Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka By vs No. 1 :- Rukmini @ Rukku @ on 22 October, 2021
1 SC No. 714/2015
KABC010140952015
IN THE COURT OF THE LIIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60)
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2021.
PRESENT
Sri R. ONKARAPPA, B.sc, LL.B.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No. 714/2015
COMPLAINANT
State of Karnataka by
Rajgopal nagar Police
Station,
Bangalore.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No. 1 :- Rukmini @ Rukku @
Gagana @ Gangamani,
W/o Ramesh,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No. 142, 7th Cross,
Muneshwara Layout,
Laggere, Bengaluru
Accused No. 2 :- Shekhar
S/o Late Nanjappa,
Aged about 38 years,
2 SC No. 714/2015
R/at No. 24, 6th Cross,
Near T. R. Mill,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru City
(A1 and A2 by Sri. K.J.G. Advocate)
1. Date of Commission : 30.04.2014
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 30.04.2014
of Offence
3. Arrest of the accused : A1 and A2 arrested
on 30.04.2014
4. Name of the : Uma Mahesh SP
complainant
5. Date of Commencement :
22.12.2015
of evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
30.03.2021
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Sections
3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act
and Section 370 of
I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 and
2 found not guilty
JUDGMENT
The Sub Inspector of Police Rajgopalanagar Police 3 SC No. 714/2015 Station, Bangalore City has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act and Section 370 of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 30.04.2014 at evening 5.45 pm, the CW1 received information from the informant that, at the house No. 142, 7 th Cross, Muneshwar layout, Laggere, Bengaluru, the accused No. 1 by forcibly trafficking the CW4 Jyothi to her sexual exploitation to gain the money. On such information CW1 took CW6, CW7, CW8 along with panchas CW2 and CW3 in a government jeep at near to house No. 142, 7 th Cross, Muneshwar layout, Laggere, Bengaluru, wherein CW1 issued one Rs. 500/- currency note to the CW6 Bramesh to confirm the information,CW6 went to said house at about 6.00 pm and meet the accused Nos. 1 and 2 stated he wanted an girl for his sexual exploitation and he agree to pay the money. On such demand of the CW6, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have agreed the demand of CW6 and received Rs. 500/- and shown one CW4 Jyothi. Hence, CW6 got confirmed the information 4 SC No. 714/2015 and he came near to door of the house and gave signal to CW1. Then CW1 along with his staff and panchas conducted the search upon the house of the accused No.1 and CW.1 found CW6 and CW4 were at one room. At that time CW4 was partially naked in the position. CW1 seized two condoms which were fell on under the sofa of said house. Hence according to the prosecution the accused Nos. 1 and 2 exploited the CW4 Jyothi for sexual work and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 by keeping a brothel or allowing a premises to be used as a brothel, living on the earnings for the prostitution, procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution and prostitution in or in the vicinity of the public place. Hence the complaint.
3. During the crime stage the accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail. Before the Committal Court the accused Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offences are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. After hearing counsel for the accused before framing the 5 SC No. 714/2015 charge, the charge was framed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act and Section 370 of I.P.C. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the prosecution has able to examined eight witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8, out of total nine charge sheet cited witnesses and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 and P.10 and material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. The prosecution on 2.03.2019 gave up the evidence of CW8, hence evidence of CW8 have been dropped. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 have not been opted to adduce their side evidence.
5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.
6. Having regard to the materials placed on record and the submissions made by both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration are: 6 SC No. 714/2015
1. Whether the prosecution proves its case, beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 trafficking of the CW4 Jyothi for sexual work?
2. Whether the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 by keeping a brothel or allowing a premises to be used as a brothel, living on the earnings for the prostitution, procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution or prostitution in or in the vicinity of the public place?
3. What Order?
7. My finding to the above points are as follows Point No. 1 and 2 : in the Negative Point No. 3 : as per the final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. Point No. 1 and 2 : Since these two points are interconnected to each other they have been taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of the facts.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 7 SC No. 714/2015 and 2, the prosecution examined only eight witnesses out of the total number of nine charge sheet cited witnesses, as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 and P.10 and material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. The testimony of the witness who were examined at before this court is herein;
10. CW5 Maralingaiah examined as PW1. According to the prosecution PW1 is the land lord. Accused No. 1 Rukmini is the tenant. The PW1 let out his house to the accused No.1 subject to monthly rent of Rs. 2,800/- along with security amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Further according to the prosecution he is the witness to depose that at the house of PW1 the accused Nos. 1 and 2 trafficking one Jyothi CW4 for prostitution. PW1 in examination in chief except he deposed that he is the landlord and accused No. 1 is the tenant, he nothing deposed anything against to the accused No. 1 and 2. Since PW1 turned hostile his statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.c. got marked as per Ex.P1. Even inspite of cross examination nothing have been established 8 SC No. 714/2015 any case of the prosecution through the mouth of this witness.
11. CW6 Brahmesh examined as PW2. According to the prosecution case, he is the decoy. In his examination in chief he deposed that since from last three years he was working as police constable at Rajagopalnagar police station. On 30.04.2016 CW1 called the PW2 along with panchas CW2 and CW3 and other colleagues CW7, CW8 stated at house No. 142, 7th Cross, Muneshwar layout, Laggere, Bengaluru there was an trafficking of woman and the prostitution was going on. On such information, CW1 took above all the persons in a government jeep at near to house No. 142, 7th Cross, Muneshwar layout, Laggere, Bengaluru, wherein CW1 issued Rs. 500/- currency note to the PW2 to go and confirm the information whether trafficking of woman and prostitution was going or not i.e., by act as a decoy, PW2 went to said house at about 6.00 pm and meet the accused Nos. 1 and 2 stated he wanted to an girl and he ready to pay the money. On such request of 9 SC No. 714/2015 the PW2, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have agreed the offer of PW2 and received Rs. 500/- and shown one CW4 Jyothi. Thereafter, PW2 came near to door of the house and gave signal to CW1. Then CW1 along with his staff and panchas make search and raid the house of accused No.1 and they found PW2 and CW4 were at one room. At that time CW4 was partially naked in the position. CW1 seized two condoms which were fell on below the sofa set of said house. When CW1 enquired the accused No.1, the accused No.1 got confessed that she run an prostitution by trafficking the CW4 at her house. Thereafter, CW1 got seized Rs. 500/- one currency note from CW4 and Rs. 7,000/-, one Nokia company mobile from the accused No. 1. CW1 also got seized one auto rickshaw, one mobile phone at from the possession of accused No.2. The above all material objects got seized by the CW1 by drawn a spot mahazar on that day evening at 6.00 pm to 7.30 pm with the help of electrical light. With the help of woman police constable the accused No. 1 and CW4 have been took them to police 10 SC No. 714/2015 station. He got identified the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who stood before the court. PW2 also got identified one old Nokia mobile, one old china model mobile set, two condoms pack, Rs. 500/- face value total amount of Rs. 7,500/-. The same china mobile set got marked as per M.O.1. Nokia mobile set as per M.O.2. Condoms as per M.O.3. Total amount of Rs. 7,500/- currency notes as M.O.4. PW2 can identify the CW4 and auto rickshaw. In the cross examination, PW2 unequivocally admitted the suggestion area of Laggere is the thickest population area from evening 5.00 pm to 7.00pm. It elicited all around the house of the incident, there were many more houses. It elicited Pw2 do not know whether CW1 have informed the information of raid to the inhabitants of the house at near the house of accused No. 1. PW2 do not remember the roll number of Rs. 500/- currency note in so far issued by the CW1 to PW2 to act as decoy. PW2 cannot to say in which year the said currency note have been printed.
12. CW7 Smt. Narasamma R examined as PW3, who 11 SC No. 714/2015 is a police constable of the complainant police station. According to chief examination of PW3, PW3 have been working as Woman police constable at Rajagopal nagar from 2010 to May-2016. On 30.04.2016 at about 5.40 pm, when she was on duty, CW1 called the PW3, PW2, CW8 and two panchas by stated that he got the information from the informant that at house No. 142, 7 th Cross, Muneshwar layout, Laggere, Bengaluru, there was a trafficking of woman and prostitution going on. On that day evening at 6.00 pm, CW1 took the PW3 and other staffs along with panchas in one government jeep at near to house No. 142, 7th Cross, Muneshwar layout, Laggere, Bengaluru. Wherein CW1 in order to got confirm the information, CW1 sent PW2 along with Rs. 500/- to the house of accused No.1. When PW2 went to the house of accused No.1 at 6.50 pm, after he confirm the information he gave a signal to CW1. Upon such signal CW1 raided the house of accused No.1 and after raid the house of accused No.1. At inside of the house, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sit at one sofa, when CW1 12 SC No. 714/2015 enquired the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have confessed that by trafficking the woman they run the prostitution. When checked one of the room in that house, wherein CW1 found CW4 and PW2. When CW1 enquired the CW4, CW4 confessed that the accused No.1 trafficking the CW4 and run the prostitution at her house with the contract of sharing the gained money. When enquired the accused No. 2, the accused No.2 confessed that he brought the customers to the said house by his auto. Thereafter CW1 got seized one currency note of Rs. 500/- face value from decoy and from the accused No. 1 got seized total amount of Rs. 7000/- which were gained in prostitution from the customers and One nokia mobile said to be used to brought the customers. Two condoms and one auto rickshaw bearing No. KA-05-B-2746 from the accused No. 2 along with one mobile. CW1 seized the above material objects by drawn a mahazar. After seized the material objects along with the accused, CW1 took the material objects and accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the police station. PW3 can identify seized material objects, 13 SC No. 714/2015 CW4 and accused persons. PW3 got identified the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who stood before the Court. PW3 got identified two mobiles and two condoms as per M.O.1 to M.O.3. PW3 also got identified currency note of Rs. 500/- face value in total amount of Rs. 7500/- which were already got marked as per M.O.4. In the cross examination, it elicited PW3 do not know the name and address of the panchas. Unequivocally admitted the suggestion at around place of incident there were many more houses all around the house of accused No.1. PW3 could not to say roll number of note which were used by the decoy. It do not know to the PW3 whether inhabitants who were present at around the house of accused No.1 have gathered or not at the time of raid. PW3 do not know in which of the direction door of the house situated. PW3 could not to say in which of the direction kitchen of that house situate. It elicited M.O.2 and M.O.3 were not used.
13. CW3 Chetan Kumar examined as PW4. According to the prosecution PW4 is one of the panchas. In presence of 14 SC No. 714/2015 the PW4 police have conduct the search and raid the house of accused No.1 and seized material objects along with cash on 30.04.2014. PW4 except he got identified the mahazar got marked as per Ex.P2 and his signature as per Ex.P2(a) he turned totally in hostile. Inspite of cross examined by the Public prosecutor nothing he deposed in favor of the prosecution case. Since PW4 turned hostile in total his statement recorded u/s 161 of CrPC have been got marked as per Ex.P3.
14. CW2 N. Vinod Kumar examined as PW8.
According to the prosecution PW8 is one of the panchas. At before the PW8 police have make search and raid the house of accused No.1 and seized material objects along with cash on 30.04.2014. PW8 except he identified his signature as per Ex.P2(c), available on mahazar which has been already got marked as per Ex.P2, he turned totally in hostile. Inspite of cross examined by the Public prosecutor nothing the prosecution have been established through the mouth of this witness. Since PW4 turned hostile in total his statement 15 SC No. 714/2015 recorded u/s 161 of CrPC have been got marked as per Ex.P10.
15. CW4 Jyothi examined as PW5. According to prosecution, PW5 is one of the victim in the trafficking of persons, as the accused Nos. 1 and 2 trafficking the PW5 at the house of accused No.1 for prostitution. Though PW5 examined at before the Court, she totally turned hostile and even cross examined by the Public prosecutor nothing the prosecution have been established through the mouth of this witness. Since PW5 turned hostile in total, her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC have been got marked as per Ex.P4.
16. CW1 Uma Mahesh examined as PW6. According to the prosecution he is the master who conduct the search and raid upon the house of accused No.1. PW6 being police inspector of Rajgopalnagar from April-2014 to June-2014, on 30.04.2014 when he was at incharge of the police station, at evening 5.45 pm he got the information, that at the house of accused No.1, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 got confined and 16 SC No. 714/2015 trafficking the woman for prostitution. Upon such information he got collected CW2 and CW3 to his station as panch witness and obtained search warrant from his higher officer. Then on the same day at evening 6.00 pm he along with CW6, CW7 and CW8 left the police station in one Government Jeep and reached near to the house of CW1 at 6.30 pm. To got confirm the information he sent CW6 along with one currency note face value of Rs. 500/- to act as a decoy. On that day at evening 6.30 pm, CW6 got confirm the information he gave signal to CW1. Upon such signal of the CW6, CW1 conducted the search and raided the house of accused No.1 and wherein he found who engaged in the prostitution by one Jyothi W/o Kariyanna, Shekhar and Rukmini. On enquired them the accused Nos. 1 and 2 confessed that, by confine and trafficking Smt. Jyothi W/o Kariyanna they run the prostitution at their house. Upon such confession of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, he got arrest the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and made personal search upon them. When conduct personal search upon the accused Nos. 17 SC No. 714/2015 1 and 2, he found and seized Rs. 7000/- total cash and Rs. 500/- face value one currency note which was used to give to the decoy for prostitution, two condoms, two mobiles from the accused, also one auto from the possession of accused No.2 by drawn a mahazar as per Ex.P2. Signature of PW6 as per Ex.P2(b). After arrested the accused along with the material objects PW6 produced the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and all material objects at before CW9 along with one report. PW6 got identified said report, same report got marked as per Ex.P5 and his signature as per Ex.P5(a). PW6 also identified two mobiles, same were already got marked as per M.O.1 and 2. Two condoms as per M.O.3 and cash as per M.O.4. In the cross-examination it elicited distance between the place of incident and police station about 3-4 km. Assistant commissioner of Police of his station jurisdiction is situated at Malleshwaram. Malleshwaram Assistant commissioner of police office is far away about 8 km from his police station. Unequivocally admitted the suggestion at evening 6.00 at Bengaluru there will be heavy 18 SC No. 714/2015 vehicle traffic. It elicited PW6 do not remember at what exact time that he got the search warrant from their Assistant Commissioner of police. He also do not remember the name and designation of his staff who alleged to be brought the search warrant from the Assistant Commissioner of Police office. PW6 do not remember at what time he sent his staff to take the search warrant from his ACP office. Unequivocally admitted the suggestion he should mention the name, designation of his staff in an station diary in so far he sent the person for the search warrant. Also unequivocally admitted the suggestion he had not submitted any of the documents at before the Court at what time he obtained the search warrant. PW6 do not remember from which spot, Cw2 and Cw3 have been he collected. Also he do not know the name and address of the Cw2 and Cw3. Pw6 have not called any of neighbour of the house in which he made the raid, for the reason to avoid the leakage of the information. PW6 unequivocally admitted the suggestion, he has not been mentioned the same reason at 19 SC No. 714/2015 anywhere at the time of investigation. Pw6 unequivocally admitted the suggestion the place of incident is one of the busy place. Pw6 enquired the neighbourer residents of the place of incident. PW.6 can not to say to whom he enquired who were said to be a neighborer of the place of incident. PW6 denied the suggestion Rs. 7000/- is belonging to A2. PW6 admitted the suggestion A2 is the Auto driver. PW6 do Not remember whether MO 3 condoms yet to been used or not.
17. CW9 Girish BV examined as PW7. Who he being a Sub-inspector of complainant Police he served his service at Rajagopalnagar PS from 07.09.2013 to 15.05.2015. On 30.04.2014 at evening 8.30 pm PW6 Uma Shankar, Police Inspector have produced accused, seizer mahazar along with one report. Based on the report and seizer mahazar he got registered the case against the accused in crime No. 264/2014 for the offence punishable u/s 370 IPC and offence punishable u/s 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and he sent the FIR to the court. He got identified said 20 SC No. 714/2015 FIR, said FIR got marked as per Ex.P6 and his signature got marked Ex.P6(a). He got identified the report placed by the Pw6 Uma shankar the same report already got marked as per Ex.P5 and his signature got marked Ex.P5(b). PW7 arrested the accused and produced before the court. Pw7 subjected the all material object in PF No. 94/2014 of his Police station. He got identified the all material object, the same one Nokia Mobile got marked as per MO1, another mobile got marked as per MO2, Condom got marked as per MO3, total amount of cash of Rs. 7500/- got marked as per MO4. Further PW7 also got identified the photograph of the Auto which was seized under the said rocket. The same is here in as per Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. On 01.05.2014 he recorded the statement of victim Cw4 Jyothi. He recorded the statement of Cw2 Vinod Kumar, Cw3 Chethan Kumar, Cw5 Marilingaiah, Cw6 Bramesh, Cw7 Narasamma and Cw8 Savitha. On the same day he got seized one rental agreement of the house, stated to be resided by the A1. The same certified copy rent agreement he got identified now 21 SC No. 714/2015 got marked as per Ex.P9. On 22.05.2014 in view of establishment of case against to the Accused, he submitted the charge sheet to the court. Further he deposed that, Pw4 Chethan Kumar and Pw5 Jyothi gave their statement as per Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively. In his cross examination it elicited that, Pw7 have not concentrated on which date and at what time he send the FIR to the court. It also elicited Pw7 have not collected the Lease agreement pertains to the house.
18. From analyzing the evidence and material available on record the offence punishable u/s 370 IPC is the only offence exclusively triable by this court. For that, it is necessary me to made draft the ingredients of very same offence. Now the case against to the Accused is that, that the A1 and A2 trafficking the Cw4 Jyothi at the house of A1 and Cw4 Jyothi exploited for prostitution to gain the Money. It is not a case of prosecution that, neither of the Accused make threat, using force or coercion or abduction or practicing a fraud or disacception, or by abusing the power 22 SC No. 714/2015 or by inducement that the A1 and 2, put on Cw4 Jyothi to exploit her for the prostitution and to gained the money. It is a very particular case of the prosecution is that, the A1 by keeping the Cw4 Jyothi at her house, A1 exploit the Cw4 Jyothi for prostitution for gain the money. To access this sort of allegation made against to A1 and 2, the testimony of Pw2 Bramesh and PW3 Narasamma and Pw4 Jyothi along with Ex.P2 spot mahazar and report as per Ex.P5 is take much significant role. As per the testimony of Pw2 Bramesh, who said to be a decoy, Pw2 went inside of the house of A1 and negotiate with the A1 and accept the woman for prostitution. After negotiation PW3 paid the 500/- to A1 against to acceptance of an Cw4 Jyothi. On such transaction PW3 gave signal to Cw1 his inspector. Upon such signal CW1 and his staff including with Pw3 Narasamma conducted the search to house of A1, wherein Cw1 rescue the CW4 Jyothi from her exploitation. Case on record the testimony of Pw2 and Pw3 have concurrently available against to A1 without any contradictions or omission. But case on record the 23 SC No. 714/2015 testimony of Cw4 Jyothi have more significant role than to the testimony of PW2 and PW3, to bring the charge against to the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The same testimony of CW4 Jyothi on record available in the nature not to support the prosecution case, as the Cw4 Jyothi turned hostile in total, even inspite of cross examination nothing have established the prosecution case through her mouth. To attract the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 370 of I.P.C., the testimony of CW4 Jyothi is more significant. As per the case of prosecution, Cw4 Jyothi is the woman who said to be exploited and trafficking for the sexual rocket by the A1 and 2 for money. If at all that the A1 and A2 exploited and trafficking the Cw4 Jyothi for prostitution as contended by the prosecution, the CW4 Jyothi could have deposed at before the Court against to an Accused, the same deficiency of the evidence of Cw4 Jyothi is here made me not to relied on the evidence of Pw2 and Pw3, as the same testimony of Pw2 and Pw3 is here remains before me without any corroboration. Therefore that I am of the view that, 24 SC No. 714/2015 prosecution have failed to established the very ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 370 of IPC.
19. Further case of the prosecution against to accused is that, the A1 and 2 keeping a brothel or allowing a premises to be used as a brothel, living on the earning for the prostitution, procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution and prostitution in or in the vicinity of public place. To established the ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the immoral traffic prevention act 1956 the prosecution have examined as many as eight witnesses as Pw1 to Pw8. Among them prosecution got examined CW5 Marilingaiah as PW1. According to prosecution case that the A1 lived in the house of the PW1 on rent basis, in that house that the accused No.1 keeping the brothel or allowing the premises to be used as a brothel or living on earnings for the prostitution, procuring inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution or prostitution in or in the vicinity of public place. But the Pw1 turned hostile so far recorded statement 25 SC No. 714/2015 under 161 CrPC by the Police. Further PW1 denied the suggestion that he gave a statement as per Ex.P1 at before the Police even the cross examined by the prosecution, as such the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 allowing the premises of Pw1 for brothel, living on the earning of prostitution or procuring or inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution or prostitution in or in the vicinity of Public place have not been proved. Further according to the prosecution PW6 Uma Mahesh conducted a search and raid upon the house of accused No. 1 and got arrested the accused Nos. 1 and 2, M.O.1 to 4 by drawn a spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. Case on record, in order to prove the Ex.P2 spot mahazar in so far conduct the search and raid upon the house of A1, the prosecution have examined Cw3 one Chethan Kumar as Pw4 and Cw2 one N Vinod Kumar as Pw8. According to the prosecution Pw4 and Pw8 are the mahazar Witness who were set to be a Panchas in which search and raid was conducted, but Pw4 and PW8 have also turned hostile, except identified their signature 26 SC No. 714/2015 upon Ex.P2 spot mahazar, as per Ex.P2(a) and Ex.P2(c). With this respect also the prosecution failed to prove the contents of Ex.P2 spot mahazar through independent panchas. Hence though the prosecution have got marked the EX.P.9 rent agreement, prosecution have failed to prove that such house of PW.1 have been used by the accused to commit an offence as alleged by the prosecution .Further PW6 Umamahesh in his cross examination gave his explanation for not to tender the local respectable persons to conduct raid as per section 15 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956. No doubt S.s 2 of Section 15 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956 postulate before making a search under S.s(1), the special Police officer or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality which the place to be searched is situate, to attain and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. Case on record, PW6 took the PW4 and PW8 as panchas to the place he intended to conduct a search. Answer of the 27 SC No. 714/2015 PW6 in the cross examination is that due to avoid the leakage of information he could not called the respectable inhabitants of the locality in which he intended to search and raid the house. Therefore on prima facie seen on record that the PW6 failed to follow the procedure as contemplated u/s 15 of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act. Further the prosecution have also got marked Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 two photographs, one China mobile as per M.O. 1, one old nokia mobile set as per M.O. 2, Two condoms as per M.O.3 and total Indian currency amount of Rs. 7500/- as per M.O.4. Even inspite of got marked by the prosecution, the same M.O.1 to M.O.4 and Ex.P7 and Ex.P8,the prosecution have also failed to prove that, the same all the material object that, the accused have been used to commit an offence under rule of beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly I answer the above points in the Negative.
20. Point No. 3 : Since the point Nos. 1 and 2 answered as Negative, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER 28 SC No. 714/2015 Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of ITP Act and Section 370 of I.P.C.
The earlier personal bond and surety bond of the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be continued for a period of six months from today as a compliance of Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Seized properties M.O. 1 to 3 which are worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period and since M.O.4 Cash of Rs. 7,500/- not claimed by anyone, is here by ordered to confiscate to exchecker of the state after expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of October, 2021).
(R. ONKARAPPA) LIIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
29 SC No. 714/2015ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Marilingaiah P.W.2 Bramesh P.W.3 Narashamma R P.W.4 Chethan Kumar P.W.5 Jyothi P.W.6 Uma Mahesh P.W.7 Girish B. V. P.W.8 Vinodkumar LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: - NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: NIL Ex.P.1 Statement of House owner Ex.P.2 Mahazar dated 30.04.2014 Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW6 Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW8 Ex.P3 Statement of PW4 Ex.P4 Statement of PW5 Ex.P5 Report Ex.P5(a) Signature PW6 Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW7 Ex.P6 F.I.R.
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P7 Photograph
Ex.P8 Photograph
Ex.P9 Rent Agreement
30 SC No. 714/2015
Ex.P10 Statement
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
M.O.1 China mobile
M.O.2 One Nokia Mobile
M.O.3 Two Condoms
M.O.4 Cash of Rs. 7500/- (Rupees Seven
Thousand Five Hundred only)
(R. ONKARAPPA)
LIIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.