Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mohammad Riyazul on 24 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 24th Day of March 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 165/2015
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED Mohammad Riyazul,
S/o. M.D.Rahool Haq, 33 years,
R/at. 72, Sonnappa Garden, D.J. Halli,
Bengaluru-45
Sri.M.T.-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 16-10-2014
2 Date of report of occurrence 16-10-2014
3 Date of arrest of Accused 16-10-2014
Date of release of Accused 11-11-2014
Period undergone in custody 25 Days
by Accused
4 Date of commencement of evidence 21-03-2017
2 Spl.C.C.165/2015
5 Date of closing of evidence 05-03-2018
6 Name of the complainant K.S. Tanwir
7 Offences complained of Section 370, 374-IPC
Sec.23, 26-J.J. Act &
Sect. 16 & 17 Bonded
Labour System
(Abolition)Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector, Shivaji Nagar Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C., Section 14 of Labour Act, 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 in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused who is the owner of bag manufacturing unit in No.5, 2nd Floor, Hyder Complex, Nala Road, Rosan Bazaar, Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru, has engaged services of Cw.2 to Cw.7-children aged between 10 to 15 years by giving an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- to their respective parents. He was
3 Spl.C.C.165/2015 also extracting work from them for long hours in a day i.e., from 09.00 a.m., to 10.00 p.m., as bonded labourers by detaining them in a room without providing basic necessity and without payment of salary to them. On 16-10- 2014, at about 12.30 p.m., the complainant along with Cw.7 to Cw.10 and in the presence of Cw.11 to Cw.21 raided the said factory and rescued the child labours and lodged complaint against accused. On the basis of said complaint, the complainant/police registered case against accused for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C, 14 of Child Labour Act, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C, 14 of Child Labour Act, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet the committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The committal Court passed an order for 4 Spl.C.C.165/2015 committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bengaluru, since the victims are minors and the said case is exclusively triable by the Child Court and in turn the said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, the summons was issued to accused. In pursuance of the said summons, the accused appeared before the Court and he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter the learned advocate for accused submitted that there is no argument before framing charge and requested to frame charge. As a result the charge was framed, the contents of charge read over and explained in Hindi by translating Kannada version to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and submit crimes to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused set down for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined 8 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.8, got marked as many as 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the 5 Spl.C.C.165/2015 accused, he is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. Earlier to that he has complied the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. by executing personal bond and producing surety. Thereafter the matter is set down for judgment.
6. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ²ªÁf£ÀUg À À ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À À¢£ Ý À £Á¯Á gÀ¸,ÛÉ gÉÆõÀ£ï §eÁgï, ºÉÊzg À ï PÁA¥ÉP è ïì, £ÀA.5gÀ 2£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁåUï vÀAiÀiÁjPÁ ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀB16-10-2014 QÌAvÀ MAzÀÄ MAzÀƪÀgÉ ªÀµð À PÀÆÌ »A¢¤AzÀ C¥Áæ¥Àª Û A À iÀĹì£À ¨Á®PÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-2 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-7 gÀªg À £ À ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ gÁdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À zÉñÀ¢AzÀ gÀÆ.5,000/-jAzÀ 6,000/-UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ ¸ÁUÁtôPÉ ªÀiÁr PÀgz É ÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 370gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
2. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁtô¹zÀ ¢£À, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às zÀ°è C¥Áæ¥Àª Û AÀ iÀĹì£À 10 ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÁzÀ 2 ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÄÀ ß ©ºÁgÀ gÁdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À zÉñÀ¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ «¢ü«gÀÄzÀÝ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ zÀÄrªÉÄ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 374gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
3. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁtô¹zÀ ¢£À, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð sÀ zÀ°è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À 6 ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌ£ÁzÀ M§â££ À ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ gÁdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À zÉñÀ¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀg£ À ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «gÀÄzÀªÝ ÁV ºÀa É £ Ñ À 6 Spl.C.C.165/2015 ªÉÃ¼É zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸Àª® À vÀÄÛ ¤ÃqÀzÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÀ®A 23 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 26 ªÀÄPÀ̼À £ÁåAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2000 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
4. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁtô¹zÀ ¢£À, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð sÀ zÀ°è C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À 6 ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÁzÀ M§â££ À ÀÄß ©ºÁgÀ gÁdå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃ¥Á¼À zÉñÀ¢AzÀ UÀįÁªÀÄgÀ£ÁßV Rjâ¹ PÀgz É ÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀg£ À ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «gÀÄzÀª Ý ÁV ºÉa£ Ñ À CªÀ¢A ü iÀÄ°è zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, ªÀÄÆ®¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÃÉ ªÁ¸ÀPÉÌ AiÉÆÃUÀåªÀ®z è À ¸À¼ Ü zÀ ° À è PÀÆr ºÁQ, ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀA§¼À ¤ÃqÀzÃÉ , ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ ©qÀzÉ fÃvÀzÁ¼ÀÄUÀ¼A À vÉ zÀÄr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÁAqÉqï ¯Éçgï ¹¸ÀÖªÀiï C¨Á°±À£ï DåPïÖ£À PÀ®A 16 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 17 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÀ ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
5. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: In the Negative.
Point No.5: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4:- As these points are inter-related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasons.
9. In order to prove the alleged offences against the 7 Spl.C.C.165/2015 accused, the prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.8, got marked as many as 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.2 is Labour Officers, Pw.3 to Pw.5 are the N.G.Os and members of raiding team, Pw.7 is the Doctor, Pw.6 and Pw.8 are the police official and Investigation Officer. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused.
10. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused who is the owner of bag manufacturing unit in No.5, 2nd Floor, Hyder Complex, Nala Road, Rosan Bazaar, Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru, has engaged services of Cw.2 to Cw.7-children aged between 10 to 15 years by giving an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- to their respective parents. He was also extracting work from them for long hours in a day i.e., from 09.00 a.m., to 10.00 p.m., as bonded labourers by detaining them in a room without providing basic necessity and without payment of salary to them and thereby committed offences punishable under 8 Spl.C.C.165/2015 Section 370, 374 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 16 and 17 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the above said ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 370, 374 of I.P.C., Section 23 and 26 of J.J. Act and Section 16 and 17 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.
Section 370 of I.P.C defines that:
Trafficking of persons-[1] Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation,(a) recruits, (b)transports, (c) harbours,
(d)transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by-
First -using threats, or Secondly -using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly -by abduction, or Fourthly -by practicing fraud, or deception, or Fifthly -by abuse of power, or 9 Spl.C.C.165/2015 Sixthly -by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
Section 374 of I.P.C defines that:
Unlawful compulsory Labour-Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 23 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Punishment for cruelty to juvenile of child:-Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.
Section 26 of J.J. Act, defines that:
Exploitation of Juvenile or child employee-whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years also be liable to fine.
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 10 Spl.C.C.165/2015 punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
Section 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, defines that:
Punishment for advancement of bonded debt - whoever advances, after the commencement of this Act, any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
By going through the facts, circumstances and available materials both at oral and documentary, it is just and proper to consider whether the evidence attracts the very ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability against accused.
12. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-K.S.Tanveer- Police Inspector, he has deposed that on 16-10-2014 at about 11.00 a.m., he has visited the offending unit along with Freedom Project-NGOs, Labour Officials and also police personnel who are Pw.6 and Pw.8 and also doctor-Pw.7 and raided the said offending unit at 12.30 p.m., and found seven child labours working in the said unit by cutting regzion sheets. Immediately he has taken custody of the accused and also rescued the said children. He has conducted mahazar as per 11 Spl.C.C.165/2015 Ex.P2 and came to know the said children were brought from Bihar and Nepal by giving some amount to their parents as human trafficking. He has also lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and his signature is Ex.P1(a) and he has also identified the accused before the Court. He has also obtained the medical certificates about the age of the rescued children from Pw.7.
13. This witness was cross-examined by the accused by eliciting some commission and omission and denied the alleged raid of this witness in the offending unit and also denied about the fact of rescuing Cw.2 to Cw.7 and taken custody of accused, for that this witness has denied the same. He has also admitted that earlier to raid, he had not gone to jurisdictional Police Station. He has also admitted the offending unit situated in the busy locality. On perusal of the entire record it is very clear he has not secured any independent Panchas who are local persons and neighbourers to prove the geniunity of alleged raid made by this witness. He has also admitted that he has not received any complaint from anybody with regard to engaging child labours by the accused in his bag manufacturing unit. He has not seen any physical torture and harassment on the body 12 Spl.C.C.165/2015 of Cw.2 to Cw.7-the children. He doesn't know on what basis Pw.7-the doctor given the age certificate of said children. He has not collected any documents to prove the age of the children. He has not enquired the neighbours about the bag manufacturing unit. At this stage this Court feels to observe that he is an official witness. Unless and until produces any other corroborative and cogent independent witness evidence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. By going through the evidence of Pw.2- Chandrashekar-Labour Officer, he has also deposed in his chief examination by supporting the evidence of Pw.1 and the case of the prosecution and his signature is Ex.P2(b). He was also cross-examined by the accused by eliciting some commission and omission and also tested his veracity and elicited that:
"¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÄ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁAiÉÄA Ý iÀÄr ¥ÀæPÀgt À EzÀ°Ý è £ÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÃÉ PÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àzj À WÀlPÀzÀ §UÉÎ £À£U À É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀÄ §A¢gÀ°®è. £ÀªÄÀ ä E¯ÁSÉUÉ F DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ WÀlPÀzÀ §UÉÎ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀg£ À ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ §A¢vÉÆÛ E®èªÉÇà UÉÆwÛ®è DzÀgÉ £À£U À É §A¢vÀÄ.Û "
13 Spl.C.C.165/2015 If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, earlier to the raid having knowledge of alleged fact of engaging child labours in offending unit by the accused, the Labour Department has not taken any action against the accused. He has shown his ignorance, enquiring with the neighbours of the offending unit. He is also an official witness and the prosecution has not produced any independent witness evidence, even though plenty of independent witnesses available at the time of raiding and the place is also a busy place.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Stephan- NGO, he has deposed in respect of alleged raid as one of the member of the raiding team in his chief examination. But in his cross-examination the accused tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited that:
"D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è D ¢£À D ¸À¼ Ü ª À £ À ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ D ¸À¼ Ü z À À CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è zÁ½ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. zÁ½AiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÄÀ ß £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ CªÀjUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀgA É zÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ §UÉÎ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¨sÁªÀ£ÉU¼À ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀ°®è. £Á¤zÁÝUÀ ªÉÊzåÀ gÀÄ D ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, the raiding team has not taken any independent witness as Panchas to the raid, only he has taken the NGO, Labour 14 Spl.C.C.165/2015 Department Officials and police personnel. When such being the case, question of conducting raid as per law does not arise.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-David, another NGO, he has also supported the case of the prosecution in his chief examination, but he has not tendered himself for cross-examination. Hence, his evidence cannot be considered.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Sathyaraj, another NGO, he has also corroborates the evidence of Pw.3 and his signature is Ex.P2(e). The accused tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the stand taken by him. Here also he is one of the NGO. It is quite natural he has supported the case of prosecution. But when the offending unit situated at busiest place and the Investigation Officer has not taken any independent witnesses for conducting mahazar at the spot and he has taken only the NGOs, Labour Department Officials and police personnel who are interested persons for raid, it is quite natural they have supported the case of the prosecution. At the same time no such independent 15 Spl.C.C.165/2015 witness evidence secured by the Investigation Officer, even though he has no problem to secure independent witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness and his evidence is a formal one.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Narasimha Murthy-H.C.No.4898, who is also a member of raiding team and police personnel, it is quite natural he has supported the case of the prosecution in his chief examination. The accused tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission. Except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by him. But at the same time he has admitted that no such document placed to show the children are come from Nepal and Bihar and no such age proof certificates produced along with the charge sheet. Here this witness is also none other than the police personnel. No such independent witness evidence produced for corroboration of the evidence of this witness. At this stage this Court feels to observe that he is a formal witness.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.6- Dr.Jayanthi, 16 Spl.C.C.165/2015 she has deposed that she has examined Cw.2 to Cw.7 and issued age certificates as per Ex.P3 to Ex.P8. While issuing said certificates, she has examined the teeth of those boys. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this witness and she has admitted that before issuing Ex.P3 to Ex.P8, she has not conducted ossification test, radiological test of Cw.2 to Cw.7 to consider their exact act. She has also admitted that Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 are also cyclostyle forms filled by her and the same was given by Labour Department. She has also admitted that she has not mentioned what type of examination conducted by her to declare the age of each children. Further it is relevant to note that the Investigation Officer has not collected authorized age proof documents from concerned authority or from parents or guardians of Cw.2 to Cw.7. At this stage this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is a formal one.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Nayaz Ahmed- P.S.I., he has also deposed that he received complaint as per Ex.P1 from Pw.1-the complainant and registered the case against accused and made shara and signed as per Ex.P1(b). He has also received Mahazar as per Ex.P2. On the basis of said 17 Spl.C.C.165/2015 complaint he has prepared F.I.R. as per Ex.P9 and his signature is Ex.P9(a). He has arrested the accused by following arrest rules, enquired him and produced before the Court along with remand application. He has also enquired the victim boys and sent them to State Home. Thereafter, he has recorded statement of Cw.9 to Cw.21 and also received age certificates as per Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 and his signature is Ex.P3(a) to Ex.P8(a). He has also recorded statement of Cw.8 and filed charge sheet against accused.
21. The accused tested his veracity by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestions, nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused. Further he has admitted that he has not enquired during the investigation whether the offending factory is under ownership of the accused and not seized any supporting documents to that effect. He has also admitted that he has not conducted mahazar at the spot. Here it is relevant to note the criminal motion started only after complaint received from Cw.1. But earlier to that the raiding mahazar was conducted by Cw.1 and his team persons and produced the mahazar as per Ex.P2. When this 18 Spl.C.C.165/2015 witness has not conducted mahazar at the spot after registering the case, it is absolutely fatal to the case the prosecution. Further he has admitted that he has not collected authenticated age documents of the victim boys to know about their correct age and genuinity of issuance of age certificates by the doctor. He has also admitted that he has not seized any documents to show the accused is the owner of the offending unit. He has also submitted that no such name board fixed to the offending unit and he has not seized the same.
22. Admittedly the prosecution not secured the evidence of Cw.2 to Cw.7 who are material witnesses to depose that they are children and the accused extracted their work illegally as bonded labours, even though he know that they are children below the age of 18 years. Further the prosecution not established the bag manufacturing unit is hazardous unit and the accused engaged the services of Cw.2 to Cw.7 illegally. No such independent witness evidence placed by the prosecution to believe the process of conducing raid as per the prosecution case. When such being the case, question of believing the alleged offences against accused doesn't arises.
19 Spl.C.C.165/2015
23. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablizes the defense of the accused rather than the case of the prosecution.
24. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P9, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that the accused who is the owner of bag manufacturing unit in No.5, 2nd Floor, Hyder Complex, Nala Road, Rosan Bazaar, Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru, has engaged services of Cw.2 to Cw.7-children aged between 10 to 15 years as a bonded labourers by giving an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- to their respective parents. He was also extracting work from them for long hours in a day i.e., from 09.00 a.m., to 10.00 p.m., as bonded labourers by detaining them in a room without providing basic necessity and without payment of salary to them and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344, 370, 374 of I.P.C, Section 23 and 26 of Juvenile 20 Spl.C.C.165/2015 Justice Act and Section 17 of Bonded Labour (Prohibition) Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently I hold Point No.1 to 4 in the "Negative".
25. Point No.5:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 4, I hold that the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 370, 374 of IPC and Section 23 and
26 of J.J. Act and section 17 of Bonded Labour Prohibition Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th Day of March 2018.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
21 Spl.C.C.165/2015
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Pw.1 K.S.Tanveer Cw.1 21-03-2017
Pw.2 Chandrasekhar Cw.13 25-04-2017
Pw.3 Stephan Cw.9 09-06-2017
Pw.4 David Cw.10 09-06-2017
Pw.5 Satyaraj Cw.11 09-06-2017
Pw.6 Narasimha Murthy Cw.20 07-11-2017
Pw.7 Dr.K.R.Jayanthi Cw.17 05-03-2017
Pw.8 Nayaz Ahmed Cw.22 05-03-2018
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 21-03-2017
Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 21-03-2017
Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 05-03-2018
Ex.P 2 Mahazar Pw.1 21-03-2017
Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 21-03-2017
Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 25-04-2017
Ex.P 2c Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 09-06-2017
Ex.P 2d Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 09-06-2017
Ex.P 2e Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 09-06-2017
Ex.P 2f Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 07-11-2017
Ex.P 3-8 Age estimation certificates of Pw.7 05-03-2018
victims
Ex.P 3a to Signatures of Pw.8 Pw.8 05-03-2018
8a
22 Spl.C.C.165/2015
Ex.P 9 FIR Pw.8 05-03-2018
Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 05-03-2018
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON
BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
NIL
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALOURU ***