Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Shivakumar Jain on 11 March, 2020
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
1
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 11 th Day of March, 2020
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 558/2018
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Puttenahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Shivakumar Jain,
S/o. Atmaram Bhauvalal, 56 years,
R/at. No.59, 10th Main, 15th Cross,
Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-560 030.
ACCUSED No.2 Rajubai Banjara,
S/o. Gepar Ramji, 24 years,
R/at Madan Singh's House, 2nd Cross,
Near Aradhana School,
Arakere MICO Layout,
J.P. Nagar 7th Stage,
Bengaluru.
Sri.E.T.D. Advocate
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
2
1 Date of commission of offence 01-02-2017 to
28-06-2017
2 Date of report of occurrence 28-06-2017
3 Date of arrest of A-1
Date of release of A- ON BAIL
Period undergone in custody by A-1
Date of arrest of A-2 29-06-2017
Date of release of A-2 11-07-2017
Period undergone in custody by A-2 12 days
4 Date of commencement of evidence 20-09-2019
5 Date of closing of evidence 03-02-2020
6 Name of the complainant Seema Diwan
7 Offences complained of Sec.370(4) r/w. 34-
IPC & Sec.75, 79-
J.J. Act & Sec.3,
14 C.L. Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 and
2are acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
J UD GM EN T
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector of
Puttenahalli Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused No.1
and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370(4) read
with 34 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition
and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
3
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the
prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused No.1 is running a cloth shop in the name and
style of J.R. Dresses at No.521, 2nd Cross, Govindappa Reddy
Layout, MICO Layout, Arekere within the limits of Puttenahalli
Police Station, Bengaluru. The Accused No.2 who is known to
him, brought Cw.2-minor boy, his relative and son of Cw.4-
Leela Devi viz., by way of human trafficking from Rajasthan
and left the said boy in the Cloth shop of accused No.1 as a
labour and in turn the accused No.1 extracting work from the
said boy for long hours without paying salary and also given
mental and physical torture while extracting work from him. On
the basis of complaint lodged by Cw.1-complainant-Seema
Diwan-President of Talaash Association, the Police registered
the case against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.248/2017
for the offences punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C, Section
3 Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and
Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
4
Children) Act, 2015.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the
offences punishable under Section 370(4) read with 34 of I.P.C,
Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986 and Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Thereafter, after filing the
charge sheet, as usual the accused No.1 and 2 appeared before
the Court. The copy of charge sheet furnished to accused No.1
and 2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter
the learned advocate for accused No.1 and 2 submitted that
there is no argument before framing charge and requested to
frame charge. As a result the charges were framed, the
contents of charge read over and explained to the accused No.1
and 2 in Kannada and they pleaded not guilty and submits
crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.1 and
2 was set down for prosecution evidence.
4. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
5
accused No.1 and 2 has examined 5 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.5,
got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and closed its side
evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the
accused No. 1 and 2, they are examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., by recording their statement. The accused No.1 and 2
denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against
them as false. Earlier to that the accused No.1 and 2 complied
the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., by executing personal
bond and surety bond. Thereafter arguments heard from both
the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
5. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and
arguments submitted by both sides, the following points that
arise for my consideration are as under:-
1.1£Éà DgÉÆæ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÀÅmÉÖãÀºÀ½î ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀĪÀ
CgÀPÉgÉ ªÉÄÊPÉÆïÉÃOmï, UÉÆëAzÀ¥Àà gÉrØ ¯ÉÃOmï, 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï, £ÀA 521gÀ°è
eÉ.Dgï.qÉæ¸À¸ï JA§ §mÉÖ CAUÀrAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ ಆತನಗಗÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÀÝ 2£ÉÃ
DgÉÆæ ತನನ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀ£ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-4 ²æêÀÄw °Ã¯ÁzÉëgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÁQë-2
CdÄð£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌ£ÉAzÀÄ w½¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ gÁdåªÁzÀ
gÁd¸ÁÜ£À¢AzÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è
PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj¹ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.370(4) ಸಹವವಚಕ ಕಲಲ.34gÀ
CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
2. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ತರರ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
6
GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ gÁd¸ÁÜ£À¢AzÀ PÀgÉvÀA¢zÀÝ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀ
¸ÁQë-2 CdÄð£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï£À£ÀÄß 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ತನನ §mÉÖ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è
CPÀæªÀĪÁV PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ElÖÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀ¤AzÀ 12 UÀAmÉVAvÀ®Æ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁ®
zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀ¤µÀ× ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉà ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤Ãr
¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 14 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß
J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ
¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
3. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ತರರ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À
GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ gÁd¸ÁÜ£À¢AzÀ CPÀæªÀĪÁV PÀgÉvÀA¢zÀÝ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ
ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀ ¸ÁQë-2 CdÄð£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï£À£ÀÄß 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ತನನ §mÉÖ
CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ £ÉëĹPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀ¤AzÀ 12 UÀAmÉUÀÆ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁ®
CªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀĪÁV zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÀ®A.75gÀ
ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü ¤AiÀĪÀÄ PÁ¬ÄÝ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß
J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ
¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
4. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ತರರ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À
GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ gÁd¸ÁÜ£À¢AzÀ PÀgÉvÀA¢zÀÝ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀ
¸ÁQë-2 CdÄð£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï£À£ÀÄß 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ತನನ §mÉÖ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è
CPÀæªÀĪÁV PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ £ÉëĹPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀ¤AzÀ 12 UÀAmÉVAvÀ®Æ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁ®
zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀ¤µÀ× ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉà ಆತನ ದರಡಮಯಲದ ಲವಭ
ಮವಡಕಗಕಲಡರ PÀ®A.795gÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü ¤AiÀĪÀÄ PÁ¬ÄÝ CrAiÀÄ°è
²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
5. AiÀÄÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: In the Negative.
Point No.5: As per the final orders for the following:
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
7
RE AS ON S
7. Point No.1 to 4:- As these points are inter-related
one, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in
order to avoid repetition of reasons.
8. In order to prove the alleged offences against the
accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution has examined in all 5
witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.5, got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P6 and this Court perused the same. As per the prosecution
case, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.2 is the victim boy, Pw.3 is
the mother of victim boy, Pw.4 is independent Panch witness
and Pw.5 is the police office and Investigating Officer. Hence,
this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of
said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the alleged offences
against the accused No.1 and 2.
9. In order to establish the alleged offences against
accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution is required to prove that
the accused No.1 is running a cloth shop in the name and style
of J.R. Dresses at No.521, 2 nd Cross, Govindappa Reddy Layout,
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
8
MICO Layout, Arekere within the limits of Puttenahalli Police
Station, Bengaluru. The Accused No.2 who is known to
him,Cw.2-minor boy, brought his relative and son of Cw.4-
Leela Devi viz., by way of human trafficking from Rajasthan
and left the said boy in the Cloth shop of accused No.1 as a
labour and in turn the accused No.1 extracting work from the
said boy for long ours without paying salary and also given
mental and physical torture while extracting work from him and
thereby the accused No.1 and 2 committed offences punishable
under Section 370(4) read with 34 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and
Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.
10. Before venturing into scan the available material
evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition
of offences under Section 370(4) read with 34 of I.P.C, Section 3
and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
and Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
9
of Children) Act, 2015.
Section 370(4) of I.P.C defines that:
Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor-it
shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which shall
not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 3 of The Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, 1986 defines that:
Prohibition of employment of children in any
occupation and process:
(1) No child shall be employed or permitted to work in
any occupation of process.
(2) Nothing in sub-section(a) shall apply where the
child,-(a)helps his family or family enterprise, which is other
than any hazardous occupations or process set forth in the
Schedule, after his school hours or during vacations;
Section 14 of The Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, 1986 defines that:
Penalties.-:
(1) Whoever employs any child or permits any child to
work in contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than three months but which may extend to one year or
with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but
which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both..
(2)Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under
section 3, commits a like offence afterwards, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months but which may extend to two years.
(3)Whoever,
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
10
(a) fails to give notice as required by section 9; or
(b) fails to maintain a register as required by section 11
or makes any false entry in any such register; or
(c) fails to display a notice containing an abstract
section 3 and this section as required by section 12;
or
(d)fails to comply with or contravenes any other
provisions of this Act or the rules made there under,
Shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may
extend to one month of with fine which may extend to ten
thousand rupees or with both.
Section 75 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Punishment for cruelty to child:-Whoever, having the
actual charge of or control over, assaults, abandons, exposes
or willfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to
be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a
manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or
physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years, or with fine of one
lakh rupees or with both.
Section 79 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Exploitation of child employee-whoever ostensibly
engages a child and keeps him in bondage for the purpose of
employment or withholds his earnings or uses such earning
for his own purpose shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years also
be liable to fine of one lakh rupees.
With these observations, now left with the available
material evidence to consider whether the facts and
circumstances of the case and given evidence attracts the
definitions of above said sections to believe alleged offences
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
11
against accused No.1 and 2 has to be looked into or it
probabalises the defense of the accused No.1 and 2.
11. By going through the evidence of Pw.1 the
complainant by name Seema Diwan, she has deposed that she
is the President of Talaash Association, she has not seen the
accused No.1 and 2. On 28-06-2017 she has seen the victim
boy working at cloth shop by name J.R. Dresses run by 1 st
accused. She has intimated the same to the police by filing
complaint as per Ex.P1 and rescued the said boy from the
exploitation of the accused No.1. Except that she has not stated
anything against accused No.2.
12. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 and 2
tested her veracity by elicitating some commission and omission
and also taken defence that the victim boy was not working as a
child labour in the cloth shop of accused No.1 and he is the
relative of accused No.2, due to summer vacation he came along
with his relatives to see Bengaluru, since the accused No.2
known to the accused No.1, the victim boy came near the shop,
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
12
except that he has not worked as child labour as per the case of
prosecution, for that she has denied the same. Since this
witness is interested witness though she has supported the case
of prosecution by way of giving corroborative evidence, but at
the same time it has to be looked through the evidence victim
boy and other independent witnesses supported the evidence of
this witness and the case of prosecution to come to a conclusion
of commission of offence by the accused No.1 and 2 as per the
case of prospection.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Arjun Kumar-
the victim boy he has deposed that he is permanent resident of
Bolathra Village, Pasibadra Tahasil, Bodmaire District
Rajasthan State. He is not doing any work, he is residing in his
village, once he came to Bangalore to see the Bengaluru, except
that he doesn't know anything about the case. He know the
accused No.1 and 2, accused No.2 is his in-law and accused
No.1 is the friend of accused No.2. At no point of time he was
working under accused No.1, he doesn't know anything about
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
13
the case, the accused persons have not created any problem to
him.
14. The material witness and victim boy turned hostile
to the case of prosecution and the prosecution cross-examined
him by suggesting that the accused No.1 has taken him as
Labour to his Cloth shop and extracting work from 09.00a.m.,
to 09.00 p.m., causing ill-treatment both physically and
mentally and also his salary is received by the accused No.2
being his in-law and he was working since from 4 months as on
the date of raiding of the police, as per the complaint of
complainant the President of Talash Association and he has
given his statement as per Ex.P2, for that this witness denied
the same. His definite answer is he has not worked under
accused No.1 as child labour and the accused No.1 not
exploited him and he has not given any statement as per
Ex.P2. Through this witness the prosecution failed to prove
alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
14
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Leela Devi-
the mother of victim boy and sister of accused No.2, she has
deposed in support of evidence of Pw.2-the victim boy regarding
their residence, relationship with accused No.2 and victim boy.
She has also deposed that the victim boy came along with
accused No.2 to see Bengaluru, during his vacation. When her
son was in the shop of the friend of accused No.2, the police
came and lodged this case. At no point of time her son-the
victim boy worked as child labour in the cloth shop of accused
No.1. The victim boy is in her village and she has not joined her
son to work in the cloth shop of accused No.1. There is no
problem to her son from anybody. This witness also turned
hostile to the case of prosecution and the prosecution suggested
each and every word of Ex.P3, for that she has denied the same
and her definite answer is she has not given any statement as
per Ex.P3 before police. Through the evidence of Pw.3, the
prosecution failed to corroborate its case against accused No.1
and 2.
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
15
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Dilip, he has
deposed that he has not seen the accused No.1 and 2 earlier
and for the first time he saw them today before the Court.
Ex.P4(a) is his signature, but he doesn't know anything about
Ex.P4. Further he has deposed that he doesn't know the
contents of Ex.P4 and also he doesn't know the case of
prosecution, he has not seen the cloth shop of accused No.1.
Since this witness also turned hostile to the process of
conducting Mahazar as per Ex.P4 on 29-06-2017 at about
09.30a.m., near the shop of accused No.1, due to engaging of
child as labour in his cloth shop up to 10.30p.m, and obtained
his signature there itself, for that he has denied the same. His
definite stand is no such process of Mahazar conducted by the
police before him. Through the evidence of this witness also the
prosecution failed to prove alleged offences against accused
No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-K.
Shivalingaiah-P.S.I., he has deposed that on 28-06-2017, he
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
16
was the SHO of the station, the complainant came at about
02.00p.m, and lodged the complainant as per Ex.P1. He has
verified the same and registered the case in Crime No.248/2017
under section 370 of IPC, section 3 of Child Labour Prohibition
Act and Section 75 and 79 of J.J. Act, 2015 and entered the
Shara and signed as per Ex.P1(b). Further he has deposed that
on the basis of said complaint, he has prepared FIR as per
Ex.P5 and submitted the same to the Court. Further he has
deposed that on the very same day, he has recorded the
statement of Cw.2, Cw.3, Cw.11 and Cw.12. Here Cw.2 is the
victim boy, but he has not supported the case of prosecution
and his definite answer is that he has not given any statement
as per Ex.P2 and on the same day he has send the victim boy to
Balakara Bala Mandira along with requisition.
18. Further Pw.5 deposed that on 29-06-2016 Pw.12 has
arrested the accused No.2 produced before him at about
02.00p.m. He has arrested him and recorded his voluntary
statement. Here the complainant/Pw.1 not whispered anything
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
17
against accused No.2. In her evidence, even she has deposed
that she has not seen accused No.1 and 2 earlier. The Panch
witness-Pw.4 also not supported the process of conducting
Mahazar by this witness. This witness also recorded the
statement of Cw.4 and Cw.5, but they have not stepped into
witness box to give their evidence. He has sent the police
personnel for receiving of age certificate of the victim boy On 13-
07-2017 he has recorded the statement of Cw.4 as per Ex.P3,
but Cw.4 as Pw.3 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He
has received age certificate as per Ex.P6 and filed charge sheet
against accused No1 and 2 after closing of investigation and
also identified accused No.1 before Court. The accused persons
tested the veracity of the evidence of this witness by eliciting
some commission and omission, except denial suggestion
nothing has been elicited favourable to their defense. Since the
complainant not identified the accused No.1 and 2, the victim
boy and his mother i.e., -Pw.2 and Pw.3 not corroborated the
case of prosecution and Pw.4 turned hostile to the case of
prosecution, at this stage, this Court opines the evidence of this
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
18
witness is a formal one.
19. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences
against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The
defense of the accused No.1 and 2 and the facts and
circumstances of the case including materials on record
discussed above probablizes the defense of the accused No.1
and 2 rather than the case of the prosecution.
20. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.5 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P6, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is
insufficient to prove that the accused No.1 is running a cloth
shop in the name and style of J.R. Dresses at No.521, 2 nd Cross,
Govindappa Reddy Layout, MICO Layout, Arekere within the
limits of Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, the Accused
No.2 who is known to him, brought Cw.2-minor boy, his relative
and son of Cw.4-Leela Devi viz., by way of human trafficking
from Rajasthan and left the said boy in the Cloth shop of
Spl.C.C.No.558/2018
19
accused No.1 as a labour and in turn the accused No.1
extracting work from the said boy for long hours without paying
salary and also given mental and physical torture while
extracting work from him and thereby committed offences
punishable under Section 370(4) read with 34 of I.P.C, Section
3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
and Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt.
Consequently, I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
21. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and
discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused No.1 and
2 are entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final
result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 370(4) read with 34 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 75 and 79 of Spl.C.C.No.558/2018 20 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11 th Day of March, 2020) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AN NE XU RE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Seema Diwan Cw.1 20-09-2019 Pw.2 Arjun Kumar Cw.2 08-01-2020 Pw.3 Leela Devi Cw.4 08-01-2020 Pw.4 Dilip Cw.9 08-01-2020 Pw.5 K.Shivalingaiah Cw.13 03-02-2020 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 20-09-2019 Ex.P 2 Statement of Pw.2 Pw.2 08-01-2020 Ex.P 3 Statement of Pw.3 Pw.3 08-01-2020 Ex.P 4 Mahazar Pw.9 08-01-2020 Spl.C.C.No.558/2018 21 Ex.P 5 FIR Pw.4 03-02-2020 Ex.P 6 Age estimation Pw.4 03-02-2020 certificate of Pw.2 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-NIL-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE