JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 14.2.2017 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.69 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.500 with default stipulation The Appellant is reported to be in jail since 20.8.2015 2. Prosecution case is that on 13.1.2015 Complainant Vijay Kumar Ratre (PW1) made a written complaint (Ex.P1) in Police Station Baradwar alleging therein that the present Appellant along with co-accused Maniram took him and other persons (labours) to Uttar Pradesh for manufacturing of bricks by promising them that they will get good remuneration and other facilities there. It was told to them that they will get Rs.475 for manufacturing of per thousand bricks as wages and they will also get residence, medical facilities, kerosene and wood for cooking needs, all free. By giving them such inducement, they were taken to Uttar Pradesh. But there, they did not get any such facilities or wages as was assured to them by the Appellant and the co-accused. Then, he (Complainant) and other labours did not agree to continue to work there and requested the Appellant and the other co-accused to send them back. But, the Appellant and the other co-accused did not help them in any away. On this, he (Complainant), leaving his family and other labours there, returned home and made the written complaint (Ex.P1). On the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P1), First Information Report (Ex.P2) was registered. Statements of the Complainant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, initially a charge-sheet was filed against co-accused Maniram declaring the present Appellant absconded. Charges were framed against Maniram. During pendency of the trial, on 20.8.2015, the present Appellant surrendered himself before the Trial Court. Thereafter, charges were also framed against the present Appellant. 3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statements of the Appellant and co-accused Maniram were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in their defence. 4. 3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statements of the Appellant and co-accused Maniram were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in their defence. 4. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court, vide the judgment under challenge, acquitted co-accused Maniram of all the charges framed against him, but convicted and sentenced the present Appellant as mentioned in 1st paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that without there being any clinching and sufficient evidence on record, the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant. It was submitted that on the same set of evidence, co-accused Maniram has been acquitted by the Trial Court. Ingredients of Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code have not duly been proved by the prosecution. There is no direct or indirect evidence on record against the Appellant and he has been convicted solely on presumptions. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any control of the Appellant over the Complainant or other labours. Therefore, conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable. The work which was told to be done was only got done and the Complainant and other labours returned only because of not getting certain facilities. 6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the submissions put-forth on behalf of the Appellant and supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the Complainant and other witnesses have duly supported the entire case of the prosecution and their statements are not duly rebutted in cross-examination. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant. 7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and minutely perused the entire material available on record including the statements made by the witnesses before the Trial Court. 8. In his Court statement, Complainant Vijay Kumar Ratre (PW1) deposed that the Appellant had come to their village and telling him and Firtu, Uttam, Omprakash, Rai, Phulbai, Awadh and other persons that they were to go to Saibaba Bricks Factory, Uttar Pradesh. 8. In his Court statement, Complainant Vijay Kumar Ratre (PW1) deposed that the Appellant had come to their village and telling him and Firtu, Uttam, Omprakash, Rai, Phulbai, Awadh and other persons that they were to go to Saibaba Bricks Factory, Uttar Pradesh. At that time, he told them that they will get Rs.475 for construction of per one thousand bricks and he also assured them that they will also get there kerosene, wood and other goods for cooking food and, therefore, they went there. This witness further deposed that the Appellant telling them lie and inducing that they will get money there took them, but there the contractor was not paying them their wages and was also beating them. On being called, the Appellant was not coming to them. Then, this witness alone ran away from there and returned home and made a report. The above entire statement of this witness is not rebutted in cross-examination in any manner. Corroborating the statement of this witness, Rustom Kumar (PW2), Sant Kumar (PW4), Phulbai (PW5) also deposed in similar fashion. Their statements are also not duly rebutted during cross-examination. Though Firturam (PW3) did not support the entire case of the prosecution and turned hostile, he also admitted the fact that the owner of the bricks factory was not paying them the assured wages and he was also not giving them the assured facilities. The above statement of this witness is also not duly rebutted during cross-examination. 9. On a minute examination of the statements of the above witnesses, it is clear that all the witnesses remained firm in stating that the present Appellant had come to their village and induced them that they will get wages of Rs.475 for construction of per thousand bricks and will also get different free facilities and because of such inducement only they consented to go to the bricks factory. It is also established that thereafter the Appellant had taken the Complainant and other labours to Saibaba Bricks Factory, Uttar Pradesh. It is also established that the Complainant and other labours were not getting the assured wages and facilities there and, therefore, when the Complainant and other labours requested the Appellant to send them back, he did not help them. Thus, it is clearly established that the Appellant fraudulently exploited the Complainant and other labours by giving them certain inducement for the above mentioned purpose. Thus, it is clearly established that the Appellant fraudulently exploited the Complainant and other labours by giving them certain inducement for the above mentioned purpose. Hence, the offence under Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code is duly proved against the Appellant. The Trial Court has rightly convicted him. 10. Consequently, I do not find any substance in the instant appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed.