Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Purushottam S/O Rohidas Kokate on 24 August, 2022
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100373 OF 2018 (A-)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, LOKAPUR POLICE STATION,
DIST: BAGALKOTE, THROUGH THE ADDL.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL SPP.,)
AND:
1. PURUSHOTTAM S/O ROHIDAS KOKATE,
AGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BHADALI, TQ: GHANASAVANAJI,
DIST: JALANA, BHADLI KHURD,
JALNA, KUMBHAR PILPALGAON-431211,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA B.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(3) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
-2-
CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018
ACQUITTAL DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BAGALKOT SIT AT JAMAKHANDI IN S.C.NO.20/2017.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, G
BASAVARAJA, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by State represented by Lokapur Police Station against the accused-respondent is to the judgment of acquittal passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamakhandi, passed in SC.No.20/2017 dated 10/7/2018 whereby, the accused- respondent is acquitted for commission of offences of the charge relatable to offence punishable under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act').
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:
It is alleged that the accused-respondent had brought witnesses CWs.4 to 12 from Madhya Pradesh to Karnataka against their will and assured them to pay more wages and made them to work in the field of CW.17-Shankaragouda -3- CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018 Laxmangouda Patil and CW.19-Shankreppa Basappa Yadahalli from 18/11/2015 to 18/01/2016 as bonded labourers. The accused did not pay any wages to these persons though he had received advance sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the owners of the land and detained them as slaves. Thereby, accused has committed offences punishable under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act. The police have filed charge sheet against the accused and a case in CC.No.1798/2016 is registered before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol for commission of the alleged offences against the accused. On committal of this case to the Sessions Court, a case in SC.No.20/2017 is registered, charge is framed against the accused for the alleged offences and the same is read over and explained to the accused. The accused has pleaded not guilty and has claimed to be tried.
3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and marked 12 documents as EXs.P.1 to 12. On closure of prosecution evidence, the respondent's statement under -4- CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018 Section 313 is recorded, and has accused denied the incriminating circumstances found against him. The accused has not adduced any evidence. However, during the course of evidence of prosecution's witnesses, four documents are marked as Exs.D.1 to 4. On considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present appeal is filed.
4. Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State, submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not property appreciated the evidence of PWs.2 to 4,9, 20, 11 to 14 and has also not considered spot mahazar conducted by the investigating officer; however, only on the basis of minor contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent from the alleged offences and hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
-5-CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018
5. Per contra, Sri.Anwar Bash, learned counsel for the accused-respondent, submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. First of all the prosecution has failed to place the materials regarding commission of the alleged offences punishable under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Before appreciating the evidence putforth by the prosecution, this court must observe that, this pernicious practice of bonded labour has constrained the Indian constitution framers to abolish bonded labour from its root and frame Article 23 of the Constitution which prohibits "traffic in human beings and beggar and other similar forms of forced labour" practiced by any one. The system of bonded labour therefore stand prohibited by Article 23, and in 1976 the Parliament has enacted the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (the Act) providing for the abolition of bonded labour system with a -6- CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018 view to preventing the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker sections of the people. It is a socio-welfare legislation for the weaker section of the society, and hence the burden of proof lies upon the employer to show that the labourer is not a bonded labourer and there lies no forced labour. The Courts will be justified in presuming that a labourer is a bonded labourer unless the presumption is rebutted by producing satisfactory material.
7. "Bonded Labour System" is defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act:
"2 (g) "bonded labour system" means the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that,
(i) in consideration of an advance obtained by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants (whether or not such advance is evidenced by any document) and in consideration of the interest, if any, on such advance, or
(ii) in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or -7- CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018
(iii) in pursuance of an obligation devolving on him by succession, or
(iv) for any economic consideration received by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants, or
(v) by reason of his birth in any particular caste or community, he would--
(1) render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person dependent on him, labour or service to the creditor, or for the benefit of the creditor, for a specified period or for an unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal wages, or (2) forfeit the freedom of employment or other means of livelihood for a specified period or for an unspecified period, or (3) forfeit the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, or (4) forfeit the right to appropriate or sell at market value any of his property or product of his labour or the labour of a member of his family or any person dependent on him, and includes the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under 3 which a surety for a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that in the event of the failure of the debtor to repay the debt, he would render the bonded labour on behalf of the debtor;-8- CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018
[Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any system of forced, or partly forced labour under which any workman being contract labour as defined in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), or an inter-State migrant workman as defined in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Inter- State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (30 of 1979), is required to render labour or service in circumstances of the nature mentioned in sub- clause (1) of this clause or is subjected to all or any of the disabilities referred to in sub-clauses (2) to (4), is "bonded labour system" within the meaning of this clause."]
8. In order to attract provision of Section 16 of the Act, there must be compulsions on a person to render bonded labour. The provisions reads as hereunder:
Sec.16. Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour. --Whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees -9- CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018
9. In order to attract provision of Section 17 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish there was existence of bonded labour system that after commencement of this act, and a bonded debt advanced. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act reads as hereunder:
Sec.17. Punishment for advancement of bonded debt. - Whoever advances, after the commencement of this Act, any bonded debt shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
10. In order to attract provision of Section 18 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that, after the commencement of this act, bonded labour system is continued because of any custom or tradition or contract or agreement or other instrument. The provision of Section 18 of the Act reads as hereunder:
Sec.18. Punishment for extracting bonded labour under the bonded labour system.-- Whoever enforces, after the commencement of this Act, any custom, tradition, contract, agreement or other instrument, by virtue of which any person or any member of the family of such person or any dependent of such person is required to render any
- 10 -CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018
service under the bonded labour system, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees; and, out of the fine, if recovered, payment shall be made to the bonded labourer at the rate of rupees five for each day for which the bonded labour was extracted from him.
11. In order to bring home the case under Section 370 of IPC, the prosecution shall prove the trafficking of persons purpose of exploitation.
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 practising 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 recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking."
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018
12. It is just and proper, after meticulously going through the evidence, to check, whether the prosecution had successfully brought out the ingredients of the alleged offences by cogent evidence are not. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused-respondent had brought the witness PWs.4 to 12 from Madhya Pradesh to Karnataka against their will and assured them to pay more wages and made them to work in the field of CW.17 - Shankaragouda Laxmangouda Patil and CW.19-Shankreppa Basappa Yadahalli from 18/11/2015 to 18/01/2016 as bonded laborers without paying wages though he had received advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the owners of the land and detained them as slaves.
13. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence placed by the prosecution, it is crystal and clear that absolutely there are no material to show that there was a relationship of creditor and debtor between labourer and employer. CW.18- Shankaragouda Laxmangouda Patil is examined as PW.9 and CW.19-Shankreppa Basappa Yadahalli is examined as PW.10. They depose that they have paid amount of
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018 Rs.6,50,000/- as an advance amount to bring coolies. The said coolies have worked for two months under them and asked payment, then they have said that they have paid amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the accused. Thereafter, the Police came and took the coolies and on the next day, they went the Police Station. This evidence reveals that the accused is not an employer and he is not having any land in his name. The pahani extract produced by the prosecution Ex.P.12 reveals that pahani extract is not standing in the name of the accused. The case of the prosecution itself clearly discloses that the accused was not an employer, however, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the ingredients of the Section 370 IPC and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour Act are squarely absent and these provisions have no application to the facts of the present case.
14. The fundamental difference between the employment with bondage and employment without any bondage is that a labourer does not have an opportunity to
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018 leave the employment without the permission of the employer in the former, whereas the labourer has the opportunity to leave the employment without the permission of the employer in the latter. Though the victims have worked in the field of CW.17-Shankaragouda Laxmangouda Patil and CW.19-Shankreppa Basappa Yadahalli from 18/11/2015 to 18/01/2016, their statements would not disclose that they were kept in bondage or that the accused had withheld the earnings of the victims or had advanced any amount to them or extracted work from them forcibly or exploited them to his advantage. Hence, the offences under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 are not attracted against the accused. The Investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against this accused for the alleged offences which is not sustainable in law.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for offences punishable under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act.. The
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100373 of 2018 learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of the evidence on record has passed the impugned judgment and therefore, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present leave to appeal fails. The appeal filed by the appellant-State is dismissed and the impugned judgment passed in SC.No.20/2017, dated 10/7/2018 by the I Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamakhandi is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE VB