Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka By; vs Amzad Pasha @ Kurup Amzad on 2 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 2nd day of December 2016
:PRESENT:
Sri.Shivaji Anant Nalawade, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSION CASE No.466/2013
COMPLAINANT : State of Karnataka by;
Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
- Vs -
ACCUSED : 1. Amzad Pasha @ Kurup Amzad
Residing at No.230, 3rd Main,
6th Cross, Gangondanahalli, Bengaluru.
2. Jabiulla S/o Khareem,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at No.230,
3rd Main, 6th Cross, Gangondanahalli,
Bengaluru.
3. Akram Pasha @ Sharuf ......Split-up
4. Ameer ......Split-up
5. Santhosh ......Split-up
(By Sri.M.D.P., Advocate)
2 S.C.466/2013
1. Date of commission of offence 27-02-2012
2. Date of report of occurrence 27-02-2012
3. Date of commencement of evidence 08-06-2016
4. Date of closing of evidence 16-11-2016
5. Name of the complainant Smt.Bhadramma K R
6. Offences complained of Sec.4, 5, 6, 9 of
Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act
7. Opinion of the Judge As per the final order
8. Order of sentence Offences not proved
JUDGMENT
This case is committed by the 1st Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru, to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore on the ground that offences punishable under Sec.4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
2. The Police Inspector of Indiranagar Police Station has filed charge-sheet against accused alleging that accused have committed the offences punishable under Sec.4, 5, 6 and 3 S.C.466/2013 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act arising out of Indiranagar Police Station in Crime No.76/2012.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
It is the case of the Prosecution that, CW.1- K.R.Bhadramma who is the Police Inspector of Women Narcotic Drug Cell, CCB, Bengaluru. On 27-02-2012 at 7.00 p.m. when in the office, received a credible information stating that at Indiranagar 100 feet road near Sony World one Abdul Pasha along with his henchmen is in the Santro Car bearing Reg. No.KA-34-P-9495 has kept the girls in the Car and he with his Cell No.9845533961 doing prostitution. Thereafter, CW.1 intimated the information received to her superior officers and orally obtained their permission for conducting raid. Thereafter, CW.1 called CW.4 to 10-officials and informed the information received by her to them. Thereafter, CW.1 along with CW.4 to 10 came in the Departmental vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-G-483 near the spot, there CW.1 called CW.2 and CW.3-Panchas through her officials. CW.1 has informed the information received by her to them and requested them to co-operate for acting as Panchas. CW.1 4 S.C.466/2013 has served the notice to CW.2 and CW.3-Panchas. CW.1 has prepared records of reasons and obtained signature of Panchas on the same. Thereafter, CW.1 has observed the spot, on the spot one Santro Car was there and the Number of the car was as per the information received. Thereafter, CW.1 has handed-over Rs.5,000/- to CW.8 and told him to go to the spot and confirm whether information is correct and if the information is correct, then inform the same by making hand signals. CW.8 has taken Rs.5,000/- from CW.1 and went near the car and after 10 minutes CW.8 has intimated CW.1 by hand signals that information is correct, thereafter CW.1 along with her officials and Panchas came to the spot and surrounded the car, CW.1 has got opened the door of the car, on the driver seat of the car one person was sitted, abetting to the driver seat another person was there and on the backside seat of the car 3 girls were there. CW.1 enquired the person who was sitting on the driver seat and he told his name as Jabiulla. The said persons told that his friend Amzad Pasha has brought girls from West Bengal saying that he will provide job to them and in order to get easy money 5 S.C.466/2013 doing prostitution. The said persons told that out of money received from the prostitution they give 50% to the girls and remaining 50% will be shared among themselves. CW.1 has enquired another person who has sitted abetting to the driver, he told his name as Akram and he told that along with Jabiulla he is searching customers for girls. CW.1 has enquired those girls who sitted on the back seat of the car, they told their names as Meena, Swathi and Musthaq and they stated that they are residents of West Bengal. They also told that Abdul Pasha has brought them saying that he will provide work to them at Bengaluru and further they told that two persons in the Car are calling the customers and sending them for prostitution. Further they told that from each customers they are taking Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- and they are paying half amount to the said persons and they are retaining half amount with them. CW.1 has catch-hold accused No.1 and 2 and the three victim girls. CW.1 asked accused No.2 where is the customer who came few minutes earlier and he has shown CW.8-Thimmaiah. Accused No.2 told CW.1 that CW.8 has given Rs.5,000/- and he told him to chose one girl out of 6 S.C.466/2013 three. Thereafter, CW.1 asked the said persons to produce the articles which are with him. Accused No.2 has produced cash of Rs.5,700/-, two mobiles. Accused No.3 produced two Mobiles, CW.1 has taken Rs.5,000/- from Rs.5,700/- produced by the accused No.2 which she given to CW.8. Accused has stated that remaining amount of Rs.700/- is received from the prostitution. Thereafter, CW.1 has drawn Mahazar from 8.30 to 10.30 p.m. in presence of Panchas and seized Rs.700/- cash, Mobile, Santro Car. Thereafter, CW.1 brought the said persons along with the properties seized to Indiranagar Police Station, prepared Report and produced the Report, properties seized and said persons before CW.14.
3(a) CW.14 who is the ASI of Indiranagar Police on 28- 02-2012 when in the Police Station at 00.35 hours, CW.1 came to the Police Station and produced the properties seized and two accused persons and three rescued girls and submitted Report. On the basis of the Report, CW.14 has registered a case in Crime No.76/2012 and submitted FIR to the court. CW.14 has arrested accused No.1 and 2, thereafter CW.14 has sent the rescued girls to the State Home. CW.14 7 S.C.466/2013 has subjected the properties under P.F.No.36/2012. Thereafter, CW.14 has handed-over the further investigation to CW.15. CW.15 who is the Police Inspector of Indiranagar Police Station on 29-02-2012 taken further investigation from CW.14, recorded the statements of CW.2 to CW.13, thereafter CW.15 has filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sec.4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
4. After filing the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1, Bengaluru has taken cognizance and registered the case in C.C.16/2013. Thereafter, Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1, Bengaluru has secured the presence of accused No.1 to 3, 5 and furnished the charge-sheet copies to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Even though Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1, Bengaluru has issued NBW's against accused No.4, the same were returned unexecuted, so on 13-02-2013 the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1, Bengaluru has splitted the case against accused No.4 and directed the Investigating Officer to file separate charge-sheet against 8 S.C.466/2013 accused No.4, thereafter Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court- 1, Bengaluru has committed the case against accused No.1 to 3 and 5 before the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and the same was registered in S.C.466/2013 and made-over to the FTC-XIV as the offences alleged under Sec.4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are triable by the Sessions Court. After establishment of this court, this case was made over to this court.
5. After receipt of the papers this court has secured presence of accused No.1 and 2. Even though this court has issued NBW's against accused No.3 and 5 on several occasions, the same returned unexecuted, so case against accused No.3 and 5 splitted and office is directed to call separate charge-sheet and register separate case against them. Thereafter, heard the counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and learned Public Prosecutor for state on charge to be framed. Charge under Sec.228 of Cr.P.C. framed against the accused for the offences under Sec.4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and read-over to the accused in the open court and accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be 9 S.C.466/2013 tried. Thereafter, Prosecution is called upon to prove the guilt of the accused by examining the Prosecution witnesses.
6. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in all examined 4 witnesses as PW.1 to 4 and got marked 6 documents as per Ex.P1 to 6 and got marked 5 materials objects as MO.1 to 5 and closed its side. Thereafter accused are examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. Accused denied the statement in toto and further stated that they have no defence evidence and they have nothing to say, thereafter the case is posted for arguments.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor for state in length.
8. The points that arise for my determination are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 and 2 along with splitted accused No.3 to 5 on 27-02-2012 at 8.30 p.m. within the limits of Indiranagar Police 10 S.C.466/2013 Station on 100 feet width loan near Sony World parked a Santro Car bearing No.KA-34-P-9495 and accused No.1 and 3 have kept CW.11 to 13- girls who are brought by them from West Bengal stating that they will provide jobs for them, in the back seat of the said Car and in order earn money, forcibly put CW.11 to 13-girls for prostitution and thereby committed the offences under Sec.4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act?
2) What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative;
Point No.2 : As per final order
For the following;
REASONS
10. POINT No.1: It is the case of the prosecution
that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sec.4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and in order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined 4 witnesses and they are;
11 S.C.466/2013
PW.1-Sripada Shastry son of Dattatreya Shastry-Police Sub-Inspector, PW.2-K.R.Bhadramma wife of Siddalingappa- complainant, PW.3-N.Rajashekharaiah son of Nandishwaraiah- ASI who conducted the earlier part of investigation, PW.4- D.Kumar son of D.H.Durgappaiah-Police Inspector who has conducted later part of investigation.
11. The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused in all got marked 6 documents and they are;
Ex.P1-Spot cum Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P2-Complaint, Ex.P3-Records of reasons as per Sec.15 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Ex.P4-Notice issued to the Panchas, Ex.P5- FIR, Ex.P6-P.F.36/2012.
Prosecution got marked 5 material objects and they are; MO.1-Cash of Rs.700/-, MO.2 to 5-Mobiles.
12. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined complainant as PW.2 and PW.2 in her evidence stated that in the year 2012 she was working as Police Inspector at Women Narcotic Drug Cell, CCB, Bengaluru. On 27-02-2012 at 7.00 p.m. when she was in her office, she received a credible information stating that at Indiranagar 100 12 S.C.466/2013 feet width road near Sony Circle, one Abdul Pasha through his Mobile No.9845533961 along with his henchmen in Santro Car bearing Reg.No.KA-34-P-9495 has kept the girls and doing prostitution. Thereafter, she obtained oral permission from her superiors, thereafter she called CW.4 to 10-officials and informed the information received by her to them. Thereafter, she along with CW.4 to 10 came in Departmental Omni Car bearing Reg. No.KA-02-G-483 near the spot at 8.00 p.m., there she called CW.2 and 3-Panchas through her officials and stated the information received by her to them and requested them to act as Panchas. Thereafter, she has drawn records of reasons and obtained the signature of the Panchas on it thereafter she and her officials have observed the spot by standing some distance away from the spot, on the spot one Santro Car was there and the Number of the car was the same which was given by the informants. Thereafter, she handed- over Rs.5,000/- to CW.8 and told him to go to the spot and confirm the information and inform the same by making hand signals and CW.8 went to the spot and after 10 minutes has made signs with hands and confirmed the information. 13 S.C.466/2013 Thereafter, CW.1, her officials and Panchas came to the spot and surrounded the said car. On the driver seat of the said Car one person was sitted and abetting to the driver seat another person was there, on the back seat 3 girls were there. CW.1 has enquired the person sitted in the driver seat and he told his name as Jabiulla and further the said persons told that his friend Abdul Pasha has brought the girls from West Bengal stating that he will provide job at Bengaluru and keeping them in the Car doint prostitution. Further PW.2 has stated that said persons have told that they are giving half money to the girls received from the prostitution and remaining half will be kept by them.
12(a) Further this witness has stated that she enquired the person who was sitted abetting to the driver seat and he told his name as Akram Pasha and he also told that Jabiulla told him to search customers for the said girls and he is searching the customers. Further PW.2 has stated that she enquired the said girls and they have stated their names as Meena, Swathi, Musthaq. The said girls have stated that one Abdul Pasha has brought them to Bengaluru from West Bengal 14 S.C.466/2013 stating that he will provide jobs to them and forcibly put them in the prostitution. They are receiving Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- from the customers and retaining half of the amount and they are giving remaining half to them. Further PW.2 has stated that, thereafter she has seized Rs.700/-, Mobile phones produced by said two persons and seized the same by drawing Mahazar as per Ex.P1 and thereafter she along with the properties seized came to the Police Station and submitted the complaint before the Indiranagar Police Station.
12(b) Further this witness has identified the Mahazar drawn by her as Ex.P1 and complaint lodged by her as Ex.P2 and identified the Cash of Rs.700/- as MO.1 and Mobiles as MO.2 to 5. Further this witness has identified one of the accused persons as the person who sitted on the driver seat and another person who was sitting abetting to the driver seat on that day. Prosecution treated this witness hostile in part and cross-examined her and in the cross-examination this witness admitted that the name of the person who was sitting abetting to the driver seat is Akram Pasha and further this witness has admitted that on that day she has not arrested 15 S.C.466/2013 Abdul Pasha. Further this witness has admitted that on that day she has not arrested Abdul Pasha. Further this witness has admitted that, on that day Abdul Pasha was not in the Car and admitted that accused No.1 is not the person who was sitting on the driver seat of the Car. This witness in her examination-in-chief has stated that one Abdul Pasha who is accused No.1 present before the court is the person who was sitting abetting to the driver seat of the car which is contrary to the prosecution case. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, accused No.2-Jabiulla was sitted on the driver seat to the Car and accused No.3 was sitting abetting to the driver seat of the Car and other accused No.1, 4, and 5 were not in the Car on that day. Whereas this witness in the examination-in-chief has admitted that accused No.1 is the person who was sitting abetting to the driver seat of the car which is contradiction to the prosecution case and the said contradiction is material one and the said contradiction clearly goes to show that complainant has not identified the accused persons properly before the court. Further the counsel for the 16 S.C.466/2013 accused has cross-examined PW.2 and PW.2 in her cross- examination stated as under;
"¤ÃªÀÅ F ¢£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÁQë £ÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀÄr¢gÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë DgÉÆæ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÁgï £ÀA§gï ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÉÆÃr ºÉýgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
12(c) The said admission of PW.2 clearly goes to show that this witness has stated the names of the accused and Number of the Car by seeing the records. PW.2 is the complainant and she went for raid and after conducting the raid she has lodged the complaint and she is not the Investigating Officer in this case and she has to give the evidence without referring the investigation papers. She herself admitted that she has stated the names of the accused and Car Number seeing the records. Further PW.2 in her cross-examination admitted that the Panchas have not given instructions for writing the Mahazar and further PW.2 has stated that she has instructed for writing the Mahazar. Normally Mahazars are to be written as per the dictation given by the Panchas and this witness has clearly admitted that she 17 S.C.466/2013 has given the instructions for writing the Mahazar and Panchas have not dictated for writing the Mahazar.
13. Prosecution has examined PW.1. PW.1 in his evidence stated that in the year 2012 he was working as Sub- Inspector at Women Narcotic Drug Cell, CCB, Bengaluru. On 27-02-2012 at 7.00 p.m., he was in his office, CW.1 called him and CW.5, CW.6, CW.7, CW.8, CW.9 and CW.10 and told that he has received the information stating that within the limits of Indiranagar Police Station near Sony World, a Santro Car bearing Reg. No.KA-34-P-9495 is parked and the girls are kept in the said Car and prostitution is going on. Thereafter, CW.1 informed the information to his superiors and obtained the permission for conducting raid. Thereafter, they came near the spot at 8.00 p.m. and stopped some distance away from the spot, there CW.1 called CW.2 and 3-Panchas and given information to them. CW.1 has served Notice to them and also drawn records of reasons and obtained the signature of the Panchas, thereafter they have seen the spot and on the spot one Santro Car was parked, CW.1 has given Rs.5,000/- to CW.8 and informed him to go to the spot and see the spot and 18 S.C.466/2013 confirm the information and if the information is correct, then give hand signals for the same and CW.8 went there and given hand signals stating that information is correct, thereafter they went near the Car and surrounded the Santro Car. In the driver seat one person was there and abetting to the driver seat one person was there and back side three girls were there. CW.1 has introduced to the person who was sitted in the driver seat, the said person told his name as Jabiulla. CW.1 has asked regarding the girls who were sitted on the back seat and the said persons told that one Amzad Pasha has brought the said girls from West Bengal saying that he give the jobs and forcibly put them in the prostitution, thereafter CW.1 asked the said person where is Amzad Pasha and the said person told that he is in another Santro Car bearing Reg. No.KA-02-P-5830 within the limits of Indiranagar Police Station and doing prostitution there along with his friends one Anil and Santhosh. Thereafter, CW.1 asked another person who was sitting abetting to the seat of the driver and he told his name as Akram Pasha and he told that he is searching the customers for the girls, thereafter CW.1 asked the three girls who were 19 S.C.466/2013 sitting on the back seat and they have stated their names as Lenima aged about 19 years, Sathi who was aged about 19 years and Mufaz who was aged about 24 years and all are residents of West Bengal. Further the said girls have stated that Amzad Pasha called them from West Bengal stating that he will give jobs and forcibly put them in the prostitution. Further the said girls have stated that the said persons are taking half of the amount received from the prostitution and retaining the remaining amount. Further PW.1 in his evidence stated that CW.1 asked the person who was sitting in the driver seat where is the person who came few minutes earlier and the said persons shown CW.8-Thimmappa who was standing there and further the said person has stated that he has received Rs.5,000/- from CW.8 and produced Rs.700/- and CW.1 has taken Rs.5,000/- out of that which was given by her to CW.8. The said persons have produced the Mobiles and CW.1 has drawn Mahazar and seized the cash of Rs.700/- and four Mobiles, thereafter they have brought the said persons along with the properties seized to the Police Station an identified the Mahazar as Ex.P1. Further this witness has 20 S.C.466/2013 stated that the person who was sitting on the driver seat and the person who was sitting abetting to the driver seat are present before the court. The person who was sitting abetting to the driver seat is accused No.3 and he has been splitted from this case and this witness has identified accused No.3 as accused No.1 and the said fact clearly goes to show that this witness has not identified the accused persons properly before the court. Further this witness has identified the cash of Rs.700/- and Mobiles as MO.1 to 4. Prosecution treated this witness hostile and in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that accused No.3 is not before the court and accused No.1 and 2 are before the court and the said version clearly goes to show that this witness has not identified the accused persons before the court properly. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and in the cross- examination this witness has admitted that before conducting raid they have not got searched themselves before the Panchas. Further this witness in the cross-examination admitted that he cannot say who have called the Panchas on 21 S.C.466/2013 that day, he cannot give the denomination of Rs.5,000/- Notes given by CW.1 in the hands of CW.8.
14. Prosecution has examined PW.3. PW.3 in his evidence stated that in the year 2012 he was working as ASI at Indiranagar Police Station. On 27-02-2012 he was on night duty and on 28-02-2012 at 00.35 hours, CW.1 came to the Police Station along with two accused persons, 3 rescued girls and properties seized from the said persons and produced the properties seized and also produced the accused persons and victim girls rescued by him, he on the basis of the Report submitted by CW.1 registered the case in Crime No.76/2012 and submitted FIR to the court. He has arrested accused No.2 and 3, he has sent the rescued girls to the State Home, subjected the properties under P.F.36/2012 and identified the properties subjected by him as MO.1 to 5. Further this witness has stated that he cannot identify the accused persons if produced before him.
15. Prosecution has examined PW.4 and PW.4 in his evidence stated that in the year 2012 he was working as Police Inspector at Indiranagar Police Station. On 29-02-2012 he has 22 S.C.466/2013 taken further investigation from CW.14. On the same day he has recorded the statements of CW.2 to 13, thereafter as the investigation is completed he has filed the charge-sheet.
16. It is the specific case of the accused during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses that they have not committed any offences as alleged against them, they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further case of the accused that the vehicle seized in this case was parked in the signal which is near the Indiranagar Police Station and Investigating Officer has taken the said vehicle, Investigating Officer has secured the victim girls from Majestic and only in order to show some statistics to their superiors, false case is registered against them. In the present case, complainant who has been examined as PW.2 in her cross-examination admitted that there is a direction for her from her superior officers that in every month she has to register certain number of cases and the said admission corroborates the case of accused that false case is registered against them for showing statistics to the superiors. Further in the present case, PW.2 who is the complainant in her cross-examination admitted that 23 S.C.466/2013 in Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 the names of the Panchas are written by hand-writing and other part of the said documents are typed in the computer and copy has been taken. Ex.P3 is the Records of Reasons and the same is in the format and the format has been filled. Further Ex.P4-Notice is also in a format and name of the Panchas are inserted. Further Ex.P1-Mahazar goes to show that the name and address of the Panchas are written in hand and other particulars of the Mahazar are typewritten in the computer and copy has been obtained. It is the case of the complainant that Ex.P1-Mahazar was typed in the Laptop which she carried along with her and print has been taken from nearby the shop. If on the spot itself the Mahazar has been prepared, then even the names and addresses of the Panchas ought to have been typewritten in the computer. Further the Investigating Officer has not cited the shop owner where from the print of Ex.P1 is taken. Investigating Officer has not given any explanation for not doing so. The admission of the complainant that her superior Officer has given directions to file certain cases per month, helps the accused to show that the defence taken by them that false case is 24 S.C.466/2013 registered against them is probable one. Further in the present case, prosecution has not examined the victim witnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further there is no evidence against accused No.1 except the version of complainant and PW.1 that accused No.2 and 3 have stated them that accused No.1 has brought the girls from West Bengal and as per the say of accused No.1 they are running prostitution in the said car. Accused No.2 has denied that he has given voluntary statement or any statement before CW.1 and PW.1. Further case against accused No.3 in this case is splitted, so perusal of the records goes to show that there is no evidence against accused No.1 in this case.
17. In the present case, prosecution has not examined the Panchas who alleged to have been present at the time of conducting raid, CW.1 who is the complainant has not identified the accused No.1 and 2 before the court. CW.2 has stated that accused No.2 and 3 are present before the court, whereas accused No.1 and 2 are present before the court. Accused No.3 who was sitting abetting to the driver seat of the Car is not appeared and case against accused No.3 is splitted 25 S.C.466/2013 and PW.2 has identified the accused No.3 as accused No.1. CW.1 who is the complainant who conducted raid and catch- hold the accused, enquired them and lodged complaint has not identified the accused No.3 properly and she has identified the accused No.3 as accused No.1. Further in the cross- examination PW.2 has admitted that she has stated the name of the accused and Number of the Car by seeing the file. CW.1 is the complainant and she has conducted raid and she has to give evidence without seeing the records and she has stated the names of the accused and Number of the Car by seeing the records. Further PW.1 who is another Police Sub-Inspector who accompanied for raid and he has also not identified the accused persons properly. PW.2 has also identified the accused No.3 as accused No.1, accused No.3 is splitted and PW.1 has identified accused No.1 and accused No.3. Further PW.1 has admitted that before proceeding to the spot, they have not got searched themselves, he cannot give the denomination of the Notes given by CW.1 to CW.8 on that day. So only the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden is on the 26 S.C.466/2013 prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW.1 and 2 have not properly identified the accused persons before the court. Further CW.1 has given evidence by looking to the records. Further in the present case prosecution has not examined the Panchas who alleged to have accompanied for raid and the victim girls. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the citation reported in (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 596 (Case: C.Ronald and another Vs. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands), wherein the lordship of Hon'ble Apex Court have held as under;
"(D) Criminal Trial - Witnesses -
Police officials/personnel/Investigating Officer as witnesses - Credibility of testimony of - Held, there is no principle of law that a statement made in court by Police has to be disbelieved - In instant case, there was no evidence indicating that Policemen were deposing falsely in Court since they had no enmity with accused Submission that possibly Police had demanded some money from the accused and had falsely implicated accused when they refused, neither raised at any time nor such suggestion made in the cross-examination - Hence, not entertained - Penal Code, 1860, Ss.230, 231, 232 and 239."
27 S.C.466/2013
18. Further the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the citation reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4655 (Case: State of Karnataka, Hassan City Police Vs. Lokesh and others), wherein the lordship of Hon'ble High Court have held as under;
"(B) Criminal Trial - Proof of Discovery Panchanamas the - Held - If the Panchas are not available or unreliable, the Panchanamas can be proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer."
19. In the present case in hand, it is the specific case of the accused that the complainant only in order to show some statistics to her superior has registered case against them. The complainant has make used the Santro Car which was parked near the signal of Indiranagar Police Station and brought the victim girls from the Majestic and registered false case against them. In the present case, complainant has admitted that there is oral direction from her superior to register certain cases and the said admission clearly goes to show that there is oral order of the superiors of the 28 S.C.466/2013 complainant to register certain cases and she is bound to obey the orders of the superiors. In the present case, complainant has identified the accused No.1 as accused No.3 and further PW.1 has identified accused No.3 as accused No.1. PW.1 and 2 are the Officers who have conducted the raid and catch-hold the accused persons, they have brought the accused persons to the Police Station and they are unable to identify the accused persons. Further CW.1 has admitted that Panchanama was prepared on the spot by typewriting in the Laptop and print has been taken. If Ex.P1-Mahazar is seen, the name and address of the Panchas are not written, no explanation is coming forth from the prosecution when the Ex.P1 was typed in the Laptop, why the names of the Panchas are not typed there. Further CW.1 has admitted that Print of Ex.P1 was taken on the spot from the shop nearby the spot but the Shop keeper is not cited as witness and this being the facts and circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 alone will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 will not prove drawing of Ex.P1-Mahazar. So giving respect to the lordship in the 29 S.C.466/2013 above cited ruling in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances referred above, I am of the opinion that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 will not prove the drawing of Ex.P1-Mahazar. So only the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per the well settled principle of criminal law, benefit of doubt goes to the accused and giving benefit of doubt to the accused, I hold that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
20. POINT No.2: In view of my findings point No.1 and reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. accused No.1- Amzad Pasha @ Kurup Amzad and accused No.2- Jabiulla are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec.4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.30 S.C.466/2013
Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled forthwith.
As the case against accused No.3 to 5 are splitted, no order as to disposal of properties. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of December 2016).
(SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Sripada Shastry CW.4 08-06-2016
PW.2 K.R.Bhadramma CW.1 17-08-2016
PW.3 N.Rajashekaraiah CW.14 06-10-2016
PW.4 D.Kumar CW.15 16-11-2016
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Mahazar PW.1 08-06-2016
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 PW.1 08-06-2016
Ex.P2 Complaint PW.2 17-08-2016
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.2 PW.2 17-08-2016
Ex.P3 Record of Reasons PW.2 17-08-2016
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW.2 PW.2 17-08-2016
31 S.C.466/2013
Ex.P4 Notice to witnesses PW.2 17-08-2016
Ex.P4(a) Statement of PW.2 PW.2 17-08-2016
Ex.P5 FIR PW.3 06-10-2016
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW.3 PW.3 06-10-2016
Ex.P6 P.F.36/2012 PW.3 06-10-2016
Ex.6(a) Signature of PW.3 PW.3 06-10-2016
Material objects marked for the prosecution:
MO.1 Cash of Rs.700/- MO.2 to 5 Mobiles
Witness examined, documents and material objects marked for the accused:
- Nil -
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.