Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs No.3 Noorjan on 30 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 30 th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA S. M.A., LL.B., (spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.603/2017
Complainant State of Karnataka
By Sadashivanagar P
S,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
V/S
Accused No.3 Noorjan,
S/o Abdul Syed,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.42, 2nd Cross,
Sanjaygandhinagar,
Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Dilip Kumar
H.B, Advocate)
Date of offence 21.02.2014
Date of report of offence 21.02.2014
Name of the Sri. Nagalingayya A.N,
complainant Police Inspector
2 S.C. No.603/2017
Date of commencement 27.07.2019
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of 23.03.2022
evidence
Offences complained of U/sec.370 of Indian
Penal Code and
U/sec.3, 4, 6 of Immoral
Traffic Prevention Act.
Opinion of the Judge Accused not found guilty
State represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. Dilip Kumar H.B,
Advocate
*****
J UD GME N T This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the complainant Byatarayanapura Police against the accused No.3 for the offence punishable under section 370 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3, 4, 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
2. The prosecution was set into motion against accused No.3 on the complaint of C.W.1 Sri.Nagalingaiah A.N, PI, Sadashivanagara Police 3 S.C. No.603/2017 Station, Bangalore. The case of prosecution is that on 21.2.2014, at 12.05p.m, accused persons were running prostitution in Sadashivanagar P S jurisdiction at New BEL Road, Nr. Shirdi Sai Hospital at House No.509, by keeping C.W.1,6 to 8. Accused No.2 & 3 were arrested and properties seized as per P.F.No.24/2014. Hence registered the case in Cr. No.27/2014, for the offence punishable under section 370 of Indian Penal Code and under section. 3,4,6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and accused No.3 was remanded to judicial custody.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused No.3 before VII ACMM, Bengaluru and it was registered as C.C.No.28796/2014.
4. Accused No.3 appeared before the learned Magistrate through the counsel and got enlarged on 4 S.C. No.603/2017 bail. The learned Magistrate furnished copy of charge sheet to accused No.3 and thereby, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. As the offences charge sheeted against accused No.3 is exclusively triable by sessions Court, the learned Magistrate acting under Section 209 of Cr.P.C, committed this case to the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Further, Hon'ble Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, transferred this case, to this court for disposal in accordance with law. Hence, the matter is taken up before this Court for further proceedings accordingly.
5. As stated herein above, accused is on bail. In pursuance of service of summons, accused appeared before this Court through their counsel and got enlarged on bail. After hearing the counsel for accused and also the learned Public Prosecutor and on considering the relevant materials on record, my 5 S.C. No.603/2017 predecessor has framed charges against accused on 26.2.2018, for the offences punishable under section 370 of Indian Penal Code and U/sec.3, 4, 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. For which accused pleaded not guilty and thereby they have claimed to be tried for the said offences.
6. In support of the case of prosecution, out 10 witnesses cited in the charge sheet they have examined in all 2 witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2. The prosecution has marked 3 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and further 6 Material Objects were marked as M.O.1 to 6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this Court has recorded the statement of accused No.3 as provided under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused has denied all the incriminating materials present against him in the evidence of prosecution. Accused No.3 has not adduced any defense evidence nor produced any documents on his behalf. 6 S.C. No.603/2017
7. Heard the argument of learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsels for accused. Perused all the oral and documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.2.2014, at 12.05p.m, accused No.3 was running prostitution in Sadashivanagar P S jurisdiction at New BEL Road, Nr.
Shirdi Sai Hospital at House No.509 and thereby accused No.3 has committed the offence punishable under section 3 of ITP?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.2.2014, at 12.05p.m, accused No.3 was running prostitution in Sadashivanagar P S jurisdiction at New BEL Road, Nr. Shirdi Sai Hospital at House No.509 by keeping C.W.1, 6 to 8 and was doing brothel business by easily earning money and living on the income of the said business and thereby accused No.3 has committed the offence punishable under section 4 of ITP?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.2.2014, at 12.05p.m, accused No.3 was running 7 S.C. No.603/2017 prostitution in Sadashivanagar P S jurisdiction at New BEL Road, Nr. Shirdi Sai Hospital at House No.509 by keeping C.W.1, 6 to 8, accused No.3 was keeping girls as slaves for doing brothel business and induced the girls to indulge in prostitution and thereby accused No.3 has committed the offence punishable under section 6 of ITP?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.2.2014, at 12.05p.m, accused No.3 was running prostitution in Sadashivanagar P S jurisdiction by keeping C.W.1, 6 to 8 and kept them under his custody as slaves and induced them for prostitution and thereby accused No.3 has committed the offence punishable under sec.370 of IPC?
5. What order?
8. Having heard the arguments of both the sides and taking into consideration the evidence on record, coupled with all the documents, 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 8 S.C. No.603/2017 Point No.5: As per final order For the following:
R EAS O N S
9. Points No.1 to 4: All these points are taken up for consideration together for convenience as they are inter-connected with one another and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding points of law.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the prosecution has perfectly proved all the ingredients of the charges leveled against accused and hence, accused be convicted for the offences charged.
11. The learned counsel for the accused, Sri. Dilip Kumar H B, Advocate, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all 9 S.C. No.603/2017 sufficient to hold that accused has committed the offence charged against him and hence, he may kindly be acquitted is the argument of the counsel for ccused.
12. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. I have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in detail. The prosecution has got marked 3 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and 6 Material Objects from MO.1 to M.O.6 are marked.
13. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, the evidence of P.W.1, who is CW.1 on by name Nagalingaiah, who deposed that on 21.01.2014 he went to the spot on credible information that Prostitution was going on, hence he took P.S.I, Staff and Panchas to the incident spot. Further deposed that on entering the house he found accused along with Prathima, who were indulged in 10 S.C. No.603/2017 sexual activity. Further deposed that in another room Thaslima and CW.5 were there. Further deposed that on searching the room were accused was present, he found Rs.4,800/- Cash and One Nokia Mobile, Further also found 5 Condoms. Further deposed that in the hall were Venugopal was present, he found one Nokia Mobile and Josh Mobile, further he found one mobile from one Prakash. Further deposed that these articles were seized before CW.2 and 3 and mahazar was drawn. The said Mahazar is at Ex.P.1 and witness signature is at Ex.P.1(a), complaint is at Ex.P.2 and witness signature is at Ex.P.2(a). Further deposed that P.S.I took the statements of witnesses. Further deposed that accused no.3 is present before the court who was indulged in sexual activity as customer. Further deposed that accused No.1 and 2 were carrying out prostitution in the said house. The articles seized were marked as MO.1 to 5 and that 11 S.C. No.603/2017 witness filed charge sheet against accused. This witness was not cross examined by the defence counsel.
14. Another police witness is PW.2 is CW.10, one by name Govindaraju, he deposed that on 21.02.2014 P.S.I Nagalingayya brought accused and articles and gave a report, for which crime was registered and investigation was continued. Further deposed that on inquiring accused No.3, he came to know that he was a customer. The articles seized were inserted in PF.No.24/2014. Further deposed that he took the statements of witnesses and handed over further investigation to PW.1. That complaint is at Ex.P.2 and witness signature at Ex.P.2(b) and FIR is at Ex.P.3 and witness signature is at Ex.P.3(a). Further deposed that the amount of Rs.4,800/- is marked as MO.6. During the cross examination of PW.2, he deposed and admitted that accused was a customer at the time 12 S.C. No.603/2017 raid. Further deposed that there is no number mentioned of the currency notes in panchanama or P.F for Rs.4,800/-. Further for the suggestion put by defense counsel that MO.1 to 6 are easily available in the market, witness answered as it may be. This witness denied other suggestion put to him as false.
15. On considering the evidence of the prosecution witness, evidence of P.W.1, he deposing that on entering the house he found accused along with Prathima, who were indulged in sexual activity. Further deposing that accused no.3 is present before the court who was indulged in sexual activity as customer. Further deposed that accused No.1 and 2 were carrying out prostitution in the said house. Further PW.2 deposing that on inquiring accused No.3, he came to know that he was a customer. Further during cross examination of PW.2, he deposing and admitting that accused was a 13 S.C. No.603/2017 customer at the time raid. Further deposing that there is no number mentioned of the currency notes in panchanama or P.F for Rs.4,800/-. Further for the suggestion put by defense counsel that MO.1 to 6 are easily available in the market, witness answered as it may be, this aspect also raises doubt on the case of prosecution.
16. Further, the definitions of under sec.370 of Indian Penal Code and under sec.3,4,6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, in short can be understood as:
"Trafficking of person and Keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel, living on the earnings of the prostitution, or detaining any person in premises where prostitution is carried on.
17. The above explanations of the definitions have to be strictly proved for any case against accused No.3 falling under sec.370 of Indian Penal Code and under sec.3, 4, 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. 14 S.C. No.603/2017 But in the case on hand, it is important to note that although victim were cited as witness in the charge sheet, but prosecution has not examined any one, so that she could explain her grief and prosecution has not taken the evidence of independent witnesses in and around the vicinity of the raided spot. These offences are against the dignity of woman and health of the society. Hence, care has to be taken while deciding such cases on Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The examined witness P.W.1 and P.W.2 are official witnesses and pancha witness have not been examined in this case to say the case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further Panchanama at Ex.P.1, dated 21.02.2014 is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Basing only on the say of the official witnesses, the charges do not stand proved against accused No.3. Thus the prosecution was not successful to prove the 15 S.C. No.603/2017 charges against accused No.3, beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. Such being the case, it can be seen from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.5539/2018, Dated 28.08.2018, and in the said order, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held, " The allegations made against the petitioner and the material collected against the petitioner do not show the commission of any of the offences alleged against him in the FIR and charge sheet and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are contrary to the decision in the case of GirishChandra Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police reported in ILR 2013 Kar 983, and the law laid down in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P 2 SCC
1. For both these reasons, the proceedings are liable to be quashed."
Further in Criminal Petition No.966/2017, dated 10.04.2017, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that, "The proceedings pending against the petitioners in the case in S.C.726/2016 on the file of XLV ACC & SJ, Bengaluru, stands quashed. I.A.1/2017 is also disposed of accordingly."
16 S.C. No.603/2017So in view of the above discussions, it is very clear that accused No.3 who being the customer as per the available materials on record, none of the offences as mentioned in the charge sheet certainly not attracted to proceed against accused No.3 by framing charge.
19. Further, on considering the evidence of all the witness on record, it is relevant to note that the evidence of public servants cannot be disbelieved that they are interested in the success of prosecution. But the various discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant makes it doubtful to believe the version of the prosecution in toto. Based only on the evidence of these official witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2, the guilt of accused No.3 cannot be concluded. Also that, no neighbor or independent witness have been made witness in this case, creates doubt on the prosecution case. The I.O. has not examined the adjacent owners of the flat nor recorded their statements. Again, as per 17 S.C. No.603/2017 the provisions of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act Under sec.15(2) of wherein, one woman pancha has to be secured, was also not complied with. Further this accused No.3 is shown as customer and relying on the above decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is also in favour of this accused. Moreover, the adjacent owners are not examined by the prosecution, which creates doubt.
20. The evidence on record does not prove that accused was carrying on brothel business on the date of alleged raid by the Police Inspector and his staff. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to hold that accused No.3 has committed the offence charged against him. Therefore, doubt arises regarding the case alleged against accused No.3. It is well settled 18 S.C. No.603/2017 principle of law that accused No.3 is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.3 was indulged in the offences as charged under section 370 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3, 4, 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
21. Point No.5: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that accused deserves to be acquitted of the offences charged against him in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
O RDE R Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.3 is acquitted of the offences charged against them under sections.370 of Indian Penal Code and U/sec.3, 4, 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
The bail bond executed by accused No.3 and his surety bond shall stand canceled and he is set at liberty forthwith.19 S.C. No.603/2017
M.O.5 being worthless is hereby ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. Further M.O.1 to 4 and 6 are hereby ordered to be confiscated to the Government. Further it is ordered that Properties to be retained until the Split Up case is disposed off.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 30th day of March, 2022) (SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH 72) ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1 Nagalingaiah
P.W.2 Govindaraju
II. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Panchanama
Ex.P1(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.2 Report
Ex.P.2(a&b) Signature of witness
Ex.P.3 FIR
20 S.C. No.603/2017
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of witness
III. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of
Accused:
-NIL-
IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 to 3 Nokia Mobiles
M.O.4 Josh Mobile
M.O.5 Condoms (5)
M.O.6 Rs.4,800/-
M.O.6(a) Signature of witness
(SANDHYA S.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72)