Karnataka High Court
Rakesh B vs State By on 10 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012
HC-KAR
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
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B G 3. SRI. DEVAGAN RAY
Location: High S/O SANJAY RAY
Court of
Karnataka 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)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012
HC-KAR
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-
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012
HC-KAR
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-
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
CRL.A No. 1022 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1083 of 2012
HC-KAR
(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
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
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 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19645
HC-KAR
(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
