Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Padma D/O Late Sh. Nagraj on 25 September, 2013
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC - 2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 16/2012
Unique ID No. : 02401R0554912010
State versus (1) Padma d/o Late Sh. Nagraj
R/o Kotha No. 5211, GB Road
Kamla Market, Delhi.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 94/10
Police Station : Kamla Market
Under Section : 363/366A/368/373/34 IPC &
3/4/5/6 ITP Act
Judgment reserved on : 11.9.13
Judgment pronounced on : 25.9.13
JUDGMENT
Case of the Prosecution :
In brief the case of the Prosecution as borne out from the chargesheet is that during the patrolling in the area of PS Kamla Market on 06.8.10, IO/Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur alongwith SI Brijesh Mishra reached near Police Booth Division No. 4, GB Road at about 3.30 PM. The mother and maternal uncle (Mama) of prosecutrix met them there and intimated them about the missing report of the prosecutrix 'D' [name withheld to protect the identity of prosecutrix]. During the course of search for the missing girl, they reached at Kotha No. 5211, GB Road where said girl was found. Sh.Subir Roy representative from one NGO was also called at the spot and the complaint of the prosecutrix Ex.PW1/A was got recorded.
Prosecutrix 'D' revealed that on 02.7.10, she went to a 'mela' in her native village in South 24 Pargana, West Bengal alongwith her two friends Suchitra and Sovik. They met two boys in the mela and all of them came to the house of Suchitra. There Suchitra and Sovik left prosecutrix alone with the said two boys and left from there. She alleged that she was confined in a room by those two boys who brought food for her and on the next day, they took her for roaming around in the area. She also alleged that they took her to the railway station and brought her to Delhi by Hawrah Train. They took her in TSR to some place where one woman met them who took her upstairs to a Kotha. Prosecutrix alleged that she was forced to do work of prostitution and in case of her refusal, she was abused and given beatings. One day she gave the phone number of her family member to one boy of the Kotha and ultimately she was rescued. In her complaint, prosecutrix 'D' did not name accused Padma and stated that she knows her by face.
The site plan of place of occurrence was prepared by IO at the instance of prosecutrix 'D'. On the basis of said complaint Ex. PW1/A, the present case was registered. Prosecutrix was got medically examined and exhibits were taken into police possession.
It is further the case of the Prosecution that the prosecutrix alongwith the police apprehended accused Padma at the instance of prosecutrix on 09.8.10. The mother of the prosecutrix handed over the school certificate of the prosecutrix to the IO during the course of investigation, as per which she was found to be minor and she was produced before CWC.
As per chargesheet, Accused Suchitra was also apprehended and was produced before the concerned court and separate proceedings were initiated against her and Sovik at West Bengal.
After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted before the court.
Charges :
On the basis of material on record, accused was charged for offence punishable under Section 373/368/109 r/w Section 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956. Prosecution Evidence :
In order to prove the guilt of accused, Prosecution examined ten (10) witness on record.
Prosecutrix/PW1 deposed that on 02.7.10 at about 88.30 PM her two friends namely Suchitra and Sovik came to her house and took her to mela on motorcycle and she remained with her those two friends in mela till 1010.30 PM. Thereafter, two other friends of Suchitra and Sovik, which were not known to her, came there on a motorcycle and Suchitra and Sovik left her with those two persons and they went away. PW1 deposed that those two persons took her to a room and she was kept in the said room and both of them brought meal for her. After taking the meal, she felt sleepy and when she woke up in the morning, she found herself in such a condition that she could not speak anything and could not open her eyes properly.
Prosecutrix further deposed that in the morning, both of them asked her to accompany them for roaming but despite her refusal, she was forcibly taken by both of them to Hawrah Railway Station and was brought to Delhi by said two boys. She was taken to a house by them in a TSR and she was left there by those two persons. PW1 deposed that in the evening that lady took her to a kotha and handed over her to the accused Padma [correctly identified] and she was kept in the kotha run by the accused where there several other girls also. Prosecutrix further deposed that she was forced into prostitution by the accused and was forced by the accused to have sexual intercourse with different persons. Whenever she used to refuse, accused used to give beatings to her and abuse her and also used to keep all the money earner by her.
Prosecutrix/PW1 deposed that one day she gave the mobile number of her Mama (mother's brother) to one customer which was written on a slip of paper and requested him to inform her family members. The said person informed at her house and thereafter her mother and Mama came along with police and she was rescued by the police. Police made inquiries from her and she narrated all the facts to them. Police recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. Police also got her medically examined at one hospital and after which she was taken to Naari Niketan.
PW1 also deposed that on 09.8.10 she accompanied police to Kotha No. 5211, GB Road from where accused Padma was arrested on her identification vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. PW2 'BP' maternal uncle of Prosecutrix [name withheld], deposed that he is a farmer by profession and prosecutrix is her niece. On 02.7.10 he was told by his sister 'MR' [name withheld] that she was missing and a report regarding missing of prosecutrix 'D' was lodged by his sister at PS Sonarpur. They had tried to trace the prosecutrix but could not find her and on 25.7.10, he received a call on his mobile phone No. 9836306531 of a person who had informed him that he was calling from Delhi and gave information about the missing of his niece who was living at GB Road, Delhi.
Thereafter, he alongwith his sister reached Delhi and on reaching at GB Road, he made a call to the person who had given the information but his call was not answered by that person. PW2 further deposed that in the meantime, some police persons including the lady police came and they narrated the aforesaid facts to the police. Then police took them inside the building where they found his niece who was recovered by the police from a room in that building. Statement of his niece was recorded by police and she was got medically examined from the hospital.
PW10 Subir Roy deposed that on 06.8.10 while he was posted as Programme Director, NGO Shaktivahini, he visited his project office at GB Road and at about 4 PM, he received a call from SHO Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur and she asked him to come at Kotha No. 5211 GB Road where a girl has been rescued. On reaching there, SHO Surenderjeet Kaur pointed out towards one girl namely 'D' who had been rescued by them. Her mother and maternal uncle were also present there. PW10 deposed that since he knew Bengali language, so as per the directions of Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur, he assisted her in making enquiries from prosecutrix, her mother and her maternal uncle as they were speaking in Bengali language. Prosecutrix was speaking in Hindi also. He read over the missing report of PSA Sonarpur in Hindi to Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur and made her understand the same. There were around 2025 girls present at that kotha and Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur made inquiries from them also. PW10 deposed that he remained there for about 1 ½ hour and left thereafter. His statement was recorded in this case on 29.10.10.
PW3 Insp. Jaswant Singh deposed that on 06.8.10 he was posted at PS Kamla Market as SI and on that day he was called by SHO Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur at police booth at GB Road and on reaching there, he met Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur, 'MN' and her brother 'BP' and thereafter all of them went to Kotha No. 5211, GB Road in search of prosecutrix 'D'. Prosecutrix was recovered from that kotha and was identified by her mother and her mama.
PW3 further deposed that officials of NGO were also called and one Subir Roy of NGO reached there. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded by Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur. In the meantime, HC Baljeet who was on patrolling duty also reached there and on the statement of prosecutrix rukka was prepared and handed over to HC Baljeet for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, HC Baljeet returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to IO. At the instance of prosecutrix, site plan was prepared. Prosecutrix was taken for medical examination to JPN Hospital by him and W. HC Sunita. The mother of the prosecutrix was also accompanying them. After medical examination, exhibits were handed over and seized vide memo Ex. PW3/A. PW3 further deposed that on 09.8.10 he again joined investigation alongwith IO and prosecutrix and reached at aforesaid Kotha in search of accused persons. On reaching there, at the instance of prosecutrix accused present in court [correctly identified] was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, accused was got medically examined from JPN Hospital and after her medical examination, she was sent to lockup.
PW5 Dr. Owais deposed that on 06.8.10, he examined prosecutrix brought by HC Sunita vide MLC Ex. 059519 Ex. PW5/A. The clinical notes prepared by her after examining aforesaid patient are Ex. PW5/B. PW6 Dr. Nalini Bala deposed that she has been deputed by Medical Supdt. LNJP Hospital to appear in this case as Dr. Binni who medically examined prosecurix on 06.8.10 has left the services of the hospital and her present whereabouts are not available in the hospital records. PW6 proved the MLC of the Prosecutrix as Ex.PW6/A. PW4 HC Baljeet took the rukka and got registered FIR No. 94/10 and returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO.
PW7 SI Mahender Singh was posted as Duty Officer at PS Kamla Market on 06.8.10 and recorded FIR No. 94/10, computerized copy of which is Ex. PW7/A and also made endorsement on the original rukka Ex. PW7/B. PW8 ASI Mahesh Tygai deposed that on 28.10.10, on the directions of IO, he took exhibit of this case to deposit the same at FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 67/21 and after depositing the same, receipt to this effect was handed over to MHC(M).
PW9 Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur deposed that on 06.8.10 she was posted at SHO PS Kamla Market. On that day, she alongwith Insp. Brijesh Mishra were patrolling in the area in Govt. vehicle driven by ASI Rajbir Singh and when we reached at Police Booth Division No. IV at about 3.30 PM, 'MN' mother of the prosecutrix 'D' and her maternal uncle 'BP' met them and they produced a missing report regarding prosecutrix lodged at PS Sonarpur, West Bengal. The copy of missing report is Ex. PW9/A and they told her about the missing of prosecutrix and that she could be present at GB Road. In between SI Jaswant Singh also reached there and they all went to Kotha No. 5211, GB Road in search of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was identified by her mother and maternal uncle. PW9 made enquiries from her and she told that she had been illegally detained and confined there by a lady for prostitution and that all her earnings are kept by her and she is given beatings, if she refused to do prostitution. She recorded statement of prosecutrix Ex. PW1/A and made endorsement on the same and prepared rukka Ex. PW9/B and handed over the same to HC Baljeet who came there for getting FIR registered at PS Kamla Market.
PW9 deposed that one Subir Roy from Shakti Vahini NGO was also called there. She made enquiries from other inmates of the kotha but they refused. She inspected the site plan and prepared site plan Ex. PW9/C. Thereafter W. HC Sunita was called at the spot and the prosecutrix was sent to JPN Hospital with SI Jaswant Singh under the supervision of W. HC Sunita. After medical examination, SI Jaswant Singh handed over seizure memo and MLC of prosecutrix to her and deposited the case property in the malkhana. PW9 recorded the statement of witnesses in the PS. The copy of DD No. 21A and 23A dated 06.8.10 are exhibited as Ex. PW9/D and PW9/E respectively. On 07.8.10 prosecutrix was produced before CWC.
PW9 further deposed that on 09.8.10 she alongwith prosecutrix again visited kotha in the evening hours and on the identification of prosecutrix, she arrested accused Padma vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/B and conducted her personal search vide memo already Ex. PW1/C and recorded her disclosure statement Ex. PW9/F. Accused was got medically examined at JPN Hospital.
PW9 deposed that on 19 or 20.9.10 SI Mahender went to West Bengal in search of coaccused Suchitra and Sovik. On 21.9.10 SI Mahender informed her about the arrest of accused Suchitra at West Bengal. The accused Suchitra was produced before the concerned court and her transit remand was declined. So SI Mahender returned to Delhi and handed over the file to her. SI Mahender told her that FIR is also registered against accused Suchitra and Sovik at PS Sonarpur at West Bengal.
PW9 deposed that on 28.10.10 on her instructions, HC Mahesh Tyagi collected the case property from malkhana and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini through road certificate. He returned to the PS and handed over the receipt to MHC(M). PW9 recorded statement of MHC(M) and HC Mahesh Tyagi under Section 161 CrPC. PW9 deposed that during investigation of the case she also collected the School Certificate of Prosecutrix (PW1), which is Ex.PW9/H. Plea of the accused :
Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein she claimed innocence and stated that her signatures/thumb impression were forcibly obtained on several blank and printed pages while in police custody. Accused refused to lead any evidence in her defence.
Arguments, Analysis and Findings :
I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel as well as Ld. APP for the State and gone through the record of the case.
It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that Prosecution has failed to prove that prosecutrix was minor at the relevant time. It was submitted that in support of its claim with regard to age of prosecutrix, the only document that has been relied upon by Prosecution is her school certificate which was exhibited by PW9 Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur as Ex.PW9/H. It was pointed out that as per crossexamination of PW9, IO did not even ascertain as to whether the contents of said school certificate were duly verified during the course of investigation or not. Admittedly, the Prosecution also did not summon the relevant record from the school of the prosecutrix nor got conducted her ossification test in order to prove its case that prosecutrix was minor.
It was further argued that Prosecution has failed to establish that prosecutrix was brought to Delhi by two boys, as alleged by her. My attention was drawn to the extensive crossexamination of prosecutrix and it was argued that prosecutrix admittedly did not try to escape during her entire journey to Delhi, nor tried to raise any alarm, thus belying the entire case of the Prosecution.
It was further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that though it is claim of the Prosecution that accused Padma was arrested on 09.8.10 at the instance of prosecutrix and her name was revealed by the prosecutrix, only on 09.8.10 by way of supplementary statement said to have been recorded on the same day, yet the crossexamination of the prosecutrix shows otherwise. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that prosecutrix PW1 deposed before the court that she was aware of the name of the accused at the time of recording of her statement Ex PW1/A despite which complaint Ex. PW1/A does not find mention of the name of the accused. It was further argued that as per crossexamination of PW1, the accused was present in the PS on 09.8.10. It was contended that this clearly indicates that entire case of the Prosecution is false and fabricated and that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Moreover, the Investigating Agency did not record the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC nor any TIP of the accused was done in order to get her identity ascertained.
On the other hand, Ld. APP strongly opposed the arguments of the Defence and contended that the testimony of prosecutrix read with other evidence brought on record establishes the case of the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Prosecutrix PW1 not only correctly identified accused Padma before the court, but also deposed that she forced her to do the work of prostitution, gave beatings to her in case of her refusal and took away all the money earned by her.
I have considered the above arguments in the light of evidence brought on record.
Insofar as case of the Prosecution with regard to age of prosecutrix PW1 is concerned, I find myself inclined to accept the argument of the Defence that minority of the prosecutrix has not been proved by the Prosecution by way of any cogent evidence. Apparently, at the time of the medical examination of prosecutrix on 06.8.10, the MLC Ex.PW6/A finds mention of her age as 16 years. The prosecutrix, when stepped into the witness box on 10.5.12 again claimed to be 16 years of age. The Investigating Agency for reasons best know, failed to bring on record any other documentary proof other than transfer certificate Ex. PW9/H in support of its plea that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 02.2.94. Neither record from the school authorities nor any Municipal Authority was produced, or proved to establish the age of the prosecutrix. The Investigating Agency also failed to get conducted the ossification test of the prosecutrix in order to ascertain her correct age.
In these circumstances, considering the nature of evidence brought on record, I find myself unable to accept the plea of the Prosecution that at the time of alleged incident, the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years, as claimed.
The prosecutrix PW1 deposed before the court that she was brought to Delhi from her native village i.e. South 24 Pargana, West Bengal by two boys who took her to one lady and the said lady brought her to the Kotha and handed her over to accused Padma. She deposed that she was kept in the Kotha run by accused where there were several other girls also and she was forced into prostitution by accused. She was forced by accused to have sexual intercourse with different persons and whenever she refused to do prostitution, accused used to give her beatings and used to abuse her. PW1 also claimed that accused used to take away all her earnings. Though Ld. Defence Counsel has extensively crossexamined the prosecutrix and has also argued that prosecutrix neither raised any alarm nor tried to escape when she was allegedly brought to Delhi by two unknown boys, yet I find on a careful perusal of testimony of PW1 that this fact cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the Prosecution. It is noteworthy that the prosecutrix clearly deposed in her crossexamination that she requested those boys several times to take her to her house. She also stated that she did not know about the place where said boys were roaming with her. Although, she deposed that there were public persons, traffic, houses and shops at the place where they were roaming, however, at the same time she also candidly deposed before the court that she could not ask for help of those public persons as she was not able to speak properly. The witness was confronted with her earlier statement where it is not recorded that she was unable to ask for help as she was not able to speak properly. However, this cannot, in my opinion, be termed as an improvement so material so as to discard her entire deposition.
PW1 also claimed that she was made to board the train from Hawrah Railway Station and brought to Delhi. PW1 also deposed that the lady to whom said two boys handed her over, brought her to Kotha and hand her over to accused Padma. She did not raise any alarm on the way while she was being brought to Kotha in a TSR. However, the witness explained that she had come to Delhi for the first time. She had never seen a big city before and upon seeing so much traffic and crowded areas, she felt nervous. She also voluntarily explained that she only knew Bangla language and was not able to speak Hindi at that time and did not raise any alarm or call for help because of these reasons. Moreover, it is a matter of record that prosecutrix belonged to a native village i.e. South 24 Pargana, West Bengal. It has also come on record that she was not conversant with Hindi language and moreover, at that time she could not have known that said two boys were taking her to Delhi for selling her for the purpose of prostitution.
The aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix PW1 inspires confidence and though these facts do not mention in her complaint Ex. PW1/A with which she was confronted, yet I find that same cannot be termed as an improvement. Rather it is a truthful disclosure of facts by a victim of human trafficking which she narrated before the court upon an opportunity given to her to state so.
I also find that mere fact that prosecutrix/ PW1 claimed upon stepping into the witness box that she was aware of name of accused on the day when her complaint Ex. PW1/A was recorded is not sufficient to discard her entire testimony. The prosecutrix clearly identified accused before the court during her deposition.
PW1 also claimed that she was kept in the Kotha where there were several other girls also. Although, she admitted that during her stay at the kotha, a dispute had taken place between occupants of the Kotha and the police, however at the same time, she voluntarily explained that they were made to hide at that time by elder girls and she came to know later on that TV reporters and NGOs had also reached the Kotha at the time of the incident. In view of the aforesaid deposition of the prosecutrix, it is apparent that she was made to hide by elder girls and had no opportunity or occasion to inform the police about her plight or to make an attempt to escape. In her testimony, she clearly deposed that one day she gave phone number of her family member to one customer after writing it on a slip of paper and requested him to inform his family members and thereafter she was rescued by the police.
From the above testimony of the prosecutrix, it thus stands proved that prosecutrix who was trafficked from West Bengal by two unknown boys was procured by accused Padma, who forced her to do the work of prostitution at Kotha No. 5211, GB Road, Delhi. It has also been established that in case she tried to refuse for the said work, she was abused and also given beatings. It also stands proved that earnings of prosecutrix were taken away by accused Padma. The testimony of the prosecutrix also establishes that she was not permitted to leave Kotha and was confined therein as she has deposed at the time of visits by police, she was made to hide by other elder girls of the Kotha. It has also been deposed by her that she had given phone number to one of the customers who voluntarily extended his help which led to her rescue.
The factum of rescue of prosecutrix from Kotha No. 5211, GB Road, Delhi stands corroborated from the testimony of PW2 'BP', PW3 Insp Jaswant Singh, PW10 Subir Roy from NGO Shakti Vahini and testimony of IO/Insp. Surenderjeet Kaur (PW9).
Lastly, Ld. Defence Counsel has sought to put forth an argument that as per the claim of the Investigating Agency, in case FIR No. 94/10 PS Kamla Market, accused in the said case was running Kotha No. 5211, GB Road, Delhi. It was argued that said FIR was registered on 17.7.10 and the present FIR was registered on 06.8.10. It was contended that as per the claim of the Prosecution, in case FIR No. 94/10 accused Padma was nowhere named as being connected with Kotha No. 5211, GB Road. Hence, in the present case, accused Padma has been falsely implicated by the Investigating Agency.
Ld. APP opposed this argument by pointing out that as per the chargesheet itself, accused was running said kotha from last two months only and before that she was running another kotha. Hence, there is no discrepancy in the case of the Prosecution, as sought to be pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel by relying on the copy of case FIR No. 94/10.
Upon considering the record of the case, I find that contents of FIR No.94/10 PS Kamla Market do not contradict the fact of the present case. Rather, in this case, accused Padma has been clearly identified by Prosecutrix PW1 as the person who forced her into prostitution, after pressurizing her and also used to take away all her earnings.
From the evidence on record, I am therefore of the considered view that allegations of offence under Section 5 & 6 ITP Act and Section 368 IPC stand prove on record. However, in the absence of cogent proof of the fact that the Prosecutrix was about 16 years of age at the relevant time, Accused Padma is acquitted of the offence under Section 373 IPC.
Also, in absence of any evidence, whatsoever, to show that the Prosecutrix was raped by any of the persons who used to visit the said Kotha, within the definition of 'rape' as per Section 375 IPC, Accused Padma is also liable to be acquitted for offence under Section 376 read with Section 190 IPC.
Let Accused Padma be heard on the point of sentence in respect of offence under Section 5 & 6 ITP Act and Section 368 IPC.
It may also be pertinent to mention that as per the charge sheet, no efforts, whatsoever, appear to have been made by the Investigating Agency to apprehend the two boys who allegedly brought the Prosecutrix PW1 to Delhi from her native village at West Bengal. The menace of human trafficking which is on the rise, needs to be curbed and requires sincere efforts on part of the police, failing which many other victims of human trafficking are likely to meet the same fate, as the Prosecutrix in the present case. It is hence expected that the DCP concerned shall look into the matter and ensure that the officials functioning under him make all possible endeavour to apprehend the offenders who get away by committing this heinous crime of human trafficking. Let copy of this judgment be sent to DCP (Central) for necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on this 25th day of September, 2013 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC - 2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 16/2012
Unique ID No. : 02401R0554912010
State versus Padma D/o Late Sh. Nagraj
R/o Kotha No. 5211, GB Road
Kamla Market, Delhi.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 94/10
Police Station : Kamla Market
Under Section : 363/366A/368/373/34 IPC &
3/4/5/6 ITP Act
Judgment pronounced on : 25.9.13
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide judgment dated 25.09.13, Accused Padma has been
convicted for offences punishable under Sections 5 & 6 ITP Act and under Section 368 IPC.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the convict that the convict is a lady and prayed that a lenient view be taken.
On the other hand, learned App has pointed out that there is previous involvement of the above named convict in cases of similar nature. It is further submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the offenes proved to have been committed by the above named convict and considering the relevant statutory provisions, she should be sentenced to imprisonment for the maximum prescribed period.
The offences proved to have been committed by the above named convict, in my view, are extremely grave in nature. The convict in total disregard for the dignity of the Prosecutrix subjected her to forceful sexual intercourse and compelled her to do the work of prostitution against her will. The Prosecutrix, who was trafficked from West Bengal was pushed into flesh trade by the convict under force and even by giving beatings in case of her refusal to do so. Her earnings were also taken away by the convict and the Prosecutrix, who was the victim of human trafficking was confined in the Kotha.
The allegations against the convict do not, in my opinion, call for any kind of leniency towards her. The forceful subjection to prostitution certainly must have caused havoc to the mental and physical well being of the Prosecutrix and the trauma she must have undergone each time she was forced to do the work of prostitution against her will is beyond imagination.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the convict Padma D/o Late Sh.Nagraj is sentenced as under:
a) For the offence punishable under Section 368 IPC, the above named convict is directed to undergo RI for a period of 7 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/. In default of payment of fine, she shall undergo SI for 2 years;
b) Since it has been proved on record that the prosecutrix was induced by the convict to carry on prostitution against her will, the above named convict is directed to undergo RI for a period of 10 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/ in terms of Section 5(d) of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956. In default of payment of fine, she shall undergo SI for 2 years;
c) For offence punishable under Section 6 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956, the above named convict is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/. In default of payment of fine, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years.
All the above sentences shall run concurrently. Needless to add that the convict shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 CrPC.
The aforesaid amount directed to be deposited by way of fine shall be paid to the Prosecutrix by way of compensation. In addition thereto, it is recommended that under the provisions of Section 357A Cr.PC the victim be awarded adequate compensation and the matter may be referred to the Secretary, Delhi Legal Services Authority (Central District) to decide the quantum of compensation in terms of Section 357A Cr.PC. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be sent to the Secretary, DLSA (Central District) for compliance.
Copy of judgment and order on sentence be also given to the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the Open Court on this 27th day of September, 2013 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.