Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Siraj Ahmed .............Split Up ... on 23 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 23rd Day of August 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 589/2014
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By R.M.C. Yard Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Siraj Ahmed .............Split up in
C.C.No.33085/2014
ACCUSED No.2 Baccha Ansari @ Bassyabhai @ Basha,
S/o. Jahir Ansari, 42 years,
R/at. Lakshmipur, Thana-Chiraiya
Motihar District,
Bihar State.
Sri.T.A.-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 06-08-2014
2 Date of report of occurrence 06-08-2014
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.2 06-08-2014
Date of release of Accused No.2 27-12-2014
Period undergone in custody 21 days &
by Accused No.2 4 months
4 Date of commencement of evidence 20-01-2016
2 Spl.C.C.589/2014
5 Date of closing of evidence 27-07-2017
6 Name of the complainant Ayesha
7 Offences complained of Section 370- IPC
Sec.3, 14 Child
Labour & Sec.23,
26-J.J. Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.2 is
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector, R.M.C. Yard Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act.
2. Initially the charge sheet is filed by showing the accused No.1 as absconding and the committal Court committed case against accused No.2-Baccha Ansari @ Bassayabhai @ Basha. Hence, this case proceeded against accused No.2 only.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
3 Spl.C.C.589/2014 The accused No.1 was having Regzion Bag manufacturing unit in the name of 'Super Products' at No.4-6/36, Tumkur Road, RMC Yard, Yeswanthapura, Bengaluru and he brought Cw.2 and Cw.3-Saroj and Rustaj-who are minor boys from Nepal by influencing them to give more salary and extracting work from them under the supervision of the accused No.2 and the accused No.2 knowing fully well that Cw.2 and Cw.3 are minor forcibly extracted work from them and illegally detained them in a room without providing basic necessities to them and without payment of salary. On the basis of complaint lodged by Police Inspector-AHTU-CID Unit, Bengaluru viz., Ayesha, the Police registered the case against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act.
4. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet, 4 Spl.C.C.589/2014 the case against the accused No.1 was splitted up in C.C.No. 33085/2014. The accused No.2 was in judicial custody, he was produced before Committal Court, the Committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to accused No.2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Committal Court passed an order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bengaluru, since the victims are minors and the said case is exclusively triable by the Child Court and in turn the said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
5. After receiving the record by this Court, the accused No.2 was produced from judicial custody, thereafter he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the learned advocate for accused No.2 submitted that there is no arguments before framing charge and requested to frame charge. As a result the charge was framed against accused No.2, the contents of charge read over and explained in Hindi by translating Kannada version to the accused No.2. The accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and submit crimes to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.2 was set down for prosecution evidence.
5 Spl.C.C.589/2014
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused No.2 has examined 9 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.9, got marked as many as 4 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the accused No.2, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused No.2 denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. The accused No.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.
7. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. vÀ¯É ªÀÄgɹPÉÆArgÀĪÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ Dgï.JA.¹. AiÀiÁqïð ¸Àgº À ¢À £ Ý ,À vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸A ÉÛ iÀÄ £ÀA.4-6/36gÀ RÄzÀƸ Ý ï ©°ØAUï£À°è ¸ÀÆ¥Àgï ¥ÁæqÀPïÖì ºÉ¸j À £À gÉQì£ï ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄ,Ý 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ¸Àzj À ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÉÃdgï DVzÀÄ,Ý ¢£ÁAPÀB06-08-2014PÉÌ 2 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ vÀ¯É ªÀÄgɹPÉÆArgÀĪÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ-ZÁ¸Á.2-¸ÀgÉÆÃeï-12 ªÀµð À , ZÁ¸Á.3-
gÀĸïvÁeï-13 ªÀµð À EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £ÉÃ¥Á¼À¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ ¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁr PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¨sÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀz° À è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.370 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÀ ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
6 Spl.C.C.589/2014
2. 2£Éà DgÉÆæ, ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Ü À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ¢A ü iÀÄ°è vÀ¯É ªÀÄgɹPÉÆArgÀĪÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ PÀ¼Àî ¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀgv É AÀ zÀ ZÁ¸Á.2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á.3-C¥Áæ¥À¨ Û Á®PÀg£À ÀÄß ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¨sÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ WÀlPÀz° À è ««zÀs PÉ®¸ÀU½ À UÉ £ÉëĹPÉÆAqÀÄ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀÆr¹PÉƼÀÄîwz Û ÀÄ,Ý CªÀg£ À ÄÀ ß J®Æè ºÉÆgÀUq À É PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀzÃÉ ¤UÀ¢vü À CªÀ¢V ü AvÀ ºÉZÁÑV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄ,Ý ¢£ÁAPÀB06-08-2014gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 1-20 UÀAmÉUÉ CªÀjAzÀ PÀµÀÖPÀgª À ÁzÀ PÉ®¸Àª£ À ÀÄß ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï ¨ÁåUï, ®UÉÃeï ¨ÁåUïUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹ PÀ®A 3 ¸À»vÀ PÀ®A 14 ZÉʯïØ ¯Éçgï (¥Á滩µÀ£ï CAqï gÉUÀÄå¯ÉõÀ£ï) DPïÖ gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
3. 2£Éà DgÉÆæ, ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸À¼ Ü À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ¢Aü iÀÄ°è, ZÁ¸Á ZÁ¸Á.2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á.3 gÀªj À AzÀ C¢üPÀ ªÉÃ¼É PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹ PÉƼÀÄîwzÛ ÀÄ,Ý J°èAiÀÄÆ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ©qÀz,É ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ Hl §mÉÖUÀ¼£À ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV £ÉÄÁÃrPÉƼÀîzÃÉ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV £Àg¼ À ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁr zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr 23 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
8. 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: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3:- As these points are inter-related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to 7 Spl.C.C.589/2014 avoid repetition of reasons.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.2, the prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.9, got marked 4 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
11. As per the prosecution case, Pw.3 is the complainant, Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.4 to Pw.7 are the raiding team members, Pw.8 is the person who registered the case and conducted investigation and filed charge sheet and Pw.9 is the NGO. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused No.2.
12. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.2, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.1 was having Regzion Bag manufacturing unit in the name of 'Super Products' at No.4-6/36, Tumkur Road, RMC Yard, Yeswanthapura, Bengaluru, he brought Cw.2 and Cw.3-Saroj and Rustaj-who are minor boys from Nepal by influencing them to give more salary and extracting work from 8 Spl.C.C.589/2014 them under the supervision of the accused No.2, the accused No.2 knowing fully well that Cw.2 and Cw.3 are minor forcibly extracted work from them and illegally detained them in a room without providing basic necessities to them and without payment of salary and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act. Hence this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the above said ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 370 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act.
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
9 Spl.C.C.589/2014
Secondly-using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly -by abduction, or Fourthly -by practicing 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.
Section 23 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Punishment for cruelty to juvenile of child:-Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.
Section 26 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Exploitation of Juvenile or child employee-whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years 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:
10 Spl.C.C.589/2014 (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,
(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.
By going through the facts, circumstances and available materials both at oral and documentary, it is just and proper to consider the available material evidence attracts the very 11 Spl.C.C.589/2014 ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability against accused No.2.
14. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Ayesha-Police Inspector-the complainant in her chief examination she has supported to the case of prosecution and also she has deposed about rescue of Cw.2 and Cw.3, conducting mahazar as per Ex.P1 and her signature is Ex.P1(c). She has given report by way of complaint as per Ex.P2 and her signature is Ex.P2(a). Earlier to that her senior officer received complaint from APSA Child Line as per Ex.P3. But it is her evidence at the time the accused No.1-Siraj Ahmad brought the child labours, but no evidence given by her against accused No.2 in her chief examination itself.
15. The accused No.2 tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. At the same time, she has admitted that no such document seized at the time of raid pertains to the accused No.2 in respect of that he was the Manager of the said bag 12 Spl.C.C.589/2014 manufacturing unit and under his supervision Cw.2 and Cw.3 are working. Even no such documents seized to show the accused No.2 was present at the time of the alleged raid. Unless and until produces independent witnesses evidence, in corroboration of the evidence of this witness, it is not safe to accept the alleged offences against accused No.2.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Roopa-APSA Social worker, she has also deposed in her chief examination in support of the case of prosecution. She has deposed that the person who was before the Court was Siraj Ahmad, whereas the accused before the Court was not Siraj Ahmad, but he is Bacchan Ansari-the accused No.2 herein. She has also admitted Ex.P1(a) is her signature.
17. The accused No.2 cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also tested her veracity in respect of alleged offences against accused No.2. Further it is relevant to note the prosecution not produced the evidence of Cw.2 and Cw.3 in corroboration of the evidence of this witness. When such being the case, it is not safe to accept 13 Spl.C.C.589/2014 the alleged offences against this witness to believe the offences against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. She has also deposed that she doesn't know where the mahazar was written, whether in the spot itself or in the police station. Further she can't remember to say about writing of mahazar in the station and signing the said mahazar in the station itself. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, there is doubt of presence of this witness at the time of alleged raid alleged to have been conducted by Pw.3.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Mubeena- WPC, she has deposed in her chief examination in respect of the case of the prosecution. According to her, at the time of raid, one Basha was supervising the said unit, but at the same time the prosecution has not placed any corroborative documents to show whether Basha is the accused No.2, non-production of material documents, it is absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution. The accused cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that immediately after receiving information, the complainant not lodged any complaint before the concerned police. Further she 14 Spl.C.C.589/2014 was tested the nature of the building and its salient features, for that she has shown her ignorance. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, there is a doubt of accompanying of this witness to the alleged raid.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Gunasheela, she has deposed favourable to the case of the prosecution in her chief examination and her signature is Ex.P1(d), but the prosecution through this witness not identified the accused No.2 before Court. In the cross-examination the accused No.2 tested her veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited earlier to raid, no such complaint was lodged before police. Further she has shown her ignorance as to what work was done by the accused No.2 during the time of alleged raid, for that she has shown her ignorance. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that unless and until the prosecution produces through the independent witnesses corroborative and cogent evidence and also the evidence of child labour, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness beyond all reasonable doubt.
15 Spl.C.C.589/2014
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-K.G.Mukund- Labour Officer, he has deposed that he accompanied with the alleged raid, conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1 and his signature is Ex.P1(e). According to him one Basha brought the said children from Nepal, but here the prosecution has not produced any documents to show the very Basha is the accused No.2 to believe the alleged involvement of accused No.2 in this offence. The accused No.2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and denied each and every word, whatever he has stated in his chief examination by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that it is quite natural being Labour Officer, he has to support to the case of prosecution. At the same time no such independent witnesses evidence and child labours evidence placed by the prosecution to believe the evidence of this witness against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Nemiraj- C.P.I., he has deposed about the alleged raid conducted on 06- 08-2014 in his chief examination and his signature is Ex.P1(e). He has also deposed that one Siraj Ahmed brought said 16 Spl.C.C.589/2014 children saying that he is going to give good salary to them. He has also deposed about taking custody of Basha, but accused No.2's name is otherwise. In order to prove the very Basha is accused No.2, no such documents or evidence produced by the prosecution, being no such defense evidence and also child labour evidence produced to believe the accused No.2 is the said person. The accused No.2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and commission and also denied the alleged offences against accused No.2 by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. He has also admitted that if any order is given to CBI or COD, then only they are going to start their investigation, otherwise they are not going to conduct any investigation. He has also admitted that earlier to raid, he has not given any information to the concerned police. At this stage, this Court opines the evidence of this witness is also a formal one.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-Chandra Kala-Police Inspector, she has deposed favourable to the case of prosecution in her chief examination and it is her evidence that they have taken custody of one Basha and two children, 17 Spl.C.C.589/2014 conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1 and her signature is Ex.P1(f). On enquiry with the owner of house, one Siraj Ahmed was the owner and he brought the said children. This witness was also cross-examined by accused No.2 by eliciting some commission and omission and except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.2 herein. At this stage, the evidence of this witness is also a formal one.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-H.Nagaraju- Retired P.S.I., he has deposed that he has received complaint as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a) on 06-08-2014, prepared FIR as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(a) and also recorded statement of witnesses as voluntary statement of accused and produced him before Court on 07-08-2014 and he has filed charge sheet against accused persons. In the cross- examination he has admitted that he has not sent the victim boys for medical examination to know their age. He has recorded the statement of victim boys. He has not contacted the parents of victim boys. He has also deposed that he has not conducted investigation independently. Earlier to raid, no such 18 Spl.C.C.589/2014 information received by him from anybody. Even the NGOs also not given any information to him. At this stage, the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-Giri Raj-the NGO, he has deposed about alleged incident and raid conducted by NGO, CID Police and Labour Officers and prepared mahazar as per Ex.P1 and his signature is Ex.P1(e). He has also deposed about Ex.P3, but through this witness, the prosecution not identified the accused No.2 before the Court. The accused No.2 tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and elicited that:
"¸À¼ Ü z À ° À è F ¢£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤AwgÀĪÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EzÀ£ Ý Á CxÀªÁ E®èªÁ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä FUÀ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D ¸À¼ Ü z À ° À è DgÉÆæ ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝ£A É zÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÉƵÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉÆnÖzÀg Ý ÉÆà E®èªÉÇà JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®.è "
Again he was elicited that:
"D WÀlPÀz° À è ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁ® zÀÄr¹PÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgA É zÀÄ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÀªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è. CzÉÃjÃw ªÀÄPÀÌ̼À ¥ÉÇõÀPj À AzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw zÀÆgÀÄ §A¢gÀ°®è. WÀl£Á¸À¼ Ü z À À ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ¥À® s PÀ D ¸À¼ Ü z À ° À è EgÀ°®è."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, there is a doubt of alleged process of conducting mahazar and this witness accompanying with the raiding team at that time.
19 Spl.C.C.589/2014 Further it is relevant to note, except official witnesses evidence, no such independent witness evidence placed, even the alleged child labours also not stepped into the witness box in order to know the age of victim boys, at that time the prosecution fails to produce medical documents to prove they are minors at that time. Except NGOs, Labour Officers and Police personnel, no such other persons evidence placed on record. When such being the case question of believing the alleged offences against accused No.2 doesn't arises.
25. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.2 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablizes the defense of the accused No.2 rather than the case of the prosecution.
26. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.9 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is 20 Spl.C.C.589/2014 insufficient to prove that the accused No.1 was having Regzion Bag manufacturing unit in the name of 'Super Products' at No.4-6/36, Tumkur Road, RMC Yard, Yeswanthapura, Bengaluru, he brought Cw.2 and Cw.3-Saroj and Rustaj-who are minor boys from Nepal by influencing them to give more salary and extracting work from them under the supervision of the accused No.2, the accused No.2 knowing fully well that Cw.2 and Cw.3 are minor forcibly extracted work from them and illegally detained them in a room without providing basic necessities to them and without payment of salary and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.1 to 3 in the "Negative".
27. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused No.2 is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
21 Spl.C.C.589/2014 ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 370 of IPC, Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, and Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act. His bail bond and surety bond 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 23rd Day of August 2018.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 Roopa Cw.8 20-01-2016
Pw.2 Mubeen Cw.17 21-01-2016
Pw.3 Ayesha Cw.1 01-03-2016
Pw.4 Gunasheela Cw.9 02-03-2016
Pw.5 K.G.Mukund Cw.11 22-06-2016
Pw.6 Nemiraj Cw.12 26-09-2016
Pw.7 Chandrakala Cw.13 15-11-2016
Pw.8 H. Nagaraju Cw.18 27-02-2017
Pw.9 Giriraj Cw.10 27-07-2017
22 Spl.C.C.589/2014
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Mahazar Pw.1 20-01-2016
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 20-01-2016
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 21-01-2016
Ex.P 1c Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 01-03-2016
Ex.P 1d Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 02-03-2016
Ex.P 1e Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 22-06-2016
Ex.P 1e Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 26-09-2016
Ex.P 1f Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 15-11-2016
Ex.P 1g Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 27-07-2017
Ex.P 2 Complaint Pw.3 01-03-2016
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 01-03-2016
Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 27-02-2017
Ex.P 3 Complaint of APSA Pw.3 01-03-2016
Child Line
Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 02-03-2016
Ex.P 4 FIR Pw.8 27-02-2017
Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 27-02-2017
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