Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjula And Another vs State Of Punjab on 8 August, 2013
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005
DATE OF DECISION : August 08, 2013
Manjula and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
1. Accused Manjula and accused Shushil Kumar were sentenced as follows:-
1.Manjula CHARGE SENTENCE Under Section 344 IPC (qua The accused is sentenced to Jasmine) undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of `1000/-/ In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of three months.Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 2
CHARGE SENTENCE Under Section 344 IPC (qua PW2 The accused is sentenced to Ginder Kaur) undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of `1000/-). In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of three months.
Under Section 418 IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of `2000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of four months.
Under Section 506 IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of `2500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for four months.
Under Section 306 IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years and to pay fine of `5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year.
Under Section 3(1) of the Immoral The accused is sentenced to Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of `1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months.
Under Section 4(1) of the Immoral The accused is sentenced to Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. undergo R.I. for eight years and to pay a fine of `1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months.
Under Section 5(1) of the Immoral The accused is sentenced to Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `2000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for four months.
Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 3
2.Shushil Kumar CHARGE SENTENCE Under Section 506 IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of `2500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for four months.
Under Section 3(1) of the Immoral The accused is sentenced to Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of `1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months.
Under Section 4(1) of the Immoral The accused is sentenced to Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of `1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For three months.
Under Section 5(1) of the Immoral The accused is sentenced to Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of `2000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For four months.
2. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Both of them aggrieved by conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court have come forward with the present appeal.
4. The brief case of the prosecution is that PW1 Jasmine @ Akko Bibi belong to a poor family. Her father had died and her mother was too old. In the month of May, 1997 she came into contact with one Harwinder Singh @ Raju and got him married. After few years Harwinder Singh deserted her.
5. PW1 divulged the above history to DW1 Surjit Kaur who was the Municipal Councillor of the area. DW1 introduced PW1 to accused Manjula who was in need of a girl for doing house hold work. Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 4 Accused Manjula engaged PW1 for doing house hold work at the wage of `500/- per month. For sometime accused Manjula behaved properly. Later on she started forcibly putting her in prostitution against her wishes. Whenever she objected to that, accused Manjula gave out threats to her saying that she had connection with so many bad elements and she would get herself and her family members killed through them. Generally people visited the house of Manjula at night hours. Accused Manjula sent PW1 forcibly to the dark room where she subjected to sexual intercourse against her will. All such work of the prostitution was done by Manjula with the consent of her husband accused Shushil Kumar.
6. In October, 1999 accused Manjula engaged PW2 Ginder Kaur as maid servant. Later on, she sold her for a sum of `10,000/- to a boy named Dharminder by putting Ginder Kaur in fear and also by obtaining her statement before the Court.
7. On 1.4.1999 accused Manjula brought a girl by name Navdeep Kaur @ Deepu to her house. Accused Manjula gave out threat to her. Navdeep Kaur @ Deepu became frightened and swallowed poisonous pills. The next day PW1 came to know that Navdeep Kaur had died. There were some other girls with accused Manjula. Accused Manjula used to engage those girls also in prostitution. PW1 remained in the captivity of Manjula from January 1999 to March, 2000. After getting herself freed from the captivity of Manjula, PW1 hid herself for some time out of fear. Giving the above details she lodged the First Information Report. A formal First Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 5 Information Report was registered.
8. Accused Manjula and accused Shushil Kumar were arrested from their house on 7.7.2002. After completion of investigation a challan was laid as against them.
9. PW 1 Jasmine has deposed before the trial Court supporting her original version in the First Information Report.
10. PW2 Ginder Kaur has deposed that she was also an illiterate girl. In the year 1999 she was working as a servant maid at the house of accused Manjula. She worked for a year. Her Bua decided to give her in marriage to a good boy hailing from Daroli. But Manjula informed PW2 that the boy arranged by Bhua of PW2 was a person affected by polio. Manjula promised that she would arrange the marriage of PW2 with a good boy. Manjula did not allow PW2 to go to her house. Manjula kept PW2 under threat. She confined PW2 in a room. Whenever PW2 cried a lot Manjula threatened that the parents of PW2 would be killed. Manjula threatened her that she would not permit PW2 to go to her house. She was kept for about four days by Manjula at village Khose Kotla. Thereafter, she was brought to the Court Complex at Moga by Manjula. PW2 saw for the first time one Dharminder and his father Hazura Singh. PW2 was asked to disclose her exaggerated age while she was only 16 years old at that time. The signatures of PW2 were obtained on some papers. She was produced before the Judicial Magistrate. She had been instructed not to speak by Manjula. Manjula informed Dharminder and his other accomplices that their work had been done and they should Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 6 part with `10,000/- to her. Thereafter, those people left.
11. PW3 Nachhattar Singh deposed before the trial Court that accused Manjula was his neighbour. Navdeep Kaur was his daughter. His daughter frequently visited the house of Manjula. Manjula had PW1 Jasmine as her servant. Manjula submitted PW2 to political leaders and some officers for satisfying their sexual lust. Accused Shushil Kumar was also linked with accused Manjula in such activities. Inhabitants of Mohalla objected to such activities. Inspite of that, objectionable personalities continued to visit the house of Manjula. On 21.4.1999 daughter of Manjula called Navdeep Kaur to her house. Ram Mohan owner of petrol pump was present in the house of Manjula. They compelled Navdeep Kaur to transfer land of petrol pump in the name of Ram Mohan. There was a litigation pending between PW3 and Ram Mohan with regard to the lease hold right of a petrol pump. Navdeep Kaur swallowed some tablets of sulfas from the house of Manjula. She became unconscious. She was taken to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. But she died on 2.4.1999. She informed the police that his daughter Navdeep Kaur died due to less marks secured in the examination the result of which was just declared but the entire story was revealed to him by PW1 Jasmine.
12. PW4 Gurdial Kaur has deposed before the trial Court that accused were residing in her neighbourhood. They kept PW1 Jasmine as their servant. She was engaged to satisfy the sexual lust of police officers and other persons. Many girls were visiting the Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 7 house of Manjula for such illegal activities. Navdeep Kaur took tablets of sulfas and she died. Accused Manjula gave out threat to the husband of Gurdial Kaur.
13. PW7 Jasbir Kaur has deposed before the trial Court that on 1.4.1999 she was serving in Lala Lajpat Rai Polytechnical College, Dhudhike. When she proceeded near the house of Navdeep Kaur she informed her that accused Manjula gave her beating and also gave out threat to her on account of which she swallowed tablets of sulfas. But PW7 did not take such words of Navdeep Kaur seriously.
14. The accused have stated in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that PW3 Nachhattar Singh wanted to get the demised plot vacated by Ram Mohan. Nachhattar Singh had launched civil and criminal litigation against Ram Mohan. He was also inimical towards the accused due to some money transaction. PW1 Jasmine has deposed under the influence of PW3 that PW 1 used to take care of the children of the accused from morning till evening.
15. On the side of the defence DW1 Surjit Kaur was examined. She would depose that she engaged PW1 as servant in the house of accused Manjula. He had met Manjula in the market many a time. PW1 never complained to her that she was forced in prostitution by accused. PW1 used to be all alone in the house of Manjula whenever accused left their house in connection with their duties. DW2 Ranjit Kaur deposed that a servant girl from the house of accused would generally come to take milk from the milk diary run by her. The said servant girl never complained that she was kept in Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 8 confinement.
16. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW4 returned a verdict of conviction.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently submit that there is no evidence that PW2 Ginder Kaur was forced into prostitution. The marriage of PW2 with one Dharminder was not established. There was also no evidence to show that PW2 was a child aged below 16 years. PW3 Nachhattar Singh had chose to request the police officials at the time when his daughter Navdeep Kaur committed suicide not to pursue the matter further, as Navdeep Kaur had committed suicide due to scoring of less marks in the examination. The subsequent allegation made by PW3 is an after thought. PW2 Ginder Kaur did not speak about the torture given by accused Manjula to Navdeep Kaur. PW1 kept quite for about one long year without lodging any complaint. The defence evidence would go to show that she was all alone in the house of Manjula. PW2 never whispered anything about the forcible involvement of PW1 in prostitution. It is her submission that there is no evidence to establish that accused Shushil Kumar was in connivence with accused Manjula in the commission of the offences.
18. We heard the submission made by learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State supporting the verdict of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.
19. PW2 Ginder Kaur has not deposed in clear terms that she was given in marriage to Dharminder by playing fraud upon her. The Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 9 alleged cheating committed by accused Manjula by arranging a fake marriage of PW2 Ginder Kaur with one Dharminder was not spoken to by any of the witnesses. PW2 has simply deposed that she was taken to the Court Complex at Moga by accused Manjula where PW2 saw Dharminder and his father Hazura Singh for the first time. PW2 signed some documents in the court. Thereafter, Manjula having informed Dharminder and his associates that their work had been done, demanded a sum of `10,000/- from them. There is virtually no evidence that she was handed over to one Dharminder on marriage. Neither Dharminder nor his father Hazura Singh was examined before the court. No record was produced from the court to establish that some proceeding was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate which culminated in the marriage of PW2 with one Dharminder. No one from the court was also examined to establish the same. In view of the above, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge of cheating framed as against accused Manjula under Section 418 IPC.
20. Let us now take up the charge of abetment to commit suicide framed as against accused Manjula under Section 306 IPC. PW1 of course would depose that Navdeep Kaur swallowed tablets of sulphas on account of the beating and threat given by accused Manjula on 1.4.1999. The fact remains that Navdeep had committed suicide on 2.4.1999 at 7.00 P.M. PW3 Nachhattar Singh the father of Navdeep Kaur has spoken about the role of Manjula only through the information he received from PW1.
Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 10
21. PW3 lodged DDR Ex.P5 informing the police that his daughter Navdeep Kaur took poisonous tablets and committed suicide as she secured less marks in the examination, the result of which was published on 1.4.1999.
22. It has been alleged that she took poisonous tablets at 6.00 P.M. on 1.4.1999 and thereafter she was admitted to hospital for treatment but she died on 2.4.1999. PW3 had insisted that no legal action be initiated in the matter of suicide committed by his daughter Navdeep Kaur. That apart he submitted an application Ex.P7 to Sub Divisional Magistrate informing him that no inquest was warranted. The inquest report Ex.P6 would disclose that the brother of Navdeep Kaur also was not in favour of holding any inquest on the suicide committed by his sister. Nothing was whispered in the DDR about the role of accused Manjula in the suicide committed by his daughter. PW2 Ginder Kaur also had not spoken anything about the above occurrence. Though PW1 has spoken to the torture and threat given by accused Manjula to Navdeep Kaur who ultimately took tablets of Sulfas to commit suicide, the above materials on record referred to by us creates a doubt in the story of the prosecution that accused Manjula abetted Navdeep Kaur to commit suicide.
23. PW7 Jabvir Kaur has come out with an artificial version that Navdeep Kaur informed her that on account of the torture and threat given by accused Manjula she swallowed tablets of sulfas but PW7 had not taken the words of Navdeep Kaur seriously. In our considered view, no human being would have ignored such a Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 11 revelation made by a victim. Further, PW7 had kept quite for about one long year without revealing the alleged role of accused Manjula in the suicide committed by Navdeep Kaur. The evidence of PW7 stands rejected as her testimony does not inspire confidence. For the foregoing reasons, we come to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 306 IPC as against accused Manjula.
24. PW1 Jasmine, PW2 Ginder Kaur and PW3 Nachhattar Singh have cogently spoken to the fact that PW1 and PW2 were kept in wrongful confinement by Manjula. There is no reason to reject the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who virtually suffered at the hands of Manjula. In the face of telling evidence of PW1 and PW2, we have no hesitation to reject the testimony of DW1 and DW2 that PW1 had ample opportunity to escape from the clutches of accused Manjula. PW1 and PW2 have given a graphic account of the torture meted out and also the threat wielded to them. The evidence of PW3 also lends corroboration to the testimony of PW1 and PW2.
25. PW1 has categorically deposed that she was engaged by accused Manjula in prostitution. She had been pushed to the flesh trade against her will. It appears that the destitute condition of PW1 was taken advantage of by accused Manjula. PW4 has also lent corroboration to the evidence of PW1. The testimony of PW1 and PW3 would go to establish that Manjula who ran a brothel forced PW1 to prostitution and earned a living on the income derived from the prostitution having procured the victim girls. Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 12
26. But we find that there is no evidence that PW2 was involved in the prostitution by accused Manjula. PW2 has not whispered anything about her involvement in the prostitution, while she was in the custody of accused Manjula. Admittedly, PW1 who was engaged by Manjula was more than 27 years at the time when the offence was committed in the house of Manjula. In fact the evidence of PW1 would go to show that she was a married woman deserted by her husband.
27. Under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 life imprisonment can be imposed only in a case where the victim who was forced into prostitution was a child aged below 16 years. Therefore, the question of imposing life sentence on the accused Manjula for the offence under Section 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 does not arise. The maximum sentence which could be imposed for the offence allegedly committed by accused Manjula under Section 5 of the said Act is only 14 years.
28. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court as against accused Manjula for the offences under Sections 344 (2 counts) and 506 IPC and Section 3(1) and 4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 stands confirmed. The judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 also stands confirmed. But the sentence thereunder imposed by the trial Court is reduced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and the fine imposed thereunder by the trial Court is sustained. Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-313-DB of 2005 13
29. The judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court as against Shushil Kumar stands reversed and the appeal qua Shushil Kumar is allowed. But the appeal qua accused Manjula, with the above modification in the matter of conviction and sentence stand dismissed. The bail bond executed by accused Shushil Kumar shall stand discharged. Accused Manjula had jumped parole but she has not been apprehended so far. A special team headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police be constituted by Director General of Police, Punjab to arrest the accused Manjula and send her to jail to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. A status report shall be submitted by the special team constituted by Director General of Police, Punjab within two months from the date of the judgment.
(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE August 08, 2013 p.singh Singh Parvinder 2013.08.19 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document