No.1146/2017 Reason are marked as Ex.P.4 & P.5. They have failed to identify M.O.1 to M.O.5. The learned prosecutor has cross-examined. They have denied the contents of Ex.P.3 and the statement said to be recorded by the police as per Ex.P.9 and P.11.
18. C.W.9 & 10 have examined as P.W.11 & P.W.12. It is the case of the prosecution that, they were assisted as decoys. It is material to note that, both these witnesses have failed to support the prosecution. They deposed their ignorance to the contents of the mahazar and seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.5. They have denied the contents of the statements marked as per Ex.P.10 & 13.
19. Proclamation against C.W.11 has been duly executed. The complainant police has failed to secure C.W.11. The alleged panchas, the alleged victims and alleged decoys have failed to support the prosecution. Except the evidence of official witnesses, there are no 10 S.C.No.1146/2017 other materials to establish that the accused persons were running prostitution in the name of New Hairland Saloon and Spa. It may be true that, the accused No.1 was a tenant under C.W.15. It does not mean that, the prosecution has proved the alleged incident. C.W.15 was not aware of the alleged illegal activities in his premises. He was not present at the time of alleged raid. Above all, so called victims were clearly stated that they were working in the said spa as beauticians. They were denied the alleged illegal activities. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons were committed the alleged offences. Hence, without any option, I answered all the points in the Negative.
20. Point No.6: From the discussion made herein above, I proceed to pass the following: 11 S.C.No.1146/2017
O RDE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused persons are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 3 to 5 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bond executed by accused persons and their surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
M.O.1 to 4 & 6 to be confiscated to State after appeal period.
M.O.5 is worthless and to be destroyed after appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2023) (K.S.Jyothishree) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Mallikarjuna
P.W.2 : Sathisha
P.W.3 : Narayana Gowda
P.W.4 : Ayesha
P.W.5 : Pallavi
P.W.6 : Yashaswini
12 S.C.No.1146/2017
P.W.7 : Giriraju
P.W.8 : Shrenik
P.W.9 : Likith
P.W.10 : Sunil Gowda
P.W.11 : Asha
P.W.12 : Mahesh
II. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Rental Agreement
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.3 : Panchanama
Ex.P.3(a&b) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.4 : Notice
Ex.P.5 : Record of Reason
Ex.P.6 : Complaint
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.7 & P.13 : Statements
III. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 - Swiping machine 13 S.C.No.1146/2017 M.O.2 - Samsung Mobile M.O.3 - Nokia Mobile M.O.4 - Samsung Mobile M.O.5 - Condoms M.O.6 - Cash of Rs.100 x 40 = 4,000/-
(K.S.Jyothishree) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru