Delhi District Court
State vs Ramesh Chand on 4 January, 2010
FIR No. 86/98, PS: Sarai Rohilla
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02 (NORTH) DELHI
FIR No. 86/98
U/s 4/8 ITP Act
Police Station: Sarai Rohilla
State Vs Ramesh Chand
Date of institution: 14.05.1998
Judgment Reserved on: 04.01.2010
Date of Judgment: 04.01.2010
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 02401R0022021998
b) Date of commission 23.2.1998 of the offence
c) Name of the complainant Inspector Udaivir Singh Rathi
d) Name of the accused 1) Ramesh Chand S/o Hari Ram person, and his parentage R/o A-2, Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, and address. Phase III, New Delhi.
2) Sapna D/o Vinod Kumar R/o A-2, Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase III, New Delhi. (Now dead)
3) Doli @ Suman W/o Sanjay R/o A-2, Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase III, New Delhi. (PO)
e) Offence complained or 4/8 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) proved Act, 1956
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
g) The final order Acquitted h) Date of such order 04/01/2010
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
Page 1 of 5
FIR No. 86/98, PS: Sarai Rohilla
1. The present case was registered upon the rukka prepared by Inspector Udaiveer Rathi. The allegations are that a secret information was available with ACP Vijay Malik that one Ramesh Chand used to supply girls for prostitution. It was also informed that the order for supplying the girls could be given on a pager.
Trap was laid. The official contacted Ramesh Chand on the pager and accused Ramesh Chand replied that two girls are available in the evening. Rs. 4000/- were stated as charges out of which Rs. 1000/- per girl was to be commission of accused Ramesh Chand. Commission was demanded in advance. Raiding party was prepared. They all went to the spot. One Majid Khan joined the raiding party. Message was sent from the spot to the accused Ramesh on pager. Decoy customer and shadow witness were instructed accordingly. Two girls came there namely Sapna and Doli in a Car. All of them were apprehended and arrested. Documentary work was completed. Investigation was taken up. After investigation charge sheet was filed u/s 4/8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short "ITP Act")
2. After appearance of accused, Sec.207 Cr.PC was complied with. Charge was framed against accused Ramesh u/s 4 ITP Act and against accused Sapna and Doli u/s 8 ITP Act, to which all accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Sapna Page 2 of 5 FIR No. 86/98, PS: Sarai Rohilla expired and proceedings against her were abated. Accused Doli was declared PO.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 Ct. Baljeet, PW2 HC Mahak Singh, PW3 W/ASI Sushila and PW4 ASI Anwar Ahmed.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/s. 313 Cr.PC. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have perused the record.
6. PW1 deposed that he was member of the raiding party. He deposed about receipt of secret information. He deposed that information was available that accused Ramesh Chand receives order for the girls on pager number 9628020446. He deposed that call was made from phone number 319945 on that pager number for supplying girls for prostitution to which accused Ramesh replied that Rs. 4,000/- would be charged for each girl out of which Rs. 1000/- would be commission. PW 1 further deposed that accused Ramesh Chand told them that they should give message at 7.30 PM and also gave the Car number as DL 2CA 9816 which should be available opposite Kundan restaurant. He further deposed that he alongwith other police officials went to the spot at about 7 PM. They reached opposite Kundan Restaurant. IO asked Page 3 of 5 FIR No. 86/98, PS: Sarai Rohilla 4-5 public persons to join the raiding party and one Majid Khan joined the raiding party and he was made the decoy customer. The said Majid Khan gave message to bring two girls opposite the restaurant. Rs. 4000/- were handed to Majid Khan vide memo Ex. PW 1/A. PW 1 deposed that he was made shadow witness. Both of them left for the spot in Car No. DL 2CA 9816. PW 1 further deposed that at 8.30 PM on his signal accused were apprehended near red light, opposite Kundan Restaurant. PW 1 has further deposed that Majid Khan had given Rs. 4000/- to accused Ramesh Chand out of which accused Ramesh gave Rs. 1000/- to each of the girl and kept the remaining amount as commission. He further deposed that Rs. 2000/- were recovered from the left pocket of the shirt of accused Ramesh Chand which was seized. Similarly Rs. 1000/- each were also recovered from the girls which were also seized.
7. PW 3 deposed that he was also member of the raiding party. He had taken rukka to PS to get the case registered. PW 3 was also member of the raiding party and had conducted the personal search of both the girls vide memo Ex. PW 3/A and B.
8. Accused Ramesh denied the incriminating evidence in his statement. He has not examined any witness.
9. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that prosecution has failed Page 4 of 5 FIR No. 86/98, PS: Sarai Rohilla to prove the charge as material witness has not been examined. Ld. APP argued to the contrary.
10. In the present prosecution has failed to examine material witness such as Majid Khan who was the public witness and had joined the raiding proceedings; ACP Vijay Malik who was heading the raiding party; and also the IO. Prosecution has also failed to examine witnesses from Mobile Companies who could prove the making of the call on pager number. Allegations against accused Ramesh remains unsubstantiated in the absence of testimonies of these witnesses. It was upon prosecution to examine these witnesses to prove the charge. Testimonies of PW 1, 2 and 3 is not sufficient at all to prove the offence. It will be unsafe to convict the accused on the testimony of only PW 1, 2 and 3. Doubt exists certainly about the case of the prosecution and benefit of the same shall be given to the accused. Non-examination of IO has severely prejudiced the accused. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances accused Ramesh is acquitted of the charge. His bail bond is cancelled. Surety is discharged.
11. File be consigned record room. Be retained as per rules as accused Doli is PO.
Announced in Open Court (SANJAY BANSAL)
today on 04.01.2010 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-02/North/Delhi
Page 5 of 5
FIR No. 86/98, PS: Sarai Rohilla
Page 6 of 5