Delhi District Court
State vs Nisha on 11 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHAV SHARMA, JMFC06, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Nisha & Ors
FIR NO: 96/2005
P.S. Hauz Khas
U/s 3/4/5 ITP Act
Crc No. 85892/2016
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 15.12.2005
Name of the complainant : ACP Joy Tirkey,
Special Team, Crime
Branch, Prashant
Vihar, Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 21.02.2005
Name of the accused : (1) Devashish Patra,
S/o Sh. Krishan Patra,
R/o A304, Shine
Showers Building,
Gilbert Hill Road,
Andheri West, Mumbai.
(2) Ram Narayan,
S/o Late Sh. Dev
Narayan Singh,
R/o A169, New Ashok
Nagar, Delhi.
(3) Nisha,
D/o Raju,
R/o P4/106, DDA Flats,
Katwaria Sarai, Delhi.
(Pleaded guilty on Digitally signed
RAGHAV by RAGHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11
16:32:46 +0530
FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 1 of 29
12.12.2007)
(4) Pooja,
D/o Sh. Satpal,
R/o H. NO. 1981, Arjun
Nagar, New Delhi.
(declared absconder
vide order dated
18.03.2011)
(5) Reena,
D/o Sh. Anil,
R/o P4/106, DDA Flats,
Katwaria Sarai, New
Delhi. (Pleaded guilty
on 12.12.2007)
(6) Jyoti,
D/o Raju Rai,
R/o Jhuggi, Gali NO. 1,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
(declared absconder
vide order dated
18.03.2011)
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 27.11.2024
Final Order : Acquitted (Ram Narain)
Convicted (Debashish Patra)
Date of orders : 11.02.2025
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused persons namely Ram Narayan, Debashish, Pooja, Nisha FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 2 of 29 Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:32:56 +0530 and Reena for having committed the offences punishable u/s 3, 4 & 5 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (hereinafter referred as "I T Act").
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 21.02.2005 at about 05:00 PM SI Ram Avtar had received a secret information from informer at office of Special Team Prashant Vihar, Delhi in which he was informed that in B L Guest House, Yusuf Sarai, Main Market New Delhi, prostitution is being practiced by a few girls who are inducing the customers in evening in public view on public road. It was also informed that staff of the guest house is also involved with them and the same was used for the purpose of prostitution. On receipt of this information SI Ram Avtar produced the informer before ACP whereupon ACP formation of raiding team. SI Ram Avtar prepared a team consisting of himself, HC Ramesh Kumar, HC Rajender, W/ASI Satyawati, Ct. Dharam Singh, Driver/Ct. Randhir Singh. Secret informer also accompanied these officials. DD No. 10 Special Team Prashant Vihar qua information received from secret informer. All above persons along with ACP reached at the Yusuf Sarai Market at 06:15 PM in their government vehicle having make Qualis car bearing no. DL 6CF 0517. ACP along with these persons reached in front of B L Guest House where they saw one girl inducing the public persons by making sexual gestures and was trying to woo customers. Secret informer informed that boy standing beside the girl was her dalal/pimp/tout. He also informed that there are other girls who are at 1 st floor of the guest involved in prostitution. HC Ramesh was made as decoy customer and HC Rajender was made shadow witness by ACP. HC Ramesh / decoy customer was provided note of Rs.1,000/ after having removed all belongings from his person. HC Ramesh / Decoy customer and HC Rajender / shadow witness went to above mentioned boy and girl, had a conversation for 23 mins with them and they entered in B L guest house along with these persons. AfterDigitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:33:09 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 3 of 29 10 mins shadow witness HC Rajender Singh came outside down the stairs and signalled the raiding team. After this raid was conducted and accused persons were arrested. Decoy customer/HC Ramesh Kumar informed ACP that woman namely Nisha was making sexual gestures on public road to woo the customers and offered her sexual services to him for amount of Rs.5,000/. He informed that boy standing beside her namely Debashish Patra informed him that there are other 03 girls in the guest house and he may select any of them. Decoy customer / Ramesh Kumar told the ACP that Debashish Patra took him in the guest house where he told the manager Ram Narayan to produce other three girls. He stated that Ram Narayan, Debashish and Nisha took him to room no. 201 and these persons produced girls namely Pooja, Jyoti and Reena before them. All these woman also made the same offer as that of Nisha. Decoy customer/HC Ramesh told ACP that when he asked about the place, accused Ram Narain informed him that room would be avaiable in the guest house itself and he should make advance payment of Rs.1,000/ to girl namely Nisha. The above mentioned currency note of Rs.1,000/ was given to Nisha as part payment which she placed in her red purse. This currency note was recovered from her possession during search and seizure conducted after her detention during raid conducted above.
3. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed accused persons and chargesheet was presented in the court. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused persons were summoned to face trial. RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:33:17 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 4 of 29
4. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case notice under section 3/4/5 IT Act was framed against the accused persons on 21.04.2023. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge u/s 8 I T Act was framed against accused Nisha and Reena to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. PW1 deposed that he has an office at Building no. 17, Yusuf Sarai, as B L Glasses. One B L Guest House also runs in Building no. 17 Yusuf Sarai and the owner of B L Guest House is Manoj Kumar Gupta.
6. PW3 deposed that on 21.02.2005, SI Ram Avtar Singh had received secret information regarding immoral trafficking activities at BL Guest House, Main market, Yusuf Sarai. SI Ram Avtar informed the matter to ACP Joay Tirky and order SI Ram Avtar to inform a raiding team consisting of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, HC Rajender, W/SI Satyawati, Ct. Dharm Singh, driver Ranbir Singh and my self. At about 6.40 p.m. they reached at the spot on police Gypsy bearing no. DL1CF0517. ACP Joay Tirky also reached at the spot and he had headed the raiding team and briefed all staff. ACP Joay Tirky also asked the public persons to join the raiding team but non of them joined and left without disclosing their names and addresses. ACP asked PW3 to become a decoy customer and handed over him Rs.1000/ note bearing no.6AA972017. Thereafter, he went to the B. L. Guest house where he found two persons namely Nisha and Dev Patra were standing and he asked them about supply him one girl. He handed over Rs.1,000/ to Nisha. They informed him that the price of each girl is Rs.5000/. They informed that there are three other girls inside the B L Guest house, 1st Floor and showed three girls for selection. In the meantime, one shadow witness RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:33:24 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 5 of 29 was also along with HC Rajender come and he showed a signal to his raiding team to raid on the spot. Raiding team entered inside the B. L. Guest House, 1st Floor, where the team apprehended all the accused persons namely Nisha, Jyoti, Pooja, Reena, Devasish Patra and Ram Narain. W/ASI Satyawati conducted the personal search of the accused Nisha and recovered Rs.1,000/ from the red colour purse. Thereafter, ACP had prepared a rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Dharam Singh for getting registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Dharam Singh returned to the spot and handed over the same to SI Ram Avtar. ACP also prepared personal search memo of decoy customer and handing over memo of currency and recovery of currency note from accused Nisha. Thereafter, IO /SI Ram Avtar prepared the personal search memo of the accused Devashish Patra and Ram Narain and Pooja, Reena, Jyoti, Nisha and also the arrest memo of Ram Narain, Devashish Patra and the same are Ex.PW3/A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. IO also prepared the arrest memo of all the lady accused persons are Ex.PW3/I, J and K. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
7. PW4 deposed that on 21.02.2005 his duty hours was from 04:00 to 12:00 AM. On that day, at about 09:30 PM he received a rukka which was handed over to him by Ct. Dharam Singh. Thereafter, he registered the FIR no. 96/2005 and the same is Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, he also endorsed the rukka which is Ex.PW4/B.
8. PW5 deposed that on 21.02.2005 a raid was conducted under the supervision of ACP Joy Tirki at B. L. Guest House and he had called him at about 7.30 p.m. to take up the investigation. Thereafter, when he reached at the spot i.e. B. L. Guest House at about 9.00 p.m., he saw that already the rukka was prepared and handed over to Ct. Dharam Singh for getting registration of FIR Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:33:31 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 6 of 29 and had also prepared nil seizure memo, handed over memo, recovery memo of currency alongwith currency note and the same was handed over to him and also handed over him the accused namely Nisha, Reena, Pooja, Jyoti, Devashish and Ram Narayan alongwith the case property. In the meantime, Ct. Dharam Singh had come after registration of FIR and handed over him the copy of original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, at the instance of ACP, he had prepared the site plan on the spot and the same is Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, he had interrogated all the accused persons and thereafter, he formally arrested all the accused persons namely Jyoti, Nisha, Reena, Pooja, Ram Narayan and Devashish vide arrest memos which are Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E, already Ex.PW3/G, already Ex.PW5/H and personal search memos of accused which are already Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/F. He also recorded statement of all the police witnesses who took part in the raid. Thereafter, they all left for the police station Hauz Khas, he got deposited the case property i.e. currency note to the MHC(M) at PS Hauz Khas and the documents i.e. recovery memo of currency note relating to the search and seizure of the accused. Thereafter, they all alongwith staff and accused persons had left for office of Crime Branch, Special Team, Vasant Vihar. During the investigation, he also informed the family member/relatives of the accused persons regarding their arrest and had prepared the intimation memo which is Ex.PW5/I and also got conducted the medical of all accused persons at Ambedkar hospital at Rohini. On the next day, he produced the accused persons before the concerned court and they were sent to judicial custody. He also recorded the statement of all the other witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the court.
9. PW6 deposed that on 21.02.2005, he was asked by ACP Joy Tikri to join the investigation. Thereafter, he alongwith other police officials had gone to B L RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:33:40 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 7 of 29 Guest house for raiding. During the raid, four girls and two male accused persons were apprehended by the raiding team and IO had prepared the personal search memo of all the accused persons and he had conducted the personal search of accused persons namely Pooja, Reena, Jyoti, Nisha which are already Ex.PW 3/C to Ex.PW3/F and their arrest memo were also prepared by the IO which are already Ex.PW5/B to Ex.PW5/E. During the search of the woman accused person namely Pooja, one lady purse of green colour, one mobile and cash of Rs.437/ and two lady wrist watch and from Reena, one mobile phone, one ring, from accused Jyoti, one leather purse, one mobile phone, cash of Rs.1346/, one yellow colour chain with locket, one pair earing, one nose pin, and from accused Nisha, cash of Rs.7500/, one mobile phone, one pair small and long earing, one tabiz and mala.
10. PW7 deposed that on 21.02.2005, he was present at his office and he received secret information from his secret informer regarding the prostitution which was running in a guest house situated at Building No. 17, B L Guest House, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. He also produced the secret informer before ACP. Thereafter, he got instructions from ACP to prepare raiding team. On this above information, he made DD entry no. 10. Thereafter, he prepared raiding team which was comprising of HC Ramesh, HC Rajender, WASI Satyavati, Ct. Dharam Singh and driver Ct. Randhir. He along with raiding team, ACP and informer went to the above said guest house where informer pointed out towards the place where one girl and boy were standing. Secret informer indicated towards the girl by saying that she is prostitute and the boy is broker. The girl was also signaling to call customers. After confirmation of information, ACP prepared HC Ramesh as decoy customer. ACP conducted personal search of HC Ramesh vide memo Ex. PW7/A and handed over Rs. 1,000/ with special RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA 16:33:50 +0530 Date: 2025.02.11 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 8 of 29 number which is Ex. PW7/B. HC Ramesh was also briefed by ACP to deal with that girl and to use that currency note which was given to him. HC Rajender was prepared as a shadow witness and was also briefed to be with HC Ramesh during the deal. If the deal get confirm, then HC Rajender would indicate to the raiding team. Both HC Rajender and HC Ramesh were directed to go to that girl for the deal. Both of them had conversation and then they went inside the guest house. After some time, HC Rajender had come out and indicated to the raiding team. After indication, raiding team went inside the guest house in room no. 201 where four girls were found and one broker and the manager of the guest house. HC Ramesh told ACP about the deal and he handed over Rs.1,000/ to the girl Nisha. HC Rajender had also narrated the same facts to ACP. Thereafter, Manager told HC Ramesh that payment of Rs. 1,000/ was given to girl in advance and rest amount paid to them. Thereafter, cursory search of accused Nisha was conducted by W/ASI Satyawati and recovered Rs. 1,000/ with special number from her bag. Thereafter, ACP prepared seizure memo in his presence which is Ex. PW7/C. Thereafter, ACP interrogated all four girls and one broker. Thereafter, ACP prepared rukka and sent it for registration of FIR through Ct. Dharam Singh. Rukka is already Ex. PW4/B. ACP also informed Inspector Hoshiyar Singh for further investigation. Inspector Hoshiyar Singh reached at the spot at about 09:00 PM. Ct. Dharam Singh reached came back at the spot at about 10:30 PM after registration of FIR. Thereafter, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh interrogated all the accused persons. All accused persons were arrested vide memos already Ex. PW5/B to Ex. PW3/H. In the meantime, W/ASI Satvati conducted personal search of accused persons namely Jyoti, Nisha, Reena and Pooja vide memos already Ex. PW3/C to Ex. PW3/F. Personal search of accused Debashish Patra and accused Ram Narayan were also conducted vide memos already Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. ACP handed over seizure memo of Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:34:01 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 9 of 29 personal search of decoy customer HC Ramesh Kumar, handing over memo of currency notes of Rs. 1,000/ to decoy customer and recovery note memo of note Rs. 1,000/ with special number and also handed over Rs. 1,000/ with special number to Inspector Hoshiyar Singh. Thereafter, IO examined all the witnesses and recorded their statement. IO also deposited the case property in Malkhana. All accused persons were taken to the office of IO. Medical examination of all the accused persons were conducted and produced before court. The special number on the currency note of Rs. 1,000/ was 6AA972017.
11. PW8 deposed that on 21.02.2005, SI Ram Avtar received secret information regarding illegal activities / prostitution at B L Guest House Yusuf Sarai Delhi. The information was communicated to ACP Joy Tirkey and ACP directed to conduct a raid, forming a raiding party consisting him, SI Ram Avtar, ACP, Ct. Dharam Singh, W/ASI Satyawati and HC Ramesh. SI Ram Avtar was also posted in the same crime branch special team office Prashant Vihar where he was posted. The raiding party was formed at Prashant vihar office and all of them departed from the Prashant office in government vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was namely Ct. Randhir. They were also accompanied by the secret informer. After some time they reached at the spot i.e. near B L Guest House Yusuf Sarai and ACP along with the team observed suspicious activities at the spot. Thereafter, on the briefing of ACP and at his direction HC Ramesh was set out to be a decoy customer and he was as a shadow witness. ACP sir gave Rs. 1,000/ note to HC Ramesh after recording the number of the currency note and handed over the same to HC Ramesh to be given as payment by customer to the persons engaged in illegal activities. Thereafter, he along with Ramesh went in front of B L Guest House where a girl and a boy were present, HC Ramesh talked with them regarding services by the girl. The name of the boy was Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:34:10 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 10 of 29 Debashish Patra. Accused Debashish Patra told HC Ramesh that there were other girls also on the 1st floor of the guest house if he wishes to choose any of those girls. Thereafter, he along with HC Ramesh, accused Debashish Patra, co accused Nisha went to the 1 st floor where the manager of the guest house namely Ram Narayan met and he informed him and HC Ramesh that there are three other girls in room no.201 of the guest house. Thereafter, HC Ramesh finalized the deal with coaccused Nisha and HC Ramesh had to pay Rs. 5,000/ in total, Rs. 1,000/ advance and Rs. 4,000/ after service. Thereafter, HC Ramesh gave Rs. 1,000/ note to accused Nisha which was given to him by ACP Sir. Thereafter, he came downstairs and signaled ACP sir and other members of the team. Immediately, raid was conducted and accused Nisha along with three other girls, Ram Narayan and Debashish Patra were apprehended red handed running prostitution racket at the above mentioned guest house. Accused Nisha was personally searched by W/ASI Satyawati and the above currency note of Rs. 1,000/ was recovered from her possession. ACP Sir prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Dharam Singh who got the present case registered at PS Hauz Khas. After the registration of the case, 2 nd IO Inspector Hoshiyar Singh came at the spot to whom the accused persons along with case property was handed over. All the accused persons were arrested by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh after due enquiry. Thereafter, the accused persons were taken into Prashant Vihar Office and case property was deposited with MHC M of PS Hauz Khas. Thereafter, he was discharged and IO also recorded his statement.
12. PW9 deposed that on 22.02.2005, at about 05:00 PM, SI Ram Avtar came to him along with a secret informer and informed regarding prostitution racket in Yusuf Sarai Area. On this, he directed SI Ram Avtar to constitute a raiding party. The information got entered vide DD No. 10 A at about 05:15 PM. Thereafter, he Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:34:18 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 11 of 29 along with SI Ram Avtar, ASI Satyawati, HC Rajesh, HC Rajender, Ct. Dharam Singh and the secret informer left the office in his official Toyota qualis vehicle. At about 06:35 PM, they reached near B L Guest House, at 17 Yusuf Sarai, HC Ramesh along with the secret informer went ahead and finalized a deal under B L Guest House with a boy (pimp) and a girl standing there for prostitution / rendering their services. Thereafter, he prepared a nil seizure memo of a HC Ramesh and he was assigned the role of decoy customer. The nil seizure memo is already Ex. PW7/A. HC Rajender was assigned the role of shadow witness in the proceedings. Thereafter, he handed over Rs. 1000/ currency note to HC Ramesh Kumar for the purpose of the deal. The deal was finalized for Rs. 5,000/ and Rs. 1,000/ was to be given as advance. The Rs. 1000/ currency note was bearing his signature and he also prepared the handing over memo of the currency note which is already Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter, the secret informer was discharged from the spot and decoy customer and shadow customer namely HC Ramesh Kumar and HC Rajender went inside the B L Guest House along with the boy (pimp) and the girl with whom they had finalized the deal at about 06:50 PM. After some time, he received call from HC Rajender to conduct raid at the first floor of the room no. 201, B L Guest House, on this he along with other team members rushed to the first floor of the guest house and went to the room no. 201 where HC Ramesh, HC Rajender four girls and two men (later identified as Nisha, Reena, Pooja, Debashish and Ram Narayan). Debashish was the pimp, Ram Narayan was the Manager of the guest house and the deal was finalized with the girl namely Nisha. On Cursory search of accused Nisha Rs. 1,000/ currency note was recovered from her possession and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW7/C. Thereafter, he dictated the tehrir and the same was written down by SI Ram Avtar at my instance, the same is now Ex. PW9/1. Thereafter, he handed over the tehrir to Ct. Dharam Singh for registration Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:34:32 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 12 of 29 of FIR. He also called Inspector Hoshiyar Singh at the spot. Inspector Hoshiyar Singh came at the spot to whom he handed over the accused persons along with documents as further investigation was marked to him. He also pointed out the spot where the proceedings were conducted and the site plan was prepared at his instance, the same is already Ex. PW5/A.
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
14. In the present case trial has been conducted only qua accused Ram Narain Singh and Debashish Patra u/s 3, 4, 5 I.T.P. Act & 4 & 5 I.T.P. Act respectively.
15. Finding qua accused Ram Narain Singh: The allegation against accused Ram Narain Singh is that he was found running a brothal in B. L. Guest House, Yusuf Sarai, he was living on earning of prostitution, and that he had caused the woman named above to carry prostitution. In order to arrive at any finding, it is essential that evidence of the witnesses are evaluated qua these aspects.
15.01. In the present case, star witnesses of the prosecution are HC Ramesh and HC Rajender who were decoy customer and shadow witness respectively. HC Ramesh was examined as PW3 whereas HC Rajender was examined as PW8. PW3/Decoy customer/HC Ramesh narrated the facts of the incident in his examination in chief. In his narration, PW3/Decoy customer/HC Ramesh did not even disclose the name of accused Ram Narain Singh, what was his role, what statements were made by him, what were his gestures, what Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:34:42 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 13 of 29 was his conduct, when he had met him, at whose behest or pointing he had met him and at what place he met him. There is absolutely no description given by this witness qua accused Ram Narain. He merely stated that raiding team entered the guest house and arrested the accused persons including Ram Narain. Other than that he did not disclose any detail qua accused Ram Narain. It needs to be kept in mind that PW3/Decoy customer/HC Ramesh is the star witness and being decoy customer himself, he is naturally & logically expected to be the best person to be having information of all the acts which transpired during the incident. Being the customer himself, who approached woman namely Nisha, her alleged tout Debashish Patra and who took him inside, he should have had full information of each and every act, statement and actions done during the incident.
15.02. Above aspect is of importance as ACP in his complaint has given full description of what was told by PW3/Decoy customer/HC Ramesh to him when he raided the premises. ACP has stated in his complaint that Debashish Patra had directed the accused Ram Narain to produce the girls, that he had told PW3/Decoy customer/HC Ramesh that room would be given in guest house itself and that part payment is to be given to girl Nisha. None of these facts which ACP has stated to have been told by PW3/Decoy customer/HC Ramesh to him, has been disclosed by this witness in his examination in chief. All these facts are of utmost importance as without them, no liability can be imputed upon accused Ram Narain. This accused had a very specific role in the incident, which is described in the complaint in detail however, the witness did not divulge any of this information in his examination in chief. As far as this witness is concerned, his testimony does not have anything which supports any of the allegations Digitally signed against accused Ram Narain. RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:34:54 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 14 of 29 15.03. Another star witness is HC Rajender Kumar who was made shadow witness and who had seen entire incident himself. He was examined as PW8. This witness, unlike PW3, described in his examination in chief that when accused Debashish Patra and woman Nisha took him and PW3 to 1 st floor of the guest house, they met accused Manager Ram Narain and there he informed them that other three girls were in room no. 201 of the guest house. He stated that deal was finalized between PW3 & Nisha for Rs.5,000/ and payment of Rs.1,000/ in advance was made by PW3. All the accused persons including Ram Narain were apprehended from the guest house during the raid. In his testimony PW8 described only the above mentioned facts qua accused Ram Narayan showing him as the Manager of the B L Guest House. This aspect is important to be discussed as there is no other proof of accused being Manager of the guest house, which would be discussed in forthcoming paragraphs.
15.04. In his cross examination PW8 stated, qua above aspect, that he came to know that accused Ram Narain was a Manager through accused Debashish Patra. PW8 further disclosed in his cross that he did not remember if any document regarding the designation of accused as Manager at the guest house was obtained or not. The defence of the accused Ram Narain was that he was only a sweeper at the guest house, which was obviously denied by PW8 in his cross examination. Now it needs to be seen as to how much force does statement of witness PW8 carries to show that accused Ram Narain was acting as a Manager in the guest house. PW8 was the eye witness to the entire incident as he was a shadow witness. His statements duly corroborate with the statement of ACP in the original tehrir / rukka. However, it also needs to be seen that other than this statement that accused Ram Narain was the Manager at the guest house, there is no evidence whatsoever such as entry registers, payment or Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:35:05 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 15 of 29 receiving slips bearing his signature, statements of sweepers or anciliary staff at the guest house or the statements of workers/owners of nearby shopkeepers and houses. If the accused was acting as the Manager of the guest house, there could have been statements of these persons to corroborate the statement of PW8 and story of prosecution. While it may be that accused Ram Narain was found working there or it might even be that he was managing the prostitution racket, however, this possibility would not take the place of a proof without there being a substantive evidence to prove the same.
15.05. The inadequacy of proof, which is resulting in grave suspicion on fact that accused was working as Manager gets compounded with the fact that the raiding party including PW8, PW3 and ACP himself did not follow the requirement of section 15 of ITP Act. As per section 15, it was obligated on these officials that they had called upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the search of the premises. This section empowers police officials conducting search, to enforce their order on public persons to become a witness, & if these public persons refuse, they would make themselves liable for offence u/s 187 IPC. The purpose and object of this section is to ensure that police officials do not abuse their power, that search and seizures conducted from premises are witnessed by independent public witnesses leading further credence to it. It also serves the purpose of protecting police/investigating officials from undue and unnecessary allegation of having abused their power.
15.06. Section 15 necessitates that an order is duly served on public persons to witness the search, if they refuse to do so. However, in the present case, no notice was served, in violation of mandate of this section, despite the public persons having refused to join the raid. PW3, PW8 and other witnesses as Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:35:13 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 16 of 29 would be discussed later, have stated that no one from the public persons joined the raid, when it was so, notice should have been issued which has not been done, nor there has come any explanation for non issuance of such notice. A mere statement has come that public persons were asked to join the raid but they refused citing their personal problems. The omission on the part of these officials in following the mandate of section 15, throws serious suspicion on the raid conducted and statements made by them qua what they found during raid. A grave suspicion has fallen upon their statement that accused Ram Narain was working as Manager.
15.07. PW7 HC Ram Avtar, who received the information from secret informer and at whose behest ACP gave permission of conducting raid and ACP PW9 in their testimony also did not disclose anything further other than what has been stated by above discussed witnesses PW3 and PW8. PW7 and PW9 also stated in their testimony that no notice was served on public persons for joining the raid and no registers or record of guest house was seized to prove the fact that accused Ram Narain was employed as Manager of the guest house. Similar is the testimony of IO/PW5 and PW6 who also stated that no such record was procured. Testimony of these witnesses as, discussed above, do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ram Narain was working as Manager at B L Guest House. In the investigation conducted, sufficient proof was not procured to prove this fact. As stated above, not even the statement of neighbours, owners of shops nearby, anciliary staff at the guest house such as sweeper etc. have not been recorded showing that accused Ram Narain was working as Manager. Even without any record of register, this fact could have been proved by examining above mentioned witnesses, which has not been RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA done. SHARMA 16:35:21 +0530 Date: 2025.02.11 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 17 of 29 15.08. While the appreciation of evidence of above witnesses would be sufficient to come to a conclusion, the final blow to the case of prosecution came from testimony of PW1. This witness was examined by prosecution as the owner of the guest house though, he denied being the owner in his examination in chief. In his evidence PW1 resiled from his statement given u/s 161 Cr.PC and further failed to identify accused Ram Narain. He stated that accused was not the Manager at the guest house. This witness stated that his brother and father were running the guest house and he stated that he was not running the same. The proseuction has not examined brother and father of PW1 for proving that accused was manager at the guest house.
15.09. Given that there is a mere statement that he was working as Manager, which is a very weak proof in itself, coupled with the fact that the raid conducted suffers from mandatory compliance of section 15 ITP Act, and given that the PW1 stated that he was not the owner and further refused to identify accused as Manager, it can be stated that the totality of evidence do not lead to only conclusion that accused was Manager, which is essential for recording finding of guilt. The evidence of the prosecution leaves a lot many loop holes which probablize that accused might not have worked as Manager, which fact is sufficient to say that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was acting as a Manager and therefore had committed offence u/s 3 ITP Act 1956.
15.10. Similarly, due to above mentioned reasons of absence of public witness in the raid which was required as per section 15 of the Act and due to the fact that only shadow witness stated in his examination in chief that accused Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:35:33 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 18 of 29 Ram Narain had informed that there are three other girls in room no. 201 of guest house and given the fact that non of the other witnesses such as decoy customer PW3, ACP, PW9 and PW7 Ram Avtar disclose anything about the acts or statement of accused Ram Avtar, it can not be said beyond reasonable doubt that he was living with the prostitute or was habitually in the company of prostitute or had control, direction or influence over her movement or that he acted as tout or pimp. Similarly, as decoy customer PW3 had himself not stated anything qua accused Ram Narain, it can also not be stated beyond reasonable doubt that he induced him or shadow witness PW8 to go to any place for purpose of prostitution becoming the inmate of a brothel. The prosecution has grossly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed offence u/s 4 & 5 of ITP Act, 1956.
16. Finding qua accused Debashish Patra: The allegations against accused Debashish Patra is that he was found living on the earning of prostitution and that he was causing convict Nisha to carry prostitution.
16.01. PW3 is the decoy customer who was the one who had approached the accused Debashish Patra and lady namely Nisha. In his examination in chief PW3 stated that he went to B L Guest house where he found two persons namely Nisha and Debashish Patra and when he asked them for supplying him one girl, he handed over Rs.1,000/ to Nisha and these persons informed him that price of each girl was Rs.5,000/. He also stated that these persons informed that there were three other girls inside the guest house on first floor and they can show the same to him for selection. This statement of PW3 duly corroborate with statement of ACP/PW9 in his original tehrir / complaint wherein he also stated that after a brief talk of 23 minutes, PW3/decoy customer along with shadow Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:35:40 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 19 of 29 witness / PW8 went along with the boy and girl, which has come in testimony being Debashish Patra and Nisha, on the stairs in the guest house.
16.02. PW3 stated in his testimony that note of Rs.1,000/ was recovered from the purse of accused Nisha when she was searched by ASI Satyawati/PW6. This statement is also gets credence as ACP/PW9 has also stated in complaint/rukka that such recovery was made from accused Nisha. Arrest memo Ex.PW3/H and personal search memo Ex.PW3/A bears the signature of PW3 which proves that these persons were arrested and searched in his presence by the IO.
16.03. In the crossexamination, PW3 stated that they had left the office on the government vehicle i.e. Qualis. He stated that he does not remember the total number of floors in the building. He disclosed that he went back to PS on tempo traveller along with accused persons. In his crossexamination, PW3 suffered a contradiction wherein he stated that he had signed the arrest memo of all four accused persons namely Nisha, Jyoti, Reena and Pooja. However, this contradiction is not significant to diminish his whole testimony as perusal of arrest memos Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H would show that PW3 had signed the arrest memos of remaining accused persons namely Ram Narain and Debashish Patra. Merely because witness has wrongly stated that the name of accused persons on whose arrest memos he signed would not demolish or throw suspicion on his testimony especially when there is time gap of around 12 years between the date of arrest and recording of testimony. It is not a surprise that a police official, who regularly signs such document, would fumble about the name of accused after decade of having executed the same. Other than this aspect, nothing substantial has come which could throw suspicion upon his testimony or could show that Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:35:48 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 20 of 29 accused Debashish Patra was not found with the girl Nisha in front of guest house and that he was not arrested from outside the guest house.
16.04. PW8 is the shadow witness who had accompanied PW3/decoy customer when they had gone to meet accused Debashish Patra and Nisha in front of the guest house. PW8 also deposed in line of statements of PW3 and complaint of ACP/PW9, in his examination in chief. He repeated the same narration of facts which transpired from the point they left the office till the time raid was conducted and IO had come at the spot. In his crossexamination, he stated that he did not remember the number of his departure entry made when he left the office of crime branch. He stated that they had left the office in Toyota Qualis car though he does not remember in which vehicle he came back to the office. He stated that public persons were asked to join the investigation but they did not disclose their identity. He admitted that none of the shopkeepers or residents were asked to join the raid and that he does not remember whether any notice was served upon any public person who refused to join the raid.
16.05. Nothing substantial came out from the crossexamination of PW8 as well other than the fact that no notice was served to public for joining the raid and that he did not remember the departure entry. During the crossexamination of PW8, no contradictions were suffered by him and his statements corroborated in essence with statement of PW3/decoy customer. There are certain facts which the witness was not able to disclose such as vehicle in which they left the spot, the number of departure entry however, these details are not so important that they would affect testimony of witness. It also needs to be seen that witness was being cross examined after around 19 years since the registration of FIR and keeping that in account, when the testimony of witness is evaluated, it can be Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:35:55 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 21 of 29 said that the witness described all important details and he remained undetered from his stance.
16.06. PW7 is the official who had received the secret information pursuant to which the raiding team was prepared and the raid was conducted. This witness narrated the whole incident right from receiving secret information till the point the raid was conducted, seach, seizure and arrest were made and the IO had come on the spot. The narration of the witness of the facts which transpired on that day is in consonance with PW3 and PW8 who were decoy customer and shadow witnesses. In his crossexamination, witness PW7 did not suffer any such contradiction in consistencies or improbablities which could affect his credibility or veracity of his statement. There were a few details which he could not disclose such as make, color or number of vehicle however, these facts are too miniscule to affect the merits of his testimony especially when his evidence is being recorded after around 19 years since the registration of the FIR.
16.07. PW9 is the ACP who was heading the raid and who had prepared the original complaint/rukka pursuant to which the FIR was registered. In his examination in chief PW9 disclosed all such details of the incident which were disclosed by PW3, PW8 and PW7. In his crossexamination PW9 also did not suffer any contradiction or inconsistency which could deminish or raise suspicion on his testimony. In his crossexamination PW9 admitted that no public person joined the raid though he stated that he had instructed SI Ram Avtar/PW7 for the same but public persons did not disclose their identity. In his crossexamination witness disclosed that building of guest house had a ground floor and two floors. The witness in his cross could not disclose the number of floors of the adjoining RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:36:02 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 22 of 29 buildings however, this would not affect his testimony as firstly it was not important for official to be careful in noticing such fact and secondly, there is time gap of around 19 years date of raid and recording of evidence and it is reasonably explainable that witness would forget such minute anciliary details.
16.08. All the witnesses who were part of the raiding team especially decoy customer PW3, shadow witness PW8, police official who received secret information PW7, woman SI Satyawati who had searched convict Nisha and found Rs.1,000/ from her purse which was given by decoy customer PW3, have narrated the incident in the chronology which is consistant with version of each of this witness about the incident in question. Their narration of the incident is also in consonance and corroboration with original complaint / rukka prepared by ACP/PW9. They all narrated that accused Debashish Patra was standing outside the guest house along with one lady and decoy customers/PW3 approached them for supplying girls which they agreed and took them to 1 st floor of the guest house.
16.09. All the witnesses were consistent on the fact that accused Debashish Patra was accompanying the lady who had received Rs.1,000/ for prostitution and for supplying other girls and that Debashish Patra and that lady had taken PW3 and PW8 to the other room of the guest house. The arrest memo and recovery memos of accused Debashish Patra and that lady were tendered in the evidence and the witnesses admitted their signatures upon the same. All the above witnesses were consistent in their statement that accused Debashish Patra was the one standing with the lady and they had taken money for prostitution. Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:36:09 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 23 of 29 16.10. There is no reason to discard or disbelieve the testimony of these officials other than the fact that no public person was made to join the raid or to witness the meeting of PW3 and PW8 with accused Debashish Patra and the lady accompaying him. The fact that public persons did not join the raid and witness the complete incident would itself not be sufficient to throw the testimony of these witnesses in to grave suspicion given the known proclivity of public persons to avoid such situations so that they don't become a witness and get entrapped in the legal proceedings. The consistency of all the witness on all material facts do take care of the suspicion that the accused Debashish Patra or the girl might have been falsely impleaded. There is no rule of law that the standard of belief on statement of police official would be any less than of a public witness although, it is usually advised that there should be an endavour to join public witness to lend further credibility to the proceedings conducted.
16.11. All the recovery memos and arrest memos were duly proved and no shred of suspicion could be thrown by accused persons in crossexamination of the above witnesses. The statements of all the witnesses wherein they disclosed the manner in which accused Debashish Patra and the lady were operating and that they had accepted the money for supplying girls, which got proved from the recovery memo of convict Nisha, shows beyond reasonable doubt that accused Debashish Patra was acting as a tout or pimp on behalf of convict Nisha for the purpose and furtherance of prostitution.
16.12. Section 4 (2) of ITP Act provides a deeming fiction that if it is proved that one person has acted as a tout or pimp, it would be presumed that he was knowingly living on the earning of prostitution. In the present case, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that accused Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:36:19 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 24 of 29 Debashish Patra acted as a tout or pimp of convict Nisha who was doing prostitution. Given the presumption has arisen due to such fact being proved, in view of section 4(2) of ITP Act, it stands proved by presumption that accused Debashish Patra was living on earning of prostitution of another person. Now it was upon the accused to rebut the presumption u/s 103 r/w 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which has not been done by him either through leading his own defence evidence or on basis of creating inroad in the evidence of prosecution witnesses proving his defence on prepondrence of probablity.
16.13. Section 5 (1) (b) of the ITP Act makes punishable the act of any person who induces someone to go from any place with the intent that the said person may for the purpose of prostitution become inmate of, or frequent, a brothel. In order to give a finding that whether the present offence is made out or not, it is important that essential ingredients such as "inducement to take the person with intention that he may become an inmate or frequent a brothel for the purpose of prostitution" are proved beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence of the prosecution.
16.14. The decoy customer /PW3 and shadow witness PW8 are the best witnesses as they are the ones who had approached Debashish and the lady accompanying him for the purpose of securing girls for prostitution. Both these witnesses have in clear terms stated that accused and the lady responded to their offer and PW3 had paid Rs.1,000/ to the lady Nisha. Both these witnesses stated that these persons i.e. accued Debashish and lady informed both of them that there were other girls inside the guest house. Both these witnesses also stated in clear terms that they were taken by accused Debashish Patra along with lady Nisha to the first floor where they had shown the other girls for Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:36:26 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 25 of 29 prostitution. Both these witnesses and witness PW9/complainant/ACP also disclosed in their evidence that three other ladies were found in the guest house along with Nisha.
16.15. The other witnesses i.e. PW6 W/SI Satyawati and PW7 also narrated the same facts in their deposition. All these witnesses have categorically stated in their evidence that accused Debashish Patra and lady accompanying him namely Nisha were standing outside the guest house, accepted the proposal of seeking girls for prostitution, informed the decoy customer/PW3 and shadow witness PW8 that there were other girls in the guest house and that they had taken these persons in the guest house on 1 st floor where other girls were found. The testimony of these witnesses remained unblemished as there were no inconsistencies or improbablities or dictomy in their statements.
16.16. All the witnesses unamiously stated that three other girls beside Nisha were inside the guest house when raid was conducted. These were the girls who were shown to PW3/decoy customer and PW8/Shadow witness, for selecting any of the girls amongst them for prostitution, as stated by these witnesses and who were apprehended red handed by other witnesses who were part of the raiding team. Statment of the witnesses qua the fact that the girls were apprehended red handed and they were there for being offered for the purpose of prostitution, remained unblemished and without suspicion throughout cross examination by accused persons. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that the guest house was being used for the purpose of sexual exploitation or abuse for gain and therefore, can be called as brothel for the purpose of ITP Act.
Digitally signed byRAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:36:34 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 26 of 29 16.17. The fact that Debashish Patra had told PW3/decoy customer and PW8/ Shadow witness that there were other girls on 1 st floor of guest house for prostitution and that he had taken these witnesses on the first floor for showing the girls, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of above witnesses wherein they have narrated the complete facts right from acceptance of Rs.1,000/ by Nisha, offer of supplying girls by accused Debashish Patra and they taking these witnesses on the first floor for showing and offering other girls. These facts prove that accused Debashish Patra had induced these witnesses i.e. PW3 and PW8 with the intention that they may enter inside the guest house where the other girls were found, meaning thereby that it was a brothel, to carryout the prostitution.
16.18. The aspect of intention and inducement stands categorically proved beyond reasonable doubt because had it not been so why else accused Debashish Patra and lady Nisha would have taken these witnesses i.e. PW3/decoy customer and PW8/ Shadow witness inside the guest house for showing the other girls, as described by these wtinesses. The essential ingredients of "inducement, intention and taking the person inside the premises used for prostitution i.e. brothel" have been proved by these witnesses beyond reasonable doubt. As noted earlier, the mandate of section 15 of ITP Act has not been followed by the police officials while conducting the raid, and although there is no explanation given by the witnesses in their testimony for not following the mandate, the same itself would not be sufficient to throw the testimony of all the above witnesses into grave suspicion as all of them were thoroughly consistent and corroborating in their versions of the incident.
Digitally signed byRAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:36:44 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 27 of 29 16.19. The act of inducement by accused Debashish Patra of PW3/decoy customer and PW8/ Shadow witness into taking them inside the guest house for offering the girls and acceptance of Rs.1,000/ by Nisha as part payment of consideration of prostitution, did not require compliance of section 15 ITP Act as till that point, no raid was conducted and all these facts had transpired in front of these witnesses outside the guest house. Nevertheless, as stated above, the non compliance of mandate of section 15 ITP Act would not throw sufficient doubt upon the testimony of these witnesses as they were thoroughly consistent and corroborative in their statements in evidence. It would be against the interest of justice to throw their testimony out of window only due to a procedural lapse of non compliance of mandate of section 15 ITP Act given the testimony of witnesses are impecable in material particulars.
16.20. The affect of non compliance of section 15 ITP Act on the fate of both the accused persons have turned out to be different as in case of accused Ram Narain the other evidences were also lacking against him in merit rather, it would be better to say that there was no such direct proof of his guilt whereas against the accused Debashish Patra, there are various statements of witnesses which corroborate with each other. When all the evidences are taken into account including statement of the witnesses and documents prepared, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Debashish Patra had committed the offence punishable u/s 5(1)(b) ITP Act.
17. As concluded in above paragraph no. 15.10, the accused Ram Narain stands acquitted of offences as prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accusations against him. Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:36:56 +0530 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 28 of 29
18. As concluded in paragraph no. 16.17, the accued Debashish Patra had committed an offence u/s 4&5 ITP Act 1956 and therefore, he is hereby convicted u/s 4&5 ITP Act 1956. Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:37:02 +0530 Announced in the open court (RAGHAV SHARMA) on 11.02.2025 JMFC06, South East, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 29 pages and each page bears my signatures. RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.11 16:37:07 +0530 (RAGHAV SHARMA) JMFC06, South East, New Delhi/11.02.2025 FIR No. 96/2005 State vs. Ram Narayan & Ors Page 29 of 29