Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs No.4 Being The Customer Provoking The on 6 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
PRESENT:
Sri E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1298/2016
BETWEEN
State by Koramangala Police Station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1.Margaret
C/o Krishna, a/a 39 years,
R/a No.66, SPVS Reddys' Building,
SG Palya, DRC Post,
Bangalore.
4.Karthik Jnanadorai @ karthik
S/o Ramaswamy, a/a 28 years,
R/a No.121, New No.12, 5th Cross,
Madiwala Grama, Bangalore.
And also r/a No.19, West Vellala Street,
Adampakam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu State. .. ACCUSED
(By Sri DRS., Advocate)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Koramangala P.S., Bangalore City, has filed charge sheet against accused No.1, 4 and others for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2 S.C.No.1298/2016
2. The brief story of the prosecution case is as under:-
On 25.01.2012 at 7.30 p.m. CW.1 being the Police Inspector had received credible information about running of prostitution business by accused No.1 to 3 at House bearing No.291 situated at 8 th A Main Road, Koramangala 4th Block, Bangalore, by trafficking the girls CW.4 to Cw.6 on the assurance of getting job to them, and indulge them to involve in the prostitution at public place. To confirm the said information CW.10 Balakrishna Reddy HC 644 was sent to the said house by CW.1 Police Inspector as decai by handing over Rs.1,000/-
(Rs.500/- two currency notes), and after confirming the information through the said decai, CW.1 along with panchas and police staff has conducted raid and caught accused No.4, who was the customer and rescued CW.4 to CW.6 and seized mobile phones, cash of Rs.2,000/-
and condoms and thereby the accused persons have committed the offences as alleged against them.
3.The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional VIII 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.1298/2016.
3 S.C.No.1298/2016
4. The charge was framed against the accused No.1 and 4 for the offences as alleged against them. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.The prosecution examined four witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.6, and Mos1 to 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has gave up the police official witnesses CW.11 to 13 in view of the evidence of the other police official witnesses. The concerned police failed to execute warrant against vital witnesses CW.3 and CW.4 to 8, and to keep them 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 CW.4 to 8, 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 No.1 and 4 have denied incriminating evidence present against them, and have not chosen to lead defense evidence nor submitted anything to Court.
4 S.C.No.1298/2016
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 No.1and others indulged in prostitution business at House bearing No.291 situated at 8th A Main Road, Koramangala 4th Block, Bangalore, by trafficking the girls CW.4 to Cw.6 and assured them to get job, and indulging them to involve in the prostitution by obtaining house on rent basis in the public vicinity and for illegal gain and thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offences punishable U/s. 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and other accused with an intention to run prostitution business by trafficking CW.4 to 6 and put them into greed of earning more money in a very easy manner, and asked them to do the prostitution in the aforesaid house and induced them in indulging in prostitution business for wrongful gain, and further the accused No.4 being the customer provoking the girls CW.4 to 6 by giving money to indulge in prostitution and thereby the accused No.1 and 4 5 S.C.No.1298/2016 have committed an offence punishable U/s.9 of ITP Act?
3. What Order?
9.This Court has answered the above points are as under:
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.
On perusal of the prosecution papers clearly discloses that the accused No.1 to 3 were running the prostitution business in the public place at House bearing No.291, situated at Koramangala 4 th Block, Bangalore. As such, the CW.1/PW.1 Police Inspector of Koramangala P.S., after confirming the said information through CW.10/PW.3 HC 644 has raided and caught accused No.3 and 4 and rescued victims CW.4 to CW.6. The accused No.1 is one of the key person to run where flush business. Later the said accused No.1 was traced by the police and produced before CW.1/PW.1 Police Inspector. The other accused No.2 remained as absconding. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Police Inspector after raid has seized three mobile phones of different company, condoms and cash of Rs.2,000/-. In order to establish the 6 S.C.No.1298/2016 said allegations, the prosecution has examined three police official witnesses and one pancha as PW.1 to PW.4. The Police Inspector by name Sudheer examined as PW.1, the PSI Nanjundaiah examined as PW.2 and the Head Constable Balakrishna Reddy examined as PW.3, who has acted as decai have categorically deposed in their examination in chief about receipt of information regarding running of prostitution business by the accused No.1 to 3, on 25.01.2012 at 7.30 p.m. at House No.291 situated at Koramangala 4 th Block, PW.1 Police Inspector has brought the same to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madivala Sub-Division, and Secured the panchas CW.2 and 3 and informed the same to the panchas CW.2 and 3, and police staff Cw.9 to 13 and issued notice to the panchas, and prepared the record of reasons marked at Ex.P1 and P2. Thereafter all of them together reached the place where prostitution business was running. To confirm the the information PW.1 has deputed PW.3 as decai and gave Rs.500/- two currency notes by putting his and also obtaining panchas signatures upon those currency notes and sent inside the house. After 10 minutes PW.3 has gestured, immediately PW.1 Police Inspector being the head of raiding team has raided along with others and noticed running of prostitution business, on enquiry of Victims PW.1 had came to know that accused No.1 had assured to get job and indulge the victims to involve in the prostitution. He has also enquired accused No.4 Karthik Ramaswamy, who was customer. After 7 S.C.No.1298/2016 rescuing CW.4 to 6, he has seized the mobile phones, condoms and cash of Rs.2,000/- marked at MOs1 to MOs5. He had also enquired accused No.3 present in the hall and came to know that accused No.1 Margaret had gone outside to bring customers. Later, as already discussed above PW.1 had seized MOs1 to 5 and prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P3 and thereafter PW.1 had returned to the Police Station along with accused No.3 and 4 and rescued victims Cw.4 to 6 and Mos, and documents.
11.After reaching the Police Station, PW.1 has lodged complaint as per Ex.P4 by himself, and registered crime against the accused persons vide crime No.37/2012 as per Ex.P5. He has also identified the Mos marked at Mos.1 to 5 during his chief examination. The evidence given by PW.2 and also the decai PW.3 are also one and the same and clearly supports about the receipt of information by PW.1 and conducting of raid and rescue of CW.4 to 6, caught accused persons and taking further action by the Police Inspector by lodging sumotto complaint as already discussed above. PW.1 has registered the case, but also recorded the statements of the witnesses and finally submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. Such being the case, during the cross-examination of accused counsel, the evidence given by the police witnesses has destroyed their evidence and creates doubt about conducting of raid, by way of answers given 8 S.C.No.1298/2016 by the said witnesses. PW.1 has gave evidence in the cross- examination of accused counsel that there was no any impediment upon him to register FIR immediately after receipt of information. He has not collected any documents nor recorded the statements of the owner of the house, where the alleged prostitution business was running. According to PW.1 the distance between the place of incident and Police Station is about three kilometers. He has also admitted that there are residential houses and also shops located besides and nearby the house on which the alleged raid was conducted. But he has failed to record statements of neigbhors or residents of locality or shop owners to believe running of prostitution business by the very accused No.1 to 3 against whom charge sheet has been filed. The learned counsel for accused has also posed question regarding variation in the signature of pancha present on the notice Ex.P1 and Panchanama Ex.P3. The said suggestion was denied by the PW.1. But on careful verification, it could see in the bare eyes that the signature of pancha Charanjit Singh present on Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 are totally different. The rest of the evidence regarding arrest of accused No.1, 3 and 4 and rescuing of victims CW.4 to CW.6 has been completely denied by the accused counsel.
12.The another police official witness PW.2 has deposed in the cross-examination that the distance between the Police Station and 9 S.C.No.1298/2016 place of incident is about one kilometer. According to him before raid they were standing one kilometer away from the raided house. Further the cross-examination shows that the presence of other residential houses and non-examination of the neighbours of the raided house by PW.1, so also PW.3 has admitted the presence of other residential house besides the raided house. He has failed to depose the boundaries of the building on which the alleged raid was conducted. The rest of the evidence of both PW.2 and 3 has been completely denied by the accused counsel. The cross-examination clearly reveals that PW.1 has not recorded the statements of the neighbours. PW.1 should have recorded the statements of the neighbours, and also he would have invited any women of the locality to act as panchas as provided under the Act in support of conducting of raid. The evidence of PW.1 also shows that he had sent the victims to the Reception Center on the basis of the order of the Court. But he has never stated about sending the victims for medical examination as required under the Act. This shows clear lapse on the part of PW.1 in following the procedure as provided under the ITP Act. So also the prosecution has failed to examine the victims CW.4 to CW.6, which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. If prosecution examined at least victims or neighbors if any, then the truth might have been come out to believe running of prostitution business by the accused 10 S.C.No.1298/2016 No.1 to 3. Hence, the evidence given by PW.1 to PW.3 suffered with lot of doubts and the said doubt.
13.The witness PW.4 is being the pancha examined by the prosecution has supported the case of the prosecution regarding conducting of raid. He has admitted the signature present on the documents Ex.P1 to P3. According to him the Police Inspector i.e., PW.1 has enquired persons at spot and seized mobile phones and condoms. Except that he has not deposed anything regarding seizure of cash i.e., MO5. So also he has specifically deposed in his examination that he saw only accused No.4, 4-5 men and three girls. PW.1 has not mentioned in the charge sheet about presence of other 4-5 persons in the house and who are those persons for the best reasons known to him. During the cross-examination the evidence given by the said pancha shows that he is well acquainted with the police. Further cross-examination shows that he do not remember at what time they left the police station, but they reached the place of incident at 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. He has also failed to speak about house number, facing of the house, and also the boundaries. He has also not aware from whom the police have seized the mobile phones. The further cross-examination shows that the police have obtained his signature in the Police Station. It appears the said witness is tutored witness. So, the evidence given by the pancha is also not much 11 S.C.No.1298/2016 helpful to the case of the prosecution to establish the case against the accused persons. The accused No.4 who has been facing the trial in the capacity of customer has nothing to do antyhing with the allegations present in the charge sheet as becaued the provision of the ITP Act are not applicable to the customers to array as accused. It is very clear from the above discussions that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this court has answered the points No.1 and No.2 in the negative.
13. Point No.3: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and No.2, this court pass the following:-
ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 and 4 shall stand canceled.
MOs1 to 5 are ordered to be preserve till disposal of the split up case as registered against accused No.2 and 3.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 6th day of December, 2019) (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.12 S.C.No.1298/2016
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: S. Sudheer P.W.2: H.P. Nanjundaiah P.W.3: Balakrishna Reddy P.W.4: Charanjit Singh.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Notice to witnesses Ex.P.2: Record of reasons Ex.P.3: Mahazar Ex.P.4: Report/Complaint Ex.P.5: FIR Ex.P.6: Letter.
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:-
MOs1 to MOs3: Three Mobile phones
MO4: Condoms
MO3: Cash of Rs.2,000/-
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
13 S.C.No.1298/2016
Order pronounced in the open Court
vide its separate order
ORDER
U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 and 4 shall stand canceled.
MOs1 to 5 are ordered to be preserve till disposal of the split up case as registered against accused No.2 and 3.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 14 S.C.No.1298/2016