Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Anil Kumar on 6 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 6th Day of June, 2019
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 154/2016
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Kodige Halli Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED Anil Kumar,
S/o. J.Narayana, 46 years,
R/at. No.19/9, 3rd Cross,
Jalageramma Temple Road,
Lottegolla Halli,
Bengaluru.
Sri.V.A.-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 06-01-2014 to
15-01-2014
2 Date of report of occurrence 15-01-2014
3 Date of arrest of Accused 16-01-2014
Date of release of Accused 18-01-2014
Period undergone in custody 2 days
by Accused
4 Date of commencement of evidence 11-08-2017
5 Date of closing of evidence 25-10-2018
2 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016
6 Name of the complainant Venkatesh
7 Offences complained of Section 344, 374,
370 IPC &, Sec.23,
26-J.J. Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector of Kodige Halli Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused for the offences punishable under Section 344, 374 and 370 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused who is the resident of House No.19/9, 3rd Cross, Jalageramma Temple Road, Kodige Halli, within the jurisdiction of Kodige Halli Police Station, earlier to 10 days of 15-01-2014, appointed a minor girl-Cw.4 as maid servant (as bonded labour) to do house hold work and given mental torture to her. On the basis of complaint lodged by Cw.1-Venkatesh, the police registered the case against the accused for the 3 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 offences punishable under Section 344, 374 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 344, 374 and 370 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to accused 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 victim is minor 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.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, the summons was issued to accused. In pursuance of the said summons, he appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused submitted that 4 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 there is no argument before framing charge and requested to frame charge. As a result the learned predecessor in office framed charge for the offences punishable under Section 344, 374 and 370 of I.P.C., and section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and discharged the offences under section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act. The contents of charge read over and explained in English by translating Kannada version to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and submit crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused set down for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined 7 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.7 and got marked as many as 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the accused he is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. Earlier to that he 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 5 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 down for judgment.
6. 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. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB15-10-2014PÉÌ 10 ¢£ÀU¼ À À »AzÉ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®QAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-4gÀªg À £ À ÀÄß dªÀiï±Éqï¥ÀÅgÀ, eÁRðAqï¤AzÀ «zsÁå¨sÁå¸À PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ §AzÀ£ s z À ° À èlÄÖ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A. 344gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgAÉ iÉÄ?
2. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¼ Þ z À ° À è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀ̼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-4gÀªg À £ À ÀÄß «zsÁå¨sÁå¸ÀPÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý DPÉAiÀÄ HgÁzÀ eÁRðAqï¤AzÀ UÀįÁªÀļÀ£ÁßV PÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.370gÀrAiÀÄ°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. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¼ Þ zÀ °À è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¸ÁQë-4gÀªg À £ À ÀÄß UÀįÁªÀļÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ EZÉU á É «gÀÄzÀªÞ ÁV ªÀÄ£ÉP®É ¸ÀPÌÉ £ÉëĹPÉÆAqÀÄ «¢ü«gÀÄzÀÝ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ zÀÄrªÉÄ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.374gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
4. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¼ Þ zÀ ° À è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªg À £ À ÀÄß UÀįÁªÀļÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉP® É ¸ÀPÉÌ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ, ºÀaÉ £Ñ À ªÉÃ¼É zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸Àª® À vÀÄÛ ¤ÃqÀzÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÀ®A 23 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 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?
5. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?6 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016
7. 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:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4:- As these points are inter-related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasons.
9. Perused the entire charge sheet, evidence both oral and documentary and arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.7, got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.3 is the Superintendent of Balakara Bala Mandir, Pw.2 and Pw.7 are the independent witnesses, Pw.4 to Pw.6 are the police personnel 7 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 and Investigation Officer. Out of the above said witnesses, Pw.2 and Pw.7 not tendered for cross-examination, hence their evidence was discarded. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused who is the resident of House No.19/9, 3rd Cross, Jalageramma Temple Road, Kodige Halli, within the jurisdiction of Kodige Halli Police Station, earlier to 10 days of 15-01-2014, appointed a minor girl-Cw.4 as maid servant (as bonded labour) to do house hold work and given mental torture to her and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344, 374, 370 of I.P.C., and Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice 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 beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. Before venturing into scan the available material 8 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 344, 374, 370 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
Section 344 of I.P.C defines that:
Wrongful confinement for ten or more days- Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 374 of I.P.C defines that:
Unlawful compulsory Labour-Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
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 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 9 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 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.
By going through the facts, circumstances and available materials both at oral and documentary, it is just and proper to consider whether the available material evidence attracts the very ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability against accused.
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Venkatesh- Social Worker of Swayam Seva Institution and also the Management Trustee of Paraspara Trust, he has deposed that he has seen the accused only on 15-01-2014, but not earlier, he doesn't know his avocation and he is the resident of Lottegollahalli. He has received information from public that the accused engaged a minor girl as maid servant and in order to extract work from her, he was giving both physical and 10 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 mental torture to her and as such he has informed the same to the police station and also to the concerned area Child Line. After that the police taken him near the house of accused. At that time the door of the house of the accused was closed. After knocking the same it was opened by the wife of the accused. He has seen the victim and the police have taken her to their custody and brought her to the police station and on enquiry with her, he came to know that her age was 12 years, as such he has lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and the extract of the Trust is at Ex.P2. The police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P3 and his signature is Ex.P3(a).
14. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and also admitted that he has not written in the complaint that:
"¢£ÁAPÀB15-01-2014gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉU Ü É ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ zÀÆgÀªÁtô ªÀiÁ»w §A¢zÀÄÝ D ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉ®¸ÀPÌÉ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr §AzÀÄ D ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀQë¹ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgA ÀÉ zÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ zÀÆj£À°è D §UÉÎ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¥ÀæxÀªÀĨÁjUÉ D §UÉÎ ¸ÁPÀëå £ÀÄr¢zÉÃÝ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ F ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆrUÉúÀ½î ¥ÉÇðøïoÁuÉUÉ ¤ÃrzÉ£A É zÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ D ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ §gÀĪÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ ZÉʯïدÉÊ£ï ºÉ¯ïUÀÉ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆmÉÖ£ÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß zÀÆj£À°è D §UÉÎ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ 11 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¥ÀæxÀªÀĨÁjUÉ D §UÉÎ ¸ÁPÀëå £ÀÄr¢zÉÃÝ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Further the accused tested his evidence by denial suggestion and also admitted that he has not given complaint through police. Admittedly the woman welfare worker of the Trust not stepped into the witness box to give evidence in order to support the evidence of this witness. He has also admitted that he has not lodged complaint immediately, only he went to his office and thereafter lodged the complaint. He has also admitted that in Ex.P2 the signature of Trust member at No.7 is not there. At this stage this Court feels to observe that through this witness the prosecution produces the evidence that the accused engaged victim girl as maid servant and he has given physical and mental torture to said girl, but at the same time in order to believe the evidence of this witness the woman social worker and the victim girl not stepped into the witness box. The independent witnesses-Pw.2 and Pw.7 not tendered for their cross-examination, as such it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness to believe the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
12 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016
15. Further on perusal of Ex.P6-Medical examination report, given by the doctor, wherein the age of the victim girl is mentioned as 12 years, but in order to fix the said age, what examination was taken place not mentioned. There is no mentioning of conducting of X-ray, dental examination and radiological examination to fix the age of the victim girl as 12 years and no authenticated document also placed by the prosecution after obtaining the same from the concerned authority to believe the age of the victim girl as 12 years.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Dr.Nijaguna- Professor of Periodic-Indira Gandhi Children Hospital. He has deposed that he has examined the victim girl and found scar marks on her body at that time, the victim was under
depression and he has given certificate as per Ex.P6 and his signature is Ex.P6(a), except that he has not whispered anything about the age estimation examination. In the cross-
examination the accused tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and he has also admitted that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÉÆÃV CxÀªÁ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ M¼À¥r À ¸À®Ä £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ vÀAzÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÁUÀ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀª£ À ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ 13 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrzÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀª£ À ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÃÛ £É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CzÉà jÃw D gÉÆÃV CxÀªÁ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÀgv É A À zÀgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ «ªÀgª À £À ÀÄß §gÉ¢lÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzjÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀgt À zÀ°è CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. FUÀ £ÉÆÃrzÀ zÁR¯É ¤.¦.6 gÀ°è £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÁV AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzA À zÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÀgvÉ A À zÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄiÀÄ JµÁÖVvÀÄÛ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «ªÀgu À É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀgÀÉ ¸Àj."
17. Further he has written the incident history in Ex.P6 only as per the say of the staff of Women and Child Welfare Department. He has admitted that:
"ªÀAiÀĹì£À zÀÈrüÃPÀgtÀ zÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ Qè¤PÀ¯ï JUÁì«Ä£ÉñÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À zÉúÀzÀ ¨É¼ª À t À U ô A É iÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É D ªÀAiÀĸÀì£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÉÃÝ £É DzÀgÉ gÉrAiÀiÁ®fPÀ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀëQgÀt ¥ÀjÃPÀëU É ½ À UÉ M¼À¥r À ¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. Qè¤PÀ¯ï JUÁì«Ä£ÉñÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À zÉúÀzÀ ¨É¼ªÀ t À U ô AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁr DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀAiÀĸÀì£ÀÄß zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹zÉÃÝ £É JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¤.¦.6 gÀ°è µÀgÁ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.6 zÀÈrüÃPÀgt À ªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£À vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÉ ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzA À zÀÄ PÉÆmÉÖ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉA Î iÀÄÆ ¤.¦.6 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£É ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
Further he has admitted that:
"¤.¦.6 gÀ jªÀiÁPïðì PÁ®A£À°è §gÉ¢gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÁÌgï UÁAiÀÄzÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼zÀ ÁVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ CxÀªÁ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼z À ÁVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¤RgÀ ªÀAiÀĹì£À §UÀÎÉ ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, admittedly the accused brought the victim girl 10 days earlier to 15-01-2014. If this piece of age of wound is taken into consideration, there is a doubt of giving physical torture to the victim girl by the accused.
14 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016
18. Further he has admitted that he has not enquired about the reasons for her depression. If really the victim girl was under depression, definitely he could have got reasons for the same on the same day, but he has not done so, as such there is a doubt of giving mental torture by the accused to the victim girl. He has admitted that if any person takes drugs, the said person is possible to go under depression. He has also admitted that except healed wound scar, he has not seen any fresh injury at the time of examination of the victim girl. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, there is a doubt of giving mental and physical torture by the accused as per the case of prosecution. Through the evidence of the doctor also the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-N.P.Rajendra Prasad-C.D.P.O-Gowribidanur, he has deposed that during the year 2008 to 2015 he was the Superintendent of Balakara Bala Mandira and at the time of incident he was in-charge of Balakiyara Bala Mandira. On 15-01-2014 the complaint was received by Paraspara Seva Sanga stating that the accused had 15 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 engaged a minor girl who was aged about 12 years as maid servant and while extracting work he used to harass her physically and mentally. On receipt of said information, he accompanied with police and members of Paraspara Seva Trust, on behalf of the Government, raided the said house and rescued the victim girl and taken the custody of her as in-charge of Balakiyara Bala Mandira and handed over her to Balakiyara Bala Mandir. He has recorded the statement of victim girl as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(a) and the signature of the victim girl is Ex.P4(b). According to him one Rajesh typed the said statement and at that time the Sub-Inspector of police was also present.
20. In the cross-examination the accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also tested his veracity in respect of he was in-charge of Balakiyara Bala Mandir, though the Deputy Superintendent was available in the said Mandira. He cannot remember to say whether the members of Paraspara Trust were accompanied with him to the incident spot and except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense 16 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 taken by the accused. In respect of incident spot he was elicited that:
"WÀl£Á¸À¼Ü z À À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ JqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §®¨sÁUÀz° À g è ÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉU¼ À À £ÀA§gïUÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ WÀl£Á¸À¼ Ü z À À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ ºÉÆÃVzÉJ Ý AzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÀª Û ÄÀ ÄvÀ° Û £À ªÀÄ£ÉU¼ À ÀÄ £ÉÃgÀªÁVzÀªÝ Á CxÀªÁ ¸ÀÄvÀĪ Û j À ¢zÀª Ý Á JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£U À É £É£¦ À ®è. C°èzÀÝ gÀ¸ÉÛ ªÀÄtô£Ú À gÀ¸AÉÛ iÀÄ CxÀªÁ qÁA§jÃPÀgt À zÀ gÀ¸A ÉÛ iÀÄ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£U À É £É£¦À ®è".
21. Further he was tested in respect of recording of statement of victim girl and he has deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÉÆA¢UÉ WÀl£Á ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzɪÀÅ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.4 zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr®èªAÉ zÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.4 gÀ°è PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¨sÁµÉ¬ÄAzÀ »A¢UÉ AiÀiÁgÀÄ vÀdÄðªÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ µÀgÁ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. vÀdÄðªÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgA É zÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ºÉ¸g À ÁUÀ° ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¸À»AiÀiÁUÀ° EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
If the above said admission is taken into consideration, there is a doubt of this witness accompanying with the team at the time of rescue of the victim girl as per the case of prosecution. At this stage this Court feels to observe that this witness is a Government servant and it is quite natural to support the case of prosecution. Pw.2 and Pw.7 who are independent and local witnesses, having accompanied the raiding team at that time and given their evidence in chief examination, but they have not tendered themselves for cross- 17 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 examination, as such their evidence was discarded. When material witness evidence is discarded, question of believing the alleged offences against accused through the evidence of this witness doesn't arises.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Kumar Nayak-Constable-10039, he has deposed that on 15-01-2014 he was entrusted to trace out the accused, accordingly he along with Cw.10 left the station, made Gastu, contacted Bathimdars and came to know the accused was in his house, went near the house at about 06.00 p.m., taken custody of the accused and produced him before the SHO. He has also identified the accused before the Court.
23. The accused tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. Further he was elicited that:
"D ¢£À DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ vÀg® À Ä £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ZÁ.¸Á.10 gÀªg À ÀÄ §A¢zÀgÝ ÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ PÉÊç £ÀA. 11/2014 gÀ PÉùUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä oÁuÉUÉ PÀgv É gÀ ÄÀ ªÀAvÉ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ D PÁgÀt oÁuÉUÉ §¤ß JAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉýzÉÃÝ ªÉ. D jÃw ºÀÃÉ ½zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉAiÀįÉÃè DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß oÁuÉUÉ PÀgv É AÀ ¢zÉÃÝ ªÉ.
D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ §gÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CrØ ¥Àr¸À°®è.".18 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, the accused not disputed about taking him to the police station by this witness with the support of Cw.10 and at this stage, this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
24. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Arun Kumar- P.S.I., he has deposed that he has received complaint as per Ex.P1 from Pw.1 at about 02.00 p.m., on 15-01-2014 and registered the case in Crime No.11/2014 punishable under Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act and Section 7 of Child Labour Prohibition Act and Section 344, 370 and 374 of IPC, made Shara on the said document and signed as per Ex.P1(b). Thereafter he has prepared F.I.R. as per Ex.P5. He went to the spot at about 03.30 p.m., conducted mahazar as per Ex.P3 up to 04.00 p.m and his signature is Ex.P3(b). He has also recorded statement of victim girl as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(c). Here the victim girl not stepped into the witness box to give corroborative evidence of Ex.P4 and the case of prosecution to believe the alleged offences against accused and 19 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 submitted the same to the Court and to his higher officers. His evidence remains unassailed.
25. Further he has deposed that on 17-03-2014 he has recorded statement of Cw.2 to Cw.6, but produced Pw.2 and Pw.7 not tendered themselves for cross-examination, as such their evidence was discarded, the other witnesses not stepped into the witness box to give their evidence in support of the case of prosecution. He has also arrested the accused on the same day. He has recorded statement of Cw.7 and Cw.8 on 13-03- 2014. He had received medical records of victim girl on 19-07- 2014 and after closure of investigation filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 344, 374 and 370 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act.
26. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and denied chief evidence of this witness by denial suggestion. Further he has deposed that:
"F ¥ÀæPÀgt À zÀ §UÉÎ ªÉÆlÖªÉÆzÀ®¨ÁjUÉ £À£Àß UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §AzÀzÄÀ Ý ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CzÀPÀÆÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £À£Àß UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ 20 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 F WÀl£É §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ZÁ.¸Á.1, 2, 7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8 gÀªgÀ ÄÀ D ¢£À ¨É¼U À ÉÎ zÀÆgÀªÁtô ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ F WÀl£É §UÉÎ £À£U À É w½¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration it contradicts with the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.3. He has shown his ignorance about the dispute between the accused and the Devi Bar situated by the side of house of accused, since from 2005. He has shown his ignorance about lodging of complaint by the accused against Devi Bar in the station and also given to Police Commissioner.
27. Further the accused denied the process of conducting investigation by this witness as per his chief examination by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. He has also admitted about the case filed by the accused against Devi Bar and the same was registered in Crime No. 160/2017. No doubt it is true this witness being the Investigation Officer by giving his evidence he has supported the case of the prosecution. The accused also tested his veracity by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. Except that nothing has been elicited through his evidence in order to believe the alleged offences against accused beyond all 21 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 reasonable doubt. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
28. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probabalises the defense of the accused rather than the case of the prosecution.
29. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.7, got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that the accused who is the resident of House No.19/9, 3rd Cross, Jalageramma Temple Road, Kodige Halli, within the jurisdiction of Kodige Halli Police Station, earlier to 10 days of 15-01-2014, appointed a minor girl-Cw.4 as maid servant (as bonded labour) to do house hold work and given mental torture to her and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344, 374 and 370 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of 22 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016 Juvenile Justice Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
30. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused is 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 is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 344, 374 and 370 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act. His bail bond and surety bond stands 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 6th Day of June 2019.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 Venkatesh Cw.1 11-08-2017
23 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016
Pw.2 Lokesh Cw.7 11-08-2017
Pw.3 N.P.Rajendra Prasad Cw.2 30-10-2017
Pw.4 Kumar Nayak Cw.9 02-02-2018
Pw.5 Arun Kumar Cw.12 02-02-2018
Pw.6 Dr.Nijaguna Cw.11 15-06-2018
Pw.7 Ravi Cw.8 23-07-2018
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 11-08-2017
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 11-08-2017
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 02-02-2018
Ex.P 2 Extract of Board Meeting Pw.1 11-08-2017
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 11-08-2017
Ex.P 3 Spot Mahazar Pw.1 11-08-2017
Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 11-08-2017
Ex.P 3b Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 02-02-2018
Ex.P 4 Statement of victim Pw.1 11-08-2017
Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 11-08-2017
Ex.P 4b Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 30-10-2017
Ex.P 4c Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 02-02-2018
Ex.P 5 FIR Pw.5 02-02-2018
Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 02-02-2018
Ex.P 6 Medical examination Pw.5 02-02-2018
certificate of victim
Ex.P 6a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 02-02-2018
Ex.P 6b Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 15-06-2018
24 Spl.C.C.No.154/2016
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.
***