Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka Police Station vs No. : 3. Venkatesh on 23 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 23rd day of SEPTEMBER 2017
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.11596/2012
Complainant : State by Yelahanka Police station
(By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 3. Venkatesh,
R/at No.34/1, 16th Cross,
1st Main Road,
Near Maruthi Temple,
Maruthi Nagar, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru.
(Case against accused No.1 and 2 is split up)
(By Sri. R.R. Upadhya, advocate )
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Yelahanka Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act.
2 C.C.No.11596/2012
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, on 04/01/2012 at about 3.30 p.m. in the afternoon, C.W. 1 Sri. E. Kenchegowda conducted raid on the receipt of credible information that, accused persons are indulged in prostitution in house bearing No.34/1, situated at 16th cross, 1st Main Road, Maruthi Nagar, within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station, found them in the said place. On the basis of report given by C.W. 1, this case came to be registered against accused persons.
During the course of investigation I.O visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, seized item No.1 to 5 and subjected the same under P.F. No.4/2012, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.3 is on bail and he is represented through his counsel. Inspite of sufficient efforts, accused No.1 and 2 were not secured before this court. Hence, case against them is split up.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to accused No.3 as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The 3 C.C.No.11596/2012 cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to accused No.3 in the language known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined two witnesses as P.W. 1 and 2 and got marked four documents at Ex.P.1 to P.4 and five material objects at M.O. 1 to 5.
7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused No.3 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein he has denied the incriminating evidence adduced against him and he has not chosen to lead his side defense evidence. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 04/01/2012 at about 3.30 p.m. in the afternoon, C.W. 1 Sri. E. Kenchegowda conducted raid on the 4 C.C.No.11596/2012 receipt of credible information that, accused persons are indulged in prostitution in house bearing No.34/1, situated at 16th cross, 1st Main Road, Maruthi Nagar, within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station, found them in the said place and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act?
2. What Order?
10.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
11. Point No.1: In this case, the accused No. 3 has been
alleged of illegally indulging himself in prostitution business along with split up accused No.1 and 2.
12. The prosecution in order to establish its case, has examined one official witnesses who has deposed about the conducting raid, apprehending accused persons, conducting mahazars, seizing of cash, mobile phone and condom packets. In support of evidence of the official witness, material independent witnesses have not been examined. Therefore, much credibility cannot be attached to the evidence of this witness in the absence of evidence of independent 5 C.C.No.11596/2012 witnesses. Moreover, on perusal of final report it can be seen that, PSI has conducted investigation in contravention of the provisions of Prohibition of Immoral Trafficking Act.
13. In addition, owner of the aforesaid house where alleged prostitution business being conducted, is examined as P.W. 2, wherein he has completely turned hostile to the prosecution case, not deposed anything against accused No.3 and thereby not supported the case of prosecution. As such, evidence of this witness also does not come to the aid of prosecution in establishing the alleged offences against accused No.3.
14. That apart, due to non-securance of mahazar witnesses and other material witnesses before this court, evidence of I.O. becomes strength less. Under such circumstances, this court cannot hold accused No.3 as guilty minded person.
15. More over, sufficient opportunity was given to secure remaining witnesses. It is to be noted that, this court has issued summons and warrants in order to secure the witnesses. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities none of them i.e. C.W. 3 to 10 and 12 have not been secured before this court. Hence, they have been 6 C.C.No.11596/2012 discharged from deposing evidence. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of accused No.3.
16. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against accused No.3 with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
17.Point No.2: In view of the negative findings on the above point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.3 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act.
The bail & bail bond of the accused No.3 and surety shall stands cancelled.
M.O.1 to 5 are ordered to be retained until disposal of split up case against accused No.1 and 2.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of September 2017).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.7 C.C.No.11596/2012
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: E. Kenche Gowda P.W. 2: Rajanna.A.
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Record of reason Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.2 : Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.3 : Report Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.4 : Statement of P.W. 2
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION M.O.1 : Rs.500/- note M.O.2&3 : Nokia mobiles M.O.4&5 : Two condoms (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.8 C.C.No.11596/2012
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.3 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act.
The bail & bail bond of the accused No.3 and surety shall stands cancelled.
M.O.1 to 5 are ordered to be retained until disposal of split up case against accused No.1 and 2.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.9 C.C.No.11596/2012