IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD, AT
L.B.NAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT
PRESENT: SMT.S.SREEDEVI, B.COM., LL.M.,
III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR, RR DT.
DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012
C.C. No. 247 of 2011
Between:- State through P.S. Chaitanyapuri --- :Complainant
And
Smt.K.Kavitha & Others :Accused
a) Serial No. of the case:C.C. No. 247 of 2011
b) Date of the commission of offence:06.04.2011
c) Name of the complainant:State through P.S. Chaitanyapuri
d) Name of the accused person, his parentage and residence:
1. Smt. Kotha Kavitha, W/o.Srinivas, Aged 35 years, R/o.Plot No.107, H.No.11-12-223, R.K.Puram, Road No.4, Kothapet, Saroornagar, RR District
2. Mahendrakar Prashanth, S/o.Krishna Rao, Aged 28 years, R/o.H.No.18-8-452, B/128, Lalithabagh, Uppuguda, Hyderabad
3. Koneti Shiva, S/o.Ramulu, Aged 25 years, R/o.Gurramguda village, Saroornagar Mandal
e) Offence complained of: Sec.3, 4 ,5& 7 of ITP Act.
f) Plea of the accused and his examination: Not guilty
g) Final Order : A1 and A2 are acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr. P.C.
h) Date of Order : 29-02-2012
This case came before me for final hearing on 25-02-2012 in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri J.Gopala Krishna, Counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The prosecution case in brief is that accused No.1 divorced her husband and came down to Hyderabad to eke out livelihood. At first she worked as servant maid in the houses and thereafter started indulging in 2 prostitution. About one month back she took the premises in ground floor in
H.No. 11-12-223, plot No. 127, Road No.4, R.K.Puram and started running brothel. A1 used to secure women and induce them into prostitution offering handful returns. A1 thus induced LW4 Smt.Basanthi. On 06-04-2011 A2 and
A3 engaged LW4 and on that day on receipt of credible information police raided the house and apprehended the accused 1 to 3 redhandedly. Thus, accused 1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable U/S 3, 4and 5 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under
Section 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956 against the accused.
3. After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required under Sec. 207 Cr. P.C were furnished to them.
4.A3 has admitted his guilt in jail adalat on 28.05.2011. This case is tried against A1, A2 only.
5.The A1, A2 were examined under section 239 Cr. P.C. and the charge under section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956 were framed against them, read over and explained to them. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to them.
They have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
3
8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence?
9.PW1 stated that on 06.04.2011 he was returning to his house at 7.00 p.m. and he noticed one constable who was writing a report and he informed him that A1 is running brothel in the ground floor of his building and he categorically stated that accused neither confessed about the offence nor any property was seized. He was declared as hostile by prosecution.
10.Even PW2 and PW3 who are designated as panch for confession and seizure and eye witness respectively turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
11.PW4 stated that on 21.04.2010 he along with PW5, LW6 Afzal,
LW7 PAdma, PW1 and PW2 went to the house of accused as PW5 got information about running of brothel at that house. On entering the house they noticed A1 and 2 male customers and LW4 Basanthi. A1 is running the brothel, A2 is the customer. A1 confessed about the offence and the confession cum seizure panchanama was prepared and PW5 seized Rs.800/-, one Nokia cell phone and 2 boxes of Deluxe Nirodh Condoms, he affected the arrest of accused and brought them to police station. In the cross examination, it was suggested to him that he neither accompanied PW5 nor any property was seized but he is deposing falsehood, for which he denied.
12.PW5 is the Investigating Officer who has spoken about his investigation. He stated that he received information about running of brothel at the scene of offence and he obtained permission from ACP for investigation and proceeded to the scene of offence along with PW4, LW6 Afzal, LW7
Padma. He collected PW1 and PW2 at the scene of offence and entered the 4 scene of offence and found accused and LW4 Basanthi. A1 confessed about the offence and he seized Rs.800/-, one Nokia cell phone from the possession of A1 along with 2 Nirodh condoms. He also recorded the confession of A2 and recorded the statement of LW4 Basanthi and registered the case and remanded the accused and sent LW4 Basanthi to rescue home. In the cross examination, it was elicited that scene of offence is 3 storeyed building. It was suggested to him that he did not seized any condoms at the scene of offence, for which he denied. He admitted that he did not filed the lease agreement
before the court. It was suggested to him that he did not went to the scene of
offence and no property was seized, for which he denied.
13.According to prosecution PW1 and PW2 are the panch witnesses in whose presence A1 confessed about the offence and PW3 is the witness who knows about the offence and another crucial witness is LW4 Basanthi who is the victim in the hands of the accused and with whom accused are running brothe. PW1 to 3 did not supported the version of prosecution. Hence, the vital evidence which is very much material for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused was totally missing. The evidence that is available on record is that of PW4 and PW5 who are the police personnel and who got interest in the case. There is no hard and fast rule that the evidence of police personnel cannot be believed but if it is supported by any independent witnesses, the evidence of the police personnel also will have much weightage. But, in this case there was no corroborating evidence available on record to the evidence of PW4 and PW5. In view of the same, it was felt that prosecution could not succeed in bringing home the guilt of the accused.
Hence the accused were acquitted.
14.In the result, accused 1 and 2 were found not guilty for the offence U/S 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic(prevention) Act, 1956 and 5 accordingly they are acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of February, 2012.
III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR, RR DIST
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:- P.W.1 D.Bheema Rao Panch for confession and seizure panchanama P.W.2U.Krishna MohanPanch for confession and seizure panchanama P.W.3M.Kiran KumarEye witness P.W.4T.RajeshwarAssisted the Investigating OFficer P.W.5P.AnthaiahInvestigating OFficer
FOR DEFENCE: NIL -
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P1 Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 Signature of PW2 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW3 Ex.P4 Permission Ex.P5 Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6 FIR FOR DEFENCE: NIL -
III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR, RR DT.
6