Bangalore District Court
State By R.T.Nagar Police Station vs Meena on 21 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 21st day of October, 2017
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. MADHUSUDHAN B.,
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.515/2014
COMPLAINANT:- State by R.T.Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: 1. Meena,
W/o. Mohan,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at.No.6, 1st 'C' Cross,
Binni Mill Road Cross,
Ganganagar Extention,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-32.
(Accused No.1)
2. Devaraj N,
S/o. Nagaraju,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at.No.7, 5th Cross,
Giddappa Block,
Ganganagar Extention,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-32.
(Accused No.2)
2 S.C.No.515/2014
3. Radhika,
W/o. Venkatesh,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. Prashanthanagara,
Old Bus Stand (Devanahalli),
Near Petrol Bunk,
Devanahalli.
(Accused No.3)
1. Date of commission of offence : 07.02.2014
2. Date of report of offence : 07.02.2014
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : 07-02-2014
4. Name of the complainant : Raghupathy S.M.,
5. Date of recording evidence : 12.11.2014
6. Date of closing evidence : 06.07.2017
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956
& U/s. 370 of I.P.C.,
R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.,
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. M.Girish Advocate
3 S.C.No.515/2014
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of R.T.Nagar police station, Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against accused, for trial of offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and U/s.370 of I.P.C., R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.43/2014.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case may be stated as under; Raghupathy, who is Police Inspector of R.T.Nagar police station, Bengaluru received one credible information about running of prostitution in a House bearing No. 6, 1st 'C' Main Road, Binnymill Cross Road, Ganganagar Layout, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru city. Hence, he secured the panch witnesses by name Shrikant and Nadeem Pasha and explained them about information, which he received and also submitted report before The Assistant Commissioner of Police, J.C.Nagar Sub-Division, Bengaluru for issuance of Search Warrant, to conducted raid in the said house. On 7.2.2015 at about 7.15 p.m., The Assistant Commissioner of Police, J.C.Nagar Sub-Division, Bengaluru issued Search Warrant. thereafter, Police Inspector formed a raid team, which includes, 4 S.C.No.515/2014 P.S.I., A.S.I., Head Constable and other police constables. He instructed Cw/13-Srinivasa to act as decoy and paid two currency notes of Rs.500/- each. Cw.13 went in side the said house and after 5 to 10 minutes, he gave a call to Raghupathy/Police Inspector, who conducted raid along with other police officials and panch witnesses and noticed that, said house was being used as brothel. Accused No.1 to 3 were present there. Cw.4/Moushami @ Preethi was detained there against her will. Accused induced her for prostitution. On further search and interrogating accused No.1 to 3, Police Inspector came to know that, accused No.1 to 3 were indulge in prorogating prostitution. Mahazar is prepared for recovery of amount of Rs.2,000/-, two condoms, two mobile Nokia Hand Sets. Thereafter, he took accused No.1 to 3 to the police station, where he lodged a report, on the basis of which, Cw.15/M.Mahesh registered a case against accused for trial of offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and U/s.370 of I.P.C., R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.43/2014.
3. On 8.2.2014, accused No.1 to 3 were produced before jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded them to J.C. Cw.15/M.Mahesh recorded statements of witnesses, including 5 S.C.No.515/2014 alleged victim/Cw.4. Thereafter, he handed over the further investigation to Cw.16, who submitted charge sheet.
4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and passed orders for registration of one criminal case against accused No.1 to 3 in C.C.No.8002/2014 pending on the file of VIII- Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Meanwhile, accused No.1 to 3 were ordered to release on bail. Since offences alleged against accused are triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, Learned Magistrate passed orders for committal of this case to the Court of Sessions. After committal, this case is re-registered as S.C.No.515/2014. After hearing, on 17.9.2014 charges against accused No.1 to 3 framed, which they denied, hence, they claims to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution in altogether cited 16 witnesses, among them 7 witnesses are examined as Pw.1 to Pw.7. Despite granting sufficient opportunities, prosecution has not examined remaining witnesses. Even Pw.1/Police Inspector on whose report, case is registered against accused and Pw.4, who according to the case of prosecution 6 S.C.No.515/2014 acted as decoy, have not tendered themselves to face their cross- examination by defence. During course of trial, prosecution got exhibited 6 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and got identified 3 material objects at Mo.1 to Mo.3.
6. On completion of the evidence of prosecution side, this court examined accused No.1 to 3 as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded their statements by giving an opportunity for explaining incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. Defence of accused is one of total denial of prosecution case. However no defence evidence is led in by accused.
7. I have heard arguments.
8. Following are the points that have arisen for my consideration:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 3 committed offence punishable U/s. 3 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, as alleged in the charge sheet?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 3 committed offence punishable U/s.4 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, as alleged in the charge sheet?7 S.C.No.515/2014
3. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 3 committed offence punishable U/s.5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, as alleged in the charge sheet?
4. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 3 committed offence punishable U/s.7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, as alleged in the charge sheet?
5. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 3 committed offence punishable U/s.370 of I.P.C., R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
6. To what Order ?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : In Negative
Point No.4 : In Negative
Point No.5 : In Negative
Point No.6 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. POINTS NO.1 to 5:- I have taken these points together to avoid repeated discussions.
8 S.C.No.515/2014
11. As already narrated, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses. Among them Pw.1 is Police Inspector, who conducted raid. Pw.2 is the owner of house in which raid is conducted. Pw.3 is Head Constable, while Pw.6 is another P.S.I., of Hennur police station. Pw.7 is WHC, who accompanied Pw.1, while conducting raid. Pw.4 is another Police Constable, who according to the case of prosecution has acted as decoy. Therefore, Pw.1 and Pw.4 are most material witnesses. Though prosecution examined these two witnesses, but these two witnesses have not tendered themselves to face cross-examination by defence. Despite issuance of witness warrants, same are returned unexecuted therefore, evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.4 cannot be used against accused.
12. As a matter of fact, Cw.4 is alleged victim. But prosecution has not examined this material witness, despite granting sufficient opportunities and even witness warrants issued to Cw.4 returned unexecuted. Contents of Ex.P.1, which is panchanama said to have been conducted in the said house are not proved by prosecution through the mouth of panch witnesses, who are cited as Cw.2 and Cw.3. Ofcourse, Pw.3, Pw.6 and Pw.7 have stated something against accused, but to corroborate their versions, 9 S.C.No.515/2014 evidence of Cw.2, Cw.3 and Cw.4 is most relevant. But it is unfortunate that, despite granting sufficient opportunities, prosecution not examined Cw.2 and Cw.3, who according to the case of prosecution are panch witnesses and Cw.4 is alleged victim. In a trial of this nature of offences, evidence of alleged victim play very vital role. It is specific case of prosecution that, accused No.1 to 3 have detained Cw.4 in the said house and induced her for prostitution, just to earn money by illegal means. Under these circumstances, evidence of Cw.4 is very much necessary. When alleged victim has not been examined by prosecution, entire contents of Ex.P.1 cannot be believed.
13. Even on going through the version of Pw.2, there is no conclusive proof that these accused No.1 to 3 have used that house as brothel.
14. At the cost of repetition, I am of the clear opinion that, since Pw.1 and Pw.4 have not tendered themselves for their cross-examination by defence and further fact that, prosecution has not examined Cw.2 to Cw.4, then case as projected by prosecution cannot be accepted or believed. Evidence on record is lacking to connect these accused for the offences as alleged in the charge 10 S.C.No.515/2014 sheet. Consequently, charges leveled against accused are not sustainable. Prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer these points No.1 to 5 in Negative.
15. POINT NO.6: In view of my findings on the above points No.1 to 5, accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal. In this case accused have not claimed Mo.2 and 3. Therefore, same are ordered to be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal period. Being of that opinion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and U/s.370 of I.P.C., R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C., Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
However, bail bonds executed by accused No.1 to 3 as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.11 S.C.No.515/2014
Mo.1/2 condoms being worthless articles, therefore, same are ordered be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period.
Mo.2 and Mo.3/ two Nokia Mobile Hand Sets are confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 21st day of October 2017.) (MADHUSUDHAN B.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 S.M.Raghupathy
Pw.2 P.V.Venkatashamaiah
Pw.3 Gunashekhar
Pw.4 Srinivas
Pw.5 M.Mahesh
Pw.6 Chikka Arasaiah
Pw.7 Rathnamma
12 S.C.No.515/2014
II. For Defence:-
- Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Panchanama
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.1(c) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.2 Search Warrant
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.3 Witness Notice
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.4 F.I.R.,
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.5 Report
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.6 Intimation letter(which is marked as Ex.P.3).
For Defence side:-
-Nil-
IV. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 Two Condoms
Mo.2 Nokia Mobile Hand Set
(Sim No.9886609334)
Mo.3 Nokia Mobile Hand Set
(Sim No.9060843761)
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.