Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs No.1 And 2 Have Committed An on 2 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
PRESENT:
Sri E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.732/2016
BETWEEN
State by RT Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1.Raghu S/o Ramanna,
a/a 23 years,
R/o Basaveshwara Apartment,
Ground Floor, I Cross, Manjunathanagar,
RT Nagar Post, Bangalore-32.
And also at Mavinakere Grama,
Nelamangala Taluq,
Mandya District.
2.Munna @ Yusuf S/o Basa Sab,
a/a 22 years,
R/a No.120/1, Nageshwara,
Nagenahalli Main Road,
Bangalore-32.
And also at Siddaramappa Layout,
Holalkere Town, Chitradurga District. .. ACCUSED
(By Sri SRS., Advocate)
*****
2 S.C.No.732/2016
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, RT Nagar P.S., Bangalore City, has filed charge sheet against accused No.1, 2 and another for the offences punishable U/s.370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. The brief story of the prosecution case is as under:-
On 5.4.2014, on the basis of credible information received by CW.1 Smt. K. R. Bhadramma, Police Inspector, W and N Squad, CCB, Bangalore, has brought to the notice of her colleague CW.2 Chadrashekar.P, Police Inspector, and police staff CW.3 and 4 of CCB, and also to the pancahs about running of prostitution business at Flat No.3, Ground Floor, Basaveshwara Apartment, situated at I Cross, Manjunatha Layout, RT Nagar, Bangalore. On the same day at 5.15 p.m. CW.1 along with police staff and panchas conducted raid. Prior to raid CW.1 has sent CW.3 Rajanna, ASI, as decai to confirm the said information. And after conducting raid on the said flat, they caught the accused persons and rescued trafficking girls CW.7 and 8, and seized 3 S.C.No.732/2016 Mos1 to 3 and thereby the accused persons have committed the offences as alleged against them.
3.The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional VIII Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. after furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused persons. The same was numbered as SC No.732/2016.
4. The charge was framed against the accused for the offences as alleged against them. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.The prosecution examined six witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.7, and Mos1 to 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has gave up the witnesses CW.4 and CW.11 in view of the evidence of the other police official witnesses. The concerned police failed to execute warrant against vital witnesses CW.5 to 9 and 12, and to keep them present before the Court for the purpose of evidence in spite of issuance of NBW and proclamation, and as such the prayer of learned PP was rejected and prosecution side evidence was taken as closed with liberty 4 S.C.No.732/2016 to examine the said witnesses CW.5 to 9 and 12, if the concerned police keep them present before the Court, before conclusion of trial.
6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this Court has recorded the statement of accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 and 2 have denied incriminating evidence present against them, and have not chosen to lead defense evidence nor submitted anything to Court.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
8.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 indulged in prostitution business at Flat No.3 Ground Floor Basaveshwara Apartment, situated at I Cross, Manjunatha Layout, RT Nagar Bangalore City, by trafficking CW.7 and CW.8 into lure and made them to the prostitution, by obtaining flat on rent basis in the public vicinity and for illegal gain and thereby the 5 S.C.No.732/2016 accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 with an intention to run prostitution business by trafficking CW.6 and CW.7 and put them into greed of earning more money in a very easy manner, and asked them to do the prostitution in the aforesaid flat and induced them in indulging in prostitution business for wrongful gain, and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable U/s.370 of IPC
3. What Order?
9.This Court findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10.Points No.1 and 2: Both these points are taken up together as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
6 S.C.No.732/2016
It is the allegation against the accused persons that they have running prostitution business at Flat No.4 and 5, I Cross, Manjunatha Layout. On the basis of the credible information, CCB, Police conducted raid after confirming information through decai i.e., CW.3 and arrested accused persons and rescued victims CW.7 and CW.8, thereafter seized material objects. The prosecution has examined CCB Police Inspectors by name Chandrashekar and Smt. K. R. Bhadramma, as PW.1 and 2, and also examined one Mr. Rajanna, who is ASI in CCB, Bangalore, and who was also alleged to be acted as decai, as PW.3. This Court has not find any much differences in the chief examinations of PW.1 to 3. The said police officials PW.1 to 3 have categorically deposed about receipt of information regarding running of brothel home by the accused persons in the rented Flat No.4 and 5 situated at Manjunatha Layout. The said flats were taken on rent basis from the witnesses PW.5 and PW.6 by the accused Chandrashekar @ Chandru, who is shown as absconding. The witnesses PW.1 and 2 have also deposed that they were engaged CW.3/PW.3 ASI Rajanna, as decai and handed over rupees one thousand three currency notes 7 S.C.No.732/2016 and instructed him to give missed call to the mobile of CW.1/PW.2, if the information is confirmed. The said witness PW.3 after confirming information had given missed call to the mobile of PW.2 Smt. K. R. Bhadramma. Prior to that the said PW.2 being the head of the raided team has prepared and issued notice to the panchas CW.5 and CW.6, who were secured through the police staff. She has also prepared record of reasons and obtained the signatures of panchas on both police notice and record of reasons, which were marked at Ex.P1 and P2. After conducting raid, they noticed the presence of CW.3/PW.3 decai and a girl. On enquiry decai has stated about paying of Rs.3,000/- to the accused, and after receipt of cash, the accused have sent girl to fulfill his desire of enjoying sex. The said CCB Police have enquired the victims by name Kavya and Chandini, who were rescued by them. Both the victims have informed before them that the accused by name Chandrashekar has assured to get a job for them and put into the prostitution business. The other accused persons Raghu and Munna, i.e., accused No.1 and No.2 assisting the said accused No.3 Chandrashekar @ Chandru by receiving the cash from the customers. The said 8 S.C.No.732/2016 accused No.3 giving some portion of the amount to the victims and accused No.1 and 2, and keeping the remaining amount to lead his life and also to pay the rent.
11.In the cross-examination, the witnesses PW.1 and PW.2 have admitted that no written order has been issued prior to conducting of raid. The witness PW.1 not deposed through which area they reached the spot. But according to PW.2 Smt. K. R. Bhadramma, they reached the spot through Majestic. Whereas it is the say of PW.3 Rajanna that they reached the spot through Mekri Circle. It appears that the Smt. K. R. Bhadramma might have not aware where exactly RT Nagar is located, since, she has stated that they reached the spot through majestic, which is located far away from FT Nagar. The said witness PW.3 has not stated from which mobile number, PW.3 had given missed call, and also he does not know the mobile number of PW.2. The witness PW.2 has also not collected the mobile call details, which is very much necessary to believe conducting of raid and also in support of the evidence given by PW.1 to PW.3. The non- securing of call details is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 9 S.C.No.732/2016 It is also noticed from the evidence of PW.3 that no local women pancha has been secured nor conducted enquiry of residents of the locality where raid was conducted. Even the evidence given by PW.5 and PW.6 i.e., PW.5 Nagaraj and PW.6 Dushyanthappa being the owner of the house has given house through witness PW.5, who is looking after the house property of PW.6. The document sale deed stands in the name of wife of PW.6. This Court has not find reasons, why the I.O., has cited PW.6, who is not the owner of the house. The I.O., should have cited the wife of PW.6, who being the the owner of the house is the best person to speak about rental contract. Even the witness PW.5 evidence shows that they have given house on rent basis to accused Chandrashekar, but he has not returned along with his family to reside in the said rented house. It is also noticed from the evidence of PW.5 that he has never seen the accused No.1 and No.2 coming to the house or residing in the house, where the alleged raid was conducted. This piece of evidence rebut the prosecution story as because when the accused No.1 and No.2 not at all in the house according to the say of PW.5 and PW.6, then the question of running 1 S.C.No.732/2016 0 prostitution in the house is doubtful. The victims have also not examined by the prosecution, which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.
12.The witness PW.4 Raghupathy being the then Police Inspector of RT Nagar P.S., had received further investigation from CW.12 and filed charge sheet. In spite of issue of NBW and proclamation, the police have failed to secure Cw.12 Hariyappa, PSI, who has registered FIR, submitted the seized Mos into the PF and recorded statement of the witnesses etc., Further there is no material present on record whether the victims were subjected to medical examination. On perusal of the record, shows that the said PSI CW.12 has registered the FIR and recorded the statements of witnesses, he has completed entire investigation except filing of charge sheet, though the provision of ITP Act not empower the police officer less than the rank of Police Inspector to conduct investigation. The said defect being incurable, is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. So it is very clear that the prosecution has failed in establishing its case against the accused persons to believe that the accused 11 S.C.No.732/2016 persons were running prostitution business by wrongfully restraining CW.7 and CW.8, as alleged in the charge sheet and leading life from the earning of prostitution business. Hence, this court has answered the points No.1 and No.2 in the negative.
13. Point No.3: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and No.2, this court pass the following:-
ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and No.2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall stand canceled.
MOs1 to 3 are ordered to be preserve till disposal of the split up case as registered against accused No.3.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 2 nd day of December, 2019) (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.1 S.C.No.732/2016 2
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Chandrashekar .K P.W.2: Sm.t K. R. Bhadramma P.W.3: Rajanna P.W.4: Raghupathi P.W.5: Nagaaja V. K. P.W.6: Dushyanthappa.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Notice to witnesses Ex.P.2: Record of reasons Ex.P.3: Mahazar Ex.P.4: Complaint Ex.P.5: Statement of PW.5 Ex.P.6: Sale Deed Ex.P7: Statement of PW.6.
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:-
NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
MO1: Three Mobile phones
MO3: Condoms
MO3: Cash of Rs.2,000/-
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 1 S.C.No.732/2016 3 Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and No.2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code.The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 and 2
shall stand canceled.
MOs1 to 3 are ordered to be preserve till disposal of the split up case as registered against accused No.3.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)