Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.The charge was framed against the accused on 27.10.2021 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined in all four witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.4, and identified Mos1 and 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up the witnesses CW.3, CW.7 and CW.8 on 14.03.2022, in view of the evidence of other police official witnesses, as repetition witnesses. In spite of sufficient opportunities provided to the prosecution by issuing summons, warrant and proclamation for securing CW.4, but the concerned police failed to secure the said witnesses and in view of the same on 21.02.2022 the evidence of CW.4 was taken as nil by rejecting the prayer of the prosecution. Further the prosecution has not taken any steps to secure the witnesses CW.4, in view of the same dropping of evidence of CW.4 remained intact.

1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused was running prostitution business in a residential house situated at maruti Timber Road, Ambedkar Colony, Bandepalya, within the limits of Bandepalya P.S., Bangalore, by trafficking CW.4 with the false assurance of getting job, and indulged her in prostitution business in the public vicinity and were leading her life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business and thereby the accused has committed an offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act?
Sec.15(2) before making a search under sub- section(1), the special police officer(or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be) shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants(at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do:
It is crystal clear from the provisions of Sec.15(2) of ITP Act, 1956 that it mandates that two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated has to be called them for panchanama, out of them at least one of them shall be a women residing in the said locality. In the instant case the panch witnesses, who were cited are male persons, and they not supported the case of the prosecution. Even in the cross-examination of I.O., PW.2 he admitted that after taking the investigation of the case, he has not visited the spot, nor he has recorded the statements of the witnesses to ascertain whether the accused was indulging in committing the alleged offence in the raided house. From this fact it is crystal clear that the complainant/PW.1 has not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.15(2) of ITP Act. It is also equally important to note that the police officials PW.1, and the investigation Officer PW.2, who has filed the charge sheet, have admitted that in spite of dense locality and adjoining residential houses, near the place of raid, as witnesses for mahazar nor recorded the statements regarding the occurrence of the alleged offence against the accused. It is equally important to note that though the incidental spot is a public place adjoining to commercial shops, non citing of the local persons as a witness by the Investigating Officer_PW.2 also creates a doubt in the prosecution case regarding the conduct of raid and and apprehending of the accused along with the victim/Smt. Manjula who is cited as CW.4 and forced to indulging committing prostitution and seizure of MOs1 and 2 as per Ex.P2 panchanama is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

17.At this juncture I would like to refer the provision of Sec.13(2) of the ITP Act, 1956, wherein it is mandatory that the investigation has to be done by Special Officer and an Advisory body i.e., the Special Police Officer, who shall not be, below the rank of Police Inspector, having authority to investigate the case and file charge sheet. In the instant case the I.O., PW.2 has not produced any document to show that he is appointed as a Special Officer and having the rank of Police Inspector in the Department having authority to investigate cases pertaining to ITP Act,, 1956. The evidence of PW.2 clearly discloses that he being in the rank of Police Sub-Inspector, who had registered the case and recored the statements of the witnesses during investigation and filed charge sheet. It is the specific defense of the accused that the witness PW.2 who had investigated the case has no authority as per the provisions of ITP Act to investigate the case since he was working under the rank of PSI, below the rank of Police Inspector. At this context it is worth to note a decision of Hon'ble High Court regarding the said mandate of the Act reported in Shankaregowda @ Shankara Vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru and others reported in ILR 2016 Kar 3067 , wherein it is held that:-