24 Pragna Case GB ROAD CONVICTION CASE

:1:
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja

Additional Sessions Judge- Special FTC 2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 32/13
Unique ID No. : 02401R0243652012
State versus (i) Rekha
D/o Sh.Rajesh
R/o Kotha No.70, IInd Floor,
Left Side, G.B.Road,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
(2) Sheetal
D/o Sh.Newroti
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 20/12
Police Station : Kamla Market
Under Section : 366A/372/373/376/342/109/34 IPC,
23 J.J.Act & 3/4/5/6 ITP Act.
Judgment reserved on : 17.04.2014
Judgment pronounced on : 25.04.2014
SC No. : 32/13 State vs. Rekha & Anr. FIR No. : 20/2012 PS Kamla Market
:2:
J U D G M E N T
Prosecution Case:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.02.2012 at about
5:40 PM, staff of Shakti Vahini NGO viz., Sh.Subir Roy, Director Programme
and Saie Shetye, Research & Training Officer came to PS Kamla Market and
informed SHO PS Kamla Market that one minor girl was being forcibly
confined at a kotha at G.B.Road and forced into prostitution. On receipt of
this information, Insp. Pramod Joshi SHO PS Kamla Market constituted a
raiding party comprising of SI Ajay Singh and W/Ct.Sarita along with the
staff of Shakti Vahini NGO and reached at Kotha No.70, IIIrd Floor,
G.B.Road, where Beat HC Mahesh Tyagi met them. All the girls at the said
Kotha were gathered at one place and were interrogated.
During the course of interrogation, one girl namely S.B. (name
withheld to protect her identity) came forward and stated that she wants to
return to her native place. She also got recorded her statement wherein she
stated that she belongs to West Bengal, her father is a contractor of
manufacturing Bus Stands and she is studied up to 9
th
standard. She further
stated that in village she developed friendship with one boy namely Raju, who
:3:
roped her in his love net and asked her to accompany him to Delhi on the
pretext of marrying her at Delhi. Believing upon his words, Prosecutrix 'S.B.'
accompanied him to Delhi. She further alleged in her statement that about 5-6
months also, Raju took her to Sialda Railway Station, where he introduced
her to a woman and asked her to accompany that woman to Delhi and also
told her that he would reach Delhi after 2-3 days. Accordingly, Prosecutrix
'S.B.' reached Delhi along with that woman, who made her stay at a house at
Majnu Ka Teela with her for seven days. Thereafter, that woman took the
Prosecutrix 'S.B.' to G.B.Road and had sold her to another woman namely
Sheetal for Rs.30,000/- and left from there. Thereafter, Sheetal told the
Prosecutrix 'S.B.' that this place is a Kotha where work of Prostitution is being
done and that she would also have to do the same. When she objected and
refused for doing this work, Sheetal along with other woman present at the
Kotha namely Rekha threatened the Prosecutrix 'S.B.' by saying that she has
to stay at this kotha now and earn money for them by doing the work of
Prostitution. Thus, Prosecutrix 'S.B.' was forced into prostitution by both
accused Sheetal and Rekha and was compelled to establish physical relations
against her wishes with the customers visiting that kotha. The Prosecutrix
:4:
'S.B.' further alleged in her statement that both accused Sheetal and Rekha
also used to distribute all her earnings amongst them and not allow the
Prosecutrix 'S.B.' to go out of the said kotha.
On the basis of the aforesaid, a case under Section
366A/372/373/376/342/109/34 IPC and 3/4/5/6 ITP Act was got registered.
During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared at the instance of
Prosecutrix S.B and accused Rekha was arrested at her instance and her
disclosure statement was got recorded. Prosecutrix was medically examined
at LNJP hospital, the exhibits so collected from the hospital were also seized
and her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was also got recorded before the
ld. MM. It is pertinent to mention that in her statement under Section 164
Cr.PC Prosecutrix 'SB' stated that she was purchased by both the accused
Sheetal and Rekha and thereafter both of them forced her into prostitution and
her custody was subsequently handed over to her father.
On 09.03.2012 accused Sheetal was also arrested from the Kotha
No.70, G.B.Road and her disclosure statement was also got recorded. Charge
sheet further reveals that the Prosecutrix also named Raju and Raj. However,
they could not be traced despite best efforts.
:5:
Statements of witnesses were also recorded, exhibits were sent to
FSL for expert opinion and after completion of investigation, charge sheet qua
both the accused viz., Rekha and Sheetal was filed before the court.
Charges:
Upon committal of the case the accused and on the basis of
material on record vide order dated 23.08.2012, both the accused were
charged for the offence under Section 366A/343 r/w Section 34 IPC, 109 r/w
Section 376 IPC, under Section 23/26 JJ Act and under Sections 3/4/5/6 of
ITP Act vide order dated 31.03.2014, an additional/amended charge under
Section 373/34 against accused Rekha was framed. In addition to the above
accused Sheetal was also charged for the offence under Section 373/34 IPC
separately. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial when the
aforesaid charges were read over and explained to them separately.
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution examined 15 witnesses so far to prove the guilt of
the accused persons.
It is relevant to examine the testimony of the victim first, she
being the most important witnesses of Prosecution.
:6:
PW-9 is Prosecutrix 'S.B' who deposed that while she was
studying in school in 9
th
standard in the year 2011, one boy namely Ajay @
Raju met her in her village and he told her that he is in love with her, but she
refused. He used to meet her on the road and blocked her way and used to
insist that he loves her. She further deposed that he threatened that he would
kill her and her family members in case she do not love him.
Prosecutrix 'S.B.' further deposed that he brought her to Sialda
and handed her to a lady in Sialda and told her that she has to go to Delhi with
that lady and that he would follow her in 2 or 3 days. That lady brought the
Prosecutrix to Delhi, where she kept her at Majnu Ka Tila for about one week,
but Ajay did not come there. She further deposed that two ladies from
G.B.Road, Kotha No.70 came there and she was asked by that lady to
accompany them. When she refused, she was given beatings by that lady.
Prosecutrix also deposed that those two ladies gave Rs.30,000/- to that lady
and took her to Kotha No.70 and told her that they would release me after one
year. The Prosecutrix refused, but she was given beatings. The name of those
two ladies were Sheetal and Rekha.
The Prosecutrix correctly identified the accused in the court and
:7:
further deposed that when she reached Kotha No.70, she saw many girls there
and they were there for more than one year. She was forced into prostitution
by Sheetal and Rekha and her earnings were kept by accused Sheetal. The
earning of other inmates were also kept by accused Sheetal and Rekha and
that was their livelihood. She was forcibly detained in the kotha by accused
Sheetal and Rekha.
In the Kotha, the Prosecutrix become friendly with another
inmate namely 'S' (name withheld) and she informed her family through the
mobile phone of one customer and asked her to do the same but Prosecutrix
refused as she was very much frightened of the beatings given by the accused
persons. But, after about two days, she informed her family through the
mobile phone of one customer. Her family members came at PS Kamla
Market and informed them and she was rescued from the Kotha on
28.02.2012. The Prosecutrix also proved her statement which was recorded
by the police official as Ex.PW-9/A. She also correctly identified her
signatures on the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC recorded before the ld.
MM and proved the same as Ex.PW-9/B.
At the time of recording of her statement before the court the
:8:
Prosecutrix also stated that some man was making threatening calls to her
father and threatening to kill him in case she would come to Delhi to depose
before the court.
In order to establish the date of birth of the Prosecutrix 'S.B.',
Dr.Anirban Roy, Health Officer and Registrar (Births & Death), Panihati
Municipality, Calcutta was examined as PW-12. He brought the summoned
record i.e. Register of Births of Panihati Municipality, Calcutta and deposed
that as per entry No.1590 dated 02.06.1995 of the Register, the date of birth
of Prosecutrix 'S.B.' is 22.04.1995. He proved the said birth certificate as P-1
and deposed that the same has been issued by the then Health Officer &
Registrar (Births & Deaths) Dr.Samir Sen Gupta. This witness also proved the
photocopy of the relevant entry as Ex.PW-12/A and that of register of the
hospital with photocopy of the relevant entry of the hospital as Ex.PW-12/B.
Prosecution also examined the inmates of Kotha No.70,
G.B.Road, Delhi, which include PW-11 Ms.Shanti. Howevr, she deposed that
about 03 months ago, she was doing the job of maid at Kotha No.70, IInd
Floor, G.B.Road, Delhi and that the girls working there as prostitute were
doing so with their own will and no one was supervising them. She further
:9:
deposed that she does not know any person by the name of Prosecutrix
'S.B.'or accused Rekha or Sheetal. This witness also failed to identify both
accused in the court.
On the other hand PW-13 Ms.Neelam deposed that she is doing
the work of dancing and singing at Kotha No.70, IIIrd floor, G.B.Road, Delhi
and that she is not the owner of the said Kotha. She further deposed that she
do not know as to who is the landlord/owner of the said Kotha. Upon being
questioned as to who has given permission to her to stay at Kotha No.70, IIIrd
floor, G.B.Road, Delhi she replied that no one has given permission to her
and that she is living there out of her free will. She further deposed that she
used to keep all her earnings from prostitution with her and that she was not
paying any rent to anyone. She further deposed that she never met with a girl
in the name of Prosecutrix 'S.B.' and also failed to identify both the accused
persons in the court.
Whereas PW-14 Ms.Sonia deposed that she have been residing
at the Kotha No.70, IIIrd Floor, G.B.Road, Delhi for last about 10 years and
doing the work of singing and dancing. She do not know as to who is the
owner of the said Kotha. She further deposed that she is living at the said
:10:
kotha as a tenant, but she do not know to whom she paid the rent. She
correctly identified accused Rekha and Sheetal in the court and further
deposed that about 10-15 other girls are residing in the aforesaid kotha, who
are also doing the work of singing and dancing including Rekha, Sheetal,
Sapna and Neelam. PW-14 also deposed that a licence has been issued by
some authority for doing the aforesaid work in the said Kotha but she do not
know in whose name the said licence had been issued. She also deposed that
no other work except singing and dancing is being done at the Kotha and that
police never met her nor recorded her statement.
All the three aforesaid PWs viz., PW-11, PW-13 and PW-14
thus, failed to support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.
Dr.Subir Roy from Shaktivahini, NGO was examined as PW-8,
who deposed that on 27.02.2012, they received an information that a minor
girl is detained at Kotha No.70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B.Road, forcibly
for prostitution purposes. On 28.02.2011, he along with his colleague Saie
Shetye went to PS Kamla Market at about 5:30/5:45 PM and gave the
above information to SHO PS Kamla Market. A raiding party comprising
of SHO Insp.Pramod Joshi, SI Ajay Singh, W/Ct. Sarita, myself and Saie
:11:
Shetye was constituted and they left the PS at 6:30 PM. On reaching near
Kotha No.70, SHO Insp.Pramod Joshi requested 4-5 persons to join the
raiding party. But they refused on their personal grounds. Beat Head
Constable Mahesh Tyagi met them there and he was joined in the raiding
team. PW-8 further deposed that they went to IIIrd floor, left side, Kotha
No.70, G.B.Road and all the girls were called in a room by the SHO. SHO
made inquiries from the girls about their willingness to leave the kotha.
Out of them, Prosecutrix 'S.B.' her consent for leaving the kotha and said
that she had been forcibly detained there. Inquiries were made from her
from Saie Shety and W/Ct.Sarita. SHO recorded statement of Superna and
prepared a rukka and handed over the same to HC Mahesh Tyagi.
PW-8 further deposed that the Prosecutrix 'S.B.' named Rekha
and Sheetal as the persons who have forcibly detained her for prostitution.
During the search, Rekha was found in Kotha No.70 and she was identified
by the Prosecutrix and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/A and her
personal search was conducted by W/Ct.Sarita vide memo Ex.PW-2/B in
his presence. PW-8 along with Saie Shety went to PS Kamla Market. This
:12:
witness also deposed that on the next day i.e. on 29.02.2012 they went to
CWC where Prosecutrix 'S.B.' was produced before CWC by police
officials and they produced counseling report before CWC.
PW-6 is Dr.Ravleen, who medically examined the Prosecutrix
on 28.02.2012 vide MLC No.29737 and proved the same as Ex.PW-6/A.
She further referred the Prosecutrix for her gyne examination and
ossification test. Whereas PW-7 is Dr.Seema Rawat who conducted the
gyne examination of the Prosecutrix on 28.02.2012 and proved her
findings as mentioned in Ex.PW-2/E, bearing her signatures at point C.
Remaining witnesses pertain to investigation which include
PW-5 Duty Officer ASI Randhir Singh who deposed regarding recording
of FIR on 28.02.2012 and proved the computerized copy of the same as
Ex.PW-5/A and his subsequent endorsement on the same as Ex.PW-5/B.
PW-1 is DD Writer L/Ct. Poonam, who deposed that she made
a departure entry of police officials on 28.02.2012 at about 6:45 PM vide
DD No.62B and proved the same as Ex.PW-1/A. Whereas, PW-3
Ct.Yogesh Kumar deposed regarding receiving the exhibits of the instant
:13:
case from MHC(M) in sealed condition on 15.03.2012 and depositing of
the same in FSL, Rohini against their receipt.
PW-4 is HC Ram Dutt (MHCM) who deposed regarding
having received one pulanda having two sample seals with the seal of
'LNH', New Delhi from SHO Insp.Pramod Joshi on 28.02.2012 vide entry
in Register No.19 at Srl. No.2871 and sending the same to FSL Rohini on
15.03.2012 through Ct.Yogesh vide RC No.14/21. He also proved the
photocopy of the register No.19 as Ex.PW-4/A, photocopy of RC as
Ex.PW-4/B and receipt of FSL as Ex.PW-4/C.
Remaining witnesses pertain to the members of raiding party
which include PW-2 W/Ct. Sarita who deposed regarding having
accompanied the SHO Insp.Pramod Joshi, SI Ajay along with officials of
Shakti Vahini, NGO to Kotha No.70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B.Road,
Delhi on 28.02.2012, where they met the Prosecutrix 'S.B.' She further
deposed regarding recording of the statement of the Prosecutrix by the
SHO upon her identification by the Staff of NGO. She also deposed
regarding preparation of the site plan by the IO and arrest of accused
:14:
Rekha vide memo Ex.PW-2/A at the instance of Prosecutrix, conducting of
her personal search memo vide memo Ex.PW-2/B, recording of her
disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/C. PW-2 further deposed that Prosecutrix
'S.B.' was asked to identify any person/customer who had committed
sexual intercourse with her but she failed to identify any person as a
customer who had committed sexual intercourse with her. She further
deposed regarding taking of the Prosecutrix to the LHMC Hospital for her
medical examination and collection of one pullanda and sample seal which
were sealed vide memo Ex.PW-2/D and also proved her signatures on the
MLC of the Prosecutrix as Ex.PW-2/E.
PW-2 further deposed regarding arrest of co-accused Sheetal
on 09.03.2012 from Kotha No.70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B.Road, Delhi
vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/F, conducting of her personal search vide
memo Ex.PW-2/G and recording of her disclosure statement vide memo
Ex.PW-2/H.
PW-10 SI Ajay Singh also deposed on similar lines as that of
PW-2 being a part of raiding team on 28.02.2014.
:15:
Whereas IO/SHO Insp.Pramod Joshi stepped into the witness
box as PW-15 who deposed that on 28.02.2012, at about 5:45 PM, staff of
NGO Shaktivahini including Sh.Subir Roy and Sai Setty came to the PS
and informed him that a minor girl is detained at Kotha No.70, 3
rd
Floor,
G.B.Road, Delhi. He accordingly constituted a raiding party consisting of
himself, W/Ct.Sarita and SI Ajay and reached the aforesaid Kotha with
NGO Staff. The beat staff HC Mahesh Tyagi also reached at the spot, who
was on patrolling duty in that area. He further deposed that about 15-20
girls were found present at the aforesaid kotha, who were gathered together
and he made inquiries from them. Out of those girls one girl i.e. the
Prosecutrix 'S.B.' came forward and told them that she wanted to go back
to her home as she has been forcibly detained in the kotha. PW-15
recorded the statement of teh Prosecutrix (Ex. PW-9/A) and prepared
rukka Ex.PW-15/A and sent the same to the PS through HC Mahesh Tyagi
for registration of FIR.
PW-15 correctly identified accused Rekha and further deposed
regarding her arrest at the instance of the Prosecutrix vide arrest memo
:16:
Ex.PW-2/B, recording of her disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW-2/C,
preparation of site plan at the instance of the complainant/prosecutrix
Ex.PW-15/B, seizure of the exhibits after the medical examination of the
prosecutrix vide memo Ex.PW-2/D, production of the Prosecutrix before
CWC, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, getting recorded the statement under Section
164 Cr.PC of the Prosecutrix before the ld. MM and conducting of a raid at
Majnu Ka Tela on 02.03.2012.
PW-15 further correctly identified accused Sheetal in the court
and further deposed regarding her arrest on 09.03.2012, conducting of her
personal search vide memo Ex.PW-2/G and recording her disclosure
statement vide memo Ex.PW-2/H, collection of the date of birth certificate
(Ex.P-1) from the father of the Prosecutrix who came to the PS along with
the local police, recording of the statements of the witnesses, upon
completion of the investigation preparing the charge sheet and filing the
same in the court.
Plea of the accused:
The entire incriminating evidence was put to both the accused
:17:
Rekha and Sheetal in their separate statements recorded under Section 313
Cr.PC. Both the accused pleaded innocence and claimed that they have
been falsely implicated in this case.
Defence Evidence :
The accused examined 07 witnesses in their defence.
DW-1 is Sh.Sushil Kumar who deposed that he was working
with First Flight Courier Company and his office at B-3 Hans Bhawana,
Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi and got prepared the Pan Card of the
Prosecutrix, who came to his office in the month of February, 2012 for
getting the same made and proved the same as Ex.PW-9/A.
DW-2 is Sh.Raju who deposed that he is doing the work of
preparing food for accused Rekha and Sheetal and other girls at H.No.70,
Second Floor, Shradhanand Marg, Delhi. He correctly identified the both
the accused present in the court and further deposed that No.9560822903 is
the number of his mobile phone and that he had purchased the SIM card of
the said number in my name in 2011. He also deposed that he had given
the SIM card to accused Sheetal in the year 2011 on her request and she
:18:
was using the said mobile number as she did not have any ID Proof and
that he never used the said mobile number.
DW-3 is Sh.Saleem who deposed that he is a TSR Driver and
is doing this work since 1985. He was living in Nabi Karim in the year
2012 and used to drive a rented TSR and used to park it near H.No.70,
G.B.Road, Delhi. Upon being confronted with the copy of PAN Card
Ex.PW-9/DA, he deposed that the PAN Card bears the photograph of one
Sunita to whom he knew as she used to frequently hire his TSR for going
for shopping to various markets like Karol Bagh, Sita Ram Bazar etc. He
further deposed that he also know accused Sheetal and Rekha as they are
living in H.No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi and they also used to hire his TSR
sometimes.
DW-4 is Dr.Saleem who deposed that he is a Dentist. Upon
correctly identifying the accused Sheetal he deposed that he know accused
Sheetal as she was living near his house in a rented premises about 2-3
years ago. He further deposed that some time in the year 2012, accused
Sheetal made a call to him and informed him that she had received a call
:19:
from Kamla Market and she requested him to accompany her to the PS. He
also deposed that he do not know where she was residing in 2012 when she
called him and at that time she was not living in his neighbourhood. At her
request, he reached at PS and met her outside the gate, as agreed and they
met SI Ajay Kumar inside the PS, who informed them about the case
against accused Sheetal and arrested her.
DW-5 is Mohd.Shahid who deposed that he is doing the
business of selling soft drinks and Parathas from a counter in front of
H.No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi for the last 15 years. He further deposed that at
the back lane, it is residential area and there are shops till Ajmeri Gate on
the ground floor on the main G.B.Road and that it is a busy commercial
area. Upon seeing the copy of PAN Card Ex.PW-9/DA, this witness
deposed that he had seen the girl whose photograph is affixed on the same
as she used to go to the shops below H.No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi for making
purchases etc. He also deposed that she used to pass from in front of his
shop and also used to reside in H.No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi and he also used
to send parathas from his shop to H.No.70, sometimes through any
:20:
rickshaw wala, servant or himself.
DW-6 is Sh.Pradeep Kumar who deposed that she is working
as a cook at H.No.70, Shradhanand Marg, Delhi and he was called to PS
Kamla Market by accused Sheetal on 09.03.2012 at about 9-10 AM. They
met outside the PS where there was one more person with accused Sheetal.
He further deposed that all of them went inside the PS and met SI Ajay
who inquired from him about his name and address and thereafter
informed him that he had arrested Sheetal and told him to leave.
DW-7 is Sh.Shriram who deposed that he has been doing the
work of ironing clothes in front of H.No.70, Shradhanand Marg, Delhi
since 4-5 years and that he receive clothes for ironing from the inhabitants
of the above mentioned premises and other neighbouring houses. Upon
seeing Ex.PW-9/DA, this witness deposed that he recognize the person by
face whose photograph is on the document (PAN Card of the Prosecutrix
issued by Income Tax Department) who used to come to his 'theeya' for
giving clothes for ironing. He also deposed that she used to collect the
clothes for herself and sometimes he used to go to the above mentioned
:21:
premises to return the ironed clothes and collect the payment. He further
deposed that she used to come alone to give the clothes and collect them
afterwards.
Arguments, Analysis and Findings:
I have heard the detailed arguments advanced by learned
defence counsel and learned APP for the State. I have also carefully gone
through the written submissions filed by the defence, the case law cited
before me and the evidence brought on record during trial.
It is contended by learned defence counsel that both the
accused have been falsely implicated in this case by the Prosecutrix.
It is submitted that the testimony of the Prosecutrix PW-9 is
full of material contradictions and her uncorroborated testimony cannot be
made the basis for conviction of the accused persons. During the course of
arguments, my attention was drawn towards the cross-examination of
Prosecutrix (PW-9) by learned defence counsel in support of his aforesaid
arguments. He argued that in order to convict the accused, it is necessary
for the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
:22:
doubt and a suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof. In
this regard, learned defence counsel relied upon the following judgments in
support of his contentions:
a) Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttranchal, reported as JT
2010 (1) SC 424.
b) M.Nageshwar Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported as
JT 2011 (1) SC 31 &
c) Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu vs. State of Bihar, reported as
JT 2013 (1) SC 233 .
The defence strongly argued that the investigation in the
present case is tainted and the accused cannot be convicted in the present
case which is based upon tainted and faulty investigation. It was
contended that as per the own case of the Prosecution, PW-8 Sh.Subir Roy,
Director, Programmes and Projects with Shaktivahini, NGO received an
information regarding illegal detention of the Prosecutrix at Kotha No.70,
IIIrd floor, Left Side, G.B.Road through informer on email on 27.02.2012.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not hand over a copy of
that email to the police and did not inform the police about the receipt of
the said email on 27.02.2012 or 28.02.2012 prior to their visit to the
:23:
premises in question. It was contended that despite the fact that PW-8 had
knowledge about the commission of that alleged offence, he did not inform
the police about the detention of Prosecutrix (PW-9) and he himself is
guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 202 IPC. It was
argued that the investigation of the present case was initiated on the basis
of statement of the Prosecutrix (Ex.PW-9/A) and not on the basis of
information received by PW-8.
It is further contended that as admitted by the IO Insp.Pramod
Joshi (PW-15), PW-8 Sh.Subir Roy and Ms.Sai Shetty had been cited as
witnesses in other cases of PS Kamla Market and that they were stock
witnesses of the IO.
The next contention of the defence is that the Investigation
Agency did not follow the procedure as mandated by Section 15(2) of the
ITP Act and apparently no independent inhabitants of the locality were
called while conducting the search proceedings in the premises in question.
The ladies present in the kotha were also not cited as PWs. Further, no
independent public person from the densely populated residential-cum-
:24:
commercial area was joined in the proceedings either at the time of the
alleged recovery of the Prosecutrix or at the time of arrest of the accused
persons. It was further contended that the IO deliberately violated the
safeguards against arbitrary and illegal arrest provided to the accused
persons by the provisions of the Cr.PC and that Section 176 of the said
provisions were flouted though making the case of the Prosecution highly
doubtful.
Learned defence counsel further argued that the place of arrest
of the accused Sheetal is also not clearly established on record. According
to her arrest memo Ex.PW-2/F, the time of her arrest is 11:30 PM and
place of her arrest is Kotha No.70, IIIrd floor, G.B.Road, Delhi, while
DW-4 Dr.Saleem deposed that accused Sheetal was called to the PS Kamla
Market and at her request he accompanied to the PS, where she was
arrested.
While relying on the various judgments of the Hon'ble
Superior Courts, learned defence counsel also argued that the accused
cannot be punished for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with
:25:
Section 109 IPC as the Prosecution has failed to produce any witness to
establish its case that the Prosecutrix was raped in Kotha No.70, IIIrd floor,
G.B.Road, Delhi. It was contended that in absence of principal accused,
who allegedly committed rape upon her, the present accused persons
cannot be convicted for the offence of abetting the offence of Section 376
IPC.
It was next contended that no material evidence has been
brought on record to establish that prostitution was actually being carried
on at the premises at Kotha No.70, IIIrd floor, G.B.Road, Delhi as the
Prosecution has failed to examine even one customer of the alleged
prostitute and the premises in question cannot be said to be a 'brothel' as
per the definition under Section 2(a) of the ITP Act. It was contended that
apparently no complaint was ever received regarding the running of Kotha
No.70 from nearby shopkeepers nor any contraceptives were allegedly
recovered during the alleged raid from the place of occurrence and hence
the Prosecution has been failed to establish that the premises in question
has been running as a 'brothel'.
:26:
Learned defence counsel thus contended that the Prosecution
has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
uncorroborated testimony of the Prosecutrix cannot be relied upon to
convict the accused persons for the alleged offences or to hold them guilty
for the charges on which they have been facing trial.
On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the
arguments of the defence contending that the Prosecution has established
its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the Prosecution
witnesses, particularly the deposition of the Prosecutrix, is sufficient to
hold that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences and
submitted that they be convicted for the aforesaid charges.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the
Prosecution as well as defence and have minutely considered the evidence
brought on record during trial.
The case of the Prosecution that the victim 'SB' was below 18
years of age at the time of commission of the alleged offence, has been
duly proved by the Prosecution by examining PW-12 Dr.Anirban Roy.
:27:
PW-12 produced the register of births of Panihati Municipality, Calcutta
and as per the said record, the date of birth of the Prosecutrix has been
proved to be 22.04.1995. The photocopy of the relevant entry in the said
register and the register of the hospital containing the relevant entry to this
effect were exhibited during trial as Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-12/B
respectively. From the testimony PW-12 it is hence established that the
date of birth of Prosecutrix (PW-9) 'SB' was 22.04.1995.
Prosecutrix 'SB' (PW-9) deposed that in the year 2011, she
was enticed by one boy Ajay @ Raju who brought her from her native
village to Delhi and accused Sheetal and Rekha bought her for Rs.30,000/-
from one lady to whom Raju had handed her in Sialda and asked her to
accompany her to Delhi stating that he would follow her in 2-3 days.
PW-9 further deposed that she was detained in the Kotha No.70, IIIrd
floor, G.B.Road, Delhi by the accused Sheetal and Rekha and was forced
into prostitution by them. She also deposed that all her earnings were kept
by the accused Sheetal.
In her cross-examination, the defence has sought to question
:28:
her with regard to the presence of other passengers in the train while she
was been brought to Delhi by the above mentioned lady whom she was
asked to accompany by Raju @ Ajay. It was contended that the
Prosecutrix make no attempt to escape or to make any complaint to any
one during the entire journey, which took about 2-3 days and she
voluntarily came to Delhi.
However, I find on going through her entire deposition that
apparently, at that point of time, the Prosecutrix was accompanying the
said lady to Delhi under the threats extended to her by boy Ajay @ Raju. I
also find no force in the arguments of the defence that since the
Investigation Agency did not prepare any sketch of the said Raju @ Ajay
at the instance of Prosecutrix, her entire testimony should be discarded or
should be treated as unreliable on this score itself.
I am also unable to accept the arguments of the defence that
the Prosecutrix as per her cross-examination recorded on 01.05.2013, she
stated that one boy Raj handed over her to one lady at Sialda, who brought
her to Delhi by stating that she would have to to 'Ganda Kaam' and thus the
:29:
Prosecutrix was apparently doing the work of prostitution with her
consent. Though, the Prosecutrix voluntarily stated before the court that
she was aware of this fact while she was in Sialda, however, at the same
time, it has also come on record from her deposition particularly her cross-
examination that not only she was threatened by Raj @ Ajay, but she was
also sexually exploited by him after she was brought to Delhi.
It has also emerged from the cross-examination of PW-9 that
when she was been taken to Kotha No.70, IIIrd floor, G.B.Road, Delhi, she
did not make any complaint to any person. The witness while responding
to a court question clarified that she had been given an assurance that she
would be able to go home after one year and in case she would make any
complaint to anyone, it may become difficult for her to return to her house.
Thus apparently, the victim who was minor and a native of
West Bengal and who had been brought from her native village to a big
city like Delhi, had no other option but to concede due to the threats given
to her. She obviously surrendered to her fate and it certainly cannot be
treated as her consent. The arguments of the defence that the Prosecutrix
:30:
was doing the work of prostitution with her consent therefore, cannot be
accepted in these circumstances.
The consent of the Prosecutrix, if any, further is absolutely
immaterial, as she was below 18 years of age when she was brought to
Delhi. Thus, I find no force in the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel
that Prosecutrix was doing the work of prostitution willingly. Further,
the 'so called' contradictions sought to be pointed out by the learned
defence counsel from the cross-examination of the Prosecutrix (PW-9),
cannot, in my opinion, be said to be material so as to affect the case of the
Prosecution fatally.
Learned defence counsel also submitted that as per the MLC
of the Prosecutrix Mark A dated 28.02.2012, the examining doctor
recorded that the Prosecutrix 'SB' was working as prostitute at G.B.Road
since 20.09.2012 and had history of sexual intercourse (consensual) 8-10
times/day and that every time it was consensual. Learned defence counsel
strongly argued that it is the own document of the Prosecution which
shows that the alleged victim i.e. PW-9 was having consensual sex with
:31:
the customers and was working as a prostitute voluntarily. He argued that
in the light of the said document, the accused Rekha and Sheetal cannot be
convicted for having forced the Prosecutrix 'SB' into prostitution.
On the other hand, learned APP contended that this cannot be
said to imply that the Prosecutrix had not been forced into prostitution by
the accused Rekha and Sheetal as deposed by her. He argued that the fact
that PW-9 continued to work as a prostitute under threat and pressure of
the accused persons and it cannot be said that she was doing the work of
prostitution voluntarily.
I have considered the aforesaid arguments. A careful reading
of the deposition of PW-9 would reveal that she categorically identified
both the accused persons as the persons who bought her for a sum of Rs.
30,000/- and forced her into prostitution at Kotha No.70, IIIrd floor,
G.B.Road, Delhi. She has also deposed before the court that she was
threatened by the accused persons and her earnings were taken away by
both of them and she was detained in the said Kotha by the accused
persons.
:32:
In these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be
said that the victim PW-9 was doing the work of prostitution voluntarily.
The recording made by the examining doctor in MLC Mark A can
certainly not be given precedence over the testimony of PW-9. The
compelling circumstances under which the victim remained at Kotha No.
70, IIIrd floor, G.B.Road, Delhi and continued to do the work of
prostitution cannot be said to imply that she was doing this work
voluntarily. Even otherwise, in my considered opinion, it stands duly
established on record from her testimony that she was forced into
prostitution by accused Sheetal and Rekha, who bought her for a sum of
Rs.30,000/-.
Moreover, the victim PW-9 by way of her deposition has
established on record that she was forced into prostitution by both the
accused persons and that she was rescued from the said brothel house only
after she requested one of the customers to inform her family members. It
is also pertinent to note that in her cross-examination dated 01.05.2013,
PW-9 denied having told the examining doctor that she was doing the work
:33:
of prostitution voluntarily.
Insofar as the argument of the defence is concerned to the
effect that there is a delay in registration of the FIR and that the FIR is not
registered on the basis of information received from the official of NGO
Shaktivahini on 27.02.2012, I find that the same cannot be given much
weightage. It has come on record that immediately upon receipt of the
information on 28.02.2012, a raiding party was constituted and the said
information was duly acted upon. The statement of the Prosecutrix was
recorded upon being rescued from the Kotha and on the basis of her
statement containing the specific allegations against the accused, the
present case was duly registered.
I am also unable to subscribe to the arguments of the learned
defence counsel that the investigation in the present case is tainted for the
reason that non-compliance of the mandate of Section 15 of the ITP Act.
Though, it is a matter of record that the Investigation Agency did not join
any independent resident of the locality as provided by Section 15 of the
ITP Act. However, this lapse on the part of the Investigation Agency
:34:
cannot per se be said to initiate the trial or to render it illegal. I am
supported in my view by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case
titled as Bai Radha vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 SC 1396, wherein it
has been observed that It would be legitimate to say that a search which
is to be conducted under the Act much comply with the provisions
contained in Section 15; but it cannot be held that if a search is not
carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of that section the
trial is rendered illegal. There is hardly any parallel between an officer
conducting a search who has no authority under the law and a search
having been made which does not strictly conform to the provisions of
Section 15 of the Act. The principles which have been settled with regard
to the effect of an irregular search made in exercise of the powers under
Section 165 CrPC would be fully applicable even to a case under the Act
where the search has not been made in strict compliance with the its
provisions. It is significant that there is no provision in the Act according
to which any search carried out in contravention of Section 15 would
render the trial illegal. In the absence of such a provision, we must apply
:35:
the law which has been laid down with regard to searches made under the
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
I also find myself unable to accept the arguments of the
defence that the Prosecution has failed to prove that Kotha No.70, IIIrd
Floor, Left Side, G.B.Road, Delhi has not been proved to be a 'Brothel' as
per the definition of Section 2(a) of the ITP Act. Undoubtedly, the
Prosecution has not brought on record any complaint from nearby
shopkeepers regarding the running of the brothel house in the said
premises, nor any condoms were allegedly recovered during the search
proceedings conducted by the Investigating Agency.
Section 2(a) of the ITP Act defines 'Brothel' as any house,
room or place or any portion of any house, room or place, which is used
for purposes for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or
more prostitutes. The Prosecutrix (PW-9) by way of her testimony has
deposed before the court that when she reached at Kotha No.70, IIIrd
Floor, G.B.Road, Delhi, she saw many girls and they were there for more
than one year. She also deposed that the earnings of the other inmates
:36:
were also kept by the accused Rekha and Sheetal and that was their
livelihood. In her cross-examination, she also named the other inmates of
the Kotha.
Though, a careful reading of the deposition of Prosecutrix
(PW-9), particularly her examination-in-chief would reveal that she has
clearly stated before the court that her earnings and the earnings of other
inmates were also kept by the accused persons and it was their livelihood.
The arguments of the defence that the Prosecution failed to prove that the
'Brothel' was being run in the aforesaid premises, thus cannot be accepted
upon a careful reading of the testimony of the Prosecutrix in its totality.
Certainly, her testimony has to be read as a whole and it thus reveals that
she has categorically brought out from her deposition that a 'Brothel' was
being run within the premises of Kotha No.70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side,
G.B.Road, Delhi. The absence of any complaint of the nearby shopkeepers
or non recovery of condoms, to my mind, cannot be said to be a ground to
discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case, as proved by the testimony
of the Prosecutrix (PW-9).
:37:
However, I find myself in agreement with the arguments of
the defence as there is no evidence to the effect that the Prosecutrix was
being raped by any customer nor any such customer has been charged for
offence under Section 376 IPC, the accused cannot be convicted for having
abetting the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. Accordingly,
both the accused are liable to be acquitted for the offence under Section
376 read with Section 109 IPC.
However, I may hasten to add that there is ample evidence on
record by way of testimony of the Prosecutrix PW-9 to establish that she
was forced into prostitution by the accused persons. It also stands
established on record that her earnings used to be taken away by the
accused Sheetal and Rekha and that she was forcibly detained in the
aforesaid kotha by accused Sheetal and Rekha.
Though, defence has examined 07 witnesses to disprove the
case of the Prosecution, however, I find on going through the entire
evidence on record that this claim of the defence cannot be accepted.
It may be noted that DW-1 Sh.Sushil Kumar, deposed that he
:38:
got the Pan Card (Ex.PW-9/DA) of the Prosecutrix prepared in February,
2012. In his cross-examination however he admitted that the company
where he was employed was not engaged in doing the work of Pan cards.
He also failed to produce any document in support of his claim that he does
the work of getting Pan Cards prepared or that he prepared the Pan Card of
the Prosecutrix.
DW-3 Sh.Saleem deposed that the Prosecutrix used to hire his
TSR for going out from Kotha No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi for shopping to
various markets like Karol Bagh, Sita Ram Bazar etc. and that she used to
frequently travel to Mahipalpur.
DW-5 Mohd.Shahid identified the Prosecutrix from her
photograph Ex.PW-9/DA and also deposed that she used to go to the shops
below H.No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi for making purchases etc.
Similarly, DW-7 Sriram identified the photograph of the
Prosecutrix on photocopy of Pan Card Ex.PW-9/DA and deposed that she
used to go to his 'theeya' for giving clothes for ironing and sometimes also
used to collect the clothes from him herself.
:39:
It was contended by learned defence counsel that the
testimonies of these defence witnesses completely belie the claim of the
Prosecutrix that she was confined in Kotha No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi by the
accused persons or that she was forced into prostitution by accused Sheetal
and Rekha.
I have considered the submissions and have also gone through
the evidence on record. However, on going through the cross-examination
of PW-9 Prosecutix 'SB', I find that not even a single suggestion has been
put to her in her entire cross-examination as to whether she, at any point of
time, hired the TSR of DW-3 or that she got prepared her Pan Card from
DW-1 or that she used to come to the 'theeya' of DW-7 for giving and
collecting the clothes for ironing. In her cross-examination, it was
suggested to the witness by the learned defence counsel that she used to
visit Dr.Chawla having his clinic at Sita Ram Bazar and she and other
inmates of the kotha used to go out for picnic at India Gate and other
places or for watching movies and at Raju Beauty Parlour. Though the
Prosecutrix denied all these suggestions, what is important to note is that
:40:
the defence failed to examine either the owner of the said Raju Beauty
Parlour or any person named as Raju or Sudhir or Randhir or Dr.Chawla or
any other inmate of the Kotha to show that the Prosecutrix used to
frequently visit these places as suggested to her during her cross-
examination.
Apparently, the witnesses produced in the witness box in their
defence by the accused persons, were an afterthought as not even a single
suggestion was put to the Prosecutrix that she ever got her Pan Card
prepared from DW-1 Sushil Kumar or that she ever left the Kotha in the
TSR of DW-3 Saleem or that she met any other defence witness, as argued
by learned defence counsel. The testimonies of the defence witnesses, hence
cannot be believed as the same are apparently an afterthought and the said
witnesses have been examined only for the purpose to create defence in
favour of the accused later on.
Considering the foregoing discussion and the evidence on
record, I am therefore of the considered opinion that it has been duly
established on record beyond reasonable doubt that the Prosecutrix 'SB'
:41:
was purchased by both Accused. Further, Prosecutrix 'SB' who was below
the age of 18 years and thus a 'minor' within the meaning of Section 2 (cb)
of ITP Act was forced into prostitution by the accused Sheetal and Rekha.
She was detained in the Kotha and was not permitted to leave from there.
All her earnings were also taken away by both the accused persons. There is
also evidence on record to the effect that she was purchased/procured by
the accused Sheetal and Rekha for a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose
of prostitution.
I also find that the offence under Sections 23 & 26 JJ Act
cannot be said to be made out against the accused persons. There is no
evidence whatsoever in the testimony of the Prosecutrix that she was
subjected to cruelty for mental or physical sufferings by the accused
persons and thus Section 23 of the JJ Act cannot be said to be made out.
Further, though it has been established that the Prosecutrix 'SB' was forced
into prostitution, however, the same cannot be said to be hazardous
employment within the meaning of Section 26 of the JJ Act. Accordingly,
I find no reason to convict the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
:42:
I also do not find myself in agreement with the submission of
learned defence counsel that in view of the fact that ITP Act is a Special
Act, hence offences under Sections 366A IPC and 373 IPC cannot be said
to be made out against the accused persons. I find on going through the
relevant statutory provisions that the said offences cannot be said to be
similar and are rather distinct offences.
Moreover, lapses if any, in investigation cannot be said to be a
ground for acquittal of the accused. In this regard reliance may be place
upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court titled as Dhanaj Singh @
Shera and Others Vs State of Punjab AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1920.
Similar view has been laid down in Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand
Vs State of Haryana and another AIR 1999 Supreme Court 371 (1)
Accordingly, both the accused are hereby held guilty for
having committed offence under Sections 373/34, 366A/34 & 343/34 IPC
and Sections 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act. Since there is no categoric evidence on
record to show as to for how many days Prosecutrix was confined by the
accused persons in the Kotha No.70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B.Road,
:43:
Delhi, both the accused Rekha and Sheetal instead of being convicted
under Section 343/34 IPC have been convicted under Section 342/34 IPC.
However, as discussed hereinabove the both the accused are acquitted for
the offence under Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC & Sections 23 &
26 JJ Act. Let them be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court
on April 25, 2014
(Kaveri Baweja)
Additional Sessions Judge-FTC (Central)
:44:
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions Judge- Special FTC 2 (Central)
Sessions Case No. : 32/13
Unique ID No. : 02401R0243652012
State versus (i) Rekha
D/o Sh.Rajesh
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
(2) Sheetal
D/o Sh.Newroti
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 20/12
Police Station : Kamla Market
Under Section : 366A/372/373/376/342/109/34 IPC,
23 J.J.Act & 3/4/5/6 ITP Act.
Judgment pronounced on : 25.04.2014
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide judgment dated 25.04.2014, Accused Rekha D/o
Sh.Rajesh and Sheetal D/o Sh.Newroti have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 373/34, 366A/34 & 342/34 IPC and Sections
:45:
3/4/5/6 of ITP Act.
I have heard the submissions on the point of sentence.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the convicts that the
accused Rekha has never been previously convicted in any case of similar
nature. He further submitted that convict Rekha has one son aged about 10
years who lives with her old mother aged about 70 years, whereas convict
Sheetal has three children aged about 20 years, 18 years and 6 years, who
live with her old and ailing mother aged about 75 years. He accordingly
prays for a lenient view while awarding sentence to both the convicts.
On the other hand, learned APP submits that there is no
ground to take any lenient view for any of the convicts. It is pointed out
that convict Sheetal has been convicted in case FIR No.781/2006 PS
Kamla Market being Sessions Case No.77/2008, under Sections 376 r/w
109 IPC & 368 IPC & Section 4 ITP Act.
Having considered the submissions made and in the light of facts
and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the victim
'S.B.' was 'minor', convicts Rekha D/o Sh.Rajesh and Sheetal D/o
Sh.Newroti are hereby sentenced as under:-
i) For the offence punishable under Section 373/34 IPC, the both the above
named convicts are directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of 10 years each in addition to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for 02 years.
ii) For the offence punishable under Section 366A/34 IPC, the both the above
:46:
iii) For the offence punishable under Section 342/34 IPC, the both the above
period of 01 year each in addition to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In
default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for 02 months.
iv) For the offence punishable under Section 3 ITP Act, both the above named
convicts are directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 02
years each in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of
payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for 02 months.
v) For the offence punishable under Section 4 ITP Act, both the above named
vi) Since it has been proved that the Prosecutrix 'SB' was below 18 years of
age and was a 'minor' within the meaning of Section 2(cb) of ITP Act, both
the accused are hereby sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 07 years
each for the offence punishable under Section 5(d) Proviso (ii), in addition
to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they
shall undergo SI for 01 year.
vii) For the offence punishable under Section 6 ITP Act, both the above
period of 07 years each in addition to payment of fine of Rs.5000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for 01 month.
All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. Both the
convicts shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 428 CrPC.
The aforesaid fine as imposed upon the convicts, is directed to be
paid by way of compensation to the victim as per the provisions of Section
357 Cr.PC.
I also recommend further payment of adequate compensation to
the victim in the present case as per provisions of Section 357A CrPC.
:47:
The quantum of compensation to be awarded under Victim Compensation
Scheme shall be decided by Delhi Legal Aid Services in terms of provision
under Section 357A CrPC. Accordingly, it is directed that copy of this
judgment and order be sent to Secretary DLSA, Central District for
necessary action.
Vide order dated 30.04.2014, report was called from SHO PS
Kamla Market, as to whether any stay order has been passed by Hon'ble
High Court in respect of Kotha No. 70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B. Road,
Delhi. It has been reported that No civil/criminal petition is sub-judice in
respect of premises in question i.e. Kotha No.70, IIIrd floor, left side,
G.B.Road, Delhi before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi neither any stay
order has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in respect of
premises in question above.
Thus, having regard to the fact that it has been proved on
record that premises in question i.e. Kotha No. 70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side,
G.B. Road, Delhi was being run as a Brothel, I deem it appropriate to
exercise my powers under Section 18 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention)
Act, 1956 and direct closure of the said Brothel. SHO PS Kamla Market
shall, after evicting the occupiers of the said Brothel i.e. Kotha No. 70,
IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B. Road, Delhi, ensure closure of the said
premises within a period of 07 days from the date of this order, under
intimation to this court.
Copy of this order be sent to SHO PS Kamla Market for
:48:
necessary compliance.
Copy of this judgment and order of sentence be also supplied to
above named convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court
on May 01, 2014
(Kaveri Baweja)
Additional Sessions Judge-FTC (Central)
:49:
State Vs. Rekha & Ors.
FIR No. 20/12
PS : Kamla Market
SC No. : 32/13
25.4.14
Present : Sh. Mohd. Iqrar-Ld. APP for the State
Both accused are present on bail.
Vide separate judgment announced today in the open court,
Accused Rekha D/o Sh. Rajesh and accused Sheetal D/o Sh. Newroti have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 373/34, 366A/34 &
342/34 IPC and Sections 3/4/5/6 ITP Act.
Let both the accused be taken into custody.
Put up for arguments on sentence on 01.05.2014.
(Kaveri Baweja)
ASJ- Spl. FTC-2 (Central) : Delhi
25.04.14
:50:
State Vs. Rekha & Ors.
FIR No. 20/12
PS : Kamla Market
SC No. : 32/13
01.5.14
Present : Sh. Mohd. Iqrar-Ld. APP for the State
Both Convicts produced in J/c.
Vide separate order on sentence announced today in the open
court, Convicts Rekha D/o Sh.Rajesh and Sheetal D/o Sh.Newroti are
hereby sentenced as under:-
i) For the offence punishable under Section 373/34 IPC, the both the above
ii) For the offence punishable under Section 366A/34 IPC, the both the above
iii) For the offence punishable under Section 342/34 IPC, the both the above
period of 01 year each in addition to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In
default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for 02 months.
:51:
iv) For the offence punishable under Section 3 ITP Act, both the above named
v) For the offence punishable under Section 4 ITP Act, both the above named
vi) Since it has been proved that the Prosecutrix 'SB' was below 18 years of
age and was a 'minor' within the meaning of Section 2(cb) of ITP Act, both
the accused are hereby sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 07 years
each for the offence punishable under Section 5(d) Proviso (ii), in addition
to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they
shall undergo SI for 01 year.
vii) For the offence punishable under Section 6 ITP Act, both the above
period of 07 years each in addition to payment of fine of Rs.5000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for 01 month.
All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. Both the
convicts shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 428 CrPC.
The aforesaid fine as imposed upon the convicts, is directed to be
paid by way of compensation to the victim as per the provisions of Section
357 Cr.PC.
:52:
I also recommend further payment of adequate compensation to
the victim in the present case as per provisions of Section 357A CrPC.
The quantum of compensation to be awarded under Victim Compensation
Scheme shall be decided by Delhi Legal Aid Services in terms of provision
under Section 357A CrPC. Accordingly, it is directed that copy of this
judgment and order be sent to Secretary DLSA, Central District for
necessary action.
Vide order dated 30.04.2014, report was called from SHO PS
Kamla Market, as to whether any stay order has been passed by Hon'ble
High Court in respect of Kotha No. 70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B. Road,
Delhi. It has been reported that No civil/criminal petition is sub-judice in
respect of premises in question i.e. Kotha No.70, IIIrd floor, left side,
G.B.Road, Delhi before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi neither any stay
order has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in respect of
premises in question above.
Thus, having regard to the fact that it has been proved on
record that premises in question i.e. Kotha No. 70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side,
G.B. Road, Delhi was being run as a Brothel, I deem it appropriate to
exercise my powers under Section 18 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention)
Act, 1956 and direct closure of the said Brothel. SHO PS Kamla Market
shall, after evicting the occupiers of the said Brothel i.e. Kotha No. 70,
IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B. Road, Delhi, ensure closure of the said
premises within a period of 07 days from the date of this order, under
:53:
intimation to this court.
Copy of this order be sent to SHO PS Kamla Market for
necessary compliance.
Copy of this judgment and order of sentence be also supplied to
above named convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Kaveri Baweja)
ASJ- Spl. FTC-2 (Central) : Delhi
01.05.14

24 Pragna Case GB ROAD CONVICTION CASE

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

24 Pragna Case GB ROAD CONVICTION CASE

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

:1:

In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja

Você também pode gostar