1 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS ::
NAIDUPET :: SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik,
Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class, Sullurpet
(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class, Naidupet
Friday this the 16th day of April, 2021
C.C.No.157/2018
State: Rep. By Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet Police Station. … Complainant
Vs.
1.Mudiredy Lakshmi Narasamma, w/o. Lakshmi Narasareddy, R/o. 3rd street, Rajagopalapuram, Naidupet town and Mandal, Owner of Ganesh Lodge, near RTC bus stand, Naidupet town.
2. Thannamala Bhaskar Reddy @ Thalamati Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Raghavareddy, A/60 years, Reddy by caste, R/o.West Warathur, BN Kandriga village, Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District, Manager, Ganesh Lodge, Near RTC bus stand, Naidupet Town
3. Katta Eswaraiah, S/o.Dasaiah, A/60 years, Chembadi by caste, R/o.Madaphalam, Gunapadu village, Chittamur Mandal, Working as Boy at Ganesh Lodge, near RTC bus stand, Naidupet town.
... Accused
This case coming for final hearing before me on 26.03.2021 in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri.
V.Parthasarathi Reddy, and Sri.T.Gopikrishna, Counsels for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1.The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet
Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 131/2018 for the offence U/Sec. 3 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2.The case of prosecution as per charge sheet in Cr.No. 131/2018 for the offence U/Sec.3 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 of
Naidupet Police Station is that on 10-04-2018 at 9 p.m. upon credible 2 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021 information to SI of Police in charge, Naidupet P.S. along with mediators
E.Rangaiah, T.Balaji and his staff PC 504, PC 2569, WHG 250, WHG 507 went to Ganesh lodge and found gathering in front of the lodge.
That on seeing them one male person and four females tried to escape, they chased them and detained. On enquiry the male person gave his identity as A3 and confessed that he brought the females for prostitution. That at the instance of A1 and A2 he is committing the above offence.
In charge S.I of Police, Naidupet PS arrested A3 under cover of mahazarnama and took up the investigation. He examined the witnesses, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, visited it. On 16-04-2018 SI of
Police, Naidupet P.S. served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to A1 and A2. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused no.1 to 3 for the offence U/sec. 3 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 and issued summons to the accused.
4. On the appearance of the accused no.1 to 3 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished and when they were examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation in the charge sheet for the offence U/sec. 3 of Immoral
Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 is got read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. On behalf of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The evidence of LW4-P.Sujatha, LW6- T.Balaji,
LW12- SI of Police, Naidupet P.S. LW13- SI of Police, Naidupet P.S. were given up by learned APP. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on 3 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021 behalf of the defence.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 to 3 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.
Hence, defence evidence closed.
7. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and the learned counsel for the accused.
8: Now the point that arise for determination is as follows:-
Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence
U/sec.3 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956?
9. The investigation in this case commenced on the report of PW1 which is marked as Ex.P8 through PW7. The brief contents of Ex.P8 is that
PW7 along with his staff PC 504, PC 2569 , WHG 250 , WHG 507 along with E.Rangaiah and T.Balaji, mediators went to Ganesh lodge in Naidupet at 9 hours on 10-04-2018.
10.They observed 4 persons in front of the lodge and on seeing them tried to escape but they were detained. On enquiry the male person gave his identity as A3 and he confessed the offence that along with the 3 females and at the instance of A1 and A2 they were doing prostitution. The females also confessed that A1, A2 along with A3 are forcing them for prostitution. Hence, the mahazarnama.
11.Though PW1 , PW2, PW3, have stated that accused are forcing them for prostitution but said PW1, PW2, PW3 have not supported their version in their evidence.
12. PW1 deposed that about 3 years back she along with Bhavani, 4 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021
Venkata-ramanamma and Sujatha went to Tirumala and in return they stayed at lode in Naidupet to go to Sullurupet on the next day. Then nothing has happened.
13. She also deposed that when she was in lodge one police constable took her signature on white paper and identified her signature as
Ex.P1. In the cross examination she denied that at the instance of Venkata
Ramanamma she came to Naidupet Ganesh lodge to gain financially. She denied as having stated to police as in Ex.P2 her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement.
14. PW2 also on the lines of PW1 deposed that about 3 years back she along with PW1 and others went to Tirumala and while returning stayed at lodge in Naidupet to go to Sullurupet the next day. That nothing had happened.
15. She also deposed that when she was in lodge police constable took her signature in white paper and identified her signature as Ex.P3.
In the cross examination she denied that she is residing singly due to matrimonial disputes . She also denied that to help herself financially Ramanamma introduced PW1 to her and they are accompany to Ganesh lodge, Naidupet.
She denied having stated to police as in Ex.P4 her sec. 161
Cr.P.C. statement.
16. PW3 deposed that she does not know accused. That she does not know anything about this case. That about 2 ½ years back she stayed at lodge and one police constable took her signature on white paper and identified her signature as Ex.P5.
In the cross examination she denied that A1 and A2 offered money if they come to A2’s lodge. That she denied that they used to go 5 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021 to Ganesh lodge and police caught them on 10-04-2018. She denied the suggestion that she has stated to police as in Ex.P6 her Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.
statement.
The prime witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 have turned hostile not supported the prosecution case.
17.It is the case of prosecution that PW4 acted as mediator for mahazarnama dated 11-04-2019. PW4 deposed he does not know the other mediator- Blajai, accused , PW1 to PW3. He deposed that he does not know anything about this case and never acted as mediator in any case of Naidupet P.S.
He deposed that some one obtained his signature on white paper and identified his signature as Ex.P7.
In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that he and
Balaji acted as mediators on the alleged date before Ganesh lodge. He denied that A1 confessed the offence and all accused used to share the money. He denied suggestion that police examined PW1 to PW3 , Sujatha in his presence and that he is deposing false about the offence.
18.The mediator PW5 also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Hence, the mahazarnama also not proved.
19. PW5 who is the investigating officer deposed as to accompanying SI of Police who is in charge SI of Naidupet P.S. on 10-04- 2018 at 9 p.m. and went to Ganesh lodge at bus stand in Naidupet. That they observed 4 females and one male person and on seeing them they tried to run away.
That on enquiry the male person gave his identity as A3. That he did not hear the confession made by A3. He also deposed that he can 6 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021 not say what the 4 ladies stated.
Even though PW5 deposed as to reaching Ganesh lodge on 10- 04-2018 at 9 p. m. but he can not deposed the confession made by A3 and also the contents of the statements of the 4 females. This creates doubt in the mind of court.
In the cross examination he deposed that he does not remember whether any photographs were taken at the alleged scene of offence. He deposed that scene of offence is a busy locality. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of higher officials he is deposing false.
20. Pw6 deposed that on 10-04-2018 at the instance of incharge SI of Police, Naidupet PS at 9 p.m. went to Ganesh lodge in Naidupet. He deposed that they found 4 ladies and one male person in front of Ganesh lodge talking to each other. He deposed that A3 confessed the offence that he use to bring ladies for prostitution and the ladies used to share the amount by way of prostitution . That the ladies came from Vijayawada on that day. He deposed that he does not know the names of said 4 ladies.
In the cross examination he deposed that Ganesh lodge is situated in busy locality and there is movement of passengers, availability of RTC employees around the clock. He deposed that their Sub Inspector of Police did not try to secure mediators at Ganesh lodge. He deposed that it took more than 2 hours to complete mahazarnama at the alleged scene of offence.
He denied the suggestion that mahazarnama was prepared in the police station and mediators signed on it. He denied the suggestion that A3 was not working in Ganesh lodge on 10-04-2018. The other suggestions supporting defence case were posed for which he denied.
7 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021
21.PW7 deposed that at the instance of SI of Police, PW5, PW6, herself, Indiramma and two mediators accompanied to Ganesh lodge ,
Naidupet. She deposed that they observed 4 ladies and one male person.
She deposed that they took the five persons to police station on suspicion.
She deposed that she signed in the mahazar on 11-04-2018 and does not remember whether any other person has signed it. She deposed that she does not know the contents of Ex.P8 mahazarnama and the names of 5 persons.
The deposition of P.W.7 that she does not know the names of 5 persons and that she signed Ex.P8 mahazarnama on 11-04-2018 in police station further strengthens the doubt of court as to the commission of offence on alleged date.
In the cross examination she admitted that there are residential houses, shops between police station and Ganesh lodge. She also admitted that bus stand shall be full of passengers around the clock. The other part of the cross examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which she denied.
22.P.W.8 on the lines of P.W. 7 deposed that she accompanied SI of police, other officials on 10-04-2018 at 9 p.m. to Ganesh lodge and found 4 ladies and one male person. That they caught hold of said 5 persons and their SI of police enquired them.
She deposed that she does not remember whether any mahazar was prepared on 10-04-2018. She deposed that she signed in the police station. She identified her signature as Ex.P9. She deposed that she can not identify the said 5 persons.
8 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021
23.The above piece of evidence in her chief examination as to signing at police station, does not remember whether any mahazar prepared on 10-04-2018 and she can not identify the 5 persons, further strengthens the doubt of court as to the alleged offence. Had the incident really happened there shall not be such deposition from PW8 who was alleged to be present at the scene of offence.
In the cross examination she admitted that there are residential houses and shops between police station and Ganesh lodge. She also admitted that the bus stand shall be full of passengers. The other part of cross examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which she denied.
24.P.W.9 who is the investigating officer deposed as to reaching scene of offence on 10-04-2018 along with his staff PW5 to Pw7, mediators PW4 and T.Balaji to Ganesh lodge at 10 p.m. That they observed one male person and four females and detained them.
25.That on enquiry they gave their identity as Pw1 to Pw3, Sujatha.
That in presence of mediators Ex.P8 was written and registered under
Ex.P10 FIR. That he served Sec. 41 -A Cr.P.C. notice to A3 on same day and A1 and A2 on 16-04-2018. That after completion of investigation
LW13 filed charge sheet.
In the cross examination he admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality. He deposed that he has not recorded the proceedings under
Ex.P8. He deposed that they have not tried to secure mediators at scene of offence. The other part of cross examination are the suggestions put supporting defence version for which he denied.
26.On perusal of entire evidence on record, the victims PW1 , 9 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021
PW2, PW3 have not supported the prosecution case who were alleged to be present on the alleged date of offence.
27.P.w.4 who is the mediator as stated by prosecution has not supported the prosecution case for the reasons best known to him.
28.P.W.5 to P.W.8 who are the officials who accompanied to the alleged place of incident have deposed creating doubt in the mind of court as to the commission of offence itself. In their chief examination itself they have not deposed to bring the entire incident on record. Their evidence creates doubt in the mind of court as to the commission of offence.
29.The sole evidence of the investigating officer /PW9 is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
30.From the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 there is no evidence on record to bring home the commission of offence. All the Pws 1 to 8 does not depose coherently and consistently bringing home the commission of offence.
31.The only available evidence on record is i.e., investigating officer who deposed as to various aspects of investigation is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused.
32.In absence of any piece of evidence corroborating to the version of the investigating officer by the independent witnesses Pws 1 to 3, the mediator /PW4 and official witnesses PW5 to Pw8 the version of prosecution cannot be believed. Further in this case PW1 to PW3 are the victims themselves turned hostile. The punch witness in whose presence the mahazar is conducted has turned hostile not proving the 10 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021 mahazarnama.
33.In absence of corroboration from independent witnesses who turned hostile not supporting the prosecution case the sole version of the investigating officer under PW.9 cannot be believed and cannot be substantive evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused.
34.For the above discussion this point is answered against prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
35. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence
U/Sec.3 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention ) Act, 1956 and A1 to A3 are acquitted of the same U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A
Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of April, 2021.
Sd/- Faizunnisa Shaik,
(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class, Naidupet.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Sk.Jareena
P.W.2: Medi Bhavani
P.W.3 : P. Venkata Ramanamma @ Ramana
P.W.4: E.Rangaiah
P.W.5: K.Murali, the then, PC of Naidupet P.S.
P.W.6: P.Muni Sekhar, the then, PC of Naidupet PS.
P.w.7: G.Supraja, WHG 250 of Naidupet PS..
P.w.8: A.Indiramma, WHG 507 of Naidupet PS
P.W.9 : Ch.Kotireddy, the then IN charge SI of Police, Naidupet P.S.
11 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021
Witnesses examined for defence:- None
Exhibits marked for prosecution:-
Ex.P.1:-Signature of PW1 on mahazarnama dt 11-04-2018.
Ex.P.2:-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.
Ex.P.3:-Signature of PW2 on mahazarnama dt 11-04-2018.
Ex.P4:- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.
Ex.P5:- Signature of PW3 on mahazarnama dt 11-04-2018
Ex.P6: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.
Ex.P7:Signature of PW4 on mahazarnama dt 11-04-2018
Ex.P8: Signature of PW7 on mahazarnama dt 11-04-2018
Ex.P9: Signature of PW8 on mahazarnama dt 11-04-2018
Ex.P10: First Information Report in Cr.No.131/2018 of Naidupet PS
Exhibits marked for defence:- Nil
Material objects marked for prosecution:- Nil
Sd/- Faizunnisa Shaik,
(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class Naidupet
//True copy//
(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,
Naidupet 12 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NAIDUPETA.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET, (FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NAIDUPET
DISTRICT : NELLORE. C.C.NO.157/2018 DATE OF
Offence FilingApprehension ReleasedCommencemeClosure of Sentence of accusedon bailnt trial of trial 10-04-2018 10-04-2018----14-12-202026-02-202116-04-2021
Explanation for the delay and remarks: This case was taken on file on 28.07.2018. Thereafter, the case is posted for several adjournments from time to time till 14.05.2019 due to accused summons pending. On 28.02.2021, Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused. On 06.03.2020, A1 to
A3 were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. Further, due to Covid-19, the case was posted from time to time till 7.10.2020 and thereafter, accused absent through Video Conference upto 1.12.2020. On 14.12.2020, Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On 15.12.2020, Pws.5 to 9 were examined and Exs.P8 and P9 were marked. On 26.02.2021,
PW9 was examined and Ex.P10 was marked and Lws.4, 6, 12 and 13 were given up by the learned APP and prosecution evidence was closed. On 05.03.2021, A1 to A3 were examined
U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and reported no defence evidence. On 15.03.2021, accepted solvencies for compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. On 19.03.2021 and 26.03.2021 heard the arguments.
On 16.04.2021, judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.
Complainant : The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet P.S
Description of the Accused:
1.Mudiredy Lakshmi Narasamma, w/o. Lakshmi Narasareddy, R/o. 3rd street, Rajagopalapuram, Naidupet town and Mandal, Owner of Ganesh Lodge, near RTC bus stand, Naidupet town.
2. Thannamala Bhaskar Reddy @ Thalamati Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Raghavareddy, A/60 years, Reddy by caste, R/o.West Warathur, BN Kandriga village, Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District, Manager, Ganesh Lodge, Near RTC bus stand, Naidupet Town
3. Katta Eswaraiah, S/o.Dasaiah, A/60 years, Chembadi by caste, R/o.Madaphalam, Gunapadu village, Chittamur Mandal, Working as Boy at Ganesh Lodge, near RTC bus stand, Naidupet town.
Nature of Offence :- Keeping a brothal or allowing premises to be used as a brothel, punishable U/Sec.3 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding :- Found not guilty.
13 CC.No.157/2018, dt.16.4.2021
SENTENCE OR ODER :-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.3 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention ) Act, 1956 and A1 to A3 are acquitted of the same U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.
Sd/- Faizunnisa Shaik,
Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupet Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-
Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.
//True copy//
Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupet