Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Smt. Renuka on 1 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 1 st DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA S. M.A., LL.B., (Spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.139/2016
Complainant The State of Karnataka
Adugodi P S,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
V/S
Accused No.1 Smt. Renuka,
W/o Govardan,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.26, 2nd Cross,
Pothlappa Garden,
Adugodi,
Bangalore.
Accused No.2 Venkateshappa,
Aged about 54 years,
R/a No.238, 1st Cross,
Narayanapura, Adugodi
Post, Bangalore.
Accused No.3 Gautham,
S/o Gangadhar,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.101, Baladotha
2
S.C.No.139/2016
Residency, 14th Main,
Uttarahalli Mainroad,
Bangalore.
Date of offence 19.11.2015
Date of report of offence 19.11.2015
Name of the Sri Bolettin,
complainant Police Inspector
Date of commencement 5.06.2018
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of 22.07.2019
evidence
Offences complained of Sec.3(1), 4 & 5 of
Immoral Traffic
Prevention Act and
Sec.370 of Indian Penal
Code
Opinion of the Judge Accused persons not
found guilty
State represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. S.R.Siddegowda, Sri.
Gajendra.S &
M.Mahadeva, Advocates
*****
JU DG MEN T This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the complainant Adugodi Police, against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sec.3(1), 3 S.C.No.139/2016 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of C.W.1, Bolettin M.S, the Police Inspector and complainant of Adugodi Police Station. The case of prosecution is that accused No.1 after obtaining a house on rent from C.W.13 was running prostitution business, by false assurance to ladies that she would fetch them job. That on 19.11.2015 at about 4.30 p.m, while on his beat, on credible information he raided the spot at No.26, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Pushpalatha Garden, Adugodi, along with C.W.1 to 7 and C.W.11 & 12 at 5.00p.m. That accused No.1 along with customers accused No.2 & 3, was running prostitution by keeping C.W.8, 9 & 10 in the above address. That complainant seized 3 Mobile Phones, 1 Condom Packet and Rs.2,000/- before C.W.12 & 13 and 4 S.C.No.139/2016 inserted in P.F.No.95/2015 and lodged complaint and registered the case in Cr.No.391/2015 for the offences punishable under Sec.370 of IPC and Sec.3 (1), 4 and 5 of I.T.P Act.
3. After completion of investigation, C.W.1 submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 before VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and it was registered as C.C.No.84/2016.
4. The accused persons appeared before the learned Magistrate through the counsel and later got enlarged on bail. The learned Magistrate furnished copy of charge sheet to the accused persons and thereby, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. As the offences charge sheeted against the accused is exclusively triable by sessions Court, the learned Magistrate acting under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. committed this case to the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Court, Bengaluru. As per the 5 S.C.No.139/2016 notification bearing No.600/2017, dated:29.07.2017 of Hon'ble Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, this case was transferred to this court for disposal in accordance with law. Hence, the matter was taken up before this Court for further proceedings accordingly.
5. As stated herein above, the accused persons were on bail. In pursuance of service of summons, the accused persons appeared before this Court through their counsel and got enlarged on bail. After hearing the counsel for accused and also the learned Prosecutor and on considering the relevant materials on record, my learned predecessor has framed charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 370 of IPC and Sec.3(1), 4 and 5 of I.T.P Act, on 03.02.2018. For which the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and thereby they have claimed to be tried of the said offences. 6
S.C.No.139/2016
6. In support of the case of prosecution, in all 4 witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4. The prosecution has marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and 5 properties were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this Court has recorded the statement of accused persons no. 1 to 3, as provided under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons no. 1 to 3 have denied incriminating materials present against them in the evidence of prosecution. They have not adduced any defence evidence nor produced any documents.
7. Heard the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for accused No.1 to 3. Perused all the oral and documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 19.11.2015 the police have conducted 7 S.C.No.139/2016 raid at No.26, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Pushpalatha Garden, Adugodi, in which the accused No.1 was doing brothel business and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1) of I.T.P. Act?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place all the accused persons no. 1 to 3 were doing brothel business by easily earning money and living from the income of the said business and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of I.T.P. Act?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused persons by keeping girls as slave for doing brothel business and induced the victim to do prostitution and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sec.5 of I.T.P Act?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, all the accused persons were doing brothel business and living on the earnings of the said business and kept the girls under their custody as slave and induced them for prostitution and 8 S.C.No.139/2016 thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sec.370 of IPC?
5. What order?
8. Having heard the arguments of both the sides and taking into consideration the evidence on record, coupled with all the documents, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: In the negative
Point No.3: In the negative
Point No.4: In the negative
Point No.5: As per final order
for the following:
R EAS O N S
9. Points No.1 to 4: These points are taken up
for consideration together for convenience as they are inter-connected and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law.
9
S.C.No.139/2016
10. As mentioned supra, the case of prosecution is that accused No.1 after obtaining a house on rent from C.W.13 was running prostitution business, by false assurance to ladies that she would fetch them job. That on 19.11.2015 at about 4.30 p.m, while on his beat, on credible information he raided the spot at No.26, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Pushpalatha Garden, Adugodi, along with C.W.1 to 7 and C.W.11 & 12 at 5.00p.m. That accused No.1 along with customers accused No.2 & 3, was running prostitution by keeping C.W.8, 9 & 10 in the above address. That complainant seized 3 Mobile Phones, 1 Condom Packet and Rs.2,000/- before C.W.12 & 13 and inserted in P.F.No.95/2015 and lodged complaint and registered the case in Cr.No.391/2015 for the offences punishable under Sec.370 of IPC and Sec.3 (1), 4 and 5 of I.T.P Act.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved 10 S.C.No.139/2016 all the ingredients of the charges leveled against the accused persons No.1 to 3 and hence, the accused persons should be convicted for the offences charged.
12. The learned counsels Sri. S.R.Siddegowda, Sri. Gajendra.S & M.Mahadeva, Advocates for the accused persons have vehemently argued that the agreement which is marked as Ex.P.5 shows the premises is at 2nd Floor, but during the evidence P.W.1 has mentioned that the house is in the ground floor. Further argued that no independent witness is examined and also victims are also not examined. That the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons no. 1 to 3, beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to hold that the accused persons have committed the offence charged against them. Accused no.2 and 3 are customers, accused no. 1 is the tenant of the said premises. 11
S.C.No.139/2016 Hence, they may kindly be acquitted of the offences charged.
13. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 3, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4. I have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 in detail.
14. The complainant in this case is P.W.1, who is C.W.1, one by name Bolettin @ Mallesh, who is Police Inspector. He has deposed that on 19.11.2020 at about 4.30 p.m, while on his beat, on credible information he raided the spot at No.26, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Pushpalatha Garden, Adugodi. That he on obtaining oral permission from ACP and DCP after informing them on phone left along with C.W.2 Women PSI, Hemalatha, C.W.3 Women ASI, Veena, Head Constable C.W.4, Ravindra Kumar, Constable John Kenny, C.W.5, Constable Somanna C.W.6 and C.W.7, Women constable, Yamuna. He further 12 S.C.No.139/2016 deposed that panchas C.W.11 Avinash & C.W.12 Rahul, left at 4.30 p.m to the spot and at 5.00p.m, he raided the spot. On entering the premises, one lady by name Renuka was sitting in the hall who is accused No.1. That in another room 2 persons by name Venkatesh, Goutham who are customers and accused No.2 & 3 were present along with 3 women by name Jyothi Manasa and Parvathi who are victims told that they were forced to do prostitution on the promise that they would get easy money from the customers. Further Rs.2,000/- was seized from accused No.1 and 3 Mobiles and one Condom packet were seized, for which Mahazar was drawn from 5.00 p.m to 6.00p.m. He depose that due to shortage of time, record of reasons was written and notice was issued to panchas. The Record of Reasons is marked as Ex.P.1 and Notice as Ex.P.2. Mahazar is marked as Ex.P3 and witness signature is marked as Ex.P3(a). The seized amount of Rs.2,000/- is marked as M.O.1. 13
S.C.No.139/2016 Further the Mobiles and Condoms are marked as M.O.2 to M.O.5. That later at around 6.20 p.m he took the mahazar, seized articles, victim women and 3 accused along with staff and panchas and drafted the complaint himself. The complaint is marked as Ex.P4 and witness signature at Ex.P4(a). He deposed that the statements of the victim women and witnesses was taken. That later accused were produced before the Hon'ble court and statement of house owner was taken. He concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet before the Hon'ble court.
15. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, he deposed that he has not mentioned in the complaint that he obtained permission from D.C.P and A.C.P. Further, that the staff and the panchaas came to the spot at 5.10 and that the panchaas were called to the spot over phone by him. This witness admitted the suggestions put to him by the counsel for the accused, that the panchaas are known to him. That 14 S.C.No.139/2016 he first went in the room and later the staff and panchass entered, three victim women and two accused were talking and sitting in the room. This witness deposed that the women panchaa was not invited as panchaa and also the neighbors were not inquired and not taken there statements. That house no.26 was a single house and not a double floor house. The house agreement between the accused no.1 and the house owner is marked as Ex.P.5. Further this witness admitted the suggestions put to him by the counsel for the accused that in Ex.P.5 it is mentioned that the house of the accused no.1 is in second floor. Further, this witness has denied other suggestions put to him.
16. On considering the evidence of P.W.1, alone, the case against the accused persons no.1 to 3, cannot be concluded that they have committed the offence charged. Hence, the evidence of this witness 15 S.C.No.139/2016 has to be compared with what other witnesses have to say and much reliance cannot be placed on the say of this witness alone.
17. Other witness in this case is P.W.2 is C.W.13 one by name Shaktivelu, who is a businessmen and house owner. He has deposed that he owns four houses and he has given them on rent. That all the accused persons are staying on rent in his house. That he has done the agreement from the accused. This witness is not cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. The evidence of PW.4 is not of much help to prove the allegation made against the accused persons 2 to 4.
18. Pancha witnesses are P.W.3 is C.W.11 one by name Avinash who is a camera men and P.W.4 is C.W.12, one by name Rahul who is doing food delivery. Both the witness are panchaa witness and have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 16
S.C.No.139/2016
19. On considering the evidence of the witness, as extracted from the depositions of P.W.3. Witness stating that:
" ಈ 2015 ನನ ಸಲನಲ ಪಲನಸರರ ಠಣಗ ಕರಸ ಬರವಣಗಗ ನನನ ರರಜರ ಮಡಸಕಕಕಡರರ. ಬರವಣಗಯನರ ನ ನನರ ಓದಲಲಲ."
the evidence of the witness, as extracted from the depositions of P.W.4, witness stating that:
" 2016 ನನ ಸಲನಲ ಪನತಲಪಪ ಗಡರನಟನ ಅಕಗಡಯಲ ಇದಗ ಪಲನಸರರ ನನನನರ ನ ಕರಯಸ ಸಹ ಮಡಲರ ಹನಳದರರ.
ನನರ ಆಗ ಸಹ ಮಡದ. ಅದರಲರರವ ವಷಯ ನನಗ ಗಕತತಲಲ."
On considering the evidence of pancha witness who are P.W.3 and 4, the independent pancha witnesses, have fully turned hostile and not at-all supported the case of the prosecution. These witness have turned hostile and negatived the case of the prosecution. Further, the panchanama at Ex.P.3 is not proved.
20. The definitions of Sec.3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code in short can be understood as:
17
S.C.No.139/2016 Keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel, whoever imports, exports, removes buys, sells or disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts, receives or detains against his will any person as a slave.
21. The above explanations of the definitions have to be strictly proved for any case against the accused falling under Sec.3, 4 & 5 of I.T.P. Act and Sec.370 of IPC. But in the case on hand, it is important to note that although victims are cited in the charge sheet but no victim is examined by the prosecution, so that she could explain her grief and prosecution has not taken the evidence of independent witnesses in and around the vicinity of the raided spot. These offences are against the dignity of woman and health of society. Hence, care has to be taken while deciding such cases on Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The examined witness P.W.1 is official witness and P.W.3 and P.W.4 are independent panchaas, who have turned hostile to the case of the 18 S.C.No.139/2016 Prosecution and P.W.2 is the house owner. Basing only on the say of the official witnesses , the charges do not stand proved against the accused persons. Thus the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. Further, it is relevant to note that P.W.1 during the evidence has stated that the women panchaa was not invited as panchaa and also the neighbors were not inquired and not taken there statements. Further the house agreement at Ex.P.5 mentions it as 2nd floor premises, where as P.W.1 during his cross-examination has deposed it as single floor house. Although these discrepancies are present, but still the two pancha witness has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and not supported their version. Further, the evidence of public servant cannot be disbelieved that they are 19 S.C.No.139/2016 interested in the success of prosecution. Hence, I accept the evidence given by this witness. But based only on the evidence of P.W.1 witness, the guilt of the accused persons cannot be concluded. It is important to note that he has not received any written order for conducting raid. No outsider was asked to become pancha. The seizure panchanama at Ex.P.3 is not proved and P.W.3 & 4 have turned hostile, there is no much evidence to show that Sec.3, 4 & 5 of I.T.P. act are attracted on the offence charged against accused No.1 to 3. The various discrepancies which arise in the present case, creates doubt on the case of the prosecution and can not be believed in toto. Based on all these points after considering the entire evidence of the witnesses, the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Further again, as per the provisions of Immortal Traffic Prevention Act U/s. 15(2) of wherein, one woman pancha has to be secured, which was also not complied with. 20
S.C.No.139/2016 Moreover the adjacent owners are not examined by the prosecution, which creates doubt. The evidence on record does not prove that the accused No. 1 to 3 were carrying on brothel business on the date of alleged raid by the Police Inspector and his staff. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence placed by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to hold that the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offence charged against them. Therefore, doubt arises regarding the case alleged against the accused persons. It is well settled principle of law that the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons were indulged in the offences as charged. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the Negative. 21
S.C.No.139/2016
23. Point No.5: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused No.1 to 3, deserve to be acquitted of the offences charged against them in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORD ER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences charged against them under Section 3(1), 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond executed by the accused No.1 to 3 and the surety bonds shall stand canceled. They are set at liberty forthwith.
The properties at M.O.5 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over..
The property at M.O.1 to M.O.4 shall be confiscated to the Government.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 1st day of March, 2021) (SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH 72) 22 S.C.No.139/2016 ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Bolethina @ Mallesh
P.W.2: Shakthivelu
P.W.3: Avinash
P.W.4: Rahul
II. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Record of Reasons
Ex.P.2 Notice
Ex.P.3 Panchanama
Ex.P.3(a) Sigature of Witness
Ex.P4 Complaint
Ex.P4(a) Signature of Witness
Ex.P5 Agreement
Ex.P6 Statement
III. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-23
S.C.No.139/2016 V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 Money (500x4 = 2,000/-)
M.O.2 I-phone Mobile
M.O.3 Gionee Mobile
M.O.4 Y-King Mobile
M.O.5 Kohinoor Condoms
(SANDHYA S.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-72)