Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mahazar @ Nazar Alam on 17 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 17th Day of June 2017
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.,
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SPECIAL C.C.No.193/2014
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka
By Jagajeevanram Ram Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Rep. by learned Public Prosecutor,
Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED:
1. Mahazar @ Nazar Alam,
S/o. Abdul Sattar, 38 years,
R/at. R.H.K. Building,
Vinayaka Nagar
Bangalore.
2. Shamsad Alam,
S/o. Abdul Sattar, 27 years,
R/at.Chikkalagiri Village,
Pataka Village, East Chitram District,
Bihar State.
2 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
[Rep. by Sri.H.P. for A-1 &2-Advocate.]
1 Date of commission of offence 28-09-2011
2 Date of report of occurrence 28-09-2011
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1 28-01-2012
Date of release of Accused No.1 17-02-2012
Period undergone in custody 19days
by Accused No.1
Date of arrest of Accused No.2 29-09-2011
Date of release of Accused No.2 24-12-2011
Period undergone in custody 25 days,
by Accused No.2 01 month
4 Date of commencement of evidence 16-01-2016
5 Date of closing of evidence 31-05-2017
6 Name of the complainant R.A.H.Siguran
7 Offences complained of Section 370, 371,
344, 374 r/w. 34
of IPC, 23, 26-J.J.
Act, 16, 17-BLS Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 and
2 are acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Jagajeevanram Ram Nagar Police Station-Bangalore against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under 3 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 Section 370, 371, 344, 374 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28-09- 2011 at about 11.30 a.m., the complainant-worker of Justice & Care Institution had received a credible information as to the child bonded labourers are engaged in a bag manufacturing unit at No.19/1, 2nd Cross, Haleguddada Halli, Mysore Road, Bangalore and the said factory owner was getting the work from the child bonded labourers forcibly and the said child bonded labourers are confined at a particular place, as a result the complainant, Labour Department Officials and workers of Justice & Care Institution raided the said place. On verification they came to know that the children are trafficked from Bihar State by paying advance amount to their parents for their labour and were confined to the limited area of their work. The said children were made to work from 09.30 a.m., to 01.30 4 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 a.m., and they were made to stay and sleep in the same place where they worked, which is highly unsafe and unhealthy, causing adverse effect on the health of those children. Most of the victims did not get salary, but they were given weekly Rs.50 to Rs.100/- only for their small expenses and they have been working from six months to one year in the said establishment. On enquiry the said team came to know that the victims are wrongfully confined and made to work without giving labour charges for overtime and they were given physical and mental ill- treatment by the accused. As a result, complainant lodged complaint against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 371, 344, 374 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act.
3. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 370, 371, 344, 374 5 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 of I.P.C, read with Section 34 Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act.
4. After filing of charge sheet the committal Court committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bangalore and in turn the said case came to be made over to this Court for further proceedings.
5. After receiving the record by this Court, the summons was issued to accused No.1 and 2. In pursuance of the said summons, the accused No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and they were enlarged on bail. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused No.1 and 2 submitted that he has no arguments before framing charge. As a result the charge was recorded. The contents of the charge read over and explained in Kannada to the accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and submits crime to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused persons set down for prosecution evidence. 6 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 has examined as many as 8 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.8, got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and closed its side evidence. As could be seen from the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8, they are official witnesses. In view of incriminating evidence appearing against accused No.1 and 2, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording their statement. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
7. 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. 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ KPÉÆÃzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀB28-09-2011QÌAvÀ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð ªÉÆzÀ®Ä C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ZÁ¸Á-4 ªÀiÁ.C±Àæ¥sï, ZÁ¸Á-5 ªÀiÁ.ºÁQèï, ZÁ¸Á-6 ªÀiÁ.ªÀĪÀiÁÛeï D®A, ZÁ¸Á-7 ªÀiÁ.¥ÀªÃÉ ðeï D®A, ZÁ¸Á-8 ªÀiÁ.ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï ±Á»Ãzï, ZÁ¸Á-9 ªÀiÁ.vÀ¨ÉÃæÃeï D®A, ZÁ¸Á-10 ªÀiÁ.¤ÃgÀeïPÀĪÀiÁgï, ZÁ¸Á-11 ªÀiÁ.ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï £ÁfÃA, ZÁ¸Á-12 ªÀiÁ.ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï C±Àðzï, 7 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 ZÁ¸Á-13 ªÀiÁ.GªÉÄæÃeï EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¨ÁåUï ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀAvÉ ElÄÖPÉƼÀÄîªÀ GzÉÃÝ ±À¢AzÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ©ºÁgÀ gÁdå¢AzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ PÀ¼Àî¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄ,Ý 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀg,À ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÉÆÃqï, UÉÆÃ¥Á®£ï ªÀiÁ¯ï ºÀwÛg,À 1£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ, vÀ£Àß ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀéPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ £ÀA.6 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¨ÁåUïªÀÀiÁå£ÀÄ¥sÁåPÀÖj PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀ EZÉÒUÉ «gÀÄzÀª Ý ÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä D C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÉÆqÀV¹zÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 370¸ÀºÀ PÀ®A 34gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝ gÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¤¸ÀìA±ÀAiÀĪÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
2. 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ZÁ¸Á-4 jAzÀ ZÁ¸Á-13 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼Àî¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀB28-09-
2011 gÀªg À ÉUÀÆ eÉ.eÉ.£ÀUg À À ¥Éǰøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀº¢ À ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÉÆÃqï, UÉÆÃ¥Á®£ï ªÀiÁ¯ï ºÀwÛgÀ, 1£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ, 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀé ºÉÆA¢zÀ £ÀA.6gÀ°gè ÀĪÀ ¨ÁåUïªÀÀiÁå£ÀÄ¥sÁåPÀÖj PÀA¥À¤UÉ PÀgÉvA À zÀÄ, ¸Àzj À PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ZÁ¸Á-4 jAzÀ ZÁ¸Á-13 gÀªj À AzÀ PÀµÀÖPÀgÀªÁzÀ PÉ®¸Àz° À è vÉÆqÀV¹ MvÁÛAiÀĪÁV, C¢üPÀ ªÉÃ¼É PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹ PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀA§¼À ¤ÃqÀzÉà 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A374 ¸À»vÀ 26 dÄåªÉ£Éʯï d¹Ö¸ï DPïÖ£ÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸À»vÀ PÀ®A 16 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 17gÀ ¨ÁAqÉqï ¯Éçgï D¨Á°µÀ£ï CPïÖ gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝ£A É zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¤¸ÀìA±ÀAiÀĪÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
3. 2£Éà DgÉÆæ, ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ CªÀ¢A ü iÀÄ°è, ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¸Àܼz À À°è ¨ÁåUï ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ°è, ZÁ¸Á-4 jAzÀ 8 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 ZÁ¸Á-13 gÀªÀjAzÀ C¢üPÀ ªÉÃ¼É PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹ PÉƼÀÄîwz Û ÀÄÝ, J°èAiÀÄÆ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ©qÀz,É ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ Hl §mÉÖUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV £ÉÄÁÃrPÉƼÀîzÉà ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£A É iÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁr D ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV £ÀgÀ¼ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ PÀ®A 23 dÄåªÉ£Éʯï d¹Ö¸ï DPïÖ£ÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¤¸ÀìA±ÀAiÀĪÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
8. 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: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3:-As these points are interrelated one, hence, I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetation of reasonings.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution has examined in all 8 9 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.8, got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
11. As per the prosecution case, the accused No.1 and 2 were running bag manufacturing unit at Mysore Road, near Gopalan Mall, 1st Cross, at No.6, Bangalore. In order to establish the above said facts and circumstances, except oral testimony of Pw.1 to Pw.8, who are officials of Police, Labour Department and NGOs, none of the supporting documentary evidence is placed before the Court to show that accused No.1 and 2 are owners of the said bag manufacturing unit. Even no such independent witness evidence produced by the prosecution to strengthen its case of accused No.1 and 2 are owners of said manufacturing unit. Further no such supporting evidence placed through the owner of the building where the alleged bag manufacturing unit is running. Non production of material corroborative, oral and documentary evidence to show that accused No.1 and 2 are owners or 10 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 supervisors or their participation in the said bag manufacturing unit, it is absolutely fatal to the case of the prosecution. With these, now left with available materials placed by the prosecution to know whether the accused No.1 and 2 have committed offences as alleged by the prosecution or not.
12. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.2 to Pw.4 are the witnesses participated for raid of the said unit and also they are NGOs, Pw.5 is the doctor, Pw.6 to Pw.8 are the police personnel. Since they are all interested witnesses, in chief examination they supported the case of the prosecution, but on perusal of their cross-examination there are some discrepancies to the case of prosecution.
13. Before venturing to scan the available materials on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 370, 371, 344, 374 of I.P.C., Section 11 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 23 and 26 of J.J. Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act.
14. 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 practising 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."
12 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
15. Section 371 of I.P.C defines that:
Habitual dealing in Slaves "Whoever habitually imports, exports, removes, buys, sells, traffics or deals in slaves shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
16. 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."
17. 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.13 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
18. Section 23 of J.J.Act, 2000 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 tin a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both."
19. Section 26 of J.J.Act, 2000 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."
20. Section 16 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act defines that:
Punishment for enforcement of bonded Labour:
"Whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may 14 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees."
Now left with the available material evidence of prosecution, to consider whether the said evidence supports the case of prosecution to believe beyond reasonable doubt against accused or not.
21. By going through the evidence of Pw.1, who is none other than the complainant-R.H.A.Siguran, he has deposed that on 27-09-2011, he has informed the Joint Commissioner of Labour Department in respect of that in some bag manufacturing unit child labourers are working, for that the said Joint Commissioner told to conduct raid on 28-09-2011 and his officials also accompanied him. On 28-09-2011 at about 09.30 a.m., he himself, his team members viz., Sugandi, Sherlin and Carmel went to Labour Office and taken the Labour Inspector-Manjunath and also Dr.Manjula Devi and Nagendra, went to Police Station and furnished information to Police Inspector-Ramesh and on 15 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 that information they went to the manufacturing unit for raid. He has also deposed that Ex.P1-complaint lodged by him and his signature is Ex.P1(a).
22. In this regard the learned advocate for accused No.1 and 2 cross-examined Pw.1 and elicited that:
"¢B27-9-2011gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ eÁ¬ÄAmï PÀ«ÄõÀ£ÀgïUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ 6 J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmïUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ»w EgÀ°®è. D ¢£ÁAPÀzA À zÉà £Á£ÀÄ eÁ¬ÄAmï PÀ«ÄõÀ£g À ïgÀªÀjUÉ °TvÀªÁUÉãÀÆ PÀA¥ÉèAmï ªÀiÁr®è."
Further he has deposed that:
"F AiÀÄĤmï£À qÉÊgÉPÀÖgïgÀªÀgÀÄ, F PÉùUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆr JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ C¢üPÁgÀ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ E¯Áè JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
Again he has deposed that:
"¢B28-9-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀܼP À ÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¨Á® PÁ«ÄðPÀg£ À ÀÄß Ej¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÉßãÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è."
The above said evidence clinches issue unequivocally points out, the complainant himself deposed falsely about giving of complaint on 28-09-2011 as per Ex.P1. Further 16 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 there is a doubt of whether he has given complaint on 28- 09-2011 or on any other day, since he has clearly admitted that on 28-09-2011 he has not given complaint before raiding the spot. At the same time in Ex.P1, the said complaint received at about 02.15 p.m., on 28-09-2011 is mentioned. At this stage, this Court feels to observe that there is contradictory evidence appeared with regard to lodging of complaint by this witness.
23. Pw.1 further deposed that they went to Mysore Road, near Toll Gate and Gopalan Mall, 1st Cross, by forming six teams to conduct raid on six establishments and he was accompanied with one team, where Cw.22- Narasimhaiah, Labour Officer accompanied with him. In this regard on perusal of cross-examination of this witness, the accused persons tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and elicited that:
"¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÁ½UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä F jÃw zÁ½ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ 17 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgï §gÉzÀgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
Further he has deposed that:
"¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ vÀAqÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ °TvÀªÁUÉãÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAqÀzÀ §UÉÎ §gÉAiÀÄ°®è. 6 J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmïUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¤ÃªÉà E¢Ýj JAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ¢ÝÃj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ 6 J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmïUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs ¥ÀlÖAvÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà PÉÆlÖzÀÄÝ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ vÀAqÀzÀ°è EzÉ£ Ý ÀÄ,MAzÀÄ J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmï¤AzÀ ªÀÄvÉÆA Û zÀÄ J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmïUÉ 10 ¤«ÄµÀUÀ¼À CAvÀgÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ «¹mï PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. AiÀiÁªÀ J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmïUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¨sÉÃn PÉÆlÖzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 2£Éà J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmï AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ F PÉùUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ s ÀlÖzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmïUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÃÉ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ¨sÃÉ n PÉÆlÄÖ ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÝgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
He has also deposed that:
"F PÉùUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmï qÉÆÃgï £ÀA.6, F ©°ØAUï£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è, ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB £É£À¦®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
The above said evidence creates doubt as to whether he has participated in the alleged raid or not. 18 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
24. Further Pw.1 in his chief examination has deposed that there are 10 children working in the said unit, some of the children were stitching the bags, some of the children were collecting the ready bags. There were six sewing machines and three adult persons were doing the said stitching work. Admittedly the said three adult persons are not made as witness of this case. When there are eye-witnesses available at the time of the alleged raid, there is a doubt as to why the Investigation Officer has not made them as eye-witnesses and made only the officials witnesses as a prosecution witness. But no such satisfactory answer produced by the prosecution through the evidence of Investigation Officer. Here it is relevant to note that at the time of raiding the said unit, having participated by Labour Department Officials in the said raid, but no such documents namely-Wage Register and other registers maintained as per Labour Act were seized by the police to know the workers who were working in the said unit.
19 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
25. Pw.1 further deposed that on enquiry the said children told one Mahazar brought them to work in the said unit. Here Mahazar is accused No.1. But no such supporting documents placed by the prosecution to believe that he is the owner of the said bag manufacturing unit. Even no such documents placed to show running of said bag manufacturing unit in that place. Further Pw.1 deposed that Child labour told him the wages not given by the accused persons and they paid some amount to their parents and brought them to this work and also told every week the said children receiving Rs.50/- for their domestic expenses and some of the children were working since from six months and some of the children were working since from one year.
26. Further Pw.1 deposed that the children are staying there itself and they are doing the said work since from 09.30 a.m., to 11.00 p.m., and sometimes up to 12.00 hours in the mid night. On seeing the children, they have 20 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 not taken bath since from many days and the place where they were residing was with bad smell, as a result he brought all the children to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. The police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a) and the mahazar was conducted on the next day.
27. The accused persons tested the veracity of this witness and elicited that:
"D ©°ØAUï£À°è JµÀÄÖ CAvÀ¸ÀÄU Û À¼ÀÄ EªÉ JAzÀÄ £É£À¦®è. ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ, ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è gÀ¸ÉÛ EzÉ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É, ªÀÄvÉÆA Û zÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ¹ÖÃ¯ï ¥sÁåPÀÖj, ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀz° À è gÀ¸ÉÛ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÀÅ §ºÀ¼À d£ÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀ£ÉßãÁzÀgÀÆ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ §¤ß F ©°ØAUï£À°è ZÉPï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. JµÀÄÖ d£À §AzÀgA É zÀÄ £É£À¦®è. £É®ªÀĺÀrUÉ ºÉÄÁÃVzÀÄÝ. £Á£ÉãÀÆ §gÀªÀtU ô É C°è ªÀiÁqÀ°®è.."
When the alleged unit situated in the busiest place and the neighbouring house is a residential house, and also there are ample opportunity to collect independent witnesses evidence and also Panchas, when the 21 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 Investigation Officer has not taken the statements of those independent witnesses and not summoned the independent witnesses for mahazar is a question, but the prosecution has not answered satisfactorily to the said question.
Further the accused persons elicited that:
"zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£À ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ §gÀªÀtôUÉ ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÉãÀÆ D ¢£À ¸À» ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£À D J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmï£À°è K£ÉãÀÆ EvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÉãÀÆ £ÉÆÃmï ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî°®è . ¨Á® PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¹ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÉãÀÄ £ÉÆÃmï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAr®è. JµÀÄÖ d£À ¨Á® PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃmï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAr®è."
Further he was elicited that:
"ªÉÆzÀ® ºÁUÀÆ 2£Éà CAvÀ¹Û£À°è K£ÉãÀÆ ¸Ë®¨Àså EzÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÉãÀÆ £ÉÆÃr®è. C°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ zÉÆqÀª Ø Àg£ À ÉßãÁzÀgÀÆ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ PÀgv É ÀAzÀgÁ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÉãÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ°®è. C°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ D PÀëtPÉÌ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÁ ¤ªÀÄUÉ D ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgï JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀĺÀdgï AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ UÉÆwÛvÁÛ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ºÉýzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÉà ªÀĺÀdgï JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛVzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ £Á£ÉãÀÄ °TvÀªÁV §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAr®è. C°è JµÀÄÖ d£ÀgÀÄ EzÀg Ý ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÁågÀÄ 22 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 JAzÀÄ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ §gÉzÀzÀ£ Ý ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÉÆÃr¢gÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ CzÀµÉÖà UÉÆvÀÄÛ K£ÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÉãÀÆ £ÉÆÃqÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¢£À §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀzÀ£ Ý ÀÄß ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÃÉ £ÀÆ vÉÆÃj¹®è."
The above said evidence clinches the issue unequivocally points out that he does not know anything about the alleged raid, raiding spot and what was investigation taken place. He has also admitted that after reading the complaint, on the date of giving evidence, he has deposed the same. Viewing from the available material evidence of Pw.1 on record, this Court feels to observe that there are contradictory evidence available both at Chief examination and cross-examination, As such there is a doubt of raiding of the said unit and lodging of complaint as per Ex.P1. The prosecution fails to establish the genuinety of existence of Ex.P1 beyond all reasonable doubt and the mahazar conducted at spot as per Ex.P2.
28. By going through the evidence of Pw.2, who is Labour Officer-H.R.Nagendra, deposed that he was 23 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 accompanied with the team of raid and he has deposed that at the time of raid, he traced six children aged about 14 years. As per the evidence of Pw.1, he found 10 children. He has also deposed that on 29-09-2011 his statement was recorded. Further he has deposed that the raid was conducted on 29-09-2011. The above said evidence contradicts with the evidence of Pw.1 and there is a doubt that he was accompanied with the raiding team to raid the factory in question on 28-09-2011 or not. The accused persons tested his veracity by eliciting some omissions and commissions and also elicited that his Senior Officer not giving written direction earlier to raid the spot, no information given to the police and the police also not summoned this witness to the spot. If this piece of evidence taken into consideration, there is a doubt of conducting raid at the offending manufacturing unit as per the stand of the prosecution. Further it is his evidence that: 24 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
"¸ÀzÀj £ÀA§gï 6 PÀlÖqÀ JµÀÄÖ CAvÀ¸ÀÄÛ EzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁªÀÅ zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ AiÀiÁªÀ CAvÀ¸ÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
He has further deposed that:
"D WÀlPÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄUÉ zÁR¯É ¹UÀ°®è. CzÀPÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ D PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀ°®è. C°è ¨ÁåUï ºÉƯÉAiÀÄĪÀ WÀlPÀ EzÀÝ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ»w EgÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ D WÀlPÀzÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgɹ ¸ÀzÀj WÀlPÀzÀ §UÉÎ AiÀÄÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢®è."
Again he has deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ zÁ½ £Àqz É À §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÉà ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹®è. £ÁªÀÅ zÁ½UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä eÉeÉ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ J¥sïLDgï £ÉÆAzÀtô ªÀiÁrgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ UÉÆwÛ®è."
29. The above said evidence clinches the issue unequivocally points out about the doubt of conducting raid by the Investigation Officer as mentioned in the charge sheet. Further it is his evidence that the police written mahazar in the Police Station and not at the spot and he has not signed the said mahazar. If this piece of evidence taken into consideration, there is a doubt of participation of 25 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 this witness in conducting raid of bag manufacturing unit, wherein accused No.1 and 2 alleged to have been the Manager and Owner of the said unit. Further it is his evidence that:
"F zÁ½UÉ ªÀÄÄAZÉ £ÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ
¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÁV £ÁªÀÅ D PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV®è. D
ªÀÄPÀ̽AzÀ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀA§¼À PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ»w E®è, ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ ¤jÃPÀëPÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»w EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. eÉeÉ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢£Ý À PÁ«ÄðPÀ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
30. If this piece of evidence taken into consideration there is a doubt of accompanying of this witness with Pw.1 to collect information about the child labours working in the said unit as stated by the complainant-Pw.1. Viewing from available material evidence placed by the prosecution through this witness, this Court feels to observe that Pw.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution. On the other hand his evidence contradicts the evidence of Pw.1 and the case of the prosecution. At this stage this Court 26 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 opines that through this witness, the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
31. Pw.3-Sherlin another Co-NGO, she has deposed that on 28-09-2011, Pw.1 told to her and also one Sugandi, Carmel that in J.J.Nagar jurisdiction at bag manufacturing unit, some child labourers are working and on that basis they informed Labour Officers namely-Manjunath and Nagendra. Herein Pw.2-Nagendra deposed that no such information received by him through the N.G.Os and the police. Further Pw.3 deposed that after conversation on 29-08-2011, she went to the Police Station along with the NGOs, Labour Officers and then raided the bag manufacturing unit in question. Here it is relevant to note that the prosecution case is that on 28-09-2011, the raid was taken place, but this witness deposed that the raid was conducted on 29-08-2011. Further it is her evidence that at the time of raid, five child labourers aged about 14 years 27 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 and one labour aged 18 years were working, whereas Pw.1 deposed that there are 10 child labourers are working. If the above said evidence taken into consideration, it contradicts with the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and the case of the prosecution. The accused persons tested the veracity of this witness by eliciting some omissions and commissions and also elicited that she is not written anything about the raid. Further she was elicited that:
"D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀĺÀdgïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀÝgÉÆà E®èªÉÇà £À£ÀUÉ £É£¦ À ®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÀĺÀdgïUÀ½UÀÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. D ªÀĺÀdgïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §gÉzÀ ¥ÉÇðøï C¢üPÁj AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁgÀÄ WÀlPÀ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ RÄzÀÄÝ UÉÆwÛ®è."
32. Further in respect of identification of accused persons, she has deposed that she does not know the accused No.1 and 2. Except the above stated evidence produced by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited to support the case of the prosecution. At this stage this Court feels to observe that through this witness the 28 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused No1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
33. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Sugandi, she has deposed that she was also one of the Co-rider and she was accompanied with other NGOs namely Pw.1, Sherlin and also one Carmel with Labour Officers. Earlier to that they received information from Pw.1 and then went to the Police Station and informed the situation, thereafter they went to bag manufacturing unit in question and found some 10 child labourers were working in stitching the bag, some of them were packing the bag. Further she has deposed that no such hygienic condition made available to the said children. Except that nothing has been elicited by this witness by the prosecution. But in the cross examination of this witness, the accused persons tested the veracity of this witness and also elicited about non- maintaining raid notes by her and not handing over the same to the police if she maintained the notes. Further she 29 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 has shown her ignorance and deposed that:
"¸Àzj À zÁ½ £ÀqÉzÀ WÀlPÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¸ÀASÉå ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, D PÀlÖqÀzÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è AiÀiÁgÀªÀÄ£ÉUÀ½ªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, DzÀgÉ JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqÉ MAzÀÄ ¹Öïï PÁSÁð£É EvÀÄÛ. CzÀPÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ D PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ ºÉÆÃV®è. D PÀlÖqÀ AiÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ RÄzÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w E®è. £À£ÀUÉ ¹UÀÄgÀ£ïgÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀjÝ AzÀ ªÀiÁ»w EvÀÄÛ. ¹UÀÄgÀ£ïgÀªg À À£ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ ªÀĺÀdgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀA±ÉÃgï CºÀªÀÄzï ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ.
If the above said evidence taken into consideration, she does not know anything about bag manufacturing unit, owner of the said unit and where it was situated. Further there is a doubt of accompanying by this witness for alleged raid. She has also deposed that she has seen the accused No.1 and 2 in Police Station, not earlier to that. If this piece of evidence taken into consideration, the police not arrested the accused No.1 and 2 at the time of raid. The learned counsel for accused argued that earlier the name of Shamsher-the accused No.2, is not mentioned either in the complaint or in the F.I.R., but the police called him to the Police Station, then only his name inserted. Even the 30 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 Investigation Officer has not investigated about the owner of the bag manufacturing unit, in order to support the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 and 2 are the owner and supervisor of the bag manufacturing unit in question, no supporting documents placed.
34. Further the accused persons cross-examined this witness and also elicited that:
"28gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 29£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV®è. 29£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀbÃÉ jUÉ §A¢gÀ°®è. 29£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖ®è. CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ªÀ ÀgÀ£ÀÄß CxÀéÁ ¹Öïï PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ PÀg¹ É zÀ §UÀÉÎ £É£À¦®è. "
If this piece of evidence taken into consideration and the statement of this witness recorded on 29-09-2011 taken into consideration, there is a doubt of participation of this witness in the alleged raid. Viewing from available material evidence of this witness, this Court feels to observe that the prosecution fails to establish that this witness accompanied with the raiding team to raid to the 31 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 bag manufacturing unit in question as per the case of the prosecution.
35. By going through the evidence of Pw.5- Dr.K.Manjula Devi, she has deposed that she was accompanied with the raiding team on 28-09-2011. earlier to that she went to Police Station at 10.30 or 11.00 a.m., as per the phone call of the police and went to the raiding spot. It is not her evidence that she has seen 10 child labourers working in bag manufacturing unit. On the other hand her evidence is uncertain about the availability of the child labourers in the said unit. On the other hand she has examined the children in J.J.Nagar Police Station, not at the spot. The accused persons cross-examined this witness and elicited some omissions and commissions and also elicited that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß J°è ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É JA§ §UÉÎ ¤.¦.3 jAzÀ 10 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è."
Further she was elicited that:
32 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
"¸ÀzÀj £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¨Àw s ðªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. £Á£ÀÄ D ªÀÄPÀ̼À zÀAvÀ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DzÀj s ¹ ªÀiÁvÀæ D ªÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀAiÀĸÀì£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ £É. D¹¦üPÉñÀ£ï CxÀªÁ PÀëQgÀt ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
She has also deposed that:
"zÀAvÀ¥ÀjÃPÉë¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀAiÀĸÀì£ÀÄß ¤RgÀªÁV ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
She has also deposed that:
"D ¢£À 6-7 WÀlPÀU½ À UÉ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÀÉ JAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ WÀlPÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ §½ ªÁ¥À¸ï §A¢zÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ D §UÉÎ UÉÆwÛ®è."
It is also her evidence that:
"£Á£ÀÄ D PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ D ¢£À ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrzÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉ¢lÄÖPÉÆAr®è."
The above said evidence clinches the doubt of her participation in alleged raid team. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the evidence of doctor is no where helpful to believe the alleged offences against the accused No.1 and 2 as per prosecution case.
33 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
36. By going through the evidence of Pw.6- S.Narasimhaiah-Police Inspector, he has deposed that on 28-09-2011 at about 02.15 p.m., the complaint came along with children to the Police Station and given typed complaint as per Ex.p1 and he has received the same, made shara and signed the same as per Ex.P1(b). He has prepared F.I.R., as per Ex.P11 and his signature is Ex.P11(a). Here in the cross-examination the accused persons tested the veracity of this witness and also elicited that earlier to lodging of complaint, this witness clearly deposed that the complainant and other NGOs along with Labour Officers not visited the Police Station, whereas the evidence of Pw.5, very clear that earlier to the lodging of complaint the complainant informed the police and Labour Officers in respect of engaging child labourers in the bag manufacturing unit. Further it is his evidence that he was not accompanied with the raiding team and brought child labourers. Here the case of the prosecution that this witness is also one of the member of the raiding team. 34 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
37. Pw.6 further deposed that the complainant not only brought child labourers and also brought labour Officer and doctor and in the station itself, the doctor examined the age of the victim boys, whereas the evidence of Pw.5 is that she also accompanied the raiding team, but she has not examined the child labourers at the spot, but she has examined them in the Station. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, there is doubt that the Pw.5 accompanying with the raiding team. Further it is his evidence that on 29-11-2011 he went to the spot and the complainant was present and shown the incident spot, he has conducted mahazar as per Ex.p2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a), whereas on perusal of Ex.P2 it was conducted on 29-09-2011 and not on 29-11-2011. After returning to the Station, he has sent the police personnel to call upon the accused No.2 and the said police personnel brought the accused No.2 and produced before him, thereafter he has taken the accused No.2 to the police custody, he has also recorded the statement of Cw.2 and Cw.3 and received 35 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 medical certificates as per Ex.P3 to Ex.P10 and handed over the record to Pw.7 for further investigation. The accused persons tested the veracity of this witness and also elicited that except denying the suggestions, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense of accused No.1 and
2. Here it is relevant to note that except NGOs and doctors, no such evidence placed by the prosecution of the independent witnesses who are very much available in and around the area of the incident spot. He has also admitted that when accused No.2 was brought and produced before him, he has not considered him as an accused, inspite of it his name is mentioned in the charge sheet. Viewing from the materials available, this Court feels to observe that unless and until supporting corroborative and cogent oral and documentary evidence, independent witnesses' evidence produced by the prosecution, this Court opines that his evidence is a formal one and does not support the case of the prosecution.
36 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
38. By going through the evidence of Pw.7- G.R.Ramesh, Police Inspector also deposed that he received record from Pw.6, perused said record and took further investigation; he recorded the statement of Cw.14 to Cw.20 and also received the statement of Cw.4 to Cw.13 on 12-10- 2011. On 24-10-2011 he received the statement of child labourers, Cw.4 and Cw.10, but Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 not supports the case of the prosecution since the learned Magistrate clearly stated that both the witnesses refused to give statement in respect of alleged incident. The accused persons tested the veracity of this witness by eliciting some omissions and commissions and also elicited that:
"F PÉù£À ¦üAiÀÆð¢zÁgÀgÃÉ E£ÀÆß ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ªÉÆPÀzÀª Ý ÉÄ ¸ÀASÉå 205, 206 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 208 £ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½zÀħAvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . F £Á®ÄÌ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À®Æè ¸ÀºÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ JPÀPÁ®zÀ°è DAiÀiÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÁ½UÉ ªÀÄÄ£Àß £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÉÇð¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ PÀqv À z À À°è D §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£ÉAiÀiÁUÀ°, DzÉñÀªÁUÀ° ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ zÁ½UÉ ¸ÀºP À Àj¹zÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ«ÄðPÀg£ À ÀÄß PÀgv É ÀgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜÀ¼z À À°è vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®PÀgÀ ¤RgÀªÁzÀ ªÀAiÀĹì£À §UÉÎ 37 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 gÉrAiÀiÁ®fPÀ¯ï ¥ÀjÃPÉë DUÀ° CxÀªÁ D¹¦üPÉñÀ£ï ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀiÁUÀ° £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Further he admits that:
"¤.¦.12 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤.¦.13gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÉÆAzÀ¨Á®PÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ¨Á®PÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà D¥ÁzÀ£É §UÉÎ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj .ZÁ.¸Á.5 jAzÀ 9 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 11 jAzÀ 13 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä EZÀáÉ ¥ÀqÀzÀ PÁgÀt CªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
Again he has admitted that:
"£À£Àß vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¨ÁåUï ªÀiÁå£ÀÄå¥sÁåPÀÑjAUï ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, UÉÆÃ¥Á®£ï ªÀiÁ¯ï ºÀwÛgÀ AiÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ s ÀnÖvÀÄÛ JA§ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
The above said evidence clinches the issue unequivocally points out that this Investigation Officer has not properly conducted investigation that too considering the accused No.1 and 2 are as owner and supervisor of the bag manufacturing unit in question where alleged to have been the child labourers are engaged and committed the offences as alleged against them. Even the admissions also very clear that there is no proper investigation 38 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 conducted by this witness to consider the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2. At this stage this Court feels to observe that this witness evidence is formal one.
39. By going through the evidence of Pw.8- Zaheeruddin, he was one of the police personal to accompany with the raiding team and in his chief examination, he has stated to support the case of the prosecution in part, but at the cross examination the accused persons tested the veracity of this witness by eliciting some commissions and omissions. Except denying suggestions nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their defense, at the same time he has also shown ignorance about he does not know the manufacturing factory belongs to whom and whether it connects to the accused No.1 and 2 or not. Further he has not seen who are all residing at mahazar spot and he has not enquired about the said persons about the manufacturing unit. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is a 39 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 formal one and his evidence is in no way helpful to the prosecution to bring the alleged offences against accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
40. The mahazar witnesses who are independent persons, not stepped into the witness box. On perusal of Ex.P3 to Ex.P10-age certificates issued by the doctor, as admitted by her, she has not examined the child labourers in accordance with law to give certificates. As per Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 alleged victim boys refused to give statement before the Magistrate.
41. Though the prosecution relied on the docuemtns-Ex.P1-complaint, Ex.P2-mahazar, Ex.P3 to Ex.P10 copies of age certificates of the victims, Ex.P11- F.I.R., Ex.P12 and Ex.P13-statements give before Magistrate, but those documents not established the offences of accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt through the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8.
40 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
42. Taking into consideration the material facts,circumstances, evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and the arguments canvassed by the learned Public prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused No.1 and 2, this Court feels to observe that the victim boys not stepped into witness box. Even out of them two victims produced before the Magistrate to record their statements, but the said boys refused to give their statement before the Magistrate as per Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. There is discrepancy evidence found between Pw.1, Pw.3 and Pw.4-NGOs, Pw.2- being labour officer shows his ignorance about the raid. Pw.5 to Pw.8 are police personnel and their evidence is formal in nature. No independent witness evidence produced by the prosecution. Under such circumstances this Court opines that the prosecution fails to establish case of prosecution that on 28-09-2011 at about 11.30 a.m., the complainant-worker of Justice & Care Institution had received a credible information as to the child bonded labourers are engaged in a bag manufacturing unit at 41 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 No.19/1, 2nd Cross, Haleguddada Halli, Mysore Road, Bangalore and the said factory owner was getting the work from the child bonded labourers forcibly and the said child bonded labourers are confined at a particular place, as a result the complainant, Labour Department Officials and workers of Justice & Care Institution raided the said place. On verification they came to know that the children are trafficked from Bihar State by paying advance amount to their parents for their labour and were confined to the limited area of their work. The said children were made to work from 09.30 a.m., to 01.30 a.m., and they were made to stay and sleep in the same place where they worked, which is highly unsafe and unhealthy, causing adverse effect on the health of those children. Most of the victims did not get salary, but they were given weekly Rs.50 to Rs.100/- only for their small expenses and they have been working from six months to one year in the said establishment. On enquiry the said team came to know that the victims are wrongfully confined and made to work 42 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 without giving labour charges for overtime and they were given physical and mental ill-treatment by the accused. As a result, complainant lodged complaint against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 371, 344, 374 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act beyond reasonable doubt and consequently I hold Point No.1 to 3 in the "Negative".
43. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused persons are 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 persons No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 370, 371, 344, 374 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of J.J.Act, 2000 and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act.43 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014
The bail bond of accused No.1 and 2 and surety bond stand 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 17th Day of June 2017.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
8NNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW 1 R.A.H.Siguran Cw.1 16-01-2016 PW 2 Nagendra Cw.14 10-11-2016 PW 3 Sherlin Cw.17 02-12-2016 PW 4 Sugandi Cw.16 27-02-2017 PW 5 Dr.Manjula Devi Cw.21 10-04-2017 PW 6 Narasimhaiah Cw.22 30-05-2017 PW 7 G.R. Ramesh Cw.23 30-05-2017 PW 8 Zaheeruddin Cw.19 31-05-2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 16-01-2016 44 Spl.C.C.No.193/2014 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 16-01-2016 Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw. Pw.6 Pw.6 30-05-2017 Ex.P 2 Mahazar Pw.1 16-01-2016 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 16-01-2016 Ex.P 3 to Age certificates of Pw.5 10-04-2017 10 victims Ex.P 11 F.I.R. Pw.6 30-05-2017 Ex.P 11a Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 30-05-2017 Ex.P 12 164 statement of Pw.6 30-05-2017 Ashraf Ex.P 13 164 statement of Pw.6 30-05-2017 Mohammad MiragalamMd.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
***