Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka By vs Tabrez on 22 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63), AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2015
Present : Sri.S.Shantaveer,
B.A.,LL.B.(Spl),
LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Sessions Case No.532/2012
COMPLAINANT:- State of Karnataka by
Jagajeevanrama Nagar
Police Station
Bengaluru
(Rep by Public Prosecutor)
:VS:
ACCUSED :- 1. Tabrez,
2. Mohammed Munavar,
S/o Jalaluddin,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at Pulaisari Grama,
Byisi Hobli, Rota Tq,
Bihar State.
3. Mohammed Parveez Alam,
S/o Mohammed Abbas,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at Kushhav Gav,
Mujgav Post, Kasaba
P.S.Puniya District,
Bihar State.
2 S.C.532/2012
4. Mudguff
(By Sri.H.P- Advocate)
1. Date of Commission of offence : 28.09.2011
2. Date of report of offence : 28.09.2011
3. Arrest of the accused : A.2, 3 on 29.09.2011
A1, 4 Released on bail
on 04.03.2012
4. Name of the complainant : R.A.H.Siguran
5. Date of commencement of : 27.07.2012
recording of Evidence
6. Date of closing of evidence : 13.01.2015
7. Offences complained of : U/s.370, 371, 344,
374 r/w Sec 34 of IPC
U/s.23, 26 Juvenile
Justice Act 1986 & U/s.
16, 17 Bonded Labour
System Act.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are acquitted
(S.Shantaveer)
LXII Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
3 S.C.532/2012
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by PI of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru against the above named accused for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 371, 344 and 374 r/w Sec 34 of IPC and Sections 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act 1986 and Sec 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Act.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
The complainant-R.A.H.Siguran is working in a Non Governmental Organization. On receipt of credible information, he contacted officers of Labour Department and the police on 28.09.2011 and went along with them to Bag Manufacturing unit belonging to accused No.1 within the limits of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station. There they found 10 juveniles or children were engaged in manufacturing of bags. On enquiry, it is found that the said children were confined to the factory premises 4 S.C.532/2012 wrongfully without giving them any wages, basic minimum necessities etc. In that regard a case is registered to PS Crime No.208/2011 and investigation is taken up. After conclusion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the above named accused for the offences as alleged.
3. The committal court after perusal of the charge sheet has taken cognizance of the offence and registered a case in Reg. No. III against the above named accused. The copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused. As the alleged offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned committal Magistrate has committed the case to Principal City Civil and Sessions Court and thereafter made over to this court for trial in accordance with law. Accused Nos.1 to 4 on service of summons appeared before this Court through their counsel and were enlarged on bail. 5 S.C.532/2012
Heard both the sides on charge.
The Ld. Advocate for the accused submitted that charge may be framed. After that a charge under Sections 344, 370, 371 and 374 r/w Sec 34 of IPC, U/s.23, 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and Sec 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused persons. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The pleas of the accused were recorded. Hence, the case was posted for trial of the accused.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses as Pws.1 to 10 and got marked documents at Ex.Ps.1 to 5. After closure of the side of the prosecution, the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused Nos.1 to 4 have denied the incriminating evidence that was read over to them. Accused Nos.1 to 4 neither stated anything in their defence nor led any 6 S.C.532/2012 defence evidence except contending that a false case is filed against them.
5. Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State and learned advocate for the accused advanced their arguments.
6. On the above facts, the points that arise for consideration and determination of the court are as under: -
-: POINTS :-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 28.09.2011, accused Nos.1 to 4 wrongfully confined minor children in their bag manufacturing unit and thereby committed offences punishable under section 344 r/w Sec 34 of I.P.C?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the children ere child Labourer or Juveniles which brought to bag manufacturing unit and made to work as bonded labourers and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 370 r/w Sec 34 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that the children were engaged in human trafficking as bonded labourers and unlawfully compelled Cws.2 to 13 and thereby committed the offence 7 S.C.532/2012 punishable under Sections 371, 374 r/w Sec 34 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the children were made to work for 16 hours in a day and they were made to stay and sleep in the same place and only paid Rs.20 per week as wages and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and U/s.16 and 17 of Bonded Labour Act?
5) What Order?
7. The findings of the court 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 final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. POINT NOs.1 to 4: -
As Point Nos.1 to 4 are interrelated they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition. 8 S.C.532/2012 The evidence lead by the prosecution in brief is as under:-
PW.1 - Rajesh and Pw.2- Kiran are alleged to be attestors of spot of offence mahazar. They have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Pws.1 and 2 denied that, on 29.09.2011 the police have drawn spot of offence mahazar in their presence, as shown by one Kiran Singh as per Ex.P.1. They have denied giving of statements before the police as per Ex.P.2 and Ex.P3.
Pw.3- R.A.H.Siganuran is the complainant working as Case Worker in Justice and Care at Bengaluru. On 28.09.2011, himself and other social workers went after informing the Labour Department regarding engaging of Child Labourers to the bag manufacturing unit at Mysore road, Tollgate along with the police and found 10-15 children were working in the said unit and of them 10 9 S.C.532/2012 were enquired by the police. The said children replied that they were brought from Bihar by accused Nos.2 to 4 by paying advance amount to their parents. After that, the said 10 children were brought to the police station.
In that regard a complaint came to be filed as per Ex.P.4.
Pw.4 - G.H.Kemparaj is the Labour Inspector, Pw.5 Smt.Manjuladevi.S.M, is the Senior Labour Inspector both have deposed that on 28.09.2011, the Justice and Care organization filed a complaint regarding engaging of child labourer in their office. With regard to said complaint, he, Sr.Labour Inspector and other officials and J.J.Nagar police went to bag manufacturing factory situated at J.J.Nagar Janatha Colony, 2nd Cross, No.8, Bengaluru. About 20-25 members were working in the unit, of them 10 were children. On enquiry, the child labourers replied that they were brought by accused by paying advance amount to their parents, but they were not paid any wages. Then they were taken to police station. 10 S.C.532/2012
Pw.6 - Sharlin is a NGO Volunteer working in Justice and Care. She deposed that on 28.09.2011 she along with NGO's workers, Labour Department officials and police went to bag factory situated at Mysore road. In the said factory children aged 12-18 years were working. On enquiry the children were replied that they were brought from Bihar by paying advance amount to their parents. They were not fed properly and they were made to sleep in the unit itself. Then they were taken to the police station.
Pw.7- Mirza Arif Ali Baigh A.S.I., has deposed that, on 28.09.2011 as per the instruction of PSI, he accompanied Pws.3 to 6, Cws.16, 18 and went to the bag manufacturing factory of accused No.1. There they found some 10-12 children were engaged in working in the said unit as child labourers. On enquiry, they told that they were not paid any wages for their work and they were brought to the police station.
11 S.C.532/2012
Pw.8 - Dr.Manjula Devi is the Medical Officer. She has deposed that on 28.09.2011 she accompanied the police to the bag manufacturing unit of accused No.1. There they found some 40 children were working in the said factory and all of them were taken to Jagajeevanram Nagara Police station. In the police station, she examined in all 35 children to ascertain their age. As per the examination done by her one Mohammed Masoom was aged about 13 ½ years and other workers were more than 14 years. In that regard she has submitted her report.
Pw.9- Anjanappa is the PSI. He has deposed that on 28.09.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., the complainant filed a complaint which is registered to PS Crime No.208/2011 and submitted FIR to the Court. He enquired the child labourers and sent them to Juvenile Justice Board. On the next day they visited the spot of offence mahazar and drawn spot of offence mahazar as per Ex.P.1 and 12 S.C.532/2012 arrested the accused Nos.2 and 3. Further investigation was taken up by Cw.24.
Pw.10- J.R.Ramesh is the Investigating Officer. On 29.09.2011 he took up further investigation and perused the records. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He made arrangements for recording the statements of Child Labourer one Sonu U/s.164 of Cr.P.C. After conclusion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
9. The specific case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 being the owner of bag manufacturing unit had employed child labourers below age of 14 years and thereby violated the law. It is also the case of the prosecution that, the children were made to work against their will and they were also working as bonded laborers. They were not given any liberty and they were not let out of the premises of the unit.
13 S.C.532/2012
10. The court is of the opinion that, in this case though Pws.3 to 10 have deposed corroborating the story of the prosecution. But their evidence is not corroborated by any independent material witnesses. Pw.3 and Pw.6 are the volunteers of NGO's Justice and Care Department have deposed regarding the children being engaged in hazardous work. But their evidence is not corroborated by any independent material witnesses. Pws.4 and 5 are the Labour Inspectors have deposed regarding the children were engaged in hazardous industry.
11. The Court is of the opinion that, the prosecution has failed to examine any of the children who alleged to have been rescued from the bag manufacturing unit of accused No.1. Moreover, the prosecution has not at all taken any action against the parents of the children, who had sent their children for working in the bag manufacturing unit of accused No.1. Moreover the prosecution has not produced any documents to show 14 S.C.532/2012 that, it is the accused No.1 who is the owner of manufacturing unit. The prosecution has not at all produced any documents to show that accused No.1 has obtained permission to run bag manufacturing unit at the address shown in the charge sheet. The prosecution has not at all produced the report of PW.8 regarding the age of the so called rescued children. The age of so called rescued children is not ascertained by subjecting them to ossification test. PW.8 in her cross examination has categorically admitted that she examined the children physically.
12. The prosecution has not led any independent evidence to show that the children and other persons were made to work as bonded labourers in the premises of accused No.1 as contended. Moreover the incident is said to have been taken place on 28.09.2011 and the raid is said to taken place at about 11.30 a.m., but the complaint is registered in the evening at 4.30 p.m. In 15 S.C.532/2012 view of the Judgment reported in ILR 2013 KAR 983, in the case of Girishchandra and another /VS/ The State by Lokayuktha Police, Yadgir, without registering the crime the conducting of raid and investigation is not proper. This is also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in AIR 2014 SC 187.
13. In this case also the police have not registered the case before embarking on conducting the raid. Only after alleged rescue of children, the complaint is filed which is against the principles of natural justice. Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor relied upon the Judgment reported in MANU/SC/0705/2010. But in view of the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2014, this Judgment is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
16 S.C.532/2012
14. Considering the same, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that on 28.09.2011 accused Nos.1 to 4 have confined the children illegally in the bag manufacturing factory as child laborers and engaged them in hazardous work by not paying any wages and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 370, 371, 344 and 374 r/w Sec 34 of IPC and Sections 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act 1986 and Sec 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Act. Therefore, the benefit of doubt needs to be extended to accused Nos.1 to 4. Hence, point Nos.1 to 4 are answered in the negative.
15. POINT NO.5: - In view of the reasons discussed above the following:-
17 S.C.532/2012
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 370, 371, 344 and 374 r/w Sec 34 of IPC and Sections 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act 1986 and Sec 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby cancelled, after expiry of appeal period. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 22nd day of April, 2015) (S.Shantaveer) LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.18 S.C.532/2012
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
PW.1 P.Rajesh PW.2 Sharan Singh PW.3 R.A.H.Siganur PW.4 G.H.Kemparaju PW.5 Smt.Manjula Devi PW.6 Kum.Sharlin PW.7 Mirja Arif Baigh PW.8 Dr.Manjula Devi PW.9 Anjinappa PW.10 G.R.Ramesh II. For Defence Side: -NIL
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution Side:-
Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.2 Statement of Pw.1 Ex.P.3 Statement of Pw.2 Ex.P.4 Complaint Ex.P.4(a) Signature of Pw.3 Ex.P.5 Portion marked in the statement of Pw.4 19 S.C.532/2012 IV. For Defence Side:- -NIL- IV. List of material objects: -NIL- (S.Shantaveer) LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 20 S.C.532/2012 22.04.2015 State by Public Prosecutor A.1 to A.4 ( Bail ) - HP For Judgment
Judgment is pronounced in the open court, vide (separate) detail judgment.
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 370, 371, 344 and 374 r/w Sec 34 of IPC and Sections 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act 1986 and Sec 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby cancelled, after expiry of appeal period.
LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.21 S.C.532/2012