Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Mohammad Mustafa on 12 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 12th Day of April 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No.397/2014
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Cotton Pet Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Mohammad Mustafa
S/o. BasheerAhmad, 31 years,
R/at. Mal Mal Village,
Kilwayi Post & Thana,
Madhuvani District,
Bihar State.
ACCUSED No.2 Shankar Basent Split up
Sri.M.B.S.-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 05-12-2013
2 Date of report of occurrence 05-12-2013
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1
Date of release of Accused No.1 ON BAIL
Period undergone in custody
by Accused No.1
4 Date of commencement of evidence 25-09-2017
2 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014
5 Date of closing of evidence 20-03-2018
6 Name of the complainant S.B.Chabbi
7 Offences complained of Section 344, 370, 374
r/w. 34 IPC, Sec.23,
26-J.J. Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 is
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector of Cotton Pet Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374, 344 read with section 34 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:
The accused No.1 and 2 were running bag manufacturing unit since from one year of the date of incident at 1st and 2nd Floor of Building No.15, 1st Cross, Nalabandwadi, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pet Police Station. The accused No.1 engaged Cw.11 to cw.17 and the accused No.2 engaged Cw.18 to Cw.22 who are minors, brought them from Nepal, Bihar and West Bengal States by influencing money and 3 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 employment to them by way of human trafficking and engaged them in their respective bag manufacturing units by extracting work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labourers. The accused person No.1 and 2 detained the victims in a room without providing basic necessities and without paying salary. On the basis of complaint lodged by Cw.1- S.B.Chabbi-Dy.S.P., of C.I.D-AHT Unit, the police registered the case against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374, 344 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374, 344 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet, as usual the accused No.1 appeared before the Committal Court, the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to accused No.1 and 2 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 4 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 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 No.1 and 2. In pursuance of the said summon, the accused No.1 appeared before the Court and he was enlarged on bail, but the accused No.2 remained absent inspite of giving opportunity to the police to produce accused No.2 by issuing NBW against accused No.2, but the police failed to secure presence of accused No.2. As a result, case against accused No.2 split up by registering the same in Special C.C.No.434/ 2017 and proceeded against accused No.1 only in this Case. Thereafter, the learned advocate for accused No.1 submitted that there is no argument before framing charge and requested to frame charge. As a result the charge was framed under Section 370, 344, 374 read with section 34 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, the contents of charge read over and explained in Hindi by translating Kannada version to the accused No.1. The accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and submit crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against 5 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 accused No.1 set down for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 has examined 8 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.8, got marked as many as 32 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the accused No.1, he is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused No.1 denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. The accused No.1 complied the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. by executing personal bond and surety bond. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
6. 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. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉÃ¥ÀðlÖ 2£Éà CgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ £Á®§AzÀªÁrAiÀÄ, 1£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À ©°ØAUï £ÀA. 15gÀ 1£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀµð À ¢AzÀ ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀz° À è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀg£ À ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ, eÁRðAqï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥À²ª Ñ ÀÄ §AUÁ¼À gÁdå¢AzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀªP À ¼ À Àî¸ÁUÁtôPÀÉ ªÀiÁr PÀgzÉ ÀÄ vÀAzÀÄ CªÀgÀ EZÉáUÉ «gÀÄzÀª Þ ÁV CPÀæªÀĪÁV §AzÀ£ s z À ° À lè ÄÖ PÀÉÆAqÀÄ zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 374 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A.34gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß 6 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
2. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉÃ¥ÀðlÖ 2£Éà CgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às UÀ¼° À è K¼ÀÄ d£À C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀg£ À ÄÀ ß ©ºÁgÀ, eÁRðAqï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥À²ª Ñ ÀÄ §AUÁ¼À gÁdå¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV PÀgzÉ ÀÄ vÀAzÀÄ D ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀg£ À ÀÄß CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀ£s z À À °lè ÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ C¢üPÀ ªÉÃ¼É PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀĨsÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 344 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ PÀ®A.34gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
3. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉÃ¥ÀðlÖ 2£Éà CgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às UÀ¼°À è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀg£ À ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ, eÁRðAqï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥À²ª Ñ ÀÄ §AUÁ¼À gÁdå¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV PÀgz É ÄÀ vÀAzÀÄ CªÀjAzÀ PÀ® É ¸ÀzÀ CªÀ¢üVAvÀ ºÉa£ Ñ À CªÀ¢A ü iÀĪÀgÀÉUÉ CªÀgÀ EZÉU á É «gÀÄzÀªÝ ÁV MvÁÛAiÀÄ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A. 374 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
4. 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉÃ¥ÀðlÖ 2£Éà CgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às UÀ¼° À è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á® PÁ«ÄðPÀg£ À ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÉÇõÀPj À UÉ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀt ¤Ãr PÀg v É A À zÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀ£ s z À ° À l è ÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «gÀÄzÀª Ý ÁV ºÀa É £Ñ À ªÉÃ¼É zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸Àª® À vÀÄÛ ¤ÃqÀzÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÀ®A 23 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgAÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÀ ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
5. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. 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.7 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014
Point No.5: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4:- As these points are inter-related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasons.
9. 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 32 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.2 to 4 are members of raiding team, Pw.6 is the Superintendent of Balakara Bala Mandira, Pw.7 is the owner of the building, Pw.8 is the doctor and Pw.5 is the Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused No.1.
10. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.1 was running bag manufacturing unit since from one year of the date of incident at 1st Floor of Building No.15, 1st 8 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 Cross, Nalabandwadi, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pet Police Station by engaging Cw.11 to Cw.17 who are minors, brought them from Nepal, Bihar and West Bengal States by influencing money and employment to them by way of human trafficking and engaged them in his bag manufacturing unit by extracting work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labourers. He has also detained the victims in a room without providing basic necessities and without paying salary and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370, 344, 374 read with section 34 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 beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 370, 344, 374 and section 34 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
9 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014Section 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 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 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 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 34 of IPC defines that:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:- When a criminal act is done by 10 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as it were done by him alone.
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.
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 attracts the very ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability against accused No.1.
12. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-S.B.Chabbi- Dy.S.P of AHT Unit of CID, he has deposed that on 05-02-2013 11 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 he received instruction from S.P., of AHT Unit, as per the information given by Cw.2 in respect of child labours who are working at 1st floor of Building No.15 of Nalabandwada. Hence, he has taken police personnels-Cw.6 to Cw.9, went to Nalabandwada of Cotton Pet Police Station jurisdiction and raided on a bag manufacturing unit, where seven children were working in 1st floor. On enquiry he came to know that the accused No.1 on 01-02-2013 brought them from Bihar State and engaged them to work for a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month and also detained in a room without providing basic necessities and also extracting work from them for more hours. Thereafter, he has taken custody of accused No.1, recorded statement of Cw.12-Mohammad Alam and sent accused No.1 to station with escort. Again he has raided 2nd Floor and came to know five children were working in bag manufacturing unit. On enquiry he came to know that the accused No.2 brought them from Jharkand and engaged them in said work, they were working from 08.00 a.m., to 08.00 p.m., and getting salary of Rs.2,000/- Thereafter, he has requested the said children and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1 before Cw.2 to Cw.7 and his signature is 12 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 Ex.P1(a). He has brought the accused No.1 and 2 along with 12 children to Cotton Pet police station, handed over them to said police and also lodged complaint as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a). He has also identified the accused No.1 before the Court. He has also produced Xerox copy of complaint as per Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. The statement of victim-Mohammad Alam is Marked as Ex.P5 and his signature is Ex.P5(a) and signature of said victim is Ex.P5(b). The statement of victim-Izar Ansari is Marked as Ex.P5 and his signature is Ex.P6(a) and signature of said victim is Ex.P6(b).
13. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that on 05-12-2013 he has received oral instruction from S.P. of AHT Unit, but not written instructions, Cw.2 has not lodged any complaint before him. Further he was tested his veracity in respect of police manual in respect of movement register showing the movement of police officials. Earlier to raiding of bag manufacturing unit, he has not given information to Cotton Pet Police Station. He has also admitted that he is unable to say the measurement of 13 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 the building and to which direction the other doors and windows of said unit were situated, since he has not checked the same. He has also admitted that residential houses are situated towards East and west side. He has also admitted that he has enquired with the neighbouring residents of said unit about engaging child labours in the bag manufacturing unit. He has not summoned the independent witnesses as Panchas to the mahazar and he has no problem to summon them to participate in the mahazar. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that this witness being a police official had no problem to summon independent witnesses to participate in the mahazar conducted at bag manufacturing unit, but he has not done the same. Hence, it is not safe to believe alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Lavanya- volunateer of Bachpan Bachao Andolan, she has also deposed that on 05-12-2013 she accompanied with CID police for raid at 1st and 2nd Floor of Building No.15, Nalabandwadi, along with her Vani Kantli and some Labour Officers also accompanied with them, the raid was taken place at about 12.45 p.m. They 14 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 have rescued seven children in first floor and five children in 2nd floor. The place where the child labourers were working by doing stitching work, no such accommodation was made available to them for taking food, there was no toilet facility and the place was dirty having bad smell and panparg was splitted. The police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1 and her signature is Ex.P1(b). On enquiry with the children she came to know that they were brought from Bihar, whereas Pw.1 deposed that the accused No.1 brought the child labours from Bihar and the accused No.2 brought the children from Jharkand, but here this witness has not stated about children brought from Jharkand.
15. The accused No.1 tested her veracity and also elicited some commission and omission and also elicited that she has not received written notice from CID Office to accompany the raiding team, they all went in Swaraj Mazad vehicle, where as Pw.1 deposed that he along with police personnel went in a department vehicle. Except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.1 herein. At this stage this Court feels to observe that she is an interested witness, it is quite natural 15 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 to depose favourable to the prosecution case. Unless and until produces independent corroborative, cogent evidence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Nagarajaiah- Senior Labour Inspector, he has also deposed in his chief examination as that of evidence of Pw.2 and he has admitted his signature on mahazar as Ex.P1(c). But in the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not received any written notice from Cotton Pet police or from CID office, but he has received oral instructions from his higher officials. He has not signed in Movement Register maintained in the office on that day. The accused No.1 denied by denial suggestion of whatever he has stated in his chief examination, for that he has denied the same. He has shown ignorance about the boundaries of incident spot. Here also this witness is Senior Labour Inspector and interested witness, it is quite natural to support the case of prosecution. When there is ample availability of independent witnesses to conduct mahazar and raid who are residing in and around the area of the incident spot, the raiding team not taken the said independent persons for raid and conducted mahazar, 16 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 for that it is absolutely fatal to the case of the prosecution. At this stage this Court feels to opines that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-K.Prasanna Kumar-C.H.C., working in AHT Unit as CPC., is also one of the raiding team member who accompanied with others in his chief examination has supported the case of the prosecution and admitted his signature as Ex.P1(d). Further he has also deposed that he has taken the children to Cotton Pet police station at about 10.15 p.m., and Cw.1 submitted report. In the cross- examination, the accused No.1 tested his veracity of evidence by eliciting some commission and omission. He has also admitted that he has not received any written notice, but he has received oral instructions from his higher authority to assist the raiding team on that day. He has also shown his ignorance about the boundaries of the incident spot. The accused No.1 denied by denial suggestion of whatever he has stated in his chief examination, for that he has denied the same. Since this witness is also an interested witness, it is quite natural to support the case of prosecution. At this stage, this Court feels 17 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 to observe that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-N.P.Rajendra Prasad-Superintendent of Balakara Bala Mandira, he has deposed that on 05-12-2013 he has admitted twelve children to Bala Mandir and on 06-12-2013 he has subjected the said children for medical test to ascertain their age. The doctor at Bala Mandir examined those children and given certificates as per Ex.P8 and Ex.P19 and his signatures are Ex.P8a and Ex.P19a. On 07-12-2013 he has recorded statement of victim boys as per Ex.P.20 to Ex P30 and his signatures are as Ex.P20(a) to Ex.P30(a) and he has also produced said children before CWC and given those documents to Cotton Pet Police.
19. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and also elicited that, on that day police personnel from Cotton Pet Police Station and Officials of Labour Department came along with 12 children to Bala Mandira. At the time of Medical examination of victim boys their respective parents were not present. According to him he has made attempt to secure the parents of said victim boys, but 18 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 it was not possible for him, since they are all from North India. He has also admitted that there is no Shara or signature stating that as to contents to Ex.P20 to Ex.P30 was translated from Kannada to Hindi and from Hindi to Kannada language. The accused No.1 denied by denial suggestion of whatever he has stated in his chief examination, for that he has denied the same. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Syed Matheen Ahmed, alleged to have been the owner of the building, but he has turned hostile to the case of prosecution and deposed that he has not given any house for rent for the accused No.1 and he doesn't know the accused No.1 and 2 and he has not given any statement before Cotton Pet Police. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to prosecution case and suggested each and every contents of Ex.P32, for that he has denied the same. Through the evidence of this witness the prosecution fails to prove the alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt and he has turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
19 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Dr.P.Lalitha, she has also deposed that on 06-12-2013 in Balakara Bala Mandir she had examined 12 children and issued certificates certifying their age as per Ex.P8 to Ex.P19. The accused No.1 tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission. She has admitted that she has not mentioned the details of examination done by her on children in Ex.P8 to Ex.P19. She has also admitted that at the time of medical examination, the parents of children not available at the spot. She has also admitted that she has not collected any authenticated documents in respect of age of the children. The accused No.1 denied the evidence of Pw.8 by denial suggestion, for that she has denied the same. Through this witness also the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt and at this stage, this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Narayan- P.S.I., he has deposed that on 05-12-2013 at about 10.15 p.m., he has received complaint as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(b), he has registered the case in Crime No.419/2013 20 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 punishable under section 370 of IPC and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act. Thereafter he has prepared F.I.R. as per Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(a). He has arrested the accused No.1 and thereafter he has produced 12 children to Balakara Bala Mandira and also recorded statement of Cw.2 to Cw.8 on the very same day. He has also recorded statement of accused No.1 and 2 on 06-12-2013, the accused No.1 admitted that he has engaged seven minor children as labours in his bag manufacturing unit by bringing them illegally from out of State and also influenced money to them by way of human trafficking. He has also received statement of children on 07-12-2013 from Cw.24. On 20-12-2013 he has received medical certificates of victims and after completion of investigation, he has field charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2.
23. The accused No.1 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting that no such complaint received from Bachpan Bachao Andolan Samithi earlier to lodging of complaint by Pw.1. He has also not received any complaint from anybody earlier to Ex.P2. He has also admitted that at the time of investigation, he has not enquired the neighbours of the 21 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 spot about raid and conducting of mahazar. He has also admitted that he has not conducted mahazar and the mahazar was done by raiding team. The accused denied by way of denial suggestion that Cw.2 to Cw.9 not given statement before him on 05-12-2013 and accused No.1 has also not given voluntary statement as deposed in his chief examination, for that he has denied the same. No doubt it is true that this witness is Investigation Officer, he has not recorded statement of independent witnesses who are neighbours about the raid and conducting of mahazar and rescue of 12 children by the raiding team. Non obtaining statement during investigation by this witness, it is absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution. Admittedly except police officials, NGOs and Labour Officers along with doctor, no such evidence placed by the prosecution to believe the alleged offences against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Even on perusal of statement given as per Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, it reveals no such harassment caused by the accused No.1 to the children. On the other hand he has given salary Rs.2,000/- per month to the parents of said children and victims were given Rs.200/- per week to buy chocolate and 22 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 biscuit. The accused No.1 used to take children outside every Sunday in an auto and again he used to bring said children to the same house and thereafter they used to wash their clothes. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, its recitals reveal that no such harassment caused to the children by the accused No.1. Even on perusal of Ex.P8 to Ex.P19, no such signature of children obtained by the doctor at the time of alleged medical examination, no such details finds place except general reference. When the accused No.1 has taken drastic stand with regard to the age of the children, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the age of the victims by producing authenticated medical documents certifying the age of victims. Moreover none of the children entered the witness box go give evidence about the incident. At this stage, the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
24. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.1 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above 23 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014 probablizes the defense of the accused No.1 rather than the case of the prosecution.
25. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8, got marked 32 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P32, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that the accused No.1 was running bag manufacturing unit since from one year of the date of incident at 1st Floor of Building No.15, 1st Cross, Nalabandwadi, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pet Police Station by engaging Cw.11 to Cw.17 who are minors, brought them from Nepal, Bihar and West Bengal States by influencing money and employment to them by way of human trafficking and engaged them in his bag manufacturing unit by extracting work from them for 10 to 12 hours in a day as bonded labourers. He has also detained the victims in a room without providing basic necessities and without paying salary and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370, 344, 374 read with section 34 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".
24 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014
26. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused No.1 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 No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 344, 370, 374 read with section 34 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
(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 12th Day of April 2018.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 S.B.Chabbi Cw.1 25-09-2017
Pw.2 Lavanya Cw.2 28-10-2017
Pw.3 Nagarajaiah Cw.3 29-11-2017
Pw.4 K.Prasanna Kumar Cw.8 29-11-2017
Pw.5 Narayan Cw.25 20-12-2017
25 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014
Pw.6 N.P.Rajendra Prasad Cw.24 06-01-2018
Pw.7 Syed Matheen Ahamed Cw.10 25-01-2018
Pw.8 Dr.P.Lalitha Cw.23 20-03-2018
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Mahazar Pw.1 25-09-2017
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 25-09-2017
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 28-10-2017
Ex.P 1c Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 29-11-2017
Ex.P 1d Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 29-11-2017
Ex.P 2 Complaint Pw.1 25-09-2017
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 25-09-2017
Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 20-12-2017
Ex.P 3 Complaint given by Pw.1 25-09-2017
Bachpan Bachao
Andolan to CID
Ex.P 4 Complaint given by Pw.1 25-09-2017
Bachpan Bachao
Andolan to Labour
Department
Ex.P 5 Statements Victim- Pw.1 25-09-2017
Cw.15
Ex.P 5a Signature of Cw.15 Pw.1 25-09-2017
Ex.P 6 Statements Victim- Pw.1 25-09-2017
Cw.25
Ex.P 6a Signature of Cw.25 Pw.1 25-09-2017
Ex.P 7 FIR Pw.5 20-12-2017
Ex.P 7a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 20-12-2017
Ex.P 8 to 19 Medical examination Pw.6 06-01-2018
certificates of victims
26 Spl.C.C.No.397/2014
Ex.P 8a to Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 06-01-2018
19a
Ex.P 20 to Statement of victims Pw.6 06-01-2018
31
Ex.P 20a to LTM of victims Pw.6 06-01-2018
31a
Ex.P 32 Statement of Pw.7 Pw.7 25-01-2018
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON
BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-NIL-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
***