Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Panchalaiah on 29 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA S. M.A., LL.B., (spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1189/2017
Complainant The State of Karnataka
Amruthahalli P S,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
V/S
Accused No.1 Panchalaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.1, 1st Floor,
Kaveri Layout,
Mariyappanapalya,
Bangalore.
Date of offence 14.03.2015
Date of report of offence 04.04.2016
Name of the Sri K.S.Thanveer,
complainant Police Inspector
Date of commencement 15.06.2018
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of 17.02.2020
evidence
2
S.C.No.1189/2017
Offences complained of Sec.3, 4 & 5 of Immoral
Traffic Prevention Act
and Sec.370 of Indian
Penal Code
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 not found
guilty
State represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. Kemparaju, Advocate
* * * * * *
JU DG MEN T
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by
the complainant Amruthahalli Police, against
accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sec.3,
4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370
of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution was set into motion against
the accused no.1 on the complaint of C.W.1, Thanveer
K.A, the Police Inspector and complainant of
Amruthahalli Police Station. The case of prosecution
is that accused No.1 after obtaining a house on rent
from accused No.2, was running prostitution
3
S.C.No.1189/2017
business, by false assurance to ladies that he would
fetch them job. That on 14.03.2015 at about 7.30
p.m, while on his beat, on credible information he
raided the spot at No.1, 1st Floor, Kaveri Layout,
Kempapura, Dasarahalli along with C.W.1 to 5 and at
5.30p.m. That accused No.1 was running prostitution
by keeping C.W.6 in the above address. That
complainant seized 1 Mobile Phone, 3 Condoms and
Rs.1,000/- before panchas and inserted in
P.F.No.08/2015 and lodged complaint and registered
the case in Cr.No.56/2015 for the offences punishable
under/Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code and
under/Sec.3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention
Act.
3. After completion of investigation, C.W.11
submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1,
before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bengaluru and it was registered as
C.C.No.9626/2016.
4
S.C.No.1189/2017
4. The accused persons appeared before the
learned Magistrate through the counsel and later got
enlarged on bail. The learned Magistrate furnished
copy of charge sheet to the accused persons and
thereby, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was
complied with. As the offences charge sheeted against
the accused No.1 is exclusively triable by sessions
Court, the learned Magistrate acting under Section
209 of Cr.P.C. committed this case to the Hon'ble Prl.
District & Sessions Court, Bengaluru. As per the
notification bearing No.600/2017, dated:29.07.2017
of Hon'ble Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge
Bengaluru, this case was transferred to this court for
disposal in accordance with law. Hence, the matter
was taken up before this Court for further
proceedings accordingly.
5. As stated herein above, the accused persons
were on bail. In pursuance of service of summons, the
5
S.C.No.1189/2017
accused persons appeared before this Court through
their counsel and got enlarged on bail. After hearing
the counsel for accused and also the learned
Prosecutor and on considering the relevant materials
on record, my learned predecessor has framed charge
against the accused No.1 & 2 for the offence
punishable under Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral
Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal
Code, on 31.01.2018. For which the accused No.1 & 2
have pleaded not guilty and thereby they have claimed
to be tried of the said offences. Further the
proceedings against accused No.2 was quashed by
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Crl.P.No.1698/2018, dated 28.05.2018. Hence, this
case is pertaining to accused No.1 only.
6. In support of the case of prosecution, out of
11 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, in all 7
witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7. The
prosecution has marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to
6
S.C.No.1189/2017
Ex.P.8 and 2 properties were marked as M.O.1 to
M.O.2. After completion of prosecution side evidence,
this Court has recorded the statement of accused
persons no. 1, as provided under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. The accused no. 1, has denied incriminating
materials present against him in the evidence of
prosecution and has not adduced any defence
evidence nor produced any documents.
7. Heard the argument of the learned Public
Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for accused
No.1. Perused all the oral and documentary evidence
on record. Now the points that arise for my
consideration are:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 14.03.2015 the police have conducted raid at No.1, 1st Floor, Kaveri Layout, Kempapura Dasarahalli, Mariyappanapalya, in which accused No.1 was doing brothel business and thereby the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Section 3 of I.T.P. Act?
7
S.C.No.1189/2017
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place all the accused no.1 was doing brothel business by easily earning money and living from the income of the said business and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of I.T.P. Act?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 by keeping girl as slave for doing brothel business and induced the victim to do prostitution and thereby the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Sec.5 of I.T.P Act?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, all the accused No.1 was doing brothel business and living on the earnings of the said business and kept the victim girl under his custody as slave and induced her for prostitution and thereby accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Sec.370 of IPC?
5. What order?
8
S.C.No.1189/2017
8. Having heard the arguments of both the sides and taking into consideration the evidence on record, coupled with all the documents, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: In the negative
Point No.3: In the negative
Point No.4: In the negative
Point No.5: As per final order
for the following:
R EAS O N S
9. Points No.1 to 4: These points are taken up
for consideration together for convenience as they are inter-connected and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law.
10. As mentioned supra, the case of prosecution is that accused No.1 after obtaining a house on rent from accused No.2 was running prostitution business, by false assurance to ladies that he would fetch them 9 S.C.No.1189/2017 job. That on 14.03.2015 at about 7.30 p.m, while on his beat, on credible information he raided the spot at No.1, 1st Floor, Kaveri Layout, Kempapura, Dasarahalli along with C.W.1 to 5 and at 5.30p.m. That accused No.1 was running prostitution by keeping C.W.6 in the above address. That complainant seized 1 Mobile Phone, 3 Condoms and Rs.1,000/- before panchas and inserted in P.F.No.08/2015 and lodged complaint and registered the case in Cr.No.56/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code
11. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the charges leveled against the accused No.1, and hence, he should be convicted for the offences charged.
10
S.C.No.1189/2017
12. The learned counsels Sri. Kemparaju, Advocate for the accused persons have vehemently argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused no. 1, beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to hold that the accused No.1 has committed the offence charged against him. Hence, he may kindly be acquitted of the offences charged.
13. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused No.1, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7. I have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 in detail.
14. The complainant in this case is P.W.1, who is C.W.1, one by name K.A.Tanveer, who is the Police Inspector and the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that on 14.3.2015, while he was on duty, he received credible information that in amritahalli Police station jurisdiction, Kaveri Badavane, Kempapura, 11 S.C.No.1189/2017 Dasarahalli in one house there was prostitution going on. Witness deposed that he informed this to his senior officer and got oral permission for further proceedings. Further deposed that he along with C.W.2 to 5 went to the spot and also carried lap-top and other necessary instruments thereby they left office at 4.30 p.m and reached Kempapura Dasarahalli at 5.30 p.m. Further deposed that C.W.7 and 8 were called to the spot as panchas. That after the panchas agreed, notice was issued to them. That the notice is marked as Ex.P.1 and record of reasons was written down, which is marked as Ex.P.2. The informer was sent as decoy, along with C.W.4 by giving him Rs.1,000/-. That after confirming about the prostitution, at 6.30p.m they have raided the said house. Further deposed on entering the house, one person was sitting and C.W.4 was sitting on another sofa. Further on inquiring the person of where was decoy, he told he is in one room and after opening the 12 S.C.No.1189/2017 door, informer was along with one lady. After inquiring that person, who is accused No.1 he told his wife Nagalakshmi is tenant and taken the house on rent from house owner Venugopal. That accused No.1 told he used to bring girls for the purpose of prostitution by false assurance to girls. Further deposed that decoy asked about girls and after giving one thousand he was allowed to go with the lady. The lady is C.W.6 who told that accused No.1 had given false assurance to fetch her a job. Further deposed that one Nokia C-200 mobile, 3 condoms was seized from accused no.1. Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.3 and signature of witness is at Ex.P.3(a). The seized articles are marked as M.O.1 & 2 respectively. Further deposed that Rs.1,000/- was deposited to Government treasury and witness produced the receipts of the same. The receipts is marked as Ex.P.4. This witness further deposed that the seized articles, and the lady along with the complaint were 13 S.C.No.1189/2017 handed over to the S.H.O. The complaint is marked as Ex,P.5 and Ex.P.5(a) is the signature of the witness.
15. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, he deposed and admitted the suggestion put to him by the counsel for accused No.1 that he has not given any document to the I.O that he was on duty on 14.03.2015. Further admitted that whenever they are on duty they need to write down in a book provided. Further admitted that the said book is not handed over to the I.O although he had written it and that he had no problem to hand it over. Further admitted the suggestion that the informer came to the station at 3.30, is not mentioned in the complaint. Further admitted that he has inquired the informer but he has not received any photo or video regarding prostitution. Further admitted that after receiving information and oral permission from his seniors, he has not sent any decoy to observe the movements of accused No.1. Further admitted that after getting the information, 14 S.C.No.1189/2017 he obtained the oral permission for raid at about 4.00p.m. Further admitted that C.W. 2 to 5 were given the work for that day and that no document is given to show on what work C.W.2 to 5 were given. Further deposed that they went in the jeep bearing no. KA.02. G 780 and driver was Rajkumar, that he had no problem to mention the same in the complaint.
16. On considering the evidence of P.W.1, alone, the case against the accused persons no.1, cannot be concluded that he has committed the offence charged. Hence, the evidence of this witness has to be compared with what other witnesses have to say and much reliance cannot be placed on the say of the official witness alone.
17. Pancha witnesses in the case are P.W.5 and P.W.6. Among them P.W.5 is C.W.8 one by name Manjunath, who is a car vendor, he deposed that 3 to 15 S.C.No.1189/2017 4 years from now, witness and one Nandish were standing in front of Amruthahalli circle and getting the car repaired, two police came and took signature stating that illegal activities are going on and same is marked as Ex.P.3 Mahazar and signature of the witness is Ex.P3(b). Witness deposed that no articles have been seized in presence of him. This witness turned hostile and at this juncture learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined the witness, During the cross-examination, P.W.5 denied all the suggestions put to him by learned Public Prosecutor.
18. P.W.6 is C.W.7, one by name Nandeesh, who is doing sales marketing. he deposed that 3 to 4 years from now, witness and one Manjunath were standing in front of Amruthahalli circle and getting the car repaired, two police came and took signature stating that illegal activities are going on and same is marked as Ex.P.3 Mahazar and signature of the witness is Ex.P3(c). Witness deposed that no articles have been 16 S.C.No.1189/2017 seized in presence of him. This witness turned hostile and at this juncture learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined the witness, and during the cross- examination, P.W.6 denied all the suggestions put to him by learned Public Prosecutor.
19. Material witness is P.W.3 is C.W.9 one by name Nagalaxmi, who is a vegetable vendor. She deposed that accused is her husband and the said premises is taken for rent from accused No.2 in the name of the witness, which is marked as Ex.P7. That her husband was not running any brothel business and she has not given statement to the police. This witness turned hostile and at this juncture learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined the witness. During the cross-examination, P.W.3 by learned Public Prosecutor witness deposed and denied all the suggestions put to her and her statement was marked as Ex.P8. This witness was further cross examined by the counsel for accused No.1, during the cross 17 S.C.No.1189/2017 examination she deposed that her husband accused No.1 was a real estate agent and going around with political party and people disliked accused No.1 and police have taken her husband stating that they would leave him after the inquiry.
20. Official witnesses are P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 along with P.W.1. Among them P.W.2 is C.W.10 is one by name Narayanaswamy, who is the P.S.I. He deposed that he was working as A.S.I at Amruthahalli police station in the year 2015. That on 14.03.2015, P.W.1 along with C.W.6 and accused No.1 produced Mahazar, Notice, record of reasons, seized Rs.1,000/-, one Mobile, 3 condoms and gave complaint, he has taken the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P5 and signature of the witness as Ex.P5(a). That he filed F.I.R and submitted the report to his higher official and the same is marked as Ex.P6 and signature of the witness is at Ex.P6(a). This witness was not cross- examined by the defence counsel.
18
S.C.No.1189/2017
21. Another official witness is P.W.4 is C.W.11, one by name Srinivasaraju, who is Police Inspector. He deposed that from the August 2014 to October 2017, he was working as Police Inspector, at Amruthahalli police station. That on 14.03.2015 at 9.00p.m, when he was in station, P.W.1 came and gave the complaint to P.W.2 A.S.I and P.W.2 registered the case. That after receiving the file, conducted further investigation and arrested accused No.1 and rescued C.W.6 and she was sent to State Women home. Further deposed that on 15.03.2015, produced C.W.6 Mullabibi along with accused No.1 to the court. That on 20.05.2015 took Rental agreement, statement from P.W.3 Nagalakshmi, completed the investigation and sent the same to the court.
22. During the cross-examination of P.W.4, he deposed that he does not know that C.C.B have target number of cases to registered in a month. That he did not go to the spot. Further deposed that in how 19 S.C.No.1189/2017 many cases C.W.6 is used as witness and he has not inquired her by way of video, nor took her photos. Further deposed that he has not investigated in the angle that accused is having a political background. Further deposed that before this case was registered there were no other case against the accused. This witness denied other suggestions put to him by counsel for accused.
23. Another official witness is P.W.7 is C.W.2, one by name Rajanna, who is Retd. ASI, CCB. He deposed that he was working as ACP in CCB from the year 2014 to 2015. That on 14.03.2015, P.I called the witness, staff Manjunath H.C, Gunashekara, P.C.Shobha, WPC and told that he has received information that in the jurisdiction of Amruthahalli P.S, Mariyappanapalya, was running prostitution business, by false assurance to ladies to fetch them job. That at around 3.00 reached Mariyappanapalya in government vehicle and as there was rush of time, 20 S.C.No.1189/2017 P.I had not taken search warrant and thus called two persons nearby and asked them to be panchas. That notice was issued to panchas and took the signature of two persons. Further deposed that later along with informant sent P.C Gunashekar as decoy to the spot by giving Rs.1,000/-. That after sometime along with P.I raided the house and found that there was one person in the hall and when inquired he informed his name was Panchalaiah. That there was a room in front of the hall and when opened the room, he found one person along with one lady and she informed her name as Mullabibi and they had brought in assurance of job and forced to do prostitution. That another person is decoy Gunashekar. Further deposed that in the room 3 packets of condoms and one Nokia mobile were found. That the panchanama was prepared in the house and singed and his signature is at Ex.P.3(d). Further deposed and identified the accused no.1.
21
S.C.No.1189/2017
24. During the cross-examination of P.W.7, he has deposed that the spot of raid is at a distance of 12 kilometers. Further deposed that along with him Gunashekar, Shobha W.P.C and Manjunath had been. Further that he did not mention any thing in the log book of the station before going for a raid. Further that the note of Rs.1000/- given to the decoy, its number is not mentioned. Further that before the raid they have not enquired the neighbors. Further he does not know the color of the walls of the house when he went in. Further deposed that he has not inquired the victim and did not receive any documents from her. Further this witness has denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.
25. On considering the evidence of all the witnesses, as extracted from the depositions of P.W.3. Witness stating that:
" ನನನ ಗಗಡ ಮನಯಲ ವವಶಶವಟಕ ನಡಸಸತತರಲಲಲ. ಪವಲವಸರಗ ನನಸ ಹವಳಕ ಕಕಟಟಲಲ."22
S.C.No.1189/2017 Further as extracted from the depositions of P.W.5, witness stating that:
" ನನನ ಸಮಕಮ ಪವಲವಸರಸ ಯವದವ ವಸಸತಗಳನಸ
ನ
ಅಮನತಸತಪಡಸಕಕಳಳಲಲಲ."
Further as extracted from the depositions of P.W.6, witness stating that:
" ನನನ ಸಮಕಮ ಪವಲವಸರಸ ಯವದವ ವಸಸತಗಳನಸ
ನ
ಅಮನತಸತಪಡಸಕಕಳಳಲಲಲ."
Further, On considering the evidence of pancha witness who are P.W.5 and 6 have fully turned hostile and not at-all supported the case of the prosecution. These witness have turned hostile and negatived the case of the prosecution. Further, the panchanama at Ex.P.3 is not proved.
26. The definitions of under Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code in short can be understood as:
"Keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel, easily earning money, living from the income of the said business,keeping girl as slave for doing brothel business, induced the victim to do 23 S.C.No.1189/2017 prostitution, kept the victim girl under custody as slave, induced her for prostitution as a slave, or accepts, living on the earnings of the said business."
27. The above explanations of the definitions have to be strictly proved for any case against the accused falling under Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code. But in the case on hand, it is important to note that although victims are cited in the charge sheet but no victim is examined by the prosecution, so that she could explain her grief and prosecution has not taken the evidence of independent witnesses in and around the vicinity of the raided spot. These offences are against the dignity of woman and health of society. Hence, care has to be taken while deciding such cases on Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. P.W.1 is official witness and P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are independent panchas and material witness, who have turned hostile to the case of the Prosecution. Basing only on 24 S.C.No.1189/2017 the say of the official witnesses, the charges do not stand proved against the accused persons no.1. Thus the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
28. Further, it is relevant to note that P.W.1 during the evidence has deposed that whenever they are on duty they need to write down in a book provided. Further admitted that the said book is not handed over to the I.O although he had written it and that he had no problem to hand it over. Further admitted that after receiving information and oral permission from his seniors, he has not sent any decoy to observe the movements of accused No.1. P.W. 3 deposing that accused is her husband and the said premises is taken for rent from accused No.2. That her husband was not running any brothel business and she has not given statement to the police. 25
S.C.No.1189/2017 P.W.4 deposing that he did not go to the spot. Further deposed that in how many cases C.W.6 is used as witness and he has not inquired her by way of video, nor took her photos. P.W.5 deposing that Witness deposed that no articles have been seized in presence of him. Further P.W.6 deposing that no articles have been seized in presence of him, all this raises doubt on the case of the prosecution.
29. Further the proceedings against accused No.2 was quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.1698/2018, dated 28.05.2018. The two pancha witness P.W.5 and P.W.6 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and not supported their version. Further, the evidence of public servant cannot be disbelieved that they are interested in the success of prosecution. Hence, I accept the evidence given by this witness. But based only on the evidence of P.W.1 and other official 26 S.C.No.1189/2017 witnesses, the guilt of the accused no.1, cannot be concluded. It is important to note that he has not received any written order for conducting raid. The seizure panchanama at Ex.P.3 is not proved and P.W.5 and 6 have turned hostile, there is no much evidence to show that under Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code are attracted against accused No.1. The various discrepancies which arise in the present case, creates doubt on the case of the prosecution and it cannot be believed in toto. Based on all these points after considering the entire evidence of the witnesses and the materials placed before this court, this case is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Further again, as per the provisions of Immortal Traffic Prevention Act U/s. 15(2) of wherein, one woman panchaa has to be secured, which was also not complied with. Moreover the adjacent owners are not examined by the prosecution, which creates 27 S.C.No.1189/2017 doubt. The evidence on record does not prove that the accused No. 1, was carrying on brothel business on the date of alleged raid by P.W.1 and his staff. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of accused no.1, beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to hold that the accused No.1, has committed the offence charged against him. Therefore, doubt arises regarding the case alleged against the accused no.1. It is well settled principle of law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused no.1 was indulged in the offences as charged. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
30. Point No.5: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused No.1, deserves to be acquitted of the offences charged 28 S.C.No.1189/2017 against him in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORD ER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1, is acquitted for the offences charged against him under Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond executed by accused No.1 and his surety bond shall stand canceled. He is set at liberty forthwith.
The properties at M.O.2 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
The property at M.O.1 shall be confiscated to the Government.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 29th day of March, 2021) (SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH 72).29
S.C.No.1189/2017 ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Thanveer
P.W.2: Narayana Swamy
P.W.3: Nagalakshmi
P.W.4: Srinivasaraju
P.W.5: Manjunath
P.W.6: Nandisha
P.W.7: Rajanna
II. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Notice to panchas
Ex.P.2 Record of Reasons
Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.3(a to d) Sigature of Witnesses Ex.P4 Bank Receipt Ex.P5 Complaint Ex.P5(a) Signature of witness Ex.P6 FIR Ex.P6(a) Signature of witness Ex.P7 Rental Agreement Ex.P8 Statement III. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-30
S.C.No.1189/2017 IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 Nokia Mobile
M.O.2 3 Condoms
(SANDHYA S.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-72).