IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT) AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt. T. Rajani, M.A., B.L.

V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Mania Court, Hyderabad
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2007
SESSIONS CASE NO. 112/2007
PRC. NO. 8/2007 ON THE FILE OF X ADDL. CMM. COURT SECUNDERABAD
Committed by:

Sri. X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad

Crime No, & Police Station:

297/2006

Name of the complainant:

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Gopalapuram

Name and description of accused:

A1 Dharmapuri Sridevi @ Sapna W/o Mahaboob

Pathan, age 20 years, Occ: Call girl/Pimp near Railway
station, Secunderabad R/o Uppal, Hyderabad
A2 S. Manjunath @ Shankar @ Mental Shankar S/o
Subbaraya Achari, age 26 years, Occ: Pimp/broker,
Railway station, R/o Uppal R/o Bodhgir / Cross Roads,
near Bangalore, Karnataka

Prosecution conducted by:

Sri Ch. Seshi Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by:

Sri. V. V. S. Satyanarayana, Advocate

Offences Charged:

366(a) 376 IPC and 3, 4 and 5 of I.T.P. Act

Plea of the accused:

Pleaded guilty

Finding of the court:

The accused No. l and 2 are found not guilty for the offence
punishable u/s 3 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
and Section 366-A IPC and they are acquitted and they are

1|Page

found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 4 & 5 of The

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. A2 is found guilty for
the offences punishable u/s 376 IPC. And they are
convicted for the said offences u/s 235 (2) Cr. P.C.
Sentence/Order:

A1 is sentenced to under go R.I for a period of One year for

the offence punishable U/Sec. 4 of the I.T.P. Act, and R.I
for three years and a sum of Rs. 200/- for the offence
punishable u/ Sec. 5 of I.T.P. Act. In default of payment of
fine S.I for a period of One month.
A2 is sentenced to under go R.I. for Two years for the
offence punishable under Sec. 4 of I.T.P, Act, R.I. for 5
years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable
U/Sec. 5 of I.T.P. Act. In default of payment of fine R.I. for
4 months. A2 is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven
years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable
U/Sec. 376 IPC, and the default of payment of fine R.I for
4 months.
The sentence against both the accused for the above
offence shall run concurrently. The remand period if any
ordered to be set off.

JUDGEMENT
This is a case of a girl who came out of the protective wings of her mother and went into the
hands of those people who used her as a means of their extra income and led her into prostitution
for the said purpose.
The brief facts as projected in the charge sheet are that on 10.10.2006 at about 10.30 a.m. L.W.I
who is in-charge for a social welfare organization called "PRAJWALA" came to the police
station and lodged a written English report with the following facts. The victim girl is a resident
of Yakuthpura who lost her father in her childhood. Her mother used to beat her up constantly
and one day she also burnt her leg with a burning rod. Unable to bear the acts of her mother she
came away from her house and reached Secunderabad Railway station in the month of January
2006. She worked as a domestic servant in the house of a woman at Seethaphalmandi till April
2006. As the husband of that woman did not like her, she left that house also and sat at
Secunderabad Station. Then a woman named Swapna approached her and promised to provide a
good job to her and took her to a person called Shanker who was standing near the bus station,
Secunderabad. Shanker took the girl to Chilkanagar Uppal by paying Rs. 400/- to the said
2|Page

Swapna. He promised to provide her a better living and asked her to enter into prostitution. He
used her as his keep, and sent her to four or five customers per day. One day she got an
opportunity to escape from his clutches and somehow approached the complainant. On the
strength of the report given by the complainant the case was registered in Cr. No. 297/2006 for
the offence under section 366-A IPC and Sec. 3, 4 & 5 of I.PT. Act. During the course of
investigation the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The victim was subjected to medical
examination and was diagnosed to be carrying 12 weeks pregnancy. Her statement was also got
recorded by a Magistrate under 164 Cr. P.C. The accused were arrested. After receiving all the
relevant reports the investigation was concluded and charge sheet was laid for the same offences.
On appearance of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the committal court, the committal court duly
complied with all the legal formalities and committed the case to the court of Metropolitan
Sessions Division, Hyderabad.
The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, took the matter on file and made over the
same to this court for trial and disposal according to law.
On appearance of the accused before this court, this court complied with all the legal formalities
and basing on the prima facie material on record, framed charges against A1 and A2 for the
offences punishable U/Ss.366-A IPC and Sec. 3, 4 & 5 of I.PT. Act and against accused No. 2
for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said
charges when they were read over and explained to them and claimed to be tried.
On that this court conducted the trial of the case and examined P.Ws. l to 5 and marked Ex. P1 to
P.6 on behalf of the prosecution.
After concluding the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned about the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. They denied the truth in the prosecution
evidence and reported no evidence on their behalf. On that the arguments of the learned APP and
the defence counsel were heard.
The Learned APP contended that the case of the prosecution stands proved by the confidence
inspiring evidence of not only the victim girl P.W. 2 but also P.W. 1 and that the minor
inconsistencies pointed out by the defence are liable to be brushed aside on the basis of the
substratum of the prosecution case which was proved unmotivatedly.
The defence counsel as rightly contended by the APP has based his argument on inconsistencies
which do not in any way disturb the basic ring of truth existing in the prosecution case. Though
they need not be mentioned the same are being mentioned only to be marginalised. It was in the
foremost contended that the residence of P.W. 2 as stated by P.W. 2 is at Yakuthpura but as per
the case of prosecution, she was residing with P.W. 1 who is in-charge of a rescue home, that
P.W. 2 could not give the name of the woman who took her from the Railway station initially,
that L.W. 3 who allegedly took. P.W.2 to P.W. 1 was not examined by the prosecution. The
3|Page

above contentions made the defence counsel would be met with by this court while deciding the
points which arise for determination by this court.
Based on the material on record and the arguments extended on either side this court frames the
following points for determination.
1) Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires total confidence in the court.
2) Whether the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 3 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act is proved.
3) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/s 4
& 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
4) Whether the guilt of the accused No. 2 for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC is proved.
5) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they
are charged beyond all reasonable doubt.
6) To what result.
1st POINT- P.W. 2 is the prosecutrix. If the credibility of the prosecutrix is upheld then, by
virtue the settled position of law, her testimony can be considered as sufficient to conclude the
guilt of the accused. As can be seen from her evidence not even a remote motive exists against
her for speaking falsehood. There are no relations between accused and P.W. 2 earlier to the
alleged episode of offences. Hence, it can not be alleged that she was prompted by any ulterior
motives to speak against the accused. The evidence on record shows that she had to take shelter
in a rescue home where no scope for personal profits would be left. In the absence of ambitions
of personal gains, she would not be prompted to speak falsehood against the accused. She came
into the world alone and is ultimately left, with what can be appropriately called as a burden, the
child. In such circumstances whatever comes from her testimony turns to be true.
2nd POINT- Sec. 3 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (hereinafter called as I.T.P. Act)
prescribes punishment for the persons who keeps or manages or acts or assists in the keeping or
management of a brothel. The evidence of P.W. 2 is that of the victim girl. According to her
evidence she met A1 at the Railway Station and A1 took her to A2. Both the accused took her to
the Secundrabad Railway station and sent her along with a person, after taking money. Both the
accused beat her severely and made her continue the prostitution. The wife of A2 also used to
reside in the house of A2. It is the said wife that rescued P.W. 2 and took her to the Rescue
Home of P.W. 1. Except the act of A1 relating to P.W. 2 her other activities are not stated by
P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 6 which is that of the inspector of police who registered the case
and investigated it, though shows that there were reports against A1 in their Police Station even
earlier to this case, the said reports against A2. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that P.W. 2 was
brought to their Rescue Home by LW. 3, who is the wife of A2. L.W. 3, according to P.W. 1 has
4|Page

been attending the counseling sessions of P.W. 1s organization run by them in the area of
Gopalpuram P.S. But evidently no reports were given to them either against A2 that they were in
the hand of doing and assisting prostitution or that they were concerned with the keeping or
managing of a brothel. Hence, the evidence on record does not bring out evidence, sufficient to
fix the complicity of the accused in the offence punishable u/s sec.3 of I.T.P. Act. Hence, it can
be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence
punishable u/s 3 of I.T.P. Act.
3rd POINT - Section 4 of I.T.P. Act makes the act of any person over the age of 18 years living
wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution of any person punishable. The evidence of P.W.
2 would amply prove that she was led into prostitution by A1 and A2. There can be no other
reason that can be read into the facts of the case other than the monetary benefit. Even without
any assumption it can be concluded as such, as P.W. 2 was categorical in stating that A1 and A2
took money from a stranger before handing over her to the said person. The evidence of P.W. l
though hearsay, also corroborates the said fact. Leaving aside the proof that Al and A2 are guilty
of the offence can be concluded that the guilt which would be proved otherwise would consist of
the financial benefit. The said benefit would form part of the earnings of the accused and thereby
it amounts to living on the earnings of prostitution which is punishable u/s 4 of I.T.P Act.
The ages of the accused are shown as 20 and 26 years respectively. Section 4 makes the act of
the accused who are over the age of 18 years alone punishable. The accused did not deny their
ages. Hence, they are attracted by Section 4 of the I.T.P. Act.
Sec. 5 of the I.T.P. Act attracts the act of a person who procures a person with or without her
consent for the purpose of the prostitution and also the act of a person in taking or attempting to
take a person or causing a person to be taken from one place to another with a view to his/her
carrying on or being brought up to carry on prostitution. The alleged facts are only in respect of
the above ingredients of section 5 of I.T.P. Act.
Before proceeding with the appreciation of the evidence on record the contention of the defence
counsel that the prosecution could not prove that P.W. 2 stayed in the house of A2. It was also
contended that no neighbours from the place of the accused were examined in order to prove the
said fact and that L.W. 3 who is the wife of A2 was not examined by the prosecution. It was
urged that the benefit of the above lapses of the prosecution has to be extended to the accused. In
the considered opinion of this court it is only benefit of a reasonable doubt that has to be
extended to the accused, but not of whimsical and fanciful doubts. The facts of the case would
project a clear situation where no independent witnesses would come forward to give evidence.
In the cases of this sort such efforts would not fulfill in all probability. The failure of the police
in not explaining about their efforts to secure independent witnesses can not at any rate prejudice
the victim. When the case itself stands on highly credible facts calling for independent evidence
would result in a hyper technical approach, which is not warranted.

5|Page

P.W. 1 however is an independent witness. The attempt to shatter her credibility during the cross
examination remains unsuccessful. The mere fact that the organization of P.W. 1 is run by the
funds which are provided to it based on the number of victims catered by it can not be taken to
infer that every act of it is motivated by the said benefit. It can not be assumed that such
organizations are started on a profit motive. The basic aim is to help the destitute. It was well
explained by P.W. 1 that they take up programmes in which they counsel the destitutes,
rehabilitate several people and provide education to destitute children. It cannot at any stretch of
imagination be their wish that more and more destitutes should crop up in the society in order to
keep their organization fruitful and liable. It is quite the converse situation that has necessitated
the formation of such organization. Hence the suggestion that P.W. 1 has shown P.W. 2 as a
member of their rescue home in order to raise funds is simply ridiculous.
The reason for not examining L.W. 3 as a witness is also easily understandable.
She is a woman who has been putting up with A.2 in spite of the fact that she did not like his
activities. She has a heart and mind to rescue P.W. 2 from the clutches of her husband but she
cannot be expected to have the gumption to come to the court and give evidence against him.
Hence, the lapse of the prosecution in not examining L.W. 3 as a witness does not in any way
effect the case of the prosecution. More over when there is no factual foundation that could be
laid by the accused for his false implication and for P.W. 2 to speak against them there is no
reason to doubt the truth in the evidence of P.W. 2.
The evidence of P.W. 2 vividly picturises the plight of a small girl who left the home, and
entered a world which, not to her knowledge is filled with elements waiting to trap her. She has
likewise taken offence of the behaviour of her mother and left the house. She came across, a
woman who was kind enough to take her to her house, but her house unfortunately did not
contain persons who are as good and compassionate as herself. Her husband was not good
enough. His behaviour made P.W. 2 leave their house, as can be seen from 164 Cr. P.C.
statement made by P.W. 2. Though the same is not corroborated by P.W. 2 in the court, she was
modest enough to say that she came out as she was not treated well. After coming out from the
above houses, she met A1, who took her along and handed her over to A2. She was decorated
and sent to Secunderabad Railway Station and was made to do prostitution. She was handed over
to a person who took her away to a place far away from Secunderabad and she was subjected to
sexual intercourse. The said person, after accomplishing his sexual desire, brought her back and
handed over to the accused. P.W. 2 has been resisting the acts of the accused. But she was beaten
by them severely and was made to continue the prostitution.
The evidence of P.W. 2 is cogent, which can be seen from the cross examination that she was
subjected to on behalf of the accused. Only one omission was pointed out that is regarding the
pregnancy of P.W. 2. It was argued that P.W. 2 did not state about her pregnancy in her 161 and
164 statements. She explained that she could not state about it, as she was not aware of it by that
time. By the date of her examination by the police, she was not subjected to medical
examination. Her statement was recorded on 10.10.2006. She was examined by the doctor on
6|Page

12.10.2006. Hence, her explanation holds good for the lapse at the time of her 161 statement. But
her 164 statement was recorded on 3.11.2006 by which time she was subjected to medical
examination. But discarding the entire evidence on the above immaterial lapse would result in
nothing but travesty of justice Even if her pregnancy is not taken into consideration, her evidence
would be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
The punishment for the offence u/s 5 of I.T.P Act is prescribed separately for a minor, child and
a major. Hence, the aspect of the age of P.W. 2 also becomes material. The age of P.W. 2 was
got assessed through P.W.4 who is the Civil Asst. Surgeon, Forensic Department, Gandhi
Medical College. According to P.W. 4 P.W. 2 was examined on 12.10.2006 at the requisition of
the police, Gopalapuram for determination of her age. By virtue of the general, physical and
dental examination the age was assessed to be 17 years. The said age is admitted to be prone to
an error of plus or minus one year. The calculation with the above error would make the age of
P.W. 2 either 16 or 18 years. The interpretation favourable to the accused has to be made in cases
of ambiguity. Such interpretation would make P.W. 2 a major.
With the above discussion, it can be concluded that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the
accused for the offences punishable u/s 4 & 5 of the I.T.P Act.
4th POINT: The discussion under point No. l has concluded that the testimony of P.W. 2
inspires confidence and can be made a basis for holding the accused guilty. Her evidence shows
that A2 apart from using her as a tool for prostitution has also used her as a tool to satisfy his
own lust. She has categorically stated that A2 used to rape her at his house. Hence, this court
does not wish to lose any time before concluding that A2 has committed rape against P.W. 2.
5th POINT: A charge u/s 366-A is framed by this court, but as the age of the girl was concluded
to be 18 years the above provision would not get attracted. Even for the acts of the accused to be
taken within the purview of section 363 IPC the facts of the case do not show that the accused
have kidnapped P.W. 2. A1 casually came across P.W. 2 at the Railway Station. The element of
taking and enticing which are the ingredients of Sec 36l IPC, which is punishable under section
363 IPC do not exist beyond doubt in the prosecution story. Hence, the benefit of the above
doubt can be extended to the accused. In view of discussion under the above points this court
opines that the prosecution could prove the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences punishable u/s 4
& 5 I.T.P. Act and of A2 for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC.
6th POINT: In the result the accused No. l and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable
u/s 3 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 366-A IPC and they are acquitted and
they are found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 4 & 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act. A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC. And they are convicted for the
said offences u/s 235(2) Cr. PC.

7|Page

Dictated to Bench Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day
of June, 2007.
V. ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
(MAHILA COURT)-CUM-XIX ADDL CHIEF JUDGE
AT HYDERABAD

The accused is appraised of the finding of the court and is questioned about the sentence. 1st
Accused did not choose to submit any thing, but A2 submitted that he has parents and wife who
are dependent on him. But the above submission is considered as only a routine submission
calling for no lenient view. If necessity can be read into the word weakness then as said by the
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Gajanand Magalals case it is either human weakness or
wickedness which may be the cause of the sexual offences. The fact would show that it is the
necessity for money that has prompted the accused to commit the offences. But an element of
wickedness exists in executing their deeds of necessity. A1 being a woman laid the chastity of
PW. 2 at stake by preserving her own physical chastity (as she is proved to be mentally
unchaste), while A2 has used PW. 2 not only as a means of fulfilling his financial necessity but
also his concupiscence. Hence the weakness of A2 is on a higher plane than that of A1.
Considering the above, A1 is sentenced to under go R.I for a period of One year for the offence
punishable U/Sec. 4 of the I.P.T. Act. and R.I for three years and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the
offence punishable U/Sec.5 I.P.T. Act; In default of payment of fine S.I. for a period of One
Month.
A2 is sentenced to under go R.I. for 2 years for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of I.P.T. Act.
R.I. For 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable U/Sec.5 of I.P.T. Act. In
default of payment of fine R.1. For 4 months.
A2 is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence
punishable U/Sec.376 IPC and the default of payment of fine RI for 4 months.
The sentence against both the accused for the above offence shall run concurrently. The remand
period if any is ordered to be set off. The unmarked properyy if any is ordered to be destroyed
after appeal time.
V. ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
(MAHILA COURT)-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE
AT HYDERABAD

8|Page

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:P.W. l. Dr. Sunitha Krishnan

P.W. 2. Begum Sania
P.W .3. Dr. T. Satyavathi
P,W.4. Dr. T. Vikramaditya
P.W.5. Ghouseuddin
P.W.6. Mohd. Ismail
For Defence:-NIL
Ex.P.1. Complaint
Ex.P.2. Medical Certificate
Ex.P.3. Final Opinion
Ex.P.4. Potency Certificate
Ex.P.5. Age Certificate
Ex.P.6. FIR
M.Os. MARKED: NIL

V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum:

XIX Addl. Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts,
At Hyderabad

9|Page