1
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT
TADEPALLIGUDEM OF WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
PRESENT: SRI N.SREENIVASA RAO
Assistant Sessions Judge.
Wednesday, this the 16 th day of April, 2018.
SESSIONS CASE No.32 /2014.
Between
State: Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, TadepalligudemTown Police station in Cr.No.67/2010.
....Complainant
- And –
1.Sadi Rajeswari W/o.Chinna, Reddy, 33 years, Mahalaxminagar, 3rd street, Tadepalligudem town.
2.Chemaladenne Nagamalliswari @ Harika, W/o.Ramamurthy, 29 years, Kamma, near Adarsa Convent, Sajjapuram, Tanuku, (Harika Beauty Parlour).
3.Pamu Sailaja W/o.Pandu, 26 years, SC Mala, Main road, Usurumallu village, PeravalliMandal.
4.Rellu Laxmi, W/o.Seetaramudu, 28 years, Kapu, Near Priyanka Hospital, Sajjapuram, Tanuku.
5.Bokka Rani, W/o.NagaRaju, 22 years, Mala, Near JaggaiahCheruvu, Pitapuram, E.G.Dist.
6.Manga Veerraju @ Samy, S/o.Narayanamurthy, 36 years, Kapu, D.No.4-12, Near Sivalayam, Taki village, Kapileswarapurammandal.
7.Bokka Nagaraju S/o.Verraju, 25 years, Mala, near JaggaiahCheruvu, Pittapuram, E.G.Dist.
8.Bandarulanka Sreenu, S/o.KondaRaju, 23 years, Rajaka, near Sivalayam, Auto driver, Auto No.AP 05 T 1913, Bhogapuram, PitapuramMandal.
9.BusiVenkateswarlu, S/o.Suryarao, 29 years, Padmasali, Cloth merchant, Velamapeta road, DoravariCheruvugattu, Akiveedu.
10.Muttu Swamy Siva Kumar S/o MuttuSwamy, 62 years, Settiyar, Kuppam, ChittorDstrict (Died on 24-08-2011)
11.LaxmiPathiRajuS/o.Laxmipathi,41years,Balijanaidu, Shanmukanagar, D.No.2/95,Mannivakam, Thambaram, Chennai.
12.Anandan Modaliar GopiGopalakrishnan, S/o.AnandanModaliar, 50 years, C/o.Modaliar, Boombuhar Nagar, 25th street, D.No.48, Kolluthuru, Chennai-43. (Separated PRC 52/2.12)
(As per record the accused A3, A9 were split up vide PRC
51/3013 on 22-07-2013 as the NBWs are pending against them
and subsequently the case against A.3 vide in SC No. 189/14 is
abated she was reported died.)
(As per record the case against accused A.10was abated he was
reported died.) 2
(As per record the accused A11, A12 were split up vide PRC
52/2012 on 10-09-2012 as the NBWs are pending against them
since long time) … Accused.
This case is came before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri Muddana.
Srinivasa Rao, Learned Advocate for Accused No.1, 2 & 4 and of Sri
Donthukurthi.Srinivasa Rao, Learned Advocate for Accused No.5,7& 8 and of Sri K.John Kennedy, Learned Advocate for Accused No.6 and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Inspector of police, Tadepalligudem filed charge sheet in
Cr.No.67/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 366(A), 372 r/w 114 and 120 (b) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) and
Sec.3,4 and5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against the accused and the learned 1st Addl. Judicial 1st class magistrate, Tadepalligudem after following procedure lay down under law committed this case vide PRC
No.61/2010(Re-numbered as PRC No.51/2013)to the Hon’ble sessions court and subsequently the same is made over to this court to dispose of the same according to law.
2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:On 25-02-2010 when A10 to A12 visited the brothel house maintained by A1 at
D.No.7-28-9, Road No.3,Mahalaxminagar, Tadepalligudem town and agreed to purchase the victim prostitutes to transport them to their brothel den at Chennai. On thatthe A1 contacted A2 to A7 and A9, informed to them through her mobile phone to get more prostitutes from them with a view to sell them to A10 to A12. The A1 had already secured
L.W.4 Reddy Ramalaxmi @ Chinna, L.W.5 ChikkalaKrupa and L.W.7 Gudla
Ganga at her brothel house and after that the A2 to A9 were also came to the residence of A1 along with L.W.6GunturiVeraveni @ Mayri, L.W.8
ArimilliLaxmi, P.W.3, P.W.4, L.W.11 Chinta Nagamma, L.W.12 Veligatla
Vijaya, L.W.13 GrandiKavita. On their arrival the A1 conspired with A2 to
A9 to sell the above noted secured female persons to A10 to A13 by fixing rate at Rs.30,000/- per each victim for which A10 to A12 bargained and accepted for the said rate and paid an advance of Rs.5,000/- to A-1 3 promising to pay the remaining amount as and when the said victims reached to their destination at Chennai by train.
3.It is further averred that while the matter were going on, the
P.W.10 Inspector of Police received reliable information about the same he immediately secured the presence of his subordinate officers, other staff and Mediators P.W.1, L.W.2 Uppuluri. Venkata Narayana and conducted raid on the said house of A1 at 4 p.m on 25-02-2010. On seeing them 2 victims with 2 male persons escaped in a car from the said house and they apprehended A1 to A12, rescued L.Ws.4 to L.W.13 in the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.1, L.W.2 Narayana. On interrogation all the accused confessed about commission of offence and they secured the victims L.Ws.4 to L.W.13 inducing them stating that they will be provided with jobs to them and offered them for sale to A10 to A12 for the purpose of prostitution at Chennai city. All the accused were arrested by them, seized 9 mobile phones, cash of Rs.5,000/-,one Auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 05/T 1913 under the cover of mediators report drafted by the mediators P.W.1 and L.W.2 Narayana on the spot. They took the accused, case property and victims L.Ws.4 to L.W.13 to the Town Police station, Tadepalligudem.
4. Basing on the instructions of P.W.10 on 25-02-2010 the P.W.9 registered the mediators report as case in Cr.No.67/2010 for the offence
U/Sec.366 (A), 376 (g), 372, 373 r/w 114 IPC and 120 (b) IPC and Sec.3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and later the P.W.10 investigated into the matter.
5.During the course of investigation theP.W.10 produced the victims
L.Ws.4 to L.W.13 with a requisition before the Honourable Court and the
Honourable Court sent them to AOMO Swadhara Shelter Home,
Vidyanagar, Eluru on 26-02-2010 for safe custody and thereafter they were sent for medical examination to Government District Head
Quarters Hospital, Eluru. Further the L.Ws.4 to 6 were produced before
L.W.18 Dr. P. Uma MaheswaraRao, Assistant Professor, Forensic medicine,
Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada for age determination. Further on 26-02-2010 the P.W.10 send the accused A-1to A-12 to court with remand report and got remanded them. After completion of investigation in all respects police filed charge sheet in this case.
4
6. On perusal of the contents of the charge sheet coupled with other material documents in the record, this case is taken on file for the offence punishable u/sec. U/Sec.366 (A), 372, 373 r/w 114 IPC and 120 (B) IPC and Sec.3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against the accused A1 to A12 by the learned 1st Addl. Judicial 1st class magistrate,
Tadepalligudem and the same is numbered as P.R.C.No.61/2010(Re- numbered as PRC No.51/2013)and that after following necessary procedure, committed the matter to the Sessions Division U/Sec.209 of
Cr.P.C and later the same is made over to this court for disposal of the same according to law.
7. After securing the presence of the accused and on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, defence counsel, my predecessor in office framed charges against the accused A1, A2, A5 to A8 for the offence punishable U/Sec.366 (A), charge against the accused A1, A2, A5 to A8 for the offence punishable under section 372 IPC and charge against the accused A1, A2, A4 to A8 for the offence punishable under section 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Further charge against the accused A1 to A8 for the offence punishable under section 366 (A), 372 of IPC, section 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act r/w 114 of
IPC and charge against the accused A1to A8 for the offence punishable under section 366 (A), 372 of IPC, section 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act r/w 120 (B) of IPC. The contents of charges are read over, explained to the accused in Telugu to which the accused A1, A2, A4 to A8 are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10,
Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-17, M.Os.1 and 2were marked. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accusedA1, A2, A4 to A8 were examined under u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses was read over, explained to the above noted accused to which they stated that the same is false and further they reported that there is no defence evidence on their side.
9. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused material in the case record, considered the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.10, Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-17, M.Os.1 and 2.
5
10. The point for determination is: Whether the prosecution
proved the guilt of the accused A1, A2, A5 to A8 for the offence
punishable U/Sec.366 (A), 372 of IPC, the accused A1, A2, A4 to
A8 for the offence punishable under section 4, 5 and 6 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the accused A1, A.2, A.4 to
A8 for the offence punishable under section 366 (A), 372 of IPC,
section 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act r/w 114,
120 (B) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
11. POINT: To prove their case the prosecution firstly examined P.W.1
R.Venkata Padmanabham who previously worked as VRO–II,
Tadepalligudem and he deposed that on 25.02.2010 at request of
Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem he, L.W.2 U.Venkatanarayana,
Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem, SI of policeTadepalligudem Town PS,
SI of Police, Nidadavolu and their staff proceed to Road
No.3,Mahalakshminagar, Tadepalligudem to the house bearing door
No.7-28-9 which is belongs to P.W.2 and reached thereby at 4.00 PM.
There on seeing the police two female persons, two male persons were flee away in an alto car from that place. Further on seeing the police five female persons, seven male persons who were present at varanda of the said house were also tried to flee away from the place, but the police caught hold off them. On enquiry the said male and female persons disclosed their names, address particulars. The Inspector of police interrogated each of them separately and among them the A.1 Sadi.
Rajeswari confessed that she is residing as tenant in the said house since 5 months and under the guise of beauty parlor she is running brothel house in the said house and she is securing women from other states for the purpose of doing prostitution and also to sell them in other states for the purpose of prostitution.
12. P.W.1 further deposed that A.1 SadiRajeswari further also confessed that she secured one minor girl from Tadepalligudem bus stand area with a promise that she will provide the job to her. She also secured two other female persons for the purpose of doing prostitution as they are in financial problems. She is also securing the girls through one Harika (A.2) resident of Tanuku where she is running brothel house and in the same way she is also securing the girls through Pamu Sailaja (A.3), Relli
Lakshmi (A.4), Bokka Rani (A.5), B.Venkateswarlu (A.9), M.Veerraju (A.6) who were also running the brothel houses at various places. The P.W.1 further deposed that A.1 SadiRajeswari further confessed that on the 6 said day A.10 Moddu Swamy, A.11 Lakshmipathi Raju, A.12 Mudiliyar were came from Chennai to purchase the girls at their house. She further confessed that she had taken an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards consideration and she agreed to sell 10 girls each Rs.30,000/- to A.10 to
A.12. She also confessed that as there were no girls with A.6 M.Veerraju at his instance A.7 B.NagaRaju, A.5 Bokka Rani brought one girl in the auto of A.8 B Srinu to the house of A.1 on the said day. Further the A.1 handed over Rs.5,000/- to the police in their presence and Inspector of
Police seized the same from the possession of A.1 under the cover of mediators report. TheP.W.1 further deposed that the inspector of police interrogated the other female, male persons who are caught hold by the police at the rented house of A.1 and all of them confessed the same thing as that of A.1 and the same is recorded by the police. Further police also seized seven Nokia phones, one LG cell phone, one Samsung cell phone in total 9 cell phones from the possession of the accused and the Police also seized the auto from the possession of A.8 under the cover of mediators report and that the Police arrested the A.1 to A.12, seized Rs.5,000/- from the possession of A.1, auto from the possession of
A.8, nine cell phones from the possession of the accused and one condom packet from the house of A.1. Ex.P.1 is the mediators report
dated 25.02.2010. Ex.P.1 is drafted by L.W.2 U.VenkataNarayana on
which he, Narayana and police were signed. Police took the A.1 to A.12 and case property to the police station and he can identify the case property. MO1 consisting of nine cell phones. Ex.P.2 consisting of three positive photos of auto bearing number AP 05 1913 were marked. The accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.8 were also present at the house of A.1 and police arrested them in their presence on the said day.
13. Further Prosecution examined P.W.2 G.Chinna Rao, P.W.3
M.Krishnaveni and P.W.4 Madda Aasa and they deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and nothing was happened in their presence relating to this case and that they were not examined by the police. Further P.W.2 G.ChinnaRao who is alleged to have been given their house for rent to A.1 is also specifically deposed that he never given his house for rent to anybody.
14. Prosecution further examined P.W.5 Dr.L.Mohan Vamsi who 7 previously worked as CAS at District hospital, Eluru deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 11.20 AM she examined L.W.7 G.Ganga and on examination she found that she is conscious, coherent and her vitals are normal. She is physically, mentally sound and gait was normal and that no external injuries were found on her body, the sexual characters are well developed. She is of the opinion that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse and shehad issued medical certificate of L.W.7
G.Ganga. Ex.P.6 is the medical certificate of L.W.7 G.Ganga. P.W.5 further deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 11.25 AM she examined P.W.3 and found that she is physically, mentally sound. No external injuries were found on her body, the sexual characters are well developed. She is of the opinion that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse and she issued medical certificate of P.W.3. Ex.P.7 is the medical certificate of
P.W.3.
15. Prosecution further examined P.W.6Dr.J.Letourna Devi who is working as CAS, District Government hospital, Eluru and she deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 10.30 AM she examined L.W.4 Reddy Rama
Lakshmi and found that she is conscious, coherent, her vitals are normal.
She is physically, mentally sound, gait was normal and no external injuries were found on her body. The sexual characters are well developed and she is of the opinion that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse and she had issued medical certificate of L.W.4 Reddy
Rama Lakshmi. Ex.P.9 is the medical certificate of L.W.4 Reddy Rama
Lakshmi.P.W.6 further deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 10.45 AM she examined L.W.5 Ch.Krupa and found that she is conscious, coherent, her vitals are normal. She is physically, mentally sound, gait was normal and no external injuries were found on her body and the sexual characters are well developed. She is of the opinion that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse and had issued medical certificate of
L.W.5 Ch. Krupa. Ex.P.10 is the medical certificate of L.W.5 Ch. Krupa.
The P.W.6 further deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 11.15 AM she examined L.W.6 G. VeeraVeni and found that she is conscious, coherent, her vitals are normal. She is physically, mentally sound, gait was normal and no external injuries were found on her body and that the sexual characters are well developed. She is of the opinion that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse and had issued medical certificate of 8
L.W.6 G.VeeraVeni. Ex.P.11 is the medical certificate of L.W.6 G.Veera
Veni.TheP.W6 further deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 11.30 AM she examined L.W.8 A.Lakshmi and found that she is physically, mentally sound, no external injuries were found on her body and that the sexual characters are well developed. She is of the opinion that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse and had issued medical certificate of
L.W.8 A.Lakshmi. Ex.P.8 is the medical certificate of L.W.8 A Lakshmi.
16. Prosecution further examined P.W.7 Dr. M.Padma who previously worked as CAS and she deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 2.20 PM she examined L.W.12 V Vijaya and found that she is conscious, coherent, her vitals are normal. She is physically, mentally sound, gait was normal, no external injuries were found on her body and the sexual characters are well developed. She is of the opinion that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse and had issued medical certificate of L.W.12 V Vijaya.
Ex.P.12 is the medical certificate of L.W.12 V. Vijaya. The P.W.7 further deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 2.45 PM she examined L.W.13
G.Kavitha and found that she is conscious, coherent, her vitals are normal. She is physically, mentally sound, gait was normal, no external injuries were found on her body. The sexual characters are well developed and further on examination she found that the victim is approximately two months pregnant and she has been advised for follow up pregnancy medical care and she had issued medical certificate of
L.W.13 G Kavitha. Ex.P.13 is the medical certificate of L.W.13 G.Kavitha.
17. Prosecution further examined P.W.8 Dr.G.Prameela who worked as
CAS, District Government hospital, Eluru and she deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 1.50 PM she examined P.W.4 and found that she is conscious, coherent, her vitals are normal. She is physically, mentally sound, gait was normal and no external injuries were found on her body.
The sexual characters are well developed. She is of the opinion that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse and she had issued medical certificate of P.W.4. Ex.P.14 is the medical certificate of L.W.10 M.Aasa.
P.W.8 further deposed that on 02/03/2010 at about 2.05 PM she examined L.W.11 Ch.Nagamma and found that she is conscious, coherent, her vitals are normal. She is physically, mentally sound, gait was normal and no external injuries were found on her body and that the sexual characters are well developed. She is of the opinion that the 9 victim is habituated to sexual intercourse. She had issued medical certificate of L.W.11 Ch.Nagamma. Ex.P.15 is the medical certificate of
L.W.11 Ch.Nagamma.
18. Prosecution further examined P.W.9 D.V.Ramana, Inspector of
Police who previously worked as SI of police Tadepalligudem Town Police
Station and he deposed that on 25/02/2010 at about 4.00 PM on information as per the instructions of their the then CI of police
G.Venkateswara Rao (L.W.20) he, L.W.20, some other sub inspectors and their staff along with mediators P.W.1, L.W.2 U.Venkata Narayana conducted raid on the door Number 7-28-9 house, situated at 3rd lane,
Mahalakshmi Nagar, Tadepalligudem. The P.W.9 further deposed that in their presence on the confession given by the accused in this case the
L.W.20 arrested the accused A.1 to A.12, seized MO1 cell phones from the possession of the accused, auto bearing number AP 5T 1913 from the possession of A.8, one Nirod packet from the house of A.1 and cash of Rs.5,000/- from the possession of A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.1 mediators report. Thereafter they took the accused A.1 to A.12, case property to the police station. The P.W.9 further deposed that basing on the instructions of L.W.20 he registered the Ex.P.1 mediators report as a case in crime number 67/2010 for the offences punishable under sections 366 (A), 376 (G), 372, 373 r/w 114 r/w 120 (B) of IPC and section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act on the same day at 9.00 PM and submitted the FIR to all concerned and original FIR to the
Court. Ex.P.16 is the FIR. Further investigation done by the L.W.20 who is the then Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Circle. He can identify the property seized at the time of arrest of the accused at the scene of offence. MO.1 consisting of nine cell phones were seized from the possession of the accused. The auto bearing number AP 5T 1913 from the possession of A.8 which is shown in Ex.P.2 photographs. MO2 cash of
Rs.5,000/- which is shown to him is seized from the possession of A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.1 mediators report.
19. Prosecution further examined P.W.10 G.Venkateswara Rao who previously worked as Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem circle and he deposed that on 25.02.2010 on receipt of information he along with their station SI and their staff, secured presence of mediators P.W.1, L.W.2
U.Venkata Narayana proceeded to the house bearing No.7-28-9 situated 10 at 3rd line, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Tadepalligudem and reached thereby 4.00 PM. There they noticed presence of Maruthi Alto car bearing No. AP 09 AL 9045 in front of the tiled house belongs to P.W.2. Further they found five female persons and seven male persons in the Varanda of the said tiled house. On suspicion he arrested the said five female persons, seven male persons and interrogated each person separately. He arrested all the accused who are present before this court today along with other persons. On interrogation separately they confessed that they were bringing the female persons from other places and doing prostitution in the said house. On the confession of the accused they rescued 10 victim girls from the said house and produced them before the court. P.W.10 further deposed that he seized cash of Rs.5,000/- (MO2) from the possession of A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.1 mediators report in the presence of mediators which is already marked. He also seized MO1 cell phones from the possession of the accused and also seized the auto bearing number AP 05 T 1913 from the possession of
A.8. The Ex.P.2 are photographs showing the auto seized by him on the said day. MO1 consisting of 9 cell phones shown to him seized by him from the possession of the accused under the cover of mediators report.
The MO.2 cash which is shown to him seized by him from the possession of A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.1 mediators report.
20. P.W.10 further deposed that later he took the accused, case property to the police station and on his instructions P.W.9 the then SI of police registered case in Cr.No.67/2010 against the accused and he send the accused to Court with remand report and got remanded them. On the said day of raid he examined P.Ws.2 to P.W.4, L.W.3 Reddy Rama
Lakshmi @ Chinna, L.W.5 Ch.Krupa, L.W.6 G.Veeraveni, L.W.7 G.Ganga,
L.W.8 A.Lakshmi, L.W.11 Ch.Nagamma, L.W.12 V.Vijaya, L.W.13 G.Kavitha and recorded their statements. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene at the scene of offence. Ex.P.17 is the rough sketch of the scene and he got examined the victim girls through Medical Officers at
Government Hospital, Eluru and obtained certificates from the P.W.5 to
P.W.8, L.W.18 Dr.P.Uma and the same are marked as Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.15.
After completion of investigation in all respects he filed charge sheet in this case. He further deposed that the P.W.2 to P.W.4 stated before him as in Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5.
11
21.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.10 the same is shows that on his instruction the P.W.9 registered a case on the basis of Ex.P-1 mediators report and P.W.1 acted as one of the mediator to Ex.P-1 mediators report. However the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.9 and P.W.10 is suffered with several contradictions and omissions. In so far as to the scene of offence is concerned, the same is situated in residential area and it is surrounded with residential houses, but the investigating officer P.W.10 not choose to secure the mediators from the local inhabitants of that locality. On examination of the entire evidence of
P.W.10, he mainly brought up the case on the confession of A1 to A12 under Ex.P.1 mediators report. It is known proposition of law that any confession made before the police officer while the accused were in custody, is not admissible in evidence. Further admittedly the Police are not prepared scene observation report at the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and police also not prepared rough sketch of the scene in their presence at the scene of offence.
22.Further during cross examination the P.W.1 who is one of the mediator deposed that at Road No. 3 at the end there is a water storage tank and it is dead end of the street and no vehicle move further and it should be returned by reversing on the road. In such circumstances on seeing the police people how two male, two female persons able to flee away from the scene of offence in the alto car is no where mentioned in the record. Relating above aspect the P.W.1 admitted that when there is only one way in Road NO.3 of Mahalakshminagar the alto car cannot go away from the house of A.1 when the police raided on the house of A.1 on the said day. The P.W.1 who acted one of the mediators specifically admitted that at present he cannot identify the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to
A.8 with their names who were present in the open court. Further admittedly the cell phone numbers, its other details were not mentioned in Ex.P.1 mediators report and the police did not seize the note books which are mentioned in Ex.P.1 mediators report and that police also not obtain the signatures of A.1 to A.12 on Ex.P.1 mediators report after drafting the same.
23.Further the P.W.9 who is one of the investigating officers in this case during cross examination admitted that basing on Ex.P.1 mediator 12 report he registered the FIR in this case and before registering FIR he did not get conducted age determination test to any of the victims in this case. Further he also admitted that in his presence the P.W.10 did not secured respected local inhabitants to act as mediators in this case.
Further the P.W.10 who is arrested the accused, seized the MO.1, MO.2 and auto in this case during cross examination deposed that as per statement of P.W.2 the said G.Chinna Rao is also tenant in the said house and he did not file any other documents before this court to show that
P.W.2 G. ChinnaRao is owner of the house bearing door No.7-28-9, 3rd line, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Tadepalligudem and contrary to that the P.W.2 in his chief examination deposed that he did not his house for rent to anybody. He also admitted that he did not file the call data information of the MO.1 cell phones into this court to show that the accused secured the victim girls by talking through the said cell phones and conducted the prostitution in the said house and that he did not mention the cell phones number, other particulars of the cell phones in Ex.P.1 mediators report or at other part of the case record to show that the particular cell phone is belongs to particular accused and also not filed any documentary proof before this court that the particular cell phone is in the name of the particular accused. Furthermore the Ex.P.1 mediators report does not contain whether the said cell phones are having sim cards or not. The P.W.10 during cross examination further admitted that in 7th page 9th line of Ex.P.1 mediators report there is a mention that they seized all Rs.100/- notes from A.1 under the cover of mediators report and he do not remember whether they seized the case property
MO.2 cash as mentioned in Ex.P.1 mediators report denomination or in other form and further though they seized the condom packet at the scene of offence, the same might not produce before this court.
24. The above evidence of P.W.10 goes to show that though the M.O.1,
M.O.2 were seized at the scene of offence, on examination of the M.O.1 consisting of nine cell phones, M.O.2 is cash of Rs 5,000/-, there were no identity slips upon the case properties and the denomination of the seized cash property at the scene of offence as per Ex.P-1 report and the property produced before the court is not tallied. Therefore this court is of view that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.9 and P.W.10 is not trustworthy and therefore seizure of M.O.1, M.O.2 are also no way helpful to the 13 prosecution to connect the accused with the crime.
25. Further the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.10 coupled with Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.17, M.O.1, M.O.2 and other material in the record goes to show that this case is registered basing on mediators report and no independent witnesses supported the version of prosecution. The investigation officer even examine the independent witnesses at the place of incident to prove the said facts they also did not supported the version of the prosecution and admittedly no report was received from anybody about running of brothel house at the above said place even it is in busy locality at Road No.3 Mahalakhmi Nagar, Tadepalligudem. Further Ex.P-1 proceedings or case record does not disclose any sincere efforts made by the investigating officer to secure independent mediators at the place of incident and no summons were served to any person to act as mediator. The said circumstances clearly goes to show that the prosecution not came with true facts of the case for the reasons known to them.
26. Further the investigating officer relating to cases under Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has to follow the mandatory provisions as mentioned in section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 which reads here under as follows: Section 15: Search without warrant:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, whenever the special police officer 1[or the
trafficking police officer, as the case may be,] has reasonable
grounds for believing that an offence punishable under this Act
has been or is being committed in respect of a 2[person] living
in any premises, and that search of the premises with warrant
cannot be made without undue delay, such officer may, after
recording the grounds of his belief, enter and search such
premises without a warrant.
(2) Before making a search under sub-section (1), the
special police officer 3[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:
14
4[Provided that the requirement as to the respectable
inhabitants being from the locality in which the place to be
searched is situate shall not apply to a woman required to
attend and witness the search.]
(3) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or
neglects, to attend and witness a search under this section,
when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or
tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence
under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
5[(4) The special police officer or the trafficking police
officer, as the case may be, entering any premises under sub-
section (1) shall be entitled to remove there from all the persons
found therein.]
(5) The special police officer 3[or the trafficking police
officer, as the case may be, after removing 6[the 2[person]]
under sub-section (4) shall forthwith produce 7[him] before the
appropriate magistrate.
3[(5A) Any person who is produced before a magistrate
under sub-section (5), shall be examined by a registered medical
practitioner for the purposes of determination of the age of such
person, or for the detection of any injuries as a result of sexual
abuse or for the presence of any sexually transmitted diseases.
Explanation: ‘In this sub-section, ‘registered medical
practitioner’ has the same meaning as in the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956).]
(6) The special police officer 3[or the trafficking police
officer, as the case may be,] and other persons taking part in, or
attending, and witnessing a search shall not be liable to any
civil or criminal proceedings against them in respect of anything
lawfully done in connection with, or for the purpose of, the
search.
3[(6A) The special police officer or the trafficking police
officer, as the case may be, making a search under this section
shall be accompanied by at least two women police officers, and
where any woman or girl removed under sub-section (4) is
required to be interrogated, it shall be done by a woman police
officer and if no woman police officer is available, the
15
interrogation shall be done only in the presence of a lady
member of a recognized welfare institution or organization.
Explanation: ‘For the purpose of this sub-section and
section 17A, ‘recognized welfare institution or organization
‘means such institution or organization as may be recognized in
this behalf by the State Government.]
8[(7) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, (2 of 1974) shall, so far as may be, apply to any search
under this section as they apply to any search made under the
authority of a warrant issued under section 94 of the said Code.]
27. In the light of above provisions if we see the evidence on the record is clear that the prosecution failed to comply the above mandatory provisions of the Act. From the above according to section 15(1) ITP Act when the search of the premises with warrant cannot be made without undue delay, such officer may, after recording the grounds of his belief, enter and search such premises without a warrant. But in the present the investigating officer admittedly did not obtain any warrant from the court for conducting raid over the said premises and also the grounds of his belief to enter and search of the said premises without warrant were also not furnished to this court.
28. Further according to section 15(2)(3) ITP Act, the special police officer or the trafficking police officer shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants and at least one woman among them of the locality in which the place to be search is situate, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. Further if any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects, to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the
Indian Penal Code. From the above it is clear that the investigating officer has to secure two independent mediators which includes one women from the place of arrest, seizure and if any person refused to act mediator, he can take action against him according to law. In the present case the investigating officer failed to secure two or more respectable inhabitants and at least one woman among them from the place arrest of the accused as per the provisions of the Act and investigating officer 16 is also failed at to issue summons in writing to the independent inhabitants of the locality and did not made any effort to secure independent mediators and that he also failed to give any explanation for non-securing independent mediators from the local inhabitants of the place of the arrest of the accused. Further prosecution even cited the victim girls as witnesses and even two of the victim girls examined as
P.W.3, P.W.4, they did not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile.
29. Further as per section 15 sub section (6A) of ITP Act the special police officer or the trafficking police officer while making a search under this section shall be accompanied by at least two women police officers and where any woman or girl removed under sub-section (4) is required to be interrogated, it shall be done by a woman police officer and if no woman police officer is available, the interrogation shall be done only in the presence of a lady member of a recognized welfare institution or organization. In the present admittedly no women police officer accompanied with the investigating officer at the time of the search of the above said premises and no sound reasons were assigned for doing the same without women police officers and it is nothing but violation of the provision under section 15 (6A) of ITP Act.
30. Furthermore in the present case the prosecution failed to serve summons to some of the material witnesses even sufficient time is given and in spite conditional order passed by this court and finally their evidence is closed and till today prosecution did not came up with any petition to recall the evidence of above witness and the evidence relating to some of the witnesses given up by the prosecution.
31. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.10 shows that the prosecution witnesses were not came up with full details of the offence and further the evidence available in record is not cogent and convincing. Further when the prosecution is come up certain allegations against the accused, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the said contentions with cogent evidence, but in the present case prosecution failed to prove their case with cogent evidence. Therefore the evidence available on record is not at all sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under which they are charged. In the light of above discussion as 17 the prosecution failed to prove their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which the accused are charged and the accused A1, A.2, A.4 to A.8 are entitle for acquittal from this case.
In the result, the accused A1, A2, A5 to A8 were not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.366 (A), 372 of IPC. Further the accused A1, A2, A4 to A8 were not found guilty for the offences punishable under section 4,5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Further the accused A1, A.2, A.4 to A8 were not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 366 (A), 372 of IPC, section 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act r/w 114, 120 (B) of IPC and they were acquitted Under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused A1, A2, A4 to A-8 are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under
Section 437(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. In regard to case property the office is directed to return the case property M.O.1, M.O.2 to the committal court and in turn the committal court is directed to return the
M.O.1 cell phones to the persons from whom they were seized by the police after lapse of appeal time if no appeal is pending. Further the
M.O.2 cash shall be confiscated to the state in the manner known to law after lapse of appeal time if no appeal is pending. The case property
Auto which is already retuned to its registered owner shall made absolute after lapse of appeal time if no appeal is pending. Further the committal court is directed to destroy the unmarked non valuable property if any after lapse of appeal time.
Dictated to the Steno, directly typed by her in computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- N.Sreenivasa Rao
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
TADEPALLIGUDEM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
P.W.1 :R.VenkataPadmanabham -None- P.W.2 : G.ChinnaRao P.W.3 :M.Krishnaveni P.W.4 :Madda Aasa P.W.5: Dr.L.MohanVamsi P.W.6: Dr.J.Letourna Devi P.W.7: Dr. M.Padma P.W.8: Dr.G.Prameela 18
P.W.9: D.V.Ramana P.W.10: G.VenkateswaraRao
EXHIBITS MARKED.
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Mediators report dt.25-02-2010; Ex.P.2 :Three positive photos of Auto bearing No. AP 05 1913; Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2; Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3; Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4; Ex.P6 : Medical Certificate of L.W.7 G.Ganga issued; Ex.P7 : Medical Certificate of L.W.9 M.Krishnaveni; Ex.P8 : Medical certificate of L.W.8 A.Lakshmi; Ex.P9: Medical certificate of L.W.4 Reddy Rama Lakshmi; Ex.P10: Medical certificate of L.W.5 Ch.Krupa; Ex.P11: Medical certificate of L.W.6 G.VeeraVeni; Ex.P12: Medical certificate of L.W.12 V.Vijaya; Ex.P13: Medical certificate of L.W.13 G.Kavitha; Ex.P14: Medical certificate of L.W.10 M.Aasa; Ex.P15: Medical certificate of L.W.11 Ch.Nagamma; Ex.P16: FIR; Ex.P17: Rough sketch of the scene of offence;
FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-
M.Os. Marked :
M.O.1: Cell phones – 9 Nos. M.O.2: Cash Rs.5,000/- ;Id/-NSR ASJ,TPG
// True copy //
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
TADEPALLIGUDEM