Bangalore District Court
State By Basaveswaranagara vs Nos.: 1. Smt. Chaya on 16 December, 2015
1 SC.No.552/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 16th day of December 2015
PRESENT
************
Sri Deshpande.G.S, B.com. LL.M
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No.552/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Basaveswaranagara
Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by Learned
Public Prosecutor, Bangalore.
Vs.
ACCUSED Nos.: 1. Smt. Chaya
W/o Ganesha
Aged about 28 years
No.247, 14th Main, 12th cross
BEML Layout,
Basaveswaranagar
Bangalore.
2. Smt. Deepa
W/o Late Srinivasa
Aged about 35 years
No.247, 14th Main, 12th cross
BEML Layout,
Basaveswaranagar
Bangalore.
2 SC.No.552/2015
1. Date of Commission : 18.02.2014
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 18.02.2014
of Offence
3. Date of arrest of accused : Accused are on bail
4. Name of the complainant : Sri Purnachandra
Tejaswi, P.I.
5. Date of Commencement :
07.09.2015
evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
24.11.2015
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of
ITP Act and Sec.370
of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused
not found guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Basaveshwara Nagar police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 alleging that, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act and section 370 of IPC. 3 SC.No.552/2015
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:-
On 18.02.2014 at about 2.10 pm., CW-1 Police Inspector has received a credible information that, in the house No.247, situated at 12th cross, 14th Main, BEML Layout, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore, prostitution is conducting by keeping the girls. Accordingly, CW.1 went there along with his staff and mahazar witnesses and noticed that, accused No.1 and 2 were using the premises of their rented house as a brothel and conducting the prostitution by keeping the girls. CW.1 has conducted the raid and arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized five mobile phones, two condoms and cash amount of Rs.5,500/- from them by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were brought to the P.S. with seized properties. Case was registered in Crime No.89/2014 and FIR was sent to the court. After completion of investigation formalities, CW.1 - P.I. has filed the charge sheet against the 4 SC.No.552/2015 accused alleging that they have committed the above said offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail. Since the above said offences are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, this case was committed to this court under Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
4. After appearance of accused before this court, charges framed and same were read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined five witnesses as P.W.s 1 to 5 and got marked four documents as Ex.P.1 to 4. Seized properties were marked as M.O.1 to 5.
5 SC.No.552/2015
6. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C recorded. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses examined and no documents marked.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.
8. On the basis of the above materials, the following points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC?
2. What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 :- In the Negative
POINT No.2:- As per final order,
for the following:-
6 SC.No.552/2015
REASONS
10. Point No. 1 :- The contention of the prosecution in brief is that, on 18.02.2014 at about 2.10 pm., CW-1 Police Inspector has received a credible information that, in the house No.247, situated at 12th cross, 14th Main, BEML Layout, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore, prostitution is conducting by keeping the girls. Accordingly, CW.1 went there along with his staff and mahazar witnesses and noticed that, accused No.1 and 2 were using the premises of their rented house as a brothel and conducting the prostitution by keeping the girls. CW.1 has conducted the raid and arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized five mobile phones, two condoms and cash amount of Rs.5,500/- from them by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of mahazar witnesses and thereby, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC. 7 SC.No.552/2015
11. The prosecution in order to establish its case has examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5. Out of them, P.W.1 and 2 are the mahazar witnesses to the spot panchanama. P.W.3 is the person who has visited the house of the accused. P.W.5 is the owner of the house. These witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been treated as hostile witnesses and cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In their cross- examination nothing has been elicited in favour of the prosecution.
12. P.W.4 is the Police Constable. He deposed that, on that day he went along with CW.1 - P.I. to the house of the accused and noticed that, accused No.1 and 2 were conducting prostitution in their house by keeping the girls. They have arrested the accused and seized the cash amount of Rs.5,500/-, and five mobile phones and condoms from 8 SC.No.552/2015 them by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of mahazar witnesses.
13. The Investigating Officer - CW.1 - P.I. has not examined in the case. The evidence of PW.4 is not corroborated by the evidence of CW.1 and independent mahazar witnesses. Therefore, it is not possible to believe the version of P.W.4.
14. From the evidence on record it is not made out that, the accused have committed the above said offences. The prosecution is not able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
15. POINT No.2:- In view of the above discussions and my finding to Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
9 SC.No.552/2015
ORDER Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC.
Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
Bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and their surety earlier stand cancelled.
Seized mobile phones and cash amount of Rs.5,500/- are ordered to be confiscated to the Government after completion of the appeal period.
Seized condoms are worthless. They are ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of December 2015).
(DESHPANDE.G.S.) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.10 SC.No.552/2015
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for prosecution:
PW 1 Shankar 07.09.2015 PW 2 Somashekar 07.09.2015 PW.3 Amithkumar Gupta 28.09.2015 PW.4 Khaza Ajmeer 06.11.2015 PW.5 Sreenivasalu 24.11.2015
List of documents marked for prosecution:
Ex. P1 - Notice to PW.1 Ex.P.1 (a) - Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.2 - Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) - signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2(b) - signature of PW.2 Ex.P.3 - Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.4 - Statement of PW.5 MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
M.O.1 - Black Berry phone M.O.2 - Nokia Phone M.O.3 - MTS Phone M.O.4 - Chromo phone M.O.5 - City call mobile phone 11 SC.No.552/2015 M.O.6 - Condom packet List of witnesses examined for defence: - NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL (DESHPANDE.G.S.) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.12 SC.No.552/2015
Accused No.1 and 2 are present. Application under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. filed. It is allowed. Accused No.1 and 2 have to execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each and furnish one surety like sum, undertaking to appear before the appellate Court/ Hon'ble High Court as and when notice issued by that Court. Surety affidavit filed. Surety by name S.M.Venkateshappa, S/o.Muniyappa, 40 years, mentioned in the affidavit is present.
His suretyship is accepted for A1 and A2.
Office to take bond.
LIX ACCJ., Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) with the following operative portion:
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC.13 SC.No.552/2015
Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
Bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and their surety earlier stand cancelled.
Seized mobile phones and cash amount of Rs.5,500/- are ordered to be confiscated to the Government after completion of the appeal period.
Seized condoms are worthless. They are ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
(DESHPANDE.G.S.) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.14 SC.No.552/2015