Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs A1_8.1.2014 on 22 February, 2023
KABC010179492018
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B. A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
SC No.1137/2018
BETWEEN
State by Cubbon Park P.S.,
Bangalore. .. COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1.Anup K Vijay Raghavan
S/o Vijay Raghavan, a/a 37 Yrs.,
R/a No.37/7B, 7th Floor,
New Mada Lokhandawala,
Anderi West, Mumbai City,
Maharashtra.
2 to 5 Split up
6.Vijayakumar.P.S.
S/o Shettappa, a/a 39 Yrs.,
R/a No.94/N, 8th Cross, 12th Main,
RMV Extension, Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore City. .....ACCUSED
(By Sri HRKRM, Advocate)
2
SC No.1137/2018
******
Date of offence & time 19.12.2013 18-20 hours
Date of report of offence19.12.2013 at 21.30 hours
Date of arrest of the A6_20.12.2013
accused A1_8.1.2014
Date of release on bail A6_30.12.2013
A1_13.1.2014
Total period of custody A6_10 days
A1_5 days
Name of the complainant Sri Nyamagowda
Date of commencement 18.10.2019
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of 31.12.2022
evidence
Offences complained of U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and
Sec.370(3) and 370(a)(2) of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 and 6 found not guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Cubbon Park P.S., Bangalore, has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 6 and others for the offences punishable U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370(3) and 370(a)(2) of IPC in their Crime No.269/2013.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that :-
The accused persons were running prostitution business in a residential apartment The Embassy Ground Floor No.114, situated at Ali Askar Road, within the limits of Cubbon park P.S., Bangalore, and on 19.12.2013 at 5.00 p.m. on credible information CW.1 along with panchas CW.2 and CW.3 and his subordinate staffs CW.14 to CW.23 conducted raid over the said house, and found that the accused persons by trafficking CW.12 and CW.13 with the false assurance of providing job, induced and indulged them in prostitution business in the public 3 SC No.1137/2018 vicinity and leading their life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business. Victims were rescued by the complainant raiding party and seized articles from the spot through panchanama. Thereby the accused persons are alleged with the offences punishable U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370(3) and 370(a)(2) r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 6 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370(3) and 370(a)(2) of IPC, before the jurisdictional VIII 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 No.1 and 6.
4.The charge was framed against the accused No.1 and 6 on 31.08.2019 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370(3) and 370(a)(2) of IPC. The accused No.1 and 6 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.The prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.11, and identified Mos1 to 5. The learned public prosecutor has given up witness CW.8, CW.9, CW.11, CW.14, CW.15, CW.17 to Cw.22, in view of available evidence of other police official witnesses. In spite of sufficient opportunities provided to the prosecution by issuing summons, warrant and proclamation for securing CW.5 and CW.12, but the concerned police failed to secure the said witnesses and the evidence of CW.5 and CW.12 taken as nil by rejecting the prayer of the prosecution. Further the prosecution has not taken any steps to secure the 4 SC No.1137/2018 witnesses, CW.4, CW.10 and CW.13 . Dropping of evidence of CW.4, CW.10 and CW.13 remained intact.
6.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the case was posted for recording statement of accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. on 3.2.2023, and the same was duly recorded. The accused No.1 and 6 did not claim for defense evidence nor produced any documents to support their case in spite of sufficient opportunities.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
8.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 6 at residential apartment The Embassy Ground Floor No.114, situated at Ali Askar Road, within the limits of Cubbon Park P.S., Bangalore, running prostitution business by trafficking CW.12 and CW.13 with false assurance of providing job, induced and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and leading their life out of the amount of illegal gain from the said business and thereby the accused No.1 and 6 have committed offences punishable U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 6 with common intention by trafficking CW.12 and 5 SC No.1137/2018 CW.13 with the false assurance of providing job, induced and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and leading their life out of the amount of illegal gain from the said business, and thereby the accused No.1 and 6 have committed offence punishable U/s.370(3) and 370(A)(2) r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
3. What Order?
9.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 for the following:-
REASONS
10. Points No.1 and 2: Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
11.It is the specific allegation that the accused persons were running prostitution business in a residential apartment The Embassy Ground Floor No.114, situated at Ali Askar Road, within the limits of Cubbon park P.S., Bangalore, and on 19.12.2013 at 5.00 p.m. on credible information CW.1 along with panchas CW.2 and CW.3 and his subordinate staffs CW.14 to CW.23 conducted raid over the said house, and found that the accused persons by trafficking CW.12 and CW.13 with false assurance of providing job, induced and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and 6 SC No.1137/2018 leading their life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business. Victims were rescued by the complainant raiding party and seized articles from the spot through panchanama. Thereby the accused persons are alleged with the offences punishable U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370(3) and 370(a)(2) r/w Sec.34 of IPC
12.In order to prove the said allegation the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW.4, PW.4 Nyamagowda , Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cubbon Park Sub-Division, Bangalore deposed that on 19.12.2013 at 5.00 p.m. he received an information that at residential apartment The Embassy Ground Floor No.114, situated at Ali Askar Road, within the limits of Cubbon park P.S., Bangalore,, prostitution business is carrying out, therefore, after confirming the credibility of information by securing panchas, he and his staff conducted raid to the house and found that accused persons by trafficking CW.12 and CW.13 with false assurance of providing job, induced and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and leading their life out of the amount of illegal gain from the said business. He drawn Ex.P1 mahazar and seized maerial objects MO1 to 4 and lodged complaint before SHO of Cubbnpark P.S., as per Ex.P5.
During cross-examination he denies all the suggestions of learned counsel for the accused as false. He has not remembered through which subordinate officials mahazar witnesses were secured before conducting raid. Before conducting raid physical verification were not conducted, he tried to get some women panchas in the vicinity, but he could 7 SC No.1137/2018 not find women panchas. The boundaries of the house where raid was conducted, is not known to him. Conducting raid and seizure of material objects from the custody of accused persons denied by the learned counsel for the accused persons. No search warrant was obtained before conducting raid, as PW.4 himself is authorized to conduct raid under law.
13.At this juncture it is also very important to note that both the panchas PW.1 Sathish Shetty and PW.3 Ranjith Dutt Urs to Ex.P1 mahazar, who have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. In view of hostile of material panch witnesses the contents of Ex.P1 panchanama is not proved sufficiently and satisfactorily by the prosecution. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for accused persons that the complainant PW.4 in spite of densely populated area has not secured any of the female persons residing adjoining to the raided house to be one of the pancha to the panchanama Ex.P1 as mandated by the Act U/s.15(2) of the ITP Act. The pancha CW.2 and CW.3 are the male persons were not secured by the prosecution, in spite of issuance of warrants and proclamation. At this juncture I would like to reproduce the provisions of Se.15(2) of ITP Act, which reads as follows:-
Sec.15(2) before making a search under sub-section(1), the special police officer(or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be) shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants(at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do:8
SC No.1137/2018 It is clear from the provisions of Sec.15(2) of ITP Act, 1956 that it mandates two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated has to be called them for panchanama, out of them at least one of them shall be a women residing in the said locality. In the instant case the panch witnesses, who were cited are male persons, and were not examined by the prosecution. From this fact it is clear that the complainant/PW.1 has not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.15(2) of ITP Act. It is equally important to note that though the incident spot is a public place adjoining to commercial shops, non citing of the local persons as a witness by the Investigating Officer-PW.6 also creates a doubt in the prosecution case regarding the conduct of raid and apprehending of the accused No.1 and 6, who were allegedly indulging in committing prostitution.
14.PW.2 Mahesh being the attesting witness to Ex.P3 Seizure Mahazar, who has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.5 Narasimharaju being the another attesting witness to Ex.P3 seizure mahazar, has deposed about seizure of MO5 mobile phone in his presence from the possession of accused No.1. During cross- examination he denies all the suggestions of learned counsel for the accused as false.
15.PW.7 Manjunatha is the Head Constable and PW.6 Vijay Bhaskar are the Police Officials, who are the raiding party members, have deposed in similar way of PW.4 and deposed about conducting of raid, apprehension of accused, seizure of material objects and rescue of CW.12 and CW.13.
9SC No.1137/2018
16.PW.6 being the I.O., has deposed after conducting of raid he returned to the Police Station, and on 19.12.2013 at 9.30 p.m. PW.4 appeared before him and submitted report along with seized articles, victims and accused persons, he registered a case in Crime No.269/2013, and submitted FIR to the Court and his higher officials, seizure articles were brought into PF No.127/2013, recorded statements of CW.12 and CW.13, and sent them to State Home for Women, and recorded statements of accused No.3 to 6, and statements of CW.14 to CW.22, visited the spot, seized the vehicle bearing No.KA05 MC 7407, received a letter from the owner of the premises, and after completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. The learned counsel for the accused persons cross-examined PW.7 and 6 and they also denies the suggestions with regard to apprehension of accused and their participation in the raid.
17.The victims CW.12 and 13 were not examined by the prosecution in spite of opportunity given by this Court. The house owner has not turned up to give his evidence. CW.4, CW.5, CW.10 and CW.11, who is the owner of the premises were dropped due to non-execution of process issued by this Court. The material witnesses have not been examined, so as to prove the guilt against the accused No.1 and 6. Therefore, from the above reasons and discussions it is very clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused No.1 and 6 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Points No. 1 and 2 in the negative.
10SC No.1137/2018
18.Point No.3: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and 2, this court pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 6 are hereby acquitted of the offenses punishable U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370(3) and 370(A)(2) r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 and 6
stand canceled.
MO1 to MO5 shall be preserved, till the disposal of the split up case registered as against accused No.2 to 5.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2023) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.11
SC No.1137/2018 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Sathish Shetty P.W.2: Mahesh P.W.3: Ranjeeth Dutta Urs P.W.4: Nyamagowda PW.5: Narasimharaju PW.6: Uday Bhaskar PW.7: Manjunaha.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2: Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.4: Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5: Complaint Ex.P.6: Mahazar in respect of vehicle release Ex.P.7: FIR Ex.P.8: Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.9: Details of the flat Ex.P.10: Register Extract E.P.11: Report.
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:-
MO1: Condoms
MO2: Cash Rs.3,400/-
MO3: Note Book
MO4: Mobile Phone
MO5: Mobile Phone.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.12
SC No.1137/2018 Accused No.1 and 6 are present The learned counsel for accused present. The learned Public Prosecutor present. Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 6 are hereby acquitted of the offenses punishable U/s.3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370(3) and 370(A)(2) r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 and 6 stand canceled.
MO1 to MO5 shall be preserved, till the disposal of the split up case registered as against accused No.2 to 5.
For compliance of Sec.437A of Cr.P.C., call on (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.