- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2012 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1083 OF 2012 (C) IN CRL.A NO. 1022/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANJU SINGH @ MARIYA SINGH W/O LATE SRI. PRETAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOUR SINGH, DARJILING, WEST BENGAL 2. SRI. MUSKAN ROY S/O TAKE BAHADDUR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, CHAMPAASARI, SILIGURI, WEST BENGAL 3. SRI. DEVAGAN RAY S/O SANJAY RAY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUNADHA, DARJALING DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL 4. SRI. KRISHNA S/O AMBAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT RING TOWN, GODHAM DURGA, DARJALING DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAUSHAD PASHA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25/8/2012 PASSED IN S.C. NO.1140/2011 BY THE FAST TRACK COURT VI, BANGALORE - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S.4, 5 & 9 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956. APPELLANTS/ACCUSED - 1 TO 4 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.4 OF IMMORAL TRAFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956. APPELLANTS/ACCUSED - 1 TO 4 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS EACH AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956. APPELLANTS/ACCUSED-1 TO 4 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVEN YEARS EACH AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.9 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956. THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANTS PRAYS THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 IN CRL.A NO. 1083/2012 BETWEEN: RAKESH B S/O BHREESHAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.1/3, EJIPURA, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, VIVEKNAGAR, BANGALORE - 47. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. NISHITH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 25/8/2012 PASSED IN S.C. NO.1140/2011 BY THE FAST TRACK JUDGE, BANGALORE - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED-5 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S.4, 5 & 9 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956. APPELLANTS/ACCUSED-5 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR EACH AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.4 OF IMMORAL TRAFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956. APPELLANT/ACCUSED-5 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS EACH AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,000/- EACH AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956. APPELLANT/ACCUSED-5 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVEN YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE, TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.9 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956. THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANTS PRAYS THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED. THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT Accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2012 passed in S.C.No.1140/2011 on the file of the learned City Fast Track (sessions) Judge, Bangalore city ( F.T.C.No.VI) for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ( for short 'the Act'). 2. Heard Sri. Naushad Pasha, learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos.1 to 4, Sri. Nishith Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.5 and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 3. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 5 are living on the earnings of prostitution, induced the victim girls to indulge in prostitution, abetted seduction for prostitution, detained them in House No.35 situated at 5th cross, Ejipura, which was used as a brothel house and thereby, committed the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Act. In order to prove its contention, it has examined PWs-1 to 17 got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24 and identified MOs-1 to 35. However, the accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for three years each - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act, with default sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court, challenging their conviction. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 that, there are serious contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for any of the offences. PWs- 2, 4 to 9 and 12 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 5. Similarly, learned counsel for accused No.5 submitted that PW-14 is the mahazar witness - a lady said to be the social worker and deposed before the Court that she has signed Ex.P1-the mahazar in the police station. The same was written in Viveknagara police station. PW-13, said to have informed PW-3 with regard to accused No.1 running the brothel - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 house, who in turn informed PW-1. In spite of that, no FIR was registered by PW-1 before holding the raid. It is only PW-16, who deposed before the Court regarding commission of the offence and there is no corroboration to her evidence. PW-16 stated that the accused were apprehended elsewhere and were brought to the house where the victim girls were found. These facts and circumstances were ignored by the Trial Court to convict the accused and therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?" My answer to the above point is in 'Partly Affirmative' and pass the following: REASONS 7. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 was running a brothel house with the active assistance of accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.2 used to get - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 the girls for the brothel house and accused No.3 used to collect money from the customers. Accused No.4 was the cook in the said house and accused No.5 used to be in contact with accused No.1 and used to come to the brothel house off and on. Accused Nos.1 to 5 managed to get the victim girls from various places, who are examined as PWs-2, 4 to 9 and 16 and they were forced to prostitution. From out of the income earned through the victim girls, accused No.1 to 5 were making their living. 8. It is the further contention of the prosecution that PW-13 is connected to an NGO called 'Justice and Care' and he received credible information regarding the brothel house through a rickshaw driver. He contacted accused No.1, confirmed the news and informed PW-3. PW-3 in turn informed this fact to PW-1, who held a raid immediately along with PWs- 3, 11, 13 and 14. 9. It is the specific evidence of PW-1 - the police inspector who held the raid that, on credible information he raided the house in question, where he found accused Nos.1 to 5 and the victims who are PWs-2, 4 to 9 and 16. The presence of accused Nos.1 to 5 in the house in question was never - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 disputed. PW-1 specifically stated that it was accused No.1 who was running the brothel house and he was assisted by accused Nos.2 and 3, as accused No.2 was supplying the victim girls and accused No.3 was collecting money from the customers. The allegation against accused No.4 is that, he was a cook in the brothel house and accused No.5 was in contact with accused No.1 and he used to visit the brothel house periodically. Apart from this, there is no other allegation against accused Nos.4 and 5. However, accused Nos.4 and 5 were in the brothel house at the time of raid and they were apprehended by PW-1. This fact was never disputed. 10. Since it is specifically stated that accused No.4 was only a cook in the brothel house. None of the provisions of the Act could be attracted against him. Similarly, when it is the statement of the witnesses that accused No.5 was in contact with accused No.1 and he used to visit the brothel house periodically cannot be a ground to convict him for any of the offences. Therefore, I am of the opinion that accused Nos. 4 and 5 are entitled to be acquitted. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 11. Upon consideration of the evidence of prosecution witnesses against accused Nos. 1 to 3, it is to be noticed that PW-1- being the police inspector who raided the brothel house, given the evidence regarding presence of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the victim girls who are indulged in prostitution. He also states that they were making living out of the prostitution. Moreover, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were procuring the victim girls from various places and forcing them to indulge in prostitution. It is stated that the victim girls were detained in the house for the purpose of prostitution. This version of PW-1 was never shaken during cross-examination. 12. It is important to note that PW-16 is one of the victim girls who deposed before the Court and supported the case of prosecution. Witness specifically stated that she was brought from Darjeeling by accused No.1 with the assistance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and she was kept in the house promising to get a job. She was provided with dress, food etc., But she was introduced to brothel house and forced to prostitution. There is absolutely no cross-examination to disbelieve the version of the victim girl. PWs-3 and 13 have also fully - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 supported the case of the prosecution, they being the members of the raiding party. During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from any of these witnesses to disbelieve their version. When there is evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 13 that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were into prostitution, procuring the victim girls and forcing them to do the same, I do not find any reason to reject their evidence in the absence of any effective cross- examination. 13. PW-13 got the credible information and informed PW-3 regarding running of the brothel house, who in turn informed PW-1. Immediately, PW-1 arranged for a raid and apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 5. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the contention taken by the learned counsel for accused No.5 that, no FIR was registered by PW-1 before proceeding to hold the raid cannot be accepted as fatal to the case of prosecution. PW-1 specifically stated that immediately after receipt of the information, he along with punchas went to the house at about 4.p.m. in the evening, found the accused and victim girl. Therefore, non registration of FIR by PW-1 before proceeding to hold a raid is not fatal to the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 case of the prosecution. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that PW-12 being the owner of the house has not supported the case of the prosecution is also not fatal as naturally he has not supported the case of prosecution, he being the owner of the house in question. The same cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version of PWs-1, 3, 13 and 16. 14. From the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, I am satisfied that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act beyond reasonable doubt, while it has failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos. 4 and 5. Hence, accused Nos. 4 and 5 are entitled to be acquitted, while accused Nos. 1 to 3 are liable for conviction. 15. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and proceeded to convict the accused. I do not find any illegality in the same to interfere in the judgment. However, the Trial Court committed an error in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 ignoring the role attributed to accused Nos. 4 and 5 before proceeding to convict the accused. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction of order and sentence passed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 is liable to be confirmed, while the said judgment against accused Nos. 4 and 5 is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Crl.A.No.1022/2012 is allowed in part. (ii) The Crl.A.No.1083/2012 is allowed. (iii) The judgment dated 25.08.2012, passed in S.C.No.1140/2011, on the file of the learned City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City (F.T.C.No.VI), is hereby set aside in relation to accused Nos.4 & 5, and confirmed in relation to accused Nos. 1 to 3. (iv) Accused Nos.4 and 5 are acquitted for the charges alleged against them. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19645 CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012 (v) Bail bond and that of sureties, if any, shall stand discharged in respect of accused Nos.4 &5. (vi) Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused Nos. 4 & 5 is ordered to be refunded to them . Registry to send back TCR along with copy of this judgment for information and necessary action i.e., to issue conviction warrant in relation to accused Nos. 1 to 3. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25