Bangalore District Court
Being The Police Inspector Has Received vs No.1 To 3 Have Committed An on 20 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
PRESENT:
Sri E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1014/2016
BETWEEN
State by Yeshwanthapura Police Station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1.Gagan @ Chandrashekar
S/o Thimmaiah, a/a 31 years,
R/a No.1203, Platinum City,
E Block, Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore City.
2.Padmashree C/o Late Veerendra Kumar,
a/a 52 years,
R/a No.11, JP Nagar III Phase, 11th Main,
Bangalore City.
3.Lakshmi C/o Late Basavaraju,
a/a 41 years,
R/a No.1203, Platinum City,
E Block, Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore City. .. ACCUSED
(By Sri HKC., Advocate)
*****
2 S.C.No.1014/2016
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Yeshwanthapura P.S., Bangalore City, has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. The brief story of the prosecution case is as under:-
The accused No.1 with the aid of accused No.2 and 3 has been running prostitution business at No.1203, Platinum City, O Block, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore City, by trafficking CW.5 to CW.7 and instigated them to involve in the prostitution to earn more money, and out of the said money earned from the prostitution, the accused No.1 to 3 running their life. Such being the case, on 30.07.2015 at 11.00 a.m. complainant being the Police Inspector has received information, immediately with the permission of his superior officer reached Yeshwanthapura P.S., and thereafter along with the Yeshwanthapura Police staff reached near the spot and sent CW.4 Shekar as decai to confirm the information.
After confirming the information, he has conducted the raid with the help of CW.8 to 14 on the flat and caught accused 3 S.C.No.1014/2016 and seized the material objects from the spot and also rescued victims CW.5 to CW.7 and thereby the accused persons have committed the offences as alleged against them.
3.The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional XXIV Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. after furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused persons. The same was numbered as SC No.1014/2016.
4. The charge was framed against the accused for the offences as alleged against them. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.The prosecution examined five witnesses as PW.1 to 5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.4, and Mos1 to 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has gave up the witnesses CW.8 to 12 as they are repeated police witnesses. The concerned police failed to execute warrant against vital 4 S.C.No.1014/2016 witnesses CW.5 to CW.7, and to keep present before the Court for the purpose of evidence in spite of issuance of NBW and proclamation, and as such the prayer of learned PP was rejected and prosecution side evidence was taken as closed with liberty to examine the said witnesses CW.5 to CW.7, if the concerned police keep them present before the Court, before conclusion of trial.
6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this Court has recorded the statement of accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 to 3 have denied incriminating evidence present against them , and not chosen to lead defense evidence nor submitted anything to Court.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
8.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
5 S.C.No.1014/2016
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 3 indulging in prostitution business at No.1203, Platinum City, O Block, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore City, by trafficking CW.5 to CW.7 into lure and made them to the prostitution, by obtaining house on rent basis in the public vicinity and for illegal gain and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 3 with an intention to run prostitution business by trafficking CW.5 to CW.7 and put them into greed of earning more money in a very easy manner, and asked them to do the prostitution in the aforesaid house and induced them in indulging in prostitution business for wrongful gain, and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable U/s.370 of IPC
3. What Order?
9.This Court findings on the above points are as hereunder:
6 S.C.No.1014/2016
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10.Points No.1 and 2: Both these points are taken up together as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
In order to prove the allegations made against the accused persons, prosecution has examined five witnesses. Among those witnesses, the witness PW.1 and 3 to 5 are police official witnesses, who were conducted raid and proceeded with the investigation. The sole incident witness, PW.2 Hyder Ali is being the signatory to the mahazar has completely turned hostile and thereby not supported the case of the prosecution. Now the question before the Court, whether the police have conducted raid, filed charge sheet by following provisions of ITP Act? Admittedly, the complainant, PW.1 Thanveer being the Police Inspector, CCB, Bangalore, has conducted raid on the basis of the credible information received by him. The evidence of PW.1 Thanveer 7 S.C.No.1014/2016 and PW.3 Tara, WPC No.5217 of Yeshwanthapura P.S., are very similar and both of them have specifically deposed about conducting of raid. The time of raid and spot deposed by both PW.1 and 3 are one and the same. But it is the say of PW.1 that the panchas PW.2 and CW.3 are the residents of Platinum City apartment of House bearing No.510 and 336, so he has secured the said panchas through the police staff. But the witness PW.3 is not aware how many public or who were present at the time of conducting of mahazar. It is no doubt the said witness though part of the alleged team of raid, but she has not specifically deposed some of the important points regarding conducting of raid during the cross-examination. Even if this Court ignores, such portion of the evidence, but PW.1 being the Police Inspector of CCB, W and N Squad, Bangalore, should have comply the important provisions of the Act, such as securing of women pancha from the locality, suppose if not available he would have referred the same in the mahazar. But no such effort has put forth by the said PW.1. So also this Court has not find regarding statement of the neighbors. These two prime factors definitely rebut the evidence of PW.1 and 3. 8 S.C.No.1014/2016
11.It is pertinent to note that the witness PW.4 Krishna, the then Police Inspector, has just filed charge sheet without taking any risk of recording statement or proceed with the investigation till filing of the charge sheet. The evidence of PW.5 Narasimha Murty discloses that after submitting complaint, mahazar, notice and record of reasons along with the seized properties, victim and accused by PW.1 and his team, the witness PW.5 being the Assistant Sub-inspector of Police and not having any powers to register the case and investigate, has registered the FIR, recorded statements of victims and witnesses and also brought the seized properties into PF. It is also noticed from the evidence of PW.5 that he has sent the victims CW.5 to 7 very casually without without following the procedures as prescribed in the ITP Act. Even though he has no power to conduct the investigation, has let the victims free without sending for medical examination by following procedures as prescribed in the ITP Act and also arrested the accused and sent to Judicial Custody. So, the entire procedure carried out by PW.5 from the registration of FIR to till handing over of further investigation witness PW.4 i.e., Police Inspector is 9 S.C.No.1014/2016 completely contrary and opposed to the provisions of ITP Act and the same cannot be considered, as it is not curable lapse on the part of the police. So, there is no continuation of chain link in establishing the allegations against the accused persons. So also, the prime witness CW.4 Shekar, who was alleged to be acted as decai and also the victims CW.5 to CW.7 alleged to involved in the prostitution business at the instigation of accused persons were not examined by the prosecution, it is also fatal to the prosecution. So it is very clear that the prosecution has failed in establishing its case against the accused persons to believe that the accused persons were running prostitution business by wrongfully restraining CW.5 to CW.7, as alleged in the charge sheet. Hence, this court has answered the points No.1 and 2 in the negative.
12. Point No.3: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and 2, this court pass the following:-
ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable 10 S.C.No.1014/2016 U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand canceled.
MO3 being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
MO1, MO2 and MO4 shall be confiscate to the State after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 20 th day of November, 2019) (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.11 S.C.No.1014/2016
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Thanveer P.W.2: Hydeer Ali P.W.3: Tara P.W.4: Krishna.K.L P.W.5: Narasimha Murthy.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Notice to witnesses Ex.P.2: Record of reasons Ex.P.3: Mahazar Ex.P.4: Complaint.
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:-
NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
MO1 and 2:Two Mobile phones
MO3: Condom
MO4: Cash of Rs.2,000/-
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 12 S.C.No.1014/2016 Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 3
shall stand canceled.
MO3 being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
MO1, MO2 and MO4 shall be confiscate to the State after appeal period is over.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)