STATE OF M P Vs. SUMITRABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-State has filed this appeal under S. 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of respondents from charge under S. 374, IPC by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna in Criminal Case No. 84/97.

(2.) As per prosecution story, on 25-5-1997, complainant-Ramcharan, father of Prakash, lodged a report at P. S. Dharnavda, District Guna that respondent No. 1-Sumitrabai resident of village Hanuman Moodra has forcibly sent his son Prakash who was aged about 13 years to Delhi and she says that if he will not return her money, his son will be forced to work in lieu of that without money. He further mentioned that one year back, he and his son were engaged to work for respondent-Sumitrabai in lieu of Rs. 12000.00 and nine quintals of grain, and now Sumitrabai is demanding Rs. 20,222.00 from him and that is the reason why she has sent his son Prakash to Delhi where he will compulsorlly work as forced labourer without money. It was also mentioned that his son is being forced unlawfully to compulsory labour and respondents are saying that until the accounts are settled, they will not release his eon. On the basis of the aforesaid report, crime was registered, matter was Investigated and charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) During trial, respondents abjured their guilt. Prosecution examined Ramcharan (P.W. 1), father of victim Prakash, Prakash (P.W. 2), Ramratan (P.W. 3), A.S.I.M.C. Bhardwaj (P.W. 4), Raghuvir Singh (P.W. 5) and in defence Bhangwar Singh was examined as D.W. 1. Trial Court after considering the evidence of all the witnesses found that Prakash was not working under compulsion but he was working for Sumitrabai under contract for which she had paid money and, therefore, there is no illegality in the working of Prakash and accordingly acquitted the respondents from the charge under S.374,I.P.C. against which State has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave.