Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs No.1 And Others Running on 26 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
PRESENT:
Sri E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.554/2017
BETWEEN
State by Malleshwaram Police Station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1. Sujatha
C/o Lokesh, a/a 38 years,
R/a No.17, 4th cross, M.D. Block,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore.
2 and 3 (Quashed Crl.P. No.5059/2017) .. ACCUSED
AND
A4. Deepash.
A5. Vijay
A6. Ani ..... ABSCONDED ACCUSED
(By Sri SRS., Advocate)
*****
2 S.C.No.554/2017
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Malleshwaram , Bangalore City, has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offenses punishable U/s.370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. The brief story of the prosecution case is as under:-
On 10-09-2016 at 5.30 p.m when CW.1/PW.1 Police Inspector has received credible information about running of prostitution business in the house bearing No.17, on M.D Block, Malleswaram. In view of the above he had secured panchas and informed the said information to the panchas and police officials CW.7 to 10 and thereafter reached the spot. CW.1 has deputed CW.5.Dhanush as decai by handing over Rs.3,000/- and sent him to said house to confirm the information. The said decai after 15 minutes of entering into the house has confirmed running of prostitution business. Immediately, CW.1 along with panchas and other police personal conducted raid and caught accused no.1, customer's accused No.2 and 3, and rescued the victim CW.4 by name Ms.Lima, who was trafficked by the accused No.1 3 S.C.No.554/2017 and induced her to indulge in the prostitution business. Thereby, the accused has committed the offenses as alleged in the charge sheet.
3. The case against accused No.2 and 3 is quashed by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka. Accused No.4 to 6 shown as absconding and charge sheet would be filed after their trace.
4. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional VII Addl.,CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. after furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused persons. The same was numbered as SC No.554/2017.
5. The charge was framed against the accused for the offenses as alleged against her. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4 S.C.No.554/2017
6.The prosecution examined four witnesses as PW.1 to 4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.6, and Mos1 to 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has gave up the witnesses CW.8 to 10 in view of evidence of PW.2 and PW.3. The court has issued summons, warrant and proclamation to CW.2 to
5. But the concerned police failed to secure the said witnesses and keep them present before the court. As such the prayer of learned Public Prosecutor was rejected and prosecution side evidence was taken as closed with liberty to examine the said witnesses if they were brought before the Court by the concerned police before conclusion of trial.
7.The accused statement as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was duly recorded. The accused did not claim the defence evidence nor stated anything. The accused complied provisions U/s.437 of Cr.P.C.
8.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
5 S.C.No.554/2017
9.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 and others running prostitution business at House No.17, MD Block, Malleshwaram, Bangalore City, by trafficking CW.4 and induced her to indulge in the prostitution in the public vicinity and leading her life from the amount of illegal gain and thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 and others with an intention to run prostitution business by trafficking CW.4 and induced her to indulge in prostitution business for wrongful gain, and thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable U/s.370 of IPC
3. What Order?
10 .This Court has answered the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order 6 S.C.No.554/2017 for the following:-
REASONS
11. Points No.1 and 2: Both these points are taken up together for discussion as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
The document marked at Ex.P1 mahazar is very vital document, which was prepared by the CW.1/PW.3 Sri. Narayan Gowda on 10/09/2016 between 8.30 p.m to 11.30 p.m at spot after conducting raid. On perusal of mahazar and other relevant documents and charge sheet discloses that accused persons running prostitution business by trafficking CW.4 to earn more money. As such the raid was conducted by CW.1 along with the pancha and police staff and seized Mo's. In order to prove the said mahazar marked at Ex.P.1, the prosecution as already discussed above examined 4 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4. Among the four witnesses, PW.1 is the owner of the house, PW.2 to PW.4 are the police official witnesses. Except evidence of PW.1 to 4 no other independent witnesses such as evidence of panchas, victim and decai is present on record to consider the case of the prosecution. The non-examination of said 7 S.C.No.554/2017 vital independent witnesses CW.2 to 5 is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
12.It is pertinent to note that evidence of PW.1 Shri. Jayasimha, owner of the house on which raid was conducted discloses that there was owner and tenant relationship between him and accused no.1. But no single document has been produced to consider or believe the relationship of owner and tenant among PW.1 and accused No.1. Generally, the owner of the property do not let the property to tenant on mortgage without document. Even if consider that accused No.1 is tenant under Pw.1 Jayasimha but the cross- examination of said witnesses shows that no neighbors never complained anything against accused No.1 and his family for having involved or running illegal activity such as prostitution business. Hence not much weightage is given to the evidence of Pw.1. The evidence of Pw.2 and 3 shows that Pw.3 has conducted raid along with their, panchas and other officials assistance . As already discussed above after confirmation of the information from the decai Cw.5 Sri Dhanush, the team headed by Mr. Narayan Gowda raided 8 S.C.No.554/2017 and caught the accused persons, rescued Cw.4 Lima and seized material objects as shown in the charge sheet and PF. During the course of the cross-examination of PW.2 and 3 discloses that no neighbors statements were recorded by the CW.1/PW.3. So also no women pancha of the locality secured to act as pancha during the time of raid. The same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Since, the ITP Act specifically manifest to follow the procedure by the police officials while conducted raid and for initiating legal procedure. According to Pw.2, they left their police in police jeep and parked near railway gate of Malleswaram and reached near to spot by walk. She does not know how much denomination amount was given to decai and also answered no physical verification was carried out by CW.1 that is Police Inspector before raid. According to her the panchanama marked at Ex.P1 was written between 9.00 to 10.30 p.m. The said evidence is totally contrary to the document mahazar marked at Ex.P.1.
13. The another police witness Pw.3 Mr. Narayan Gowda who has taken initiative of raid has answered in the cross-examination that he has not taken the help of local 9 S.C.No.554/2017 police and also not secured any women as pancha as already discussed above. He has also not noted in the mahazar regarding the currency numbers. According to him he has conducted physical verification of himself and team members were arrested for who were arrested for raid, but not prepared any report. So, also he has not collected call details to believe decai has given missed call to his phone for confirmation of prostitution business. So, there is lapse on the part of the police inspector in following the guidelines present in the ITP Act. The said lapse is not curable . The rest of the evidence PW.2 and 3 completely denied by the accused counsel.
14.It is obvious to note that PW.4 Srinivasaiah being PSI has given evidence that on 10/11/2016 Cw.1/Pw.3 has produced three accused persons, rescued women, mahazar , MOS and document along with complaint. On that basis he had registered crime No.176/16 and thereafter brought the seized MOs into PF and recorded voluntary statements of accused persons and statement of witnesses. The chief- examination of said witness not discloses that steps taken by him so far as accused No.1 and rescued women Cw.4 is 10 S.C.No.554/2017 concerned. He had sent accused No.1 and rescued women to the State Reception Center and on next day he has produced the accused No.1 to 3 along with the remand application to the court. Except that nothing is present regarding the legal action taken against the rescued women as provided in the ITP Act. Moreover the PSI is not empowered to carryout any investigation and to file charge sheet as per the provisions of ITP Act. So, the said irregularities and lapse cannot be set righted nor curable. So it is very clear that the prosecution has completely failed in placing proper iota evidence to believe that the accused person trafficked victims to earn more money on running the said business at public place. As such this court has answered Point No. 1 and 2 in the negative.
15.Point No.3: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and 2, this court pass the following:-
ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic 11 S.C.No.554/2017 (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 shall stand canceled.
Mo.1 to 4 ordered to retain till disposal of charge sheet to be filed against the absconding accused No.4 to 6.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 26 th day of December, 2019) (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.12 S.C.No.554/2017
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Jayasimha (CW.6) P.W.2: Savitramma (CW.7) P.W.3: Narayan Gowda (CW.1) P.W.4: Srinivasayya H.R (C.W11) List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Mahazar through PW.2 Ex.P.2: Notice ti Witness Ex.P.3: Record of Reasons Ex.P.4: Complaint through PW3 Ex.P.5: FIR No.176/16 dated 11-09-2019 Ex.P.6: pF no.51/16 dated 11-09-2019 List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:-
NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
M.O.1: Total cash Rs.5000/-
M.O.2: 5 mobile
M.O.3: 1 mobile case
M.O.4: 5 condoms.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 13 S.C.No.554/2017 Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 shall stand canceled.
Mo.1 to 4 ordered to retain till disposal of charge sheet to be filed against the absconding accused No.4 to
6.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 14 S.C.No.554/2017