Bangalore District Court
State By K.P. Agrahara Police Station vs No. : 1. Inba Raj on 11 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 11th day of OCTOBER 2018
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.30959/2009
Complainant : State by K.P. Agrahara Police station
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. Inba Raj,
S/o Late Mariya Vegappa Nardh,
Aged about 43 years
2. Sundar Raj,
S/o Late Mariya Vegappa Nardh,
Aged about 46 years
Both are R/at No.52, 13th Main, 1st Cross,
K.P. Agrahara, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. M. Visvanathan, advocate )
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K.P. Agrahara Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 344 and 374 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976.
2 C.C. No.30959/2009
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
Accused No.1 being the proprietor of a small scale industry under the name and style as "Leo Sweets" bearing No.52, situated at I Cross, 13th Main, within the limits of K.P. Agrahara Police Station and accused No.2 being the manager under accused No.1, in the aforesaid sweet shop, he brought C.W. 2 Sri. Armugam Pande, C.W. 3 Sri. Vijay Kumar Pande and C.W. 4 Sri Shekar from their native place i.e. Tamil Nadu, who are minors, kept them in the shop of accused No.1 for work by receiving commission from him, accused No.1 knowing fully well that C.W. 2 to 4 are minor children, with a fraudulent intention of making unlawful gain, made the said children to work in the aforesaid shop by violating the law and wrongfully confined them, ill treated them physically and mentally, forcibly got work form them without paying monthly salary, illegally earned money by making them to work, used the said amount for his personal use. When such being the case, on 05/11/2009, at about 2 p.m. in the afternoon, complainant Sri. Manoj James Roche on credible information conducted raid over the aforesaid Leo Sweets shop of accused No.1 along with C.W. 7 to 9, rescued minor children i.e. C.W. 2 to 4, 3 C.C. No.30959/2009 produced accused persons as well as minor children before C.W. 9 Sri. C.K. Rangappa and handed over C.W. 2 to 4 to child welfare office and thereby accused persons committed aforesaid offences.
Therefore, C.W.1 Sri. Manoj James Roche has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against accused persons. During the course of investigation, I.O.
visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses, obtained medical certificates of minor children and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 and 2 are on bail and they are represented through their counsel.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused persons as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 344 and 374 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976 has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to them, 4 C.C. No.30959/2009 they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case. Accordingly, on 04/02/2015, this court has passed the judgment of acquittal after recording the evidence of four witnesses, against which, C.W.2 a victim has preferred a criminal appeal before 50 th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl. Appeal N0.786/2015, wherein the Hon'ble Sessions Court has allowed the appeal and remanded the case to his court with a direction to issue summons to the witnesses, record the evidence by giving reasonable opportunity to the prosecution and to pass judgment afresh.
6. As a result, this case has been transferred to this court, thereafter this court has issued summons to remaining witnesses afresh, recorded their evidence and got marked ten documents at Ex.P1 to P.10. At the same time, accused have confronted three documents which are exhibited and marked as Ex.D.1 to D.3
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein accused have denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them and not chosen to lead their side defense evidence. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
5 C.C. No.30959/2009
8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, Accused No.1 being the proprietor of a small scale industry under the name and style as "Leo Sweets" bearing No.52, situated at I Cross, 13th Main, within the limits of K.P. Agrahara Police Station and accused No.2 being the manager under accused No.1, in the aforesaid sweet shop, he brought C.W. 2 Sri. Armugam Pande, C.W. 3 Sri. Vijay Kumar Pande and C.W. 4 Sri Shekar from their native place i.e. Tamil Nadu, who are minors, kept them in the shop of accused No.1 for work by receiving commission from him, accused No.1 knowing fully well that C.W. 2 to 4 are minor children, with a fraudulent intention of making unlawful gain, made the said children to work in the aforesaid shop by violating the law and wrongfully confined them, ill treated them physically and mentally, forcibly got work form them without paying monthly salary, illegally earned money by making them to work, used the said amount for his personal use. When such being the case, on 05/11/2009, at about 2 p.m. in the afternoon, complainant Sri. Manoj James Roche on credible information conducted raid over the aforesaid Leo Sweets shop of accused No.1 along with C.W. 7 to 9, rescued minor children i.e. C.W. 2 to 4, produced accused persons as well as minor children before C.W. 9 Sri. C.K. Rangappa and handed over C.W. 2 to 4 to child welfare office and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344 and 374 of IPC, Section 23 and 6 C.C. No.30959/2009 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976?
2. What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following
REASONS
11. Point No.1: This is a case pertaining to an incident of
wrongful confinement of minors who were forcefully made to work in the Leo Sweet Stall, situated at K.P. Agrahara.
12. In this case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as P.W. 1 to 8. This case is based on a complaint lodged on 05/11/2009, by one Sri. Manoj James Roche, a case worker cum intervensioner of Justice and Care Organization, a NGO, alleging that, accused No.1 who is a proprietor has employed three minor children with the help of a trafficker i.e. accused No.2 in his Leo Sweet Stall, situated at K.P. Agrahara.
13. In this connection, the complainant aforesaid Sri. Manoj James Roche is examined as P.W. 1, who has deposed about lodging of a complaint on 05/09/2011 at 3 p.m. before K.P. Agrahara police station. This complainant has deposed that, some public have informed their 7 C.C. No.30959/2009 organization alleging against Leo Sweet Stall that, its proprietor has employed child labour in his sweet stall, as such, on 05/11/2009, he had informed the said matter to the K.P. Agrahara police station, accompanied them in raid, during that time, C.W. 2, 3 and 4 were preparing sweets, therefore, accused No.1 and three children who were present at that time in the shop, were taken to the police station, accordingly, he has lodged complaint. It is also deposed that, the children were handed over to the Child Welfare Committee. The complainant has identified accused No.1 Inba Raj.
14. During his cross-examination, this complainant has pleaded his ignorance to say that, he has given information to their Care and Justice Organization. From his cross-examination it can be noticed that, he has not furnished any documents before police to show that, he was working as case worker cum intervensioner in the Care and Justice Organization. This complainant has admitted the fact that, normally the inspector of Labour conducts raid and public or anybody who learnt about the employment of children in any hazardous factory of any working place have to inform to the department of Labour.
15. It is admitted by the complainant that, he has not verified how many employees were working in the Leo Sweet Stall. He has pleaded his ignorance about drawing up of mahazar by the police. This witness has also 8 C.C. No.30959/2009 deposed that, he has not verified any documents about the age of the victims who were stated to be secured on that day. According to this complainant, he has typed the complaint in the police station itself.
16. The evidence of this complainant has to be discussed together with the evidence of C.W. 9 i.e. Sri. C.K. Rangappa the then PSI of K.P. Agrahara police station who has registered this case. The said witness has deposed about the receiving of complaint lodged by C.W. 1, conducting of mahazar, handing over the victims to the Child Welfare office.
17. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that, complainant had come to their police station along with a computer typed copy of complaint and the time is overwritten as 2 p.m. and age of victims was mentioned as 14. It is seen that, P.W. 8 being an I.O. has not collected any documents to establish that accused No.1 is owner of the said sweet stall. More interestingly, this witness, in his cross-examination has admitted that, complainant on the same day at the same time, has lodged one more complaint against accused No.2 Sundar Raj and one Sudhakar depicting accused No.2 as proprietor of ATS Jamoon Factory and Sudhakar Rao as trafficker of child labour. It can be seen from the evidence of this witness that, the address of accused persons shown in the complaint which is lodged against these accused as well as the address shown in the crime No.322/2009, against one Anandraj and Sudhakar are both one and the 9 C.C. No.30959/2009 same i.e. to say complainant has lodged two similar complaints in respect of the same shop on same day at the difference of 15 minutes i.e. 3.15 p.m.. This case pertains to Cr. No.321/2009 and another case is registered as Cr. No.322/2009, on the same day by the then PSI Sri. C.K. Rangappa.It is clearly admitted that, the addresses shown in both the complaints are one and the same.
18. In addition, the certified copy of the documents i.e. a complaint, FIR, copy of deposition pertaining to Cr.No.322/2009 has been confronted through this witness i.e. P.W.8. It is seen that, the prosecution has no where contended that, there are two shops in the property bearing No.52, 13th Main, 15th Cross, K.P. Agrahara. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused was running sweet stall in the aforesaid address as Leo Sweet Stall and he had employed C.W. 2 to 4. Under the circumstances, there arises doubt in respect of commission of the offences, as there cannot be two complaints in respect of the same property on the same day and almost about the same time, by alleging that, one is Leo Sweet Stall and another one is ATS Jamoon Factory.
19. Further, according to this witness P.W. 8, he has visited the place of incident to conduct spot mahazar at 3.15 p.m. whereas, the complaint confronted by him at Ex.D.1 discloses that, this witness has registered Cr.No.322/2009, as against accused No.2 Sundar Raj and trafficker 10 C.C. No.30959/2009 Sudhakar in respect of ATS Jamoon Factory by mentioning the similar address which is shown in this case at the same time i.e. at 3.15 p.m. Therefore, as already stated, a suspicious doubt is created in respect of the commission of the alleged offences, since the I.O. has admitted his presence in the place of incident to draw mahazar at 3.15 p.m. on 05/11/2009 and also he has registered Cr. No.322/2009 as against accused No.2 herein and one Sudhakar at the same time., which is not a believable version.
20. Keeping aside, let us discuss the evidence of the medical officer who has examined the victims C.W. 2 to 4 and has certified about their age.
21. Smt. Dr. Sridevi Priyadarshini who is examined as P.W. 5 has deposed that, on 06/11/2009 victim C.W. 2 to 4 i.e. Vijay Kumar, Armugam Pande and Shekar were brought before her, she has duly examined and issued certificates as per Ex.P.3 to 5 by stating that, victim Vijay Kumar was Aged between 12 to 13 years, Victim Armugam Pande was Aged between 11 to 12 years and Shekar was of 10 years old.
22. During the cross-examination, this medical officer states that, she has not verified any school records and birth certificates to ascertain the age of the victims. It is also clearly stated by the medical officer that,she has not conducted any ossification test nor any X-rays of the victims to 11 C.C. No.30959/2009 determine their age. From the evidence of the medical officer, it is not forth coming that, on what basis she has arrived at a conclusion that, the aforesaid victims were of 12-13, 11-12 and 10 years respectively. Medical officer herself admits that, she has not conducted any ossification nor done any X-rays to determine the age of the victims.
23. In addition, the certificate issued by this medical officer does not reveal the complete details of the victims. On the contrary, it has left unattended and no proper details are forth coming from the certificates issued by the medical officer which are marked at Ex.P.3 to P.5.
24. Amongst three victims one Shekar is examined as P.W. 3, has completely turned hostile and not deposed anything against accused persons, he did not even identify the complainant as well as accused persons. On the other hand, another victim by name Armuga Pandi who is P.W. 2 in this case has deposed that, himself, Vijay Kumar and Shekar were brought from their place by accused No.2 Sundar Raj and he was 16 years old at that time. According to this witness, all the victims who are P.W. 2 to 4 have worked for six months.
25. From the evidence of this witness it can be noticed that, he was 16 years old when he was brought to the accused No.1's shop. Another victim Vijay Kumar Pandi is his brother. According to this witness, he has no documents to show that, he worked under accused No.1's sweet stall. 12 C.C. No.30959/2009 Similarly, Vijay Kumar Pandi who is the brother of P.W. 2 Armuga Pandi, in his evidence has deposed that, he was 15 years old when he was in Leo Sweet Stall and he worked there for two years, he was given salary of Rs.3,000/- p.m. According to this witness, P.W. 4 Shekar had joined accused's shop much earlier to this witness and it is this witness who brought P.W. 2 Armuga pandi to the accused's shop.
26. From the evidence of this witness, it can be noticed that, this witness himself has brought his brother Armuga Pandi to the accused No.1's shop. Whereas, it is the specific case of the prosecution that, these victims were brought by accused No.2 Sundar Raj to the accused No.1's shop.
27. The learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor in his written arguments has strongly canvassed that, there is a corroboration to the evidence of all the witnesses. Whereas, contrary to such contention, these witnesses have deposed differently as to who brought them to accused No.1's shop. At the same time, one of the victim i.e. Vijay Kumar Pandi says, he being the brother of P.W. 2 Armuga Pandi, has brought his brother to accused No.1's shop. On the contrary, the said Armuga Pandi says that, all these victims were brought by accused No.2 and they worked only for six months. Whereas his brother Vijay Kumar Pandi says that, he was in accused No.1's shop for two years on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. As per the evidence of 13 C.C. No.30959/2009 P.W.2 and P.W.3, they were above the age of 14 years when they were working in accused No.1's shop. On the contrary, another victim by denying all these has completely turned hostile. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, there is a corroboration of evidence of the victims as well as the evidence of complainant.
28. In addition, P.W. 2 and 3 says that, they were 16 years and 15 years old at the time of the alleged incident. Whereas, the supportive documents in respect of the age of victim says that, victims were 12-13, 11- 12 and 10 years old respectively. Therefore, age of the victims as deposed by them at the time of the alleged incident is not corroborating to the medical certificate issued by the medical officer i.e. P.W. 5.
29. That apart, the other evidences in respect of securing the victims and producing them before the Child Welfare Committee has been deposed by the Child Development Officer as well as by one police constable. The child development officer who is examined as P.W. 7, has pleaded his ignorance about the alleged incident by saying that, incident has occurred long back in the year 2009, he is unable to remember the names of the victims, police...etc., No independent witnesses are cited as witnesses in this case to establish the alleged raid conducted by the police along with C.W. 1 on 05/11/2009.
14 C.C. No.30959/2009
30. From the above evidence it is seen that, there are two complaints in respect of the same shop on the same day, same date with a gap of fifteen minutes time and the same has been admitted by the I.O. Sri. C.K. Rangappa in his cross-examination. It is also not the case of the prosecution that, there are two shops by name Leo Sweet Stall and ATS Jamoon in the said premises. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 was the proprietor of Leo Sweet Stall in the property bearing No.52, 13th Main, 15th Cross, K.P. Agrahara, Bengaluru-23. Whereas, the crime number registered against accused No.2 Sundar Raj as well as one Sudhar in Crime No.322/2009 at 3.15 p.m. on 05/11/2009, discloses the address of aforesaid shop. Under the circumstances, doubt arises as to the commission of the alleged offences.
31. Even the evidence of the medical officer does not give clear picture about the age of the victim as to say that, they were below the age of 14 years as on the date of the alleged incident. Though the evidence of victim Armuga Pandi and Vijay Kumar Pandi is supporting the prosecution, it is contrary to one another and as per their version they were above the age of 14 years as on the date of the commission of the alleged offences. The medical certificate issued by P.W. 5 is not tallying with the age of victims 1 and 2 as per their evidence.
15 C.C. No.30959/2009
32. More importantly, medical officer has failed to depose on what basis she has arrived at a conclusion that, those victims were below the age of 14 years. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to bring the accused persons under the clutches of the provisions Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. As it is discussed above, since there are two FIRs in respect of the same property, same shop on the same day with a difference of 15 minutes time, the accused persons cannot be held guilty for the alleged offences. As such, benefit of doubt has to be extended in their favour. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. As a result, accused persons have to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 344 and 374 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976. Therefore, above point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
33.Point No.2: In view of the negative findings on the above point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 344 and 374 16 C.C. No.30959/2009 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11 th day of October 2018).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Manoj James Roche P.W. 2: Arumugapandi P.W. 3: Vijay Kumar Pandi P.W. 4: Shekar P.W. 5: Dr. Sridevi Priyadarshini P.W. 6: Thyagaraju P.W. 7: Rajendra Prasad.N.P P.W. 8: C.K. Rangappa
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of P.W. 8 Ex.P. 2 : Statement of P.W. 4 Ex.P.3 to 5 : Reports Ex.P.3(a)to 5(a) : Signatures of P.W. 5 Ex.P.6 : Requisition Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of P.W. 7 Ex.P.7 : Letter 17 C.C. No.30959/2009 Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of P.W. 7 Ex.P.7(b) : Signature of P.W. 8 Ex.P.8 : Letter Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of P.W. 7 Ex.P.9 : FIR Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of P.W. 8 Ex.P.10 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of P.W. 8
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE Ex.D.1 : Copy of complaint Ex.D.2 : Copy of FIR Ex.D.3 : Copy of deposition of C.K. Rangappa
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.18 C.C. No.30959/2009
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 344 and 374 of IPC, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and
sureties shall stands cancelled.
(Mala N.D)
XLIV Addl.C.M.M.,
B'lore.
19 C.C. No.30959/2009