Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.2 Jayid Ahamed on 7 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th Day of November 2017
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 78/2016
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Cotton Pet Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.2 Jayid Ahamed,
S/o. Abdul Khalik, 38 years,
R/at. Bilwa Village & Post,
Kundavchainpur Thana,
Mothihari District,
Bihar State.
Sri.N.G.-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 05-12-2013
Date of release of Accused 11-01-2014
Period undergone in custody 06 Days &
by Accused 01 Month
2 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016
4 Date of commencement of evidence 06-12-2016
5 Date of closing of evidence 12-09-2017
6 Name of the complainant Vijaya Kumar R.
Bisanahalli
7 Offences complained of Section 370, 374,
344-r/w. 34 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 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 charge sheet is filed by the police against accused No.1-Mohammad Abibulla @ Junaith and accused No.2-Jayid Ahamed, but the trial Court-3rd A.C.M.M. Court-Bengaluru while committing the case in C.C.No. 10109/2014 has committed case against accused No.2 by 3 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 splitting up the case against accused No.1. Hence, this case proceeded against accused No.2 only.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
That the accused No.2 was running bag manufacturing unit since from 2010 at Building No.9/1, situated at 4th Cross, Old Pension Mohalla, Mysore Road, within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete Police Station, Bengaluru. The accused No.1, earlier to three months back of 05-12-2013, brought minor boys viz., Cw.9 to Cw.17 from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar States by influencing money and also employment to them and left the said children with the accused No.2 and accused No.2 engaged minor children in is bag manufacturing unit by 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 to them and without payment of salary to them. On the basis of said complaint lodged by 4 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 the Cw.1-Dy.S.P.-Vijay Kumar-A.H.T.Unit, C.I.D 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 I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
4. 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 I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet by splitting up case against accused No.1, as usual the accused No.2 appeared before the Committal Court, the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet copy to accused No.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 minors and the said case is exclusively triable by the Child Court and in turn the 5 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
5. After receiving the record by this Court, the summons was issued to accused No.2. In pursuance of the said summons, the accused No.2 appeared before the Court and he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused No.2 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 the accused No.2. The accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and submit crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.2 set down for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined 9 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.9, got marked as many as 21 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence 6 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 appeared against the accused No.2, 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 No.2 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.
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. 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À À¢Ý£À ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ºÀ¼É ¥É£ï±À£ï ªÉƺÀ¯Áè, 4£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ©°ØAUï £ÀA.9/1 gÀ°è 2010£Éà ¸Á°¤AzÀ ¨ÁåUÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀª£ À ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀB05.12.2013PÉÌ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ½¤A¢ÃZÉUÉ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-9 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-17 C¥Áæ¥ÀÛªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀg£ À À Äß ©ºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GvÀg Û À¥ÀæzÉñÀ gÁdå¢AzÀ ºÀtzÀ C«ÄµÀ vÉÆÃj¹ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ ¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 370 ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
2. 2£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 7 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-9 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-17 gÀªÀgÉV£À C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GvÀÛgÀ¥ÀæzÉñÀ¢AzÀ ºÀtzÀ C«ÄµÀ vÉÆÃj¹ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ EZÀáÉUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåUÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀzÀ°è £ÉëĹPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆgÀºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ©qÀzÉ zÀÄr¹PÀÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÄÝ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 374 ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s À£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
3. 2£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-9 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-17 gÀªÀgÉV£À C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GvÀÛgÀ¥ÀæzÉñÀ¢AzÀ ºÀtzÀ C«ÄµÀ vÉÆÃj¹ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ EZÀáÉUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¨ÁåUÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀzÀ°è Ej¹PÀÉÆAqÀ ºÉÆgÀºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ©qÀzÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ½AzÀ CPÀæªÀĪÁV ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ EµÀÖPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV ¢£ÀzÀ°è 10 jAzÀ 12 UÀAmÉUÀ¼À PÁ® zÀÄr¹ PÀÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 344 ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s À£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
4. 2£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ ©ºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GvÀÛgÀ¥ÀæzÉñÀ gÁdå¢AzÀ PÀgÉvÀA¢zÀÝ ¸ÁQë-9 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-17gÀ ªÀgÉV£À ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV ºÀÉaÑ£À ªÉÃ¼É zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀ®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¥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.8 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016
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- 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 9 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.9, got marked 21 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. As per the prosecution case, Pw.3 is the complainant, Pw.1 and Pw.9 are Labour Officers, Pw.2 is the N.G.O., Pw.4 is the building owner, Pw.8 is the Doctor, Pw.5 to Pw.7 are the police officials. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused No.2.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against 9 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 accused, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.2 was running bag manufacturing unit since from 2010 at Building No.9/1, situated at 4th Cross, Old Pension Mohalla, Mysore Road. The accused No.1 earlier to three months back of 05-12-2013, brought minor boys viz., Cw.9 to Cw.17 from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar States by influencing money and also employment to them and left the said children with the accused No.2 and accused No.2 engaged minor children in is bag manufacturing unit by 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 to them and without payment of salary to them and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370, 374, 344 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.
10 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016
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 read with section 34 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 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 11 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 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.
By going through the facts, circumstances and available materials both at oral and documentary, it is just 12 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 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.2.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-the complainant-Vijay Kumar-Dy.S.P., he has deposed that on 05-12-2013 at about 10.00 a. m., when he was in the office, his higher officers instructed to him that Pw.2-Vani Kantli given information that within the jurisdiction of Cotton Pete Police Station, at bag manufacturing unit child labours are working and the owners are extracting work from them unlawfully and also directed him to enquire the same. As a result he went along with other co-police officials-Srikanth Thotagi, two Labour Officers and came to the spot viz., to bag manufacturing unit, wherein nine children were working, thereafter he has rescued and enquired them and came to know that they come from Bihar State. They were given Rs.400/- in a week as salary and detained them in a room by extracting work from them 13 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 08.00 a.m., to 08.00 p.m. The person who was extracting work from them was also available in that unit viz., Jahid. On enquiry he told that the owner of that unit was Mohammad Abbibulla. As a result mahazar was conducted before Vani Kantli and Surendra from 03.00 p.m., to 04.30 p.m., as per Ex.P1 and his signature is Ex.P1(c). He has also lodged complaint as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a). He has brought accused No.2 along with nine children to Cotton Pete Police Station and produced before Cotton Pete Police.
14. The accused No.2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited no such Shara mentioned in Ex.P2, who had typed said complaint and his signature. He has also admitted that complaint was lodged by Vani Kantli, but no such complaint was accompanied with the charge sheet. According to him he has handed over the same to SHO, but the said document not accompanied with the charge sheet. 14 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 He has also shown his ignorance that on what date the said complaint was received by his office from Vani Kantli. Further it is his evidence that they left CID office at about 11.00 a.m., in departmental vehicle and came to spot, but no such log book register extract produced along with charge sheet. He has shown his ignorance about the registration number of accompanied vehicles. He went to the extent of deposing that he doesn't know the address of the spot where he raided, but he knows the boundaries of said spot. Further he has admitted that he doesn't know the name of nine children, their parents and their respective address. He has also admitted that no such sewing machines and other raw-materials seized at the spot to show by extracting work from minor boys, the accused was doing bag manufacturing work. He has also admitted that no such Shara mentioned in mahazar also that on his dictation, one Srikanth typed the said mahazar. He has also admitted that he has not secured Panchas who are neighbourers at the spot for conducting mahazar. No 15 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 doubt it is true that the prosecution produced the evidence of complainant, but unless and until the prosecution produces other independent witnesses' evidence, the evidence of Pw.3, it is not safe to accept the same at this stage. Further the evidence of this witness also creates doubt whether he was accompanied with the raiding team or not.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Vani Kantli, she has deposed that on 05-12-2013 at about 10.00 a.m., she went to C.I.D., office along with Labour Officers, AHTU personnel, went behind Vinayaka Chitra Mandira, Pension Mohalla, Mysore Road, where bag manufacturing works were taken place through minor boys and there three minor boys are working. Here as per the evidence of Pw.3, he left C.I.D. office at about 11.00 a.m., in the cross- examination, whereas the evidence of this witness is that at about 10.00 a.m., they left C.I.D. office. She has also further deposed that on enquire with victim boys they told 16 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 that the supervisor giving training and also giving Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- every week and they were brought by the owner from Bihar State. They rescued said children and produced before Cotton Pete Police Station and her signature is Ex.P1(b).
16. The accused tested veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and commission, except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of the accused. She has also shown her ignorance about using of vehicle by them at the time of alleged raid. According to her three adult persons were also working, whereas the evidence of Pw.1 is that only minor boys were working there. She has also shown her ignorance about the names of minor boys. Further she has admitted that no such document verified to know whether the accused No.2 was the owner of said unit or not. She has also not taken any documents to prove the place of victim boys from where they were brought. She has 17 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 also admitted that she has not given statement before police in respect of Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- being given to victim boys every week. She has also admitted that no such signature of public was taken to mahazar-Ex.P1. It is not in dispute that the place of conducting raid was busy place and there was no such problem to secure public at the time of raid, when such being the case without calling neighbourers and publics as Panchas, the mahazar drawn creates doubt about alleged offences against accused No.2. Viewing from material evidence of this witness also creates doubt about the alleged offences against accused No.2. Moreover, the victim boys not stepped into the witness box to depose that they were working as bonded labourers under accused No.2.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.1- G.H.Kemparaju-Labour Inspector, he has deposed that on 05-12-2013 as per the instructions of his senior officers, he accompanied with the raiding team who are members of 18 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 Bachpan Bachao Andolan-NGOs and CID personnel's, they went to Pension Mohalla, 4th Cross, Building No.9/1-Bag manufacturing unit, where victim boys below the age of 14 years were working as helpers to persons who were stitching the bags. On enquiry they disclosed that one Habibulla brought them from Bihar and one Jahid Ahmed was the owner of said unit, they were working from 08.00 a.m., to 08.00 p.m. and they were provided food, shelter there itself and also provided toilet there itself. After examining those children, the doctor gave certificates determining their ages and thereafter the victim boys were brought to Cotton Pete Police Station and produced before SHO and his signature is Ex.P1(a).
18. The accused tested veracity of evidence of this witness and elicited some commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the defense of accused. But he does not know who had accompanied in the said cars. The mahazar was conducted 19 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 from 12.40 p.m., to 04.30 p.m. According to him 15 persons were working in the said unit. He has shown ignorance and deposed that:
"C°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉ¸g À ÀÄ «¼Á¸À UÉÆwÛ®è.
C°è JµÀÄÖ ºÉÄÁ°UÉ AiÀÄAvÀæUÀ½vÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ RavÀªÁV ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ «zÀÄåvï ©¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀg Ý ÀÄ. ¨ÁrUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqzÉ ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ¸ÀzÀj WÀlPÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ JA§ §UÉÎ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E®è. D ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdåzÀªÀgÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ zÁR®ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E®è. D ªÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀAiÀĹì£À §UÉÎ ¨ÉÃgÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî°®è."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, there is a doubt of accompanying of this witness to conduct raid and also that the accused No.2 was the owner of the said unit. He has admitted that no such publics were summoned as Panchas to conduct mahazar. Even there was no such problem to summon them as Panchas. When such being the case, why the complainant has not summoned publics as Panchas. It is his evidence that the mahazar print out was taken in the police station. As per the evidence of Pw.3 there itself the print out was taken. He has also admitted that no such document was produced 20 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 by him in respect of any identity proof that he accompanied the raiding team on that day and conducted raid. Though the prosecution produces evidence of this witness, but unless and until produces corroborative and cogent oral and documentary evidence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.9- J.M.Venkataswamy-Retired Labour Officer, he has also deposed in his chief examination as that of evidence deposed by Pw.1. According to him there are nine minor boys working in the said unit, whereas Pw.1 has deposed that 15 labours are working there. Before him Ex.P1 was conducted and his signature is Ex.P1(e).
20. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of the accused. According to him Bachpan Bachao Andolan Institution gave requisition to his 21 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 department on 03-12-2013. He has admitted that they have got right to raid before the Investigation Officer raiding the same. According to him no such details was written in the said requisition, as such no further efforts made in conducting raid. At the same time he has admitted that he has no problem to get details from said institution and rescue the child labours. He has also admitted that no such document in respect of daily activity report produced to prove that he accompanied with the raiding team. He has also admitted that he has not produced the said report to the Investigation Officer to produce the same along with charge sheet. He has shown his ignorance about the vehicle registration number which was used at the time of raiding. It is his evidence that on that day totally from CID office two vehicles were left and raided the spot, whereas the evidence of Pw.1 is that three vehicles were taken to go to spot. At the same time he has not deposed in respect of nature of the vehicle and the registration number of the vehicle. He has also deposed that:
22 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016
"WÀl£Á¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ D WÀlPÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À°®è. WÀl£Á¸Àܼz À À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀUÀ C°è JµÀÄÖ gÀƪÀÄÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, ºÁ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀ PÉÆÃuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨ÁV®Ä AiÀiÁªÀ ¢QÌ£À°èvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ UÉÆwÛ®è. gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁrzɪÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ 9 d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼£À ÀÄß ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀVÃUÀ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D ªÀÄPÀ̼À vÀAzÉvÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸g À ÀÄ «¼Á¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß §ÄPï£À°è £Á£ÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D WÀlPÀzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 25 d£À zÉÆqÀتÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÀÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ §A¢zÀÝ ZÁ.¸Á.5 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAr®è DzÀgÉ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §gÉzÀ PÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÉÇðøï CzÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÀÎÉ £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæAiÉÄà D WÀlPÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ zÀÈqÀs¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV D WÀlPÀzÀ°è D §UÉÎ £ÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî°®è."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, there is a doubt of participation of this witness in the alleged raid. If really he was accompanied with the raiding team, admittedly he could have given correct answers in respect of place of conducing raid and also the above said facts. Viewing from material evidence produced by the prosecution through this witness, unless and until produces other corroborative and cogent witness evidence and evidence of Labour Inspectors, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness.
23 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.4- Mohammad Farooq, the alleged owner of the building, he has deposed that he doesn't know about the alleged incident. The building belongs to his mother and she had given the same for rent to accused in the year 2012 and she used to collect rent from him. After the incident he came to know that the accused was running bag manufacturing unit in the said building through police by engaging child labours. In the cross-examination he has also clearly admitted that he doesn't know anything about the alleged incident, he doesn't know who was running the said manufacturing unit and he doesn't know who are all the child labours working in the said bag manufacturing unit. Though the prosecution produced the evidence of independent witness-Pw.4, but he has not supported the case of prosecution. On the other hand he has shown his ignorance about the case of prosecution.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Srikanth. 24 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 B.Thotagi, one of the police personnel, according to him on 05-12-2013 he accompanied the complainant to raid on the bag manufacturing unit. According to him they left CID office at 12.00 noon and reached the spot at 12.45 p.m., whereas the other witnesses evidence contradicts with each other in respect of timings they left CID office. According to him nine minor boys were working in the said unit and they rescued them. He recorded statement of two boys who told that they were working from 08.00 a.m., to 08.00 p.m. as bonded labours. In the presence of Panchas the Dy.S.P., conducted mahazar from 03.00 p.m., to 04.15 p.m. Thereafter they have arrested the Manager and owner and taken them to Cotton Pete Police Station and Dy.S.P., given complaint and his signature is Ex.P1(d).
23. The accused tested veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission. Except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of the accused. He has clearly admitted that he 25 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 has not typed the Ex.P1-complaint. On the other hand it is the evidence of Pw.3 that police personnel-Srikant Totagi has typed said complaint on laptop, but the said Srikant shown ignorance about preparation and typing of said complaint.
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.6- Shivakumar-police personnel, in his chief examination he has supported the case of prosecution, but in his cross- examination there is a dispute in giving evidence in respect of handing over of Log Book and produced the extract of Log book on the date of alleged raid to Cotton Pete Police Station. He has also admitted that no such extract given by him in respect of vehicle taken to alleged spot to conduct raid. He has also shown ignorance that:
"D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝzÀgÀ §UÉÎ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÉ ºÁdgÁw zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß fÃ¥ï£ÉÆA¢UÉ E£ÀÆß JµÀÄÖ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ 4£Éà wgÀÄ«UÉ §AzÀÄ ¤AvÀªÀÅ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
Again he has deposed that:
"£ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃzÀAvÀºÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ «¼Á¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."26 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016
He has also shown ignorance that:
"8-9 ªÀÄPÀ̼À eÉÆvÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ EvÀgÉ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÁågÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
He has also shown ignorance stating that:
"£Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£À ºÁdgÁV £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ PÉÆmÉÖ JA§ ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß FUÀ ºÉüÀ®Ä £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀVÃUÀ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
Further it is his evidence that:
"D 9 d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ, «¼Á¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D 9 d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀPÁgÀtPÉÌ PÀgÉvÀAzÀgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, there is a doubt of participation of this witness in the alleged raid.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.8- Dr.B.Lalitha, she has deposed that she has examined child labours and issued certificates as per Ex.P13 to Ex.P21 and according to her they are minor children. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission in her cross-examination 27 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 and also elicited that:
"PÀëQgÀtzÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÉåAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è DzÀgÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß gÉ¥Àsgï ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjÃQë¹ PÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ PÀëQgÀt ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀAiÀĹì£À §UÉÎ ¤,¦.13 jAzÀ ¤.¦.21 gÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ¤.¦.13 jAzÀ ¤.¦.21 gÀªÀgÉUÉ PÀëQgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è PÀëQgÀt ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C£ÀÄPÀÆ®vÉ E®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Further she has admitted that:
"¤.¦.13 jAzÀ ¤.¦.21 gÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è zÀAvÀU¼ À À ¸ÀA¥ÀÇt𠫪ÀgÀuÉ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁr®è JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë D zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è D §UÉÎ PÁ®A EgÀzÀ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ D §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀÄ GvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
She has also admitted that:
"dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ D¸ÀàvÉæ¬ÄAzÀ zÀAvÀ¥ÀjÃPÀëÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀj¹ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ªÀAiÀĹì£À §UÉÎ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ D ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ zÀAvÀ¥ÀjÃPÉë, PÀëQgÀt ¥ÀjÃPÉë CxÀªÁ D¹¦üPÉñÀ£ï ¥ÀjÃPÉë £ÀqɸÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
When there is a drastic stand taken by the accused with regard to consideration of age through ossification examination and radiological examination and dental examination, this witness having deposed that she sent the children for dental examination to Jayanagar Hospital and she sent the children for radiological examination, but she has not collected report of said examination and produced 28 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 the same along with Ex.P13 to Ex.P21. She has also admitted that:
"F ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D ªÀÄPÀ̼À ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ªÉåAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤,¦.13 jAzÀ 21 gÀ°è ªÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀAiÀĸÀì£ÀÄß CAzÁf£À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
If the above said admitted evidence taken into consideration, genuineness of Ex.P13 to Ex.P21 with regard to the age of victim children is not acceptable one. Further the Investigation Officer also not made efforts to collect this report to say the definite age of child labours. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is no way helpful to prosecution to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Narayan- P.S.I., he has deposed that on 05-12-2013 at about 10.30 p.m., he has received complaint-Ex.P2 from Cw.1 along with nine children and registered the case against accused in Crime No.420/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374, 344 read with section 34 of I.P.C, Section 29 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 16, 17 and 19 of Bonded Labour Act and signed as per Ex.P2(b). Thereafter he has prepared F.I.R. as per Ex.P3 and his signature is Ex.P3(a). He has also received Ex.P1- Panchanama from Cw.1. He has arrested the accused and intimated the same to his friend about his arrest. He has also recorded statement of Cw.2 to Cw.7 and then sent children to Balakara Bala Mandir and on 06-12-2013 he has continued investigation and recorded voluntary statement of accused and thereafter sent him to Court along with remand application. On 07-12-2013 he visited Bala Mandira, wherein he has recorded statements of child labours as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P12. He has also received Ex.P3 to Ex.P21 with regard to age certificates of nine children and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against accused. He has also identified the accused before Court.
27. In the cross-examination the accused tested the 30 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that:
"¤.¦.2 zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß J°è ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹ vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ w½¢®è, D ¨ÉgÀ¼À½£ Ñ À ¦æAmï J°è vÉUÉzÀgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ w½¢®è. CzÉÃjÃw ¤.¦.1 ªÀĺÀdgï£ÀÄß J°è ¨ÉgÀ¼Z À ÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr ¦æAmïOmï vÉUz É g À ÀÄ JA§ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è."
It is the defense of the accused that both the complaint and mahazar print out was taken in the station itself, for that he has denied the same. He has denied that the statements of Cw.2 to Cw.7 recorded by issuing notices to them. According to the defense of accused he has recorded the statement of son of building owner to his whims and fancies to help prosecution. He has also not produced any documents to show the ownership of building during the course of investigation. He has admitted that no such statement given by Cw.2 with regard to rescue of three children in that place. He has also admitted that children not stated before him about training given to them by paying Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per week. Except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the 31 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 defense of the accused herein which was in respect of ownership of the building in question. He is independent person, all the other witnesses are official witnesses. When there is plenty of public and neighbouring residents, the question of not recording the statement of said persons and not summoning them to participate in the process of conducting mahazar to rescue children in question not explained by prosecution. Further even the child labours also not stepped into the witness box. Unless and until produces corroborative and cogent oral and documentary evidence, it is absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution herein.
28. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.2 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablizes the defense of the accused No.2 rather than the case of the prosecution. 32 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016
29. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.9 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P21, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that the accused No.2 was running bag manufacturing unit since from 2010 at Building No.9/1, situated at 4th Cross, Old Pension Mohalla, Mysore Road. The accused No.1 earlier to three months back to 05-12-2013, brought minor boys viz., Cw.9 to Cw.17 from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar States by influencing money and also employment to them and left the said children with the accused No.2 and accused No.2 engaged minor children in is bag manufacturing unit by 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 to them and without payment of salary to them and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344, 370, 374, 344 read with section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point 33 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
30. 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 No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 370, 374, 344 read with section 34 IPC and 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 7th Day of November 2017.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
34 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 G.H.Kemparaju Cw.5 O6-12-2016 Pw.2 Vani Kantli Cw.2 06-12-2016 Pw.3 Vijaya Kumar Cw.1 28-12-2016 Pw.4 Mohammad Farooq Cw.8 18-03-2017 Pw.5 Srikanth B.Thotagi Cw.6 24-04-2017 Pw.6 Shivakumar Cw.7 12-06-2017 Pw.7 Narayana Cw.20 25-07-2017 Pw.8 Dr.B.Lalitha Cw.18 12-09-2017 Pw.9 J.M.Venkataswamy Cw.4 12-09-2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Mahazar Pw.1 06-12-2016 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 06-12-2016 Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 06-12-2016 Ex.P 1c Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 28-12-2016 Ex.P 1d Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 24-04-2017 Ex.P 13 Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 12-09-2017 Ex.P 2 Complaint Pw.3 28-12-2016 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 28-12-2016 Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 25-07-2017 Ex.P 3 FIR Pw.7 25-07-2017 Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 25-07-2017 35 Spl.C.C.No.78/2016 Ex.P 4 to 12 Statements of victim Pw.7 25-07-2017 boys Ex.P 13 to Age determination Pw.7 25-07-2017 21 certificates of victims 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. ***