Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mohammad Noor Alam on 14 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 14th Day of November 2017
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 117/2016
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Cotton Pet Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED Mohammad Noor Alam,
S/o. Mohammed Binminajalak, 34 years,
R/at. 38/2, Jolly Mohalla, Masjid Road,
Cottonpet,
Bengaluru.
Permanent resident of:
Mohabathpur Village,
Dhaka Thana,
Mothihari District,
Bihar State.
Sri.M.R.-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 15-05-2013
2 Date of report of occurrence 15-05-2013
2 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
3 Date of arrest of Accused
Date of release of Accused ON BAIL
Period undergone in custody
by Accused
4 Date of commencement of evidence 28-02-2011
5 Date of closing of evidence 09-11-2017
6 Name of the complainant Jaykar
7 Offences complained of Section 344, 370,
374-IPC & Sec.23,
26-J.J. Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector of Law and Order, Cotton Pet Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused for the offences punishable under Section 344, 370, 374 of I.P.C and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
That the accused was running bag manufacturing 3 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 unit since from 01-12-2011 at Building No.193/1, 1st Floor, situated at Cotton Pete main road, within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete Police Station, Bengaluru. During the year 2014 at the month of March and April, the accused by way of human trafficking brought Cw.13 to Cw.20 from Bihar and Nepal knowing fully well that are minor boys by influencing money and also employment and engaged them in his bag manufacturing unit and was extracting work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labours and also he has detained them in a room, without providing basic necessities and without payment of salary to them. On the basis of said information Cw.1-Jaykar-
NGO of Justice & Care Institution lodged complaint against accused for the offences punishable under Section 344, 370, 374 of I.P.C and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused for the 4 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 offences punishable under Section 344, 370, 374 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The committal Court passed an order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bengaluru, since the victims are minors and the said case is exclusively triable by the Child Court and in turn the said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, the summons was issued to accused. In pursuance of the said summons, the accused appeared before the Court and he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused submitted that there is no argument before framing charge and requested to frame charge. As a result the charge was framed, the contents of charge read over and explained in Hindi by translating Kannada version to 5 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and submit crimes to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused set down for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined 8 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.8, got marked as many as 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and 4 material objects as MO1 to MO4 and closed its side evidence. At the time of cross-examination the accused also got exhibited one document as Ex.D1 through Pw.7. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, he is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. The accused complied the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. by depositing cash surety of Rs.20,000/-.
6. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides. The complainant's advocate through Public Prosecutor filed written arguments and also relied on the decision reported 6 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 in AIR 1982 SC 39 and Writ Petition (C) 51/2006 dated 18- 04-2011 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No.11/1975 dated 01-08-1980 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No.1962/2010 dated 10-04-2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and then matter is set down for judgment.
7. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 01.12.2011 jAzÀ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢£ Ý À PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛäAiÀÄ ©°ØAUï £ÀA. 193/1 gÀ 1£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁåUÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj WÀlPÀPÉÌ JgÀqÀÄ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¸ÁQë-13 jAzÀ 20 gÀªÀgÉV£À C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À gÁdå¢AzÀ PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ CªÀg£ À À Äß CPÀæªÀĪÁV §AzÀ£ s ÀzÀ°l è ÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 344 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
2. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁtô¹zÀ ¢£À, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-13 jAzÀ 20 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀg£ À ÀÄß ºÀtzÀ C«ÄµÀ vÉÆÃj¹ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ ¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀgÉ vÀAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀ£ s z À À°èlÄ, §®ªÀAvÀªÁV UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÀÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 370 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß 7 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
3. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁtô¹zÀ ¢£À, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-13 jAzÀ 20 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀs£z À À°èlÄÖ, CªÀgÀ EZÉáUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV CªÀjAzÀ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹ PÀÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 374 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
4. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁtô¹zÀ ¢£À, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-13 jAzÀ 20 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀs£z À À°èlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ, vÀ£Àß ¨ÁåUÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ £ÉëĹPÉÆAqÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀ°è 10-12 UÀAmÉUÀ¼À PÁ® fÃvÀzÁ¼ÀÄUÀ¼ÀAvÉ zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸Àª® À vÀÄÛ ¤ÃqÀzÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr PÀ®A 23 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
5. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
8. 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 the final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4:- As these points are inter- 8 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasons.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.8, got marked as many as 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and 4 material objects as MO1 to MO4. As per the prosecution case, Pw.6 is the complainant, Pw.3 is the N.G.O., Pw.1 is the Doctor, Pw.3 and Pw.9 are Labour Officers, Pw.4 is the building owner, Pw.2, Pw.4 and Pw.5 are the police officials, Pw.7 is the owner of the building and Pw.8 is the Investigation Officer. Except Pw.7-the owner of the building, all other witnesses are official witnesses who accompanied with the raiding team and the Investigation Officer. None of the independent witnesses' evidence placed before the Court. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused.
9 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused was running bag manufacturing unit since from 01-12-2011 at Building No.193/1, 1st Floor, situated at Cotton Pete main road, within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete Police Station, Bengaluru. During the year 2014 at the month of March and April, the accused by way of human trafficking brought Cw.13 to Cw.20 from Bihar and Nepal knowing fully well that are minor boys by influencing money and also employment and engaged them in his bag manufacturing unit and was extracting work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labours and also he has detained them in a room, without providing basic necessities and without payment of salary to them and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344, 370, 374 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act. Hence this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the above said ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused 10 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 344, 370, 374 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act.
Section 344 of I.P.C defines that:
Wrongful confinement for ten or more days- Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 370 of I.P.C defines that:
Trafficking of persons-[1] Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation,(a) recruits, (b)transports, (c) harbours,
(d)transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by-
First -using threats, or
Secondly -using force, or any other form of
coercion, or
Thirdly -by abduction, or
Fourthly -by practicing fraud, or deception, or Fifthly -by abuse of power, or 11 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 Sixthly -by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
Section 374 of I.P.C defines that:
Unlawful compulsory Labour-Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 23 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Punishment for cruelty to juvenile of child:- Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.
Section 26 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Exploitation of Juvenile or child employee- whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years also be liable to fine.12 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
By going through the facts, circumstances and available materials both at oral and documentary, it is just and proper to consider the available material evidence which attracts the very ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability against accused.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Jayakar- the NGO and also complainant in this case, in his chief examination he has deposed that on 15-05-2013 he got information that within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete Police Station in some units the child labours are working. After receiving said information he went to CID office of AHT Unit and informed the said fact. As a result, Dy.S.P- Koulapure formed team of Labour Inspectors and NGOs along with police personnel and the said team went to Cotton Pete Police Station and informed the same to SHO and then came to the spot and raided the said bag manufacturing unit. In that raid he came to know that there are two rooms having four children stitching the bag. 13 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 Immediately they rescued the children, seized two bags, one scissors and another ladies bag as per MO1 to MO4. On enquiry he came to know that their age was from 9 years to 18 years and one Alam brought them from Bihar by influencing that he is going to give money and provide job, but he has engaged them in bag manufacturing unit without paying sufficient salary and by giving advance to their parents. He was extracted work from 09.00 a.m., to 10.00 p.m. He has also not provided basic necessities to them and detained them in the bag manufacturing unit hall itself. After rescuing said children and after seizing MO1 to MO4, they brought the children to Cotton Pete Police Station, produced before SHO and lodged complaint as per Ex.P9 and his signature is Ex.P9(a). Thereafter the mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P10 and his signatures are Ex.P10(a) and Ex.P10(b). He has also identified the accused who brought the children from Bihar and engaged them to work in the bag manufacturing unit. 14 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
14. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that:
"¹Lr PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ JºÉZïnAiÀÄÄ WÀlPÀzÀ rªÉÊJ¸ï¹ P˯Á¥ÀÅgÉgÀªÀg£ À ÀÄß ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁrzÉÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £Á£ÀÄ °TvÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¤ªÉÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. d¹Öøï CAqÀ' PÉÃgï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀĪÀgÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
Further he has admitted that:
"¢£ÁAPÀ14.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ C°èUÉ RÄzÁÝV ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉ. D ¢£À F §UÉÎ oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÁåªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Again he was elicited that:
"¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013PÉÌ »A¢£À ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è £ÁªÀÅ gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁrzɪÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁUÀ° CªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üPg À ÁUÀ° ªÀÄvÀÄÛ WÀl£Á¸ÀܼÀzÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁUÀ° DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ D ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß Ej¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV zÀÄr¹ PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝÁ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉý PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
He has also admitted that:
"¤.¦.9 oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÉÃÝ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CzÉà jÃw ¤.¦.10 oÁuÉAiÀįÉè vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£ÀUÉ PÀ£ÀßqÀ NzÀ®Ä §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D PÁgÀt ¤,¦.10 gÀ°è K£ÉãÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ §gÉ¢zÁÝgÉA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."15 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
He has also admitted that:
"WÀl£Á¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÁåUïvÀAiÀiÁjPÁ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ D PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÁªÀÄ¥Às®PÀ EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
He has also admitted that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ªÁtôdå ªÀåªÀºÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥sÁåPÀÖj, CAUÀr CxÀªÁ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ PÁ«ÄðPÀ E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥Àqz É ÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÃÉ PÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D jÃw ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ£Á JA§ÄzÁgÀ §UÉÎ zÁ½AiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV M§â ªÀåQÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÁtôdå ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CxÀªÁ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉ DvÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ E¯ÁSÉUÉ vÁ£ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀ «ªÀgÀuÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D §UÉÎ D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
Further he has admitted that:
"ªÀÄÄ.ªÀÄÁ®Ä 1 jAzÀ 4 gÀAvÀºÀªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖAiÀÄ°è §ºÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ ¹UÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ®Ä 1 jAzÀ 4 £ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è d¥sÀÅÛ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è,"
Again he has admitted that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV M§â ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ zÉñÀ¢AzÀ CxÀªÁ ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdå¢AzÀ CPÀæªÀĪÁV ¸ÁUÁuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉ D §UÉÎ UÀÄ¥ÀZ Û g À À E¯ÁSÉUÉ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Further he has admitted that:
"£ÁªÀÅ rªÉÊJ¸ï¦ P˯Á¥ÀÅgÉà gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ÄÃmï ªÀÄÁrzÁUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ¢AzÀ PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ CPÀæªÀĪÁV ElÄÖPÉÆArzÁÝ£ÉA§ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÀÉÆqÀ°®è. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ©ºÁgÀ¢AzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåQÛ §gÀ¨ÃÉ PÁzÀgÉ gÉÊ°£À°è 16 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ºÁUÉÆAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀ gÁdå¢AzÀ PÀ¼Àî¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ gÉÊ°£À°è vÀA¢zÉÝà DzÀgÉ gÉʯÉéà ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è CªÀg£ À ÀÄß vÀqÉzÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀĪÁV ¸ÁUÁuÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÁÝgÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÁUÀ°, PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÄÁ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉUÁUÀ°, gÉʯÉéà ¥ÉÇðøïoÁuÉUÁUÀ° ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉUÁUÀ° AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁV®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Lastly he has admitted that:
"gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ FUÀ J°èzÁÝgÉ JA§ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÁåªÀÅzÉà «µÀAiÀÄ w½¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
The above said admitted evidence creates doubt about commission of offence by the accused.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Dr.Girish, he has deposed that on 16-05-2013 he has examined 8 children and issued certificates as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. All the children are aged about 9 years to 18 years. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and he has admitted that Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 is cyclostyle format and in order to fix the age of a person that person has to undergo dental examination, radiological examination and ossification test, but in order to give Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 he has 17 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 not subjected the said children for said examination, since no such facility was available in that place. Further he has admitted that even though the person is subjected to above said examinations, there is variation of 2 to 3 years from the certified age. Further he has admitted that:
"£Á£ÀÄ D ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ CªÀgÀ ¥ÉÇõÀPgÀ ÀÄ CxÀªÁ ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ EgÀ°®è. D ªÀÄPÀ̼À d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀgÉ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ D §UÉÎ zÁR¯É PÉÆqÀzÃÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è. D ªÀÄPÀ̼À «¼Á¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ §gÉ¢®è,"
If the above said evidence taken into considerations, though the doctor examined the said children, but the certificate issued on his imagination and he has not subjected the children to the above stated examination. Unless and until produces other corroborative and cogent authorized documents to prove the age of said children are produced, it is not safe to accept the evidence of Pw.1.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Geetha- WPC-279, she has deposed in her chief examination that she accompanied raiding team to assist them in raiding the 18 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 offending unit. She found four children were working along with two adults by cutting bag cloth and stitching the bag. On enquiry they told one Alam was the owner of offending unit. Dy.S.P. prepared mahazar and she has signed the same. She has also deposed that the children are aged about 14 years and two children aged about 12 to 13 years, without giving food the owner of said unit extracting work from them day and night. The accused tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also she has shown her ignorance whether the complaint was lodged before Cotton Pete Police Station earlier to conducing raid. She has admitted that:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ PÀ¼Àî¸ÁUÁtôPÉ DVzÀÝ°è £ÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSÉUÉ ªÀiÁ»w §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Further she has shown her ignorance that:
"F WÀl£ÉUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä F DgÉÆæ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä WÀlPÀzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ §A¢vÉÆÃÛ E®èªÉÇà UÉÆwÛ®è."
She has admitted that no such name board found in the offending unit and after closing the raid, the 19 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 complainant lodged complaint. But here no such earlier conducting of mahazar found in the instant case. Only after giving complaint, the Investigation Officer went to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P10 and the complaint is Ex.P9. This witness is police personnel, unless and until produces other independent individual corroborative and cogent witness evidence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Vimla Elizabeth-Labour Officer in her chief examination she has supported to the case of prosecution. In her cross- examination she has admitted that Cotton Pete Police Station does not comes within the jurisdiction of 31st Circle. On 15-02-2013 NGO have not given any complaint to Labour Office and she has not given the same to Cotton Pete Police Station. On the basis of said complaint she also accompanied with the raiding team. She has admitted that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà M§â ªÀåQÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà EAqÀ¹Öç, ¥sÁåPÀÖj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÁå¥ÁgÀ £ÀqɸÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ PÁ«ÄðPÀ E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ 20 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 DgÉÆæ ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀ£ Ý ÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£Àß §½ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÀÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
She has deposed that:
"¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013PÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä PÁl£ï¥ÉÃlÉ ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÛÉAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀAvÀgÁªï ¥ÁågÀqÉÊ¸ï ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ 194gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ¨sÉÃn PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ, ZÁ.¸Á.1, ZÁ.¸Á.7 jAzÀ 9 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀPÉÌ zÁ½ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzɪÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÀ ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀ AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ°z è É ºÁUÀÆ D WÀlPÀ AiÀiÁgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ zÁ½UÉ vÉUÉzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
She has also admitted that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉÊUÁjPÁ WÀlPÀzÀ¯ÁèU° À , PÁSÁð£É WÀlPÀzÀ¯ÁèUÀ°, EvÀgÉ WÀlPÀUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÀAqÀħAzÀgÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä D §UÉÎ D ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃnøï£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ D §UÉÎ PÁgÀt PÉüÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸Àj JAzÀÄ ºÉý £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀÆå£ÀåvÉ PÀAqÀħAzÀgÉ £ÉÆÃnøï PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013PÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÀºÀ WÀlPÀPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr C°è PÀAqÀÄ §AvÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ £ÀÆå£ÀåvÉ §UÉÎ PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnøï£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
She has also admitted that:
"¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013PÉÌ ªÀÄÄ£Àß zÁ½ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÀÄ D ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀtÚ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉý AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÄÁgÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÁUÀ° £ÀªÀÄä »jAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÁUÀ° PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
She has also admitted that:
"¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013PÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÁªÀÅ zÁ½ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ 8 d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¥ÉÊQ AiÀiÁgÉƧâgÀÆ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉaÑ£À PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉ, Hl ªÀ¸ÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CzÉà PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ, ºÉa£Ñ À ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è zÀÄr¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä 21 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 E¯ÁSÉUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÉà jÃw D ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¥ÉÇõÀPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSÉUÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ £À£ÀUÁUÀ° AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è WÀlPÀ AiÀiÁªÀ £ÁªÀÄ¥Às®PÀ¢AzÀ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ w½zÀÄPÀƼÀî®Ä £Á£ÀÄ C°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÁªÀÄ¥Às®PÀ £ÉÆÃqÀ°®è.
Further she has also admitted that:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ PÀ¼Àî¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ¤UÀæºÀzÀ¼ÀzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ zÁ½UÉ §A¢zÁÝgÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ DzÀgÉ CªÀjUÉãÁzÀgÀÆ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À PÉÊAiÀÄ°è ¤AiÀĪÀĪÀ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ zÀÄr¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013 gÀ »AzÀÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀÄ CªÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÁ CxÀªÁ E®èªÁ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
The above said evidence of Pw.3 clinches the issue unequivocally points out the issue that no such complaint received by the Labour office in respect of alleged bag manufacturing unit. Even no such document available in her office in respect bag manufacturing done by the accused. It is her evidence that she has recorded statement of victim boys, but no such documents produced by the Investigation Officer along with charge sheet. She has shown her ignorance that earlier to raid whether she has received complaint or not. Further she has admitted that:
"¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è ¸Àܼz À À°è ªÀĺÀdgï §gÉAiÀÄ°®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."22 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
Further she has admitted that:
"£Á£ÀÄ D JAlÄ d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀAiÀĸÀì£ÀÄß RavÀ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV C¢üPÀÈvÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ d£À£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæ, CxÀªÁ ªÉÊzÀågÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹ CªÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ ªÀAiÀĹì£À zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUzÉ ÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D JAlÄ d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß J°èAzÀ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §zÀgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ©ºÁgÀ¢AzÀ PÀgÉvÀAzÀgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ ©lÖgÉ D ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ©ºÁgÀ¢AzÀ §AzÀªÀgÁ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä C¢üPÀÈvÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D ªÀÄPÀ̼À vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
She has also admitted that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ C°è ¨ÁåUÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀîÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C°è £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ CªÀÅUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said evidence taken into consideration the further stand taken by the prosecution in respect of process of conducting mahazar and recording statement of victim boys, creates doubt in its genuinity. But this witness being Labour Officer, having ample opportunity to investigate and collect evidence of independent witnesses, but the Investigation Officer not collected the evidence of witnesses who are very much available in and around the alleged offending unit. Unless and until produces corroborative and cogent oral and documentary 23 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 independent evidence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of alleged interested witness.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.4- B.Govindaiah-AHC-AHTU unit CID in his chief examination he has admitted that the jurisdiction of AHTU unit-CID is through out Karnataka and if any person is human trafficking, the said fact came to know by his unit through intelligence, but no such information received by AHTU higher officer in that respect earlier to 15-09-2013. The accused brought the children by human trafficking from Bihar and extracting work from them. He has also deposed that no such complaint received from in and around neighbours of offending unit. Even the labour officer also not received any complaint. Further he has also deposed that:
"¥Àæ²ßvÀ WÀlPÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ JAzÀÄ RavÀ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀ¼À®Ä D WÀlPÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À £ÁªÀÄ¥Às®PÀ EgÀ°®è ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃqÀ°®è. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ D WÀlPÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹ PÉƼÀî®Ä WÀlPÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ D §UÉÎ ¥Àgª À Á£ÀVAiÀiÁUÀ° EvÀgÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀi£ÁßUÀ° ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è."24 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, there is a doubt of commission of offence by the accused as per accusation made by the prosecution against him. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that this witness also is official police witnesses and interested witness. Unless and until produces corroborative and cogent oral testimony of victim boys and other independent witness evidence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness to believe the alleged offences against accused.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.5- Munibasavaiah-A.S.I., he has deposed that he was one of the members of raiding team and in his chief examination he has given evidence by supporting the case of prosecution, but in the cross-examination he has admitted that:
"¢£ÁAPÀB15.05.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ¸À¼ Ü ÀzÀ°è zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzɪÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥Às®PÀ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÉÃjÃw £Á£ÀÄ D DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ C°è ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ£ Ý ÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¥Àgª À Á£ÀVAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è."25 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
But his answer is no such information received by his police station in respect of accused engaging victim boys to work in his bag manufacturing unit and extracting work from them unlawfully. Further he has deposed that no such information received from the victim boys in respect of the accused extracting work for 10 to 12 hours in a day by paying meager wages without basic amenities. Even no such complaint received from the parents of the victim boys and also no such complaint lodged by any person or any neighbours of offending unit in respect of alleged offences against accused. He has also deposed that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ©ºÁgÀ¢AzÀ CPÀæªÀĪÁV ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉ vÀgÀ¨ÃÉ PÁzÀgÉ §¹ì£À¯ÁèU° À CxÀªÁ gÉÊ°£À°è PÀgÉvg À À¨ÃÉ PÁUÀÄvÀz Û É D jÃw PÀgÉvÀAzÀgÉ gÉʯÉéä¯ÁÝtzÀ gÉʯÉéà ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ D §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D jÃw CPÀæªÀĪÁV ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉ vÀA¢zÁÝgÉA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said evidence taken into consideration there is a doubt of commission of offence by the accused. Here also unless and until produces the evidence of victim boy and other co-related independent witnesses, coupled 26 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 with evidence of neighbours of offending unit or the public who were available at the time of alleged raid, question of believing the evidence of this witness does not arise for consideration. He is also one of the important police official witnesses. It is quite natural that he has deposed supporting the case of prosecution.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Rukmini- the owner of the building where the alleged offending unit was run, according to her the accused had taken the said house for rent for residential purpose and Ex.P11 is rental agreement. As per his say the children are his brothers and also sons, but she came to know about the said fact through police that they are not related to accused and he brought them to extract work from them.
In the cross-examination she has admitted that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£É £À£ÀßzÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw PÉÆnÖ®è. CAvÀºÀ zÁR¯É F ¢£ÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï £ÀÆgïD®ÃAUÉ DvÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁqÀ¯ÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÀÉ PÀÉÆnÖzÉÝ. DvÀ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ RÄzÁÝV £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¨ÁrUÉ 27 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.11 gÀ°è ¸ÀºÀ ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï £ÀÆgïD®A£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¨ÁrUÉUÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ£ÉAzÀÄ §gɹzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
Further he has admitted that:
"ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï £ÀÆgïD®A£ÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉýzÀ PÁgÀt D «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w½¬ÄvÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ CzÀQÌAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ D «µÀAiÀÄ w½¢gÀ°®è. DvÀ£ÀÄ D ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝzÀgÀ §UÉÎ DvÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV £Á£ÀÄ RÄzÁÝV £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
She has also deposed that she doesn't know anything about the incident. If the above said admission is taken into consideration, the accused had taken house in question for residential purpose and not alleged manufacture of bag unit. Through this witness also the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused.
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.8- Sowmya.N-Police Inspector and also Investigation Officer of this case, she has deposed that on 15-05-2013 at about 02.15 p.m., the complainant came and lodged computer typed complaint, on receiving of said complaint she 28 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 registered the same in Crime No.210/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 344, 370, 374 of IPC and section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act. She has made Shara on the complaint and signed the same. On the basis of said complaint she has prepared FIR as per Ex.P12 and her signature is Ex.P12(a). Thereafter she went to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P10 and her signature is Ex.P10(c). Here no such Pancha stepped into witness box to depose about the conducting of mahazar by this witness as per Ex.P10. She has also seized Mo1 to MO4 at the spot and made it to subject to P.F.No.88/2016 and obtained permission from the Court. She has sent the victim boys to State Home. She has also recorded statements of Cw.4 to Cw.10. She has also obtained the statements of victim boys on 18-05-2013 before Superintendent of Bala Mandira. But no such statements find a place in the record. Further she has arrested the accused and released him on bail as per the Court order. She has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. But no such seizure taken place through 29 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 said voluntary statement. She has filed charge sheet against the accused.
22. In the cross-examination except denial suggestions, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused. She has admitted that she had not taken statement of neighbours of the offending unit in respect of alleged offences against accused. She has also admitted that no such complaint received from neighbours of in and around of the offending unit and the parents of the victim boys. She has not ascertained whether before issuance of Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 the victim boys were subjected to radiology examination and ossification examinations to fix their age. Even she has admitted in Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 also no such Shara mentioned in respect of such examinations done by the doctor on the victim boys to fix their age. She has also admitted that the victim boys are not aware of reading and writing of Kannada, but the statement recorded is in Kannada, at the same time no such Shara mentioned 30 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 in respect of Kannada translated into Hindi and explained to the victim boys. She has also admitted that even the house owner-Pw.7 not lodged any complaint alleging that accused running offending bag manufacturing unit by extracting work from child labours. She has also admitted that at the time of investigation she has not ascertained whether the accused has obtained license to establish the bag manufacturing unit. She has also admitted that no such document seized to prove that the accused was running alleged bag manufacturing unit as contended by the prosecution.
23. No doubt it is true that the accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omissions and also denial of the allegations made against him, but at the same time the material witnesses i.e., victim boys evidence not produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged offences against the accused. Moreover the investigation latches in collecting 31 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 documentary evidence in respect of accused running the said unit by extracting work from minor child labours. Non-investigating the said facts and non-production of supporting corroborative and cogent oral and documentary evidence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness and the same is formal one. Here the produced evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.6 and Pw.8 are all interested official witnesses. Their evidence not supported by victim boys and other independent witnesses' evidence to believe the alleged offences against accused. Even the Pw.7 though admitted giving house for rent to accused, but no such evidence forthcoming to believe that the accused was running bag manufacturing unit in the said house by extracting work from child labours-Cw.13 to Cw.14 as per the prosecution case.
24. The learned complainant's advocate through learned Public Prosecutor filed written arguments and also relied on the citations stated above and submitted the ratio 32 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 of principles of above stated decisions are applicable to the present case on hand and the accused is liable to be convicted. Perused the written arguments and also the relied on decisions, but with due respect for the learned advocate for the complainant, the facts and circumstances of above stated decisions and facts and circumstances of case on hand are different one and the ratio of principle are not applicable to the present case on hand.
25. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablizes the defense of the accused rather than the case of the prosecution.
26. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and MO1 to MO4, placed on record in 33 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that the accused was running bag manufacturing unit since from 01-12-2011 at Building No.193/1, 1st Floor, situated at Cotton Pete main road, within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete Police Station, Bengaluru. During the year 2014 at the month of March and April, the accused by way of human trafficking brought Cw.13 to Cw.20 from Bihar and Nepal knowing fully well that are minor boys by influencing money and also employment and engaged them in his bag manufacturing unit and was extracting work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labours and also he has detained them in a room, without providing basic necessities and without payment of salary to them and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344, 370, 374 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
34 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016
27. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 344, 370, 374 IPC and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
MO1 to MO4 are treated as worth properties and confiscated to the Government after appeal period is over and if appeal is preferred, after disposal of the appeal, subject to the result of said appeal.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th Day of November 2017.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
35 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Dr.Girish Cw.21 28-02-2017 Pw.2 Geetha Cw.6 25-04-2017 Pw.3 Wilma Elizabeth Cw.4 27-07-2017 Pw.4 B.Govindaiah Cw.8 27-07-2017 Pw.5 Munibasavaiah Cw.9 30-08-2017 Pw.6 Jayakar Cw.1 30-08-2017 Pw.7 Rukmini Cw.12 30-08-2017 Pw.8 Sowmya Cw.23 09-11-2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1-8 Medical Examination Pw.1 28-02-2017 certificates of victims Ex.P 9 Complaint Pw.6 30-08-2017 Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 30-08-2017 Ex.P 9b Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 30-08-2017 Ex.P 10 Mahazar Pw.6 30-08-2017 Ex.P 10a, Signatures of Pw.6 Pw.6 30-08-2017 10b Ex.P 10c, Signatures of Pw.8 Pw.8 30-08-2017 10d Ex.P 11 Xerox copy of rental Pw.7 30-08-2017 agreement Ex.P 11a, Signatures of Pw.7 Pw.7 30-08-2017 11b 36 Spl.C.C.No.117/2016 Ex.P 12 FIR Pw.8 30-08-2017 Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 30-08-2017 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION MO1 Black & Red colour bag Pw.6 30-08-2017 MO2 Red & Green colour bag Pw.6 30-08-2017 MO3 White & Chocolate colour Pw.6 30-08-2017 bag MO4 Scissors Pw.6 30-08-2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED Ex.D1 Statement of Pw.7 Pw.7 30-08-2017 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ***