Bangalore District Court
One Sri.Laxminarayana Pi Parappana vs No.1 To 4 Indulging In Prostitution ... on 13 July, 2022
1 CC No.38757/2011
KABC030387852011
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 13th day of July 2022
Present : Sri.R.Mahesha,
B.A.L.,LLB.,
IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC NO.38757/2011
1.C.C.No. 38757/2011
2.Date of offence 06/09/2011
3.Complainant State by Parappana Agrahara
Police Station.
4.Accused 1. Prajwal S/o Baby,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o.Hebbagodi, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru.
3. Janardhan S/o Muniyappa,
Aged about 40 years,
2 CC No.38757/2011
R/o.Yeraganahalli village,
Deranahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru.
1. Nirmal Pradhan (Split up)
4. Sandeep (Split up).
Offences U/Sec. 343 of IPC r/w Sec.4,5,6 &
complained of 7 of ITP Act.
6.Plea Accused No.1 & 3 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused No.1 & 3 are
acquitted.
8.Date of Order 13/07/2022.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Parappana Agrahara Police Station has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/Sec. 343 of IPC r/w Sec.4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act.
3 CC No.38757/2011
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 6-09-2011 at about 3.45 pm within the limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station that the complainant got credible informant that the prostitution is being carried out at house No.150/1, near Shanthipura Water Tank, Bengaluru, himself and his staff went to the said house and found that the accused persons were indulging in prostitution business by taking the customers in car bearing registration No.KA-51-Z-5087. In this regard, CW.1 lodged first information statement and based on the same FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.255/2010 for the offences punishable u/Sec.343 of IPC r/w Sec.4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act. Thereafter, PI completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the above said offences. 4 CC No.38757/2011
3. After registration of FIR accused No.1 to 4 have been produced before this Court. Later they have been enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the case against the accused No.4 has been split up. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 343 of IPC r/w Sec.4,5,6 & 7 of ITP Act and issued summons to the accused. The copy of the charge sheet has been furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the charge has been framed and read over to the accused. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 2 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked only one document as Ex.P.1. Thereafter, the statement of the accused has been recorded u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied all the incriminating 5 CC No.38757/2011 circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He has not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the evidences and documents placed on record.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
(1)Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 6-09-2011 at about 3.45 pm within the limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station that complainant got credible informant that the prostitution is being carried out at house No.150/1, near Shanthipura Water Tank, Bengaluru, himself and his staff went to the said house and found that the accused persons were indulging in prostitution business by taking the customers in car bearing registration No.KA-51-Z-5087 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 343 of IPC r/w Sec.4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act. ?
(2) What order ?
6 CC No.38757/2011
7. 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 :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : It is well settled that in a criminal case the entire burden of proof rests upon the prosecution and the accused need to prove nothing. Suffice for the accused to create doubt about the case of the prosecution and the reliability of the witnesses for the prosecution.
9. The main allegation of the prosecution is that on 6-09-2011 at about 3.45 pm within the limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station that complainant got credible informant that the prostitution is being carried out at house No.150/1, near Shanthipura Water Tank, Bengaluru, himself and his staff went to the said house and found that the accused persons were indulging in 7 CC No.38757/2011 prostitution business by taking the customers in car bearing registration No.KA-51-Z-5087. As already stated supra, the prosecution has examined in all 2 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and only one document at Ex.P.1.
10. The present criminal case set into motion by the complainant one Sri.Laxminarayana PI Parappana Agrahara police station he and along with his staff after confirmation the credible information received from Madivala Sub-Division ACP regarding the illicit activities conducted and raid on 6-9-2011 at about 3.45 pm, the accused No.1 to 4 indulging in prostitution business by using the girls who were victim of human trafficking. Victims girls were rescued by the complainant raiding party and after production before the Magistrate has been sent to the State Welfare Home and the accused have been arrested and produced before Magistrate , the accused were remanded to judicial custody. In order to 8 CC No.38757/2011 prove the prosecution case, they cited CW.1 to CW.12, out of that the prosecution examined CW.3 and CW.4, they are the police officers who are assisted to raid on 6- 9-2011 to the complainant i.e. CW.1. Despite, issued process of summons, warrant through local police officers and higher police officers the other witnesses are not secured and examined before this Court. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses i.e. CW.1, CW.2, CW.5 to CW.12 are dropped out, CW.3 and CW.4 deposed before this Court similarly as PW.1 and PW.2 they stated that on 6-9-2011 at about 3.00 pm, CW.1 to 3 and CW.4 carried duty of city round they received information through Madivalal Sub-Division ACP some unknown four male persons they confined three female persons at Shanthipura village near Water Tank, building No.150/1, they used for the purpose of prostitution. Therefore, the CW.1 confirmed about information received by ACP Madivala Sub-Division and CW.1 proceeded to the spot 9 CC No.38757/2011 along with panchas and other staff, they saw one car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-Z-5087 in front of house and two male persons and one female person get down from car and the police officers surrounded them and attempted to caught out of four members, two persons are escaped from the spot and two persons are caught by the police officers and one person escaped along with car. After made enquiry by the CW.1, it reveals that one accused name Nirmal Pradhan S/o.Goura Adi Pradhan, aged about 21 years, resident of Huskur gate, Neelasandra, Anekal, Bengaluru and other accused name Prajwal S/o.Baby and other accused name Janardhan Reddy and Sandeep. The CW.1 get all the accused and entered into the room, there is a three female found after enquired they told that they are ill-legally detained by the accused persons and they doing prostitution business they collected money from the customers, thereafter, they detained in the said house, the victim name reveals 10 CC No.38757/2011 that Aneesha w/o.Rinkudas, Swapna w/o.Laxman Rao, Sudha w/o.Adireddy. Thereafter, CW.1 conducted panchanama in the said house in the presence of panchas and the said witnesses signed in the panchanama. Both witnesses are identified as accused No.2 and accused No.3. PW.1 and PW.2 have been subjected by the cross-examination by the accused. Both are stated that on that day they have on duty and doing city rounds PW.1 and PW.2 are unable to say vehicle number of police jeep and they are unable to explain the boundaries of the raided house. Further PW.1 expressed inability to say about the full details of raided house. PW.2 stated the said house consist two floors, the said house had two bed rooms one room and kitchen and the victims womens detained in ground floor, they did not went to the 1 st floor of the building. PW.2 stated the boundaries of the said house, west and east by vacant land, north by road and south by vacant 11 CC No.38757/2011 land. The said house situated isolated, the other houses situated nearly 50 meters far from the house, they did not ask neighbour house members to become panchas to this incident, panchas are available in the said road, they did not enquired address of the panchas. The said Ex.P.1 drawn in the said house, but who wrote Ex.P.1 did not remember. PW.1 stated during the course of cross-examination that she did not remember who wrote Ex.P.1 out of our staff, she did not aware of who is the owner of house No.150/1 and she did not remember whether CW.1 asking the owner of house to become panchas to this incident. Both have denied the formal suggestions made by the accused.
11. It is relevant to note that in spite of issuance of summons and proclamation against the other material witnesses i.e. CW.1, CW.2, CW.5 to CW.12 through the Deputy Commissioner of Police, they have not been 12 CC No.38757/2011 secured before this Court. More-ever, PW.1 and PW.2 have not fully supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, it creates a reasonable doubt regarding the commission of alleged offences by the accused No.1 and
3. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against the accused No.1 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
12. Point No.2: For the afore said reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec.343 of IPC r/w Sec.4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No1. and 3 stands cancelled.13 CC No.38757/2011
The office is directed to keep the entire file in split-up CC No.22724/2021.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 13 th day of July 2022).
(R.Mahesha) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1: Savitha. PW.2: Prakash.R.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Panchanama Ex.P.1(a): Signature of PW.1.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
- NIL -
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
- NIL -
List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:
- NIL -
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.14 CC No.38757/2011
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec.343 of IPC r/w Sec.4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No1. and 3 stands cancelled. The office is directed to keep the entire file in split-up CC No.22724/2021.
IX ACMM, Bengaluru.15 CC No.38757/2011