Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs A1: Shukaria on 17 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL., CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 17th Day of October 2016
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. B.S.REKHA B.A. Law., LL.M.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SPECIAL C. NO.478/2014
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka,
By J.J. Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Rep. Public Prosecutor-Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED: A1: Shukaria, S/o Usman Ansari,
33 years.
A2: Niyaz Kaligar @ Mohammad Niyaz,
25 years, R/at Dumari, Khaditola
village, Dumari post,
Shivak Disrict,
Bihar State.
A4: Imthiyaz Ahammad, S/o Khaleel
Ansari, 22 years, R/at Dumari
Village, Shampur Taluk, Sivelly
District, Bihar State.
[Rep.Sri.Madhu R -Advocate.]
2 Spl.C.No.478/2014
1 Date of commission of offence 28-09-2011
2 Date of report of occurrence 28-09-2011
3 Date of arrest of Accused-1 to 3
Date of release of Accused-1 to 3 ON BAIL
Period undergone in custody
by Accused-1 to 3
4 Date of commencement of 03-04-2013
evidence
5 Date of closing of evidence 23-06-2016
6 Name of the complainant R.A. Siguran
7 Offences complained of Section 370, 371,
344, 374 r/w 34 of
IPC, 23, 26 of JJ Act
and 16, 17 Bonded
Labour System Act.
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector attached to the Jagajeevan Ramnagar Police Station, Bangalore City, has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 370, 371, 344, 374 read with 34 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Care & Protection of Children Act, 2000 and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. 3 Spl.C.No.478/2014
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28-09-2011-Cw.1-R.A.H.Siguran, Case Worker- Intervention, "Justice & Care (A Project of Valley of Praise Charitable Society) an NGO has lodged a complaint that around children were being forced to work in bag manufacturing establishment, No.3, 2nd Cross, In front of Balaji Nilaya, Mysore Road, Bangalore, who were trafficked to Bengaluru from Bihar and as they were forced to work without proper facilities and overtime work and also they worked as bonded labourers in that establishment and thereby while conducting the raid they found the information as true and rescued Cw.4 to Cw.7 and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. After submission of charge sheet before III ACMM, Bengaluru, cognizance was taken and the learned Magistrate has committed this case to the Court of Sessions for trial. After committal, this case was made over Fast Track Court- XV and registered as S.C.No. 281/2012. Accused are on bail. They engaged a counsel 4 Spl.C.No.478/2014 for their defense. The copies of the charge sheet were furnished to them. After hearing both sides charge for the above offences were framed, read over and explained to the accused by the Presiding Officer-FTC-XV, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter as per Notification No.RSB/181/15 dated 09-10-2014 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the case is transferred from CCH-51 to this Court and it is registered as Special C.C.No.478/2014
4. On behalf of the prosecution Pw.1 to Pw.8 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked. Thereafter, the accused are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence, which appeared against them and they have not chosen to lead evidence on their side.
5. Perused the records and heard the arguments. The learned Public Prosecutor filed written arguments.
6. The facts and the evidence on record guided me to formulate the following points for consideration: 5 Spl.C.No.478/2014
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 3 with common intention, being the owners of bag manufacturing establishment, No.3, 2nd Cross, In front of Balaji Nilaya, Mysore Road, Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of the Jagajeevan Ramnagar Police Station, brought minor children from Bihar and forced them to work at their factory and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 370 read with 34 of I.P.C ?
2) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 3 with common intention, to make money habitually brought minor children from Bihar and forced them to work at their factory and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 371 read with 34 of I.P.C?
3) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 3 with common intention, wrongfully confined the minor children brought from Bihar and forced them to work at their factory and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 344 read with 34 of I.P.C?
4) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 3 with common intention, to make money unlawfully compelled the minor children to work at their factory against their will beyond reasonable period and thereby committed the offence 6 Spl.C.No.478/2014 punishable under Section 374 read with 34 of I.P.C?
5) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 3 without giving proper facilities and against the law have taken more work by knowing that they were minors and also caused mental harassment and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Care & Protection of Children Act, 2000?
6) Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 3 to make money habitually brought minor children from Bihar and forced them to work as bonded labourers in their factory and thereby committed the offences punishable Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976?
7) What Order?
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.7 Spl.C.No.478/2014
Point No.5 In the Negative.
Point No.6 In the Negative.
Point No.7 As per final orders for the following REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 6:- In order to prove the case of the prosecution, Cw.1-R.A.H.Siguran is examined as Pw.1, who is working in Justice & Care-NGO as case worker. He used to participate in the raid with respect to the children. They used to give information to the police and also they used to co-operate with the police. On 28- 09-2011 himself, Cw.10 to Cw.12 went to the Labour Department with information that in J.J.Nagar Police Station limits some children are working. They have intimated earlier about this to the Labour Department Joint Commissioner, so six teams prepared. That team includes Labour Department Officials, Doctor from E.S.I. Hospital and other Inspectors. Thereafter they went to J.J.Nagar Police Station, wherein the six teams were entrusted with the work. They went to the factory at 12.30p.m., which is situated near Gopalan Mall, in first 8 Spl.C.No.478/2014 floor, in front of Balaji Nilaya. They went inside and found that there are 5 to 6 tailoring machines there and the men were preparing lunch bags from regzin material and two boys aged 13 to 14 years were cutting extra pieces. There is a room by the side of that hall, wherein two boys were doing the same work. There was toilet in the first floor entry and the clothes of the children were put to soak. There is a small kitchen. On enquiry the children told that they came from Bihar and one Sugriya and another person brought them by paying amount to their parents and they used to extract work from 09.00a.m., till 12.00p.m. They used to pay Rs.50/- or Rs.100/- for expenses. The doctor examined Amir Khan who was aged 12 years, Gulab was aged 15years, Lakindar aged 12 years, Nizamuddin was aged 18 years. They brought all the children to the police station and he lodged complaint. On the next day the police have prepared mahazar at 03.30pm., in the presence of Panch witnesses.
9 Spl.C.No.478/2014
9. During the course of cross-examination he had stated that the police have not obtained any documents with respect to his status in the NGO. He had not stated that in the complaint that he had already visited the place and informed the Labour Joint Officer. His office is situated at Halasur and Labour Office is situated in Dairy Circle and J.J.Nagar Police Station is situated 1½ KMs from Dairy Circle. The place of incident is situated 1K.M. away from the police station. He had not stated the name of the Labour Inspector and ESI Doctor in the complaint. He came to the Police Station at 11.30 a.m. He had not stated that four children were cutting extra regzin in his complaint. He typed the complaint in the police station between 02.30 p.m, to 03.15 p.m. He had not received any complaint from public or from Labour Department about working with child labourers. He is the complainant in all the cases. They will not do any other work, except this type of work.
10 Spl.C.No.478/2014
10. Cw.11-Sherlin examined as Pw.2 had stated that she is working in Justice & Care-NGO along with Cw.10 and Cw.12. Cw.1 is the case worker. Their NGO is working for rescuing the people who suffered in human trafficking. They got information that some that in building No.3, 2nd Cross, Balaji Nilaya, Mysore Road, in bag manufacturing unit, they employed child labourers. On 28-09-2011 herself, Cw.1, Cw.10 and Cw.12 went to the Labour Department with information that in J.J.Nagar Police Station limits some children are working. Thereafter they went to J.J.Nagar Police Station, wherein the teams were entrusted with the work. They went to the factory at 12.00p.m. They went inside and found that there are four boys were preparing leather school bags. On enquiry they told their names as Amir Khan, Nizamuddin, Gulab and Lakvindar who were aged below 15 years. The ESI Doctor on examination confirmed that those boys were below 15 years. On enquiry the children told that they came from Bihar and one Imtiyaz, Niyaz and Shukriyaz have brought them. 11 Spl.C.No.478/2014 The clothes of the children were dirty. They brought all the children to the police station. She had given statement to the police.
11. During the course of cross-examination she had stated that she is working from two years. She had not produced documents to show her status in that NGO. She knows Pw.1. She cannot say as to who are all there in all the teams.
12. Cw.8-K.Ranga Swamy examined as Pw.3- Senior Labour Inspector had stated that on 28-09-2011 when he was in the office, he was called to identify the child labourers to the higher officer. He, Cw.9 and other officers went to J.J.Nagar Police Station. At that time the voluanteers-Pw.1, Cw.10, Pw.2, Cw.12 and doctor from ESI Hospital joined them. Pw.1 told that they identified the child labourers. Teams were formed. P.S.I. Parameshwar and other staffs accompanied them. They went to House No.3 of 2nd Cross in Mysore Road, Toll Gate and found that Supervisor-Imtiyaz was there and 12 Spl.C.No.478/2014 four boys were working. Those boys were packing the articles. They were preparing school bags. There are sewing machines, raw materials and wastage pieces found. When they enquired about information, Imtiyaz had not stated anything, but he told Sukariya and Kaliga are the owners. However he had not given any documents. Out of four boys one was above 14 years and the remaining were below 14 years. They have not given documents to show the age of the boys. Then they have produced before doctors. On enquiry the boys told that they are from Bihar. Nizamuddin was aged 18 years, Amir Khan, Gulab and Lakvindar were aged 12 years. They told that they will extract work from 09.00a.m., to 12.00p.m., and they will be paid Rs.50/- or Rs.100/- per week. They have recorded the statement and handed over to Manjula Devi, who was the Senior Labour Inspector. They brought the children to J.J.Nagar Police Station. The children told that they were residing in the working place. The witness with confusion had identified accused as Imtiyaz.
13 Spl.C.No.478/2014
13. During the course of cross examination he had stated that his higher officers have received the complaint. He had given statement on the next day. They have formed four teams. He had not stated the same to police. He also not stated as to who are in the team and the doctor told the age. He had not stated as to what type of work the boys were doing. He had not stated before the police that they were extracting the work day and night. There is no name board to that factory.
14. Cw.4-Abdul Kalam examined as Pw.4 had identified the accused as Viraj and Imtiyaz, who came from his village and another accused Sukariya, who are running bag manufacturing unit. Miyaz brought him about four years back from Dumblikar Sale of Bihar State. Miyaz told that he will teach the work and also called him to come to Bangalore and he will pay the amount afterwards. He also told that if he intimate to his parents they will not send. One Miraj is the owner of the factory. He was doing cutting of the clothes and 14 Spl.C.No.478/2014 tags between 06.00a.m, till 02.00p.m. He was aged 16 years at that time. Along with him, Amir Khan, Lakvinder and Saddam were working. He is not aware of their age. They were not paying money. They used to sleep in the factory. They were giving rice during afternoon and night. He worked for one year. They were not allowed to go out. He was not provided with clothes and money. Six police came and rescued them. Thereafter they were taken to Bala Mandir.
15. During the course of cross-examination he has stated that his mother and himself came to Bangalore on previous day by buying ticket in train. They stayed in railway station during night. He had not met anybody. He was aware of the Bangalore and the Court. He did not visit this building earlier. Now he is aged 21 years. He was enquired about the age when he was rescued. Some body called from Bangalore told to come to Bangalore. His father had paid money. Now he is working in Sairam Village of Lcknow. He denied that 15 Spl.C.No.478/2014 some body told that they will pay money if he deposes. He is not aware of Cw.1, Cw.10 to Cw.12.
16. Cw.13-Muniyappa examined as Pw.5 had stated that on 28-09-2011 when he was in the police station, Cw.17-Ramesh called him and Cw.14 and at that time Pw.1, Labour Inspector-Manjunath Nagendra, Cw.10, Cw.12 are in the office. They told that in Mysore Road, 2nd Cross, in bag manufacturing unit they employed children and they went along with them. They found that children were manufacturing the bags. On enquiry they told that they were mentally and physically harassed. They have brought 13 children before Police Inspector. The owner was not in the establishment. He is not aware of the name of the owner. The rescued children are Amir Khan, Nizamuddin, Paswan and Bilal. There was display as bag manufacturing in that building. They went to spot in car which belonged to NGO. He saw 13 children pertain to this case.
16 Spl.C.No.478/2014
17. Cw.15-Dr.Manjula Devi.K., examined as Pw.6 had stated that Labour Department officials took them for examination of child labourers to estimate the age of the child labourers. On 28-09-2011 Labour Inspector called her and thereafter they went to J.J.Nagar Police Station and thereafter they have taken her to a place near Gopalan Mall. There was a factory and there was a big drainage. Many children were working and they ran away. The police have rescued more than 40 children. However by looking to the police the children were scattered. Thereafter they have brought them in the vehicle and children were also brought to the police station. She has certified the age of Amir Khan Ansari, Nizamuddin Ansari, Raju Lakvinder Paswan and Gulab. Ex.P4 is with respect to Gulab who is aged 13 ½ years. Ex.P5 is with respect to Amir Khan who is aged 12 years. Ex.P6 is with respect to Niyzmuddin Ansari who is above 14 years. Ex.P7 is with respect to Raju Lakvindar Paswan who is aged above 14 years. She has examined more than 40 children with respect to this case. She has 17 Spl.C.No.478/2014 not shown the mode of examination conducted. She admits that the age can be determined only through ossification and radiology test. She had not conducted the said tests. She saw the children in the factory. Parents of the children were not there. The children were brought of Police and Labour Department Officers. She had examined them in the police station. She is not aware that the children were working with the accused.
18. Cw.16-S.Narasimhaiah examined as Pw.7 Police Inspector had stated that on 28-09-2011 he received complaint and registered the case and submitted the FIR to the Court. On the next day he prepared mahazar and arrested the accused and recorded voluntary statement.
19. During the course of cross-examination, he had stated that he had not obtained document to show that the complainant is working in Justice & Care. He had not given notice to Panch witnesses. 18 Spl.C.No.478/2014
20. Cw.17-Ramesh.G.R., is Police Inspector examined as Pw.8 has stated that on 29-09-2011 he took up further investigation from Pw.7. He recorded the statements of Narasimha Gowda, Rangaswamy, Sugandini, Carmel, Sherlin, Muniyappa and Venkatesh Murthy. On 12-10--2011 he recorded the statement of Cw.4 to Cw.7 and obtained Ex.P4 to Ex.P7. On 15-10- 2011 he arrested accused-Imtiyaz and recorded his voluntary statement. On 20-10-2011 he filed application before V-A.C.M.M. to record statement of Cw.4. On 28- 11-2011 he submitted charge sheet.
21. During the course of cross-examination, he had stated that the victims were not subjected to ossification of radiology test. The doctor had accompanied the Labour Inspector who conducted the test. He had not examined the complainant. He admits that M.M.T.C.V had rejected his prayer to record statement of Abdul Kalam.
19 Spl.C.No.478/2014
22. The documents relied on by the prosecution are Ex.P1- complaint, Ex.P2 is mahazar, Ex.P3 is the FIR, Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 are age certificate of Gulab, Amir Khan, Niyamuddin and Paswan. Ex.P8 is the report. Ex.P9 is the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of one Abdul Kalam.
23. On perusal of the materials available on record, it could be seen that this initiation is taken by Justice & Care-NGO. According to them they got information that there is child labour and Bonded Labour system in different establishments. Thereafter they have intimated the same to the Labour Department. Then they joined together and informed the same to J.J.Nagar Police Station and thereafter they joined together and after considering as joint venture they formed different teams and decided to raid on different establishments. This is one of such establishment wherein they got information about the child labour and bonded labour. They have conducted raid on 28-09- 2011. According to them when they visited the 20 Spl.C.No.478/2014 establishment, they found four child labourer are there in that establishment.
24. Pw.1 who is the complainant in this case has stated that when they conducted raid in this establishment, they found that there are 5-6 tailing machines were there and the children were cutting the extra pieces from the bag. There is a toilet and kitchen in that establishment. His contention is that those boys told that Sugriya and another person brought them from Bihar and they are extracting more work, but they are not paying salary. However he had not stated in the complaint that those boys were cutting the extra regzin. They have not received any complaint from the public or the labour department. He is the complainant in all the cases. However they have not found the owners in the establishment.
25. Pw.2 is the co-employee also stated the same version. But, she had stated that the boys were preparing the school bags. Though the children have 21 Spl.C.No.478/2014 stated the name of these accused who brought them, but none of the accused were present at the establishment.
26. Pw.3 is the retired Labour Inspector, also stated that when they conducted raid, Imtiyaz was there and four boys were bifurcating the bags and making packing. When he enquired about the owners he told as Sukariya and Kaliga, but they have not obtained any documents.
27. Pw.4 is an important witness who says that he was one of the rescued boy. The raid was conducted in the year 2011 and he was shown as 15 years at the time of rescue. He had categorically stated that the accused have brought him and made him to work with an assurance of getting good salary. However, when he was examined he had stated the age as 21 years. If this contention is accepted he was aged 17 years at the time of raid. Further the Investigation Officer attempted to get his statement recorded on 20-10-2011. But when he was produced before M.M.T.C.V, the officer has endorsed 22 Spl.C.No.478/2014 that this person was below 15 years and he is unable to understand the question and hence the request of the Investigation Officer is rejected. If this document is believed, then this person cannot be a rescued boy in that incident. Then no credence could be given to his evidence.
28. Pw.5 has stated that they went to raid and four boys were rescued. He had not stated what work these boys were doing.
29. Pw.6 is the Doctor, who had stated that in this factory there were 40 children rescued. She had examined all the children. Even according to her, Gulab was aged 13 ½ years. She had categorically stated that she had examined the children in police station who were brought by the labour department and the police. She is not aware that the victims were working under accused.
30. Pw.7 is the Investigation Officer, who had 23 Spl.C.No.478/2014 stated that the complainant had not complaint in the police station. Pw.8 is the Investigation Officer.
31. Though the raid might have taken place on different establishments, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that these witnesses have participated in the raid on different establishment and they have rescued the child labourers in this case. Even in this case one of the boy's age is above 14 years, who cannot be treated as child labour. The other boys are aged below 13years. However the person who is examined on behalf of the prosecution does not definitely say what work this particular child labourers were doing, though they have firmly stated that it was hazardous work, but it is a bag manufacturing unit.
32. In this case as the raid was taken place on different establishments on one day by different officials, but none of the official witnesses have properly supported the case of the prosecution. In this case though the official witnesses have stated about 24 Spl.C.No.478/2014 participating in the raid, none of them have stated that the accused are the owners who were present in that establishment at the time of the raid. When once the owners were not present, it was the duty of the officials who conducted raid to obtain necessary documents to know the ownership. Further there are no documents on record to show these boys were working in that establishment. On the same day they by making five teams have conducted raid on different establishments. Even the Investigation Officer says about conducting raid to a different establishment. The Investigation Officer has not obtained necessary documents of the establishment even during the course of investigation. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are the Labour Inspectors, the doctor and the social workers. They have not attempted to make any person as witness to the mahazar who was the localities of that area.
33. Even those child witnesses are also not examined, except Pw.4, but his evidence is not accepted by the Court, because his identity is not established. 25 Spl.C.No.478/2014 The child witnesses are the material witnesses to say about their grievances and who are the owners of the establishment. What was the mode of investigation conducted by the Investigation Officer regarding this establishment is not shown. In this case since it is a case of raid, each and every circumstance has to be established by the prosecution. None of the materials available on record to establish the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the witnesses is not corroborating with each other. The complainant is the person who had participated in the raid of this establishment, but his evidence is not properly corroborated. In this case the entire evidence available on record does not prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, by giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, I answer these points in the Negative.
34. Point No.7: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
26 Spl.C.No.478/2014
ORDER Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 370, 371, 344, 374 read with 34 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Care & Protection of Children Act, 2000 and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th Day of October 2016.) (B.S.REKHA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW 1 R.A. Siguran Cw.1 03.04.2013 27 Spl.C.No.478/2014 PW 2 Sherlin Cw.11 26.04.2013 PW 3 K. Rangaswami Cw.8 06.06.2013 PW 4 Abdul Kalam Cw.4 19.08.2015 PW 5 Muniyappa CW.13 26.11.2015 PW 6 Doctor Manjula Devi Cw.15 26.11.2016 PW 7 S. Narasimhaiah Cw.16 26.01.2016 PW 8 G.R. Ramiesh Cw.17 23.06.2016 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 03.04.2013 Ex.P 1a Signature Pw.1 03.04.2013 Ex.P 2 Manazar Pw.1 03.04.2013 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 03.04.2013 Ex.P 1b Signature of PW.7 Pw.7 06.01.2016 Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 06.01.2016 Ex.P 3 FIR Pw.7 06.01.2016 Ex.P 3a Signature of PW.7 Pw.7 06.01.2016 Ex.P 4 Medical Certificate Pw.6 23.06.2016 of Gulab Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 23.06.2016 Ex.P 5 Medical Certificate Pw.6 23.06.2016 of Ameerkhan Ansari Ex.P 5a Signature of PW.6 Pw.6 23.06.2016 Ex.P 6 Medical Certificate Pw.6 23.06.2016 of Niyamuddin Ansari Ex.P 7 Medical Certificate Pw.6 23.06.2016 of Raju Lakundar Paswan 28 Spl.C.No.478/2014 Ex.P 8 Requesting letter for Pw.8 23.06.2016 164 statement Ex.P 8a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 23.06.2016 Ex.P 9 164 Statement Pw.8 23.06.2016 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
(B.S.REKHA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE 29 Spl.C.No.478/2014