Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul on 11 November, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH SAURABH GOYAL,
JMFC-01, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. : Rahul & ors.
FIR No : 897/2020
U/s : 3, 4, 7 & 8 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956
P.S. : Binda Pur
CNR NO. : DLSW020309982020
1. Criminal Case No. : 8103/2020
2. Date of commission of offence : 04.09.2020
3. Date of institution of the case : 03.11.2020
4. Name of the complainant : SI Sudeep
5. Name of accused & parentage : 1) Rahul S/o Sh. Uijya Nand
2) Kuldeep S/o Sh.Dinesh
3) Shailesh S/o Sh. Prem Chander
4) Jyoti W/o Sh. Sameer
(declared as P. O vide order
dated 01.02.2024)
5) Sangeeta D/O Sh. Binod Ram
(Pleaded guilty and already
convicted)
6) Preeti W/o Sh.Vikas ( Pleaded
guilty and already convicted)
7) Indu D/o Sh. Kamal ( Pleaded
guilty and already convicted)
8) Sunita W/o Sh. Kamlesh
(declared as P. O vide order
dated 01.02.2024)
9) Neeraj Devi W/o Sh.Tula Ram
(Pleaded guilty and already
FIR No. 897/2020
St. vs. Rahul
2
convicted)
10) Pankaj Chaudhary
S/o Sh.Viswanath Chaudhary
(discharged vide order dated
13.12.202)
11) Vijay Verma S/o Suresh
Chand (discharged vide order
dated 13.12.2022)
12) Mahender Singh S/o Late
Sh.Ram Swaroop (discharged
vide order dated 13.12.202)
13) Pradeep Kumar Mishra
S/o Sh. Munni Lal Mishra
(discharged vide order dated
13.12.202)
6. Offence complained or proved : U/S 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act and 188
IPC.
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 11.09.2025
9. Final order : Acquittal
10. Date of final order : 11.11.2025
Present : Sh. Sudhanshu Saini Ld. APP for state.
All Accused Rahul, Kuldeep and Shailesh in person with Ld. Counsel.
Accused Jyoti and Sunita already declared as P.O.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 897/2020
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused persons namely Rahul, Kuldeep, Shailesh, Jyoti, Sangeeta, Preeti, Indu, Sunita, Neeraj Devi, Pankaj Chaudhary, Vijay Verma, Mahender Singh and Pradeep Kumar Mishra only for having committed the offence punishable U/s 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and section 188 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of secret information regarding immoral trafficking activity carried out in Building NO. A-7/8, Second Floor, Sewak Park, in the name of SPA by SI Sudeep, a raid was conducted upon the instruction of SHO concerned at the aforesaid building by raiding team consisting of SI Sudeep, SI Anuj, HC Vishal, Ct. Naveen, W Ct. Ruby, HC Jitender and Ct. Mahesh. SI Sudeep made Ct. Mahesh a Decoy Customer and handed over two currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination to him and he went upstairs and after some time Ct. Mahesh gave them signal from the window of 2 nd floor of the said building and all the remaining raiding team entered into the said premises. During the raid, two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- each handed over to Decoy Customer Ct. Mahesh, were recovered from the cursory search of accused Shailesh Kumar who was found at the Reception of the said SPA which Ct. Mahesh had handed over to him for providing girls for having sex and three girls were shown to Ct. Mahesh (Decoy Customer) for the same. Those girls were found sitting near the reception with one boy whose name was revealed as Kuldeep and the accused persons were apprehended. Thereafter this case FIR was registered and thereafter, investigation was carried out and upon completion of investigation, accused persons were charge-sheeted for FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 4 commission of offence U/s 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and section 188 of IPC.
3. Accused persons were summoned and all the accused persons put their appearance before the court except accused Jyoti and Sunita who were declared as Proclaimed Offender during the trial. Thereafter, upon appearance of accused persons namely Rahul, Shailesh, Kuldeep, Sangeeta, Preeti, Indu, Neeraj, Pankaj, Vijay, Mahender and Pradeep Mishra, the compliance U/ 207 Cr.P.C was made. At the stage when the matter was listed for framing of charge, the accused persons namely Sangeeta, Preeti, Indu and Neeraj pleaded guilty and convicted vide order dated 17.08.2022. After hearing the arguments on charge, vide order dated 13.12.2022, accused persons namely Pankaj, Vijay, Mahender and Pradeep, were discharged vide order dated 13.12.2022. Thereafter, the charge for commission of U/s 4, 7 & 8 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act was framed against all the accused persons namely Rahul, Kuldeep and Shailesh and also for offence U/s 3 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against the accused Rahul on 11.04.2023 to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
4. In support of it's case, prosecution examined total Seven witnesses and their testimonies are produced herein below :
5. PW-1 SI Sudeep deposed that on 04.09.2020 he along with SI Anuj, HC Vishal, Ct. Naveen and W/Ct. Ruby were on beat patrolling duty and reached near Dwarka Mor Metro Station where the beat staff HC Jitender and Ct. Mahesh met FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 5 them and joined them for patrolling and at around 2:00 Pm one secret informer met them who told about immoral trafficking done in Building No. A-7/8, Second Floor, Sewak Park, in the name of SPA. He further deposed that he shared the above said information with SHO concerned through concerned DO, who directed him to take necessary action and he requested 4-5 public persons for joining the investigation but none agreed and left the spot without telling their name and addresses and due to paucity of time, no notice was given. He further deposed that thereafter, he made Ct. Mahesh a decoy customer and handed over two currency notes of Rs. 500/- Denomination to him and briefed him and Ct. Mahesh went upstairs and they took position in the street itself and after some time, Ct. Mahesh gave them signal from the window of second floor of building and thereafter, they all went upstairs. He further deposed that when they went inside the Second Floor, they found that Ct.Mahesh was standing near the counter and one person was sitting on the counter, and Ct. Mahesh told them that he asked the said person sitting on Counter for providing Girls for having Sex to which three girls were shown to him and Ct. Mahesh handed over amount of Rs. 1000/- (denomination of Rs.500/- which were handed over to Ct. Mahesh by him) to person sitting on the counter as an advance. He further deposed that thereafter, on inquiry the name of the person found at the reception was revealed as Shailesh Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Chander and upon his cursory search, said currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- which he handed over to Ct. Mahesh were recovered from said Shailesh and the same were kept in one envelope and sealed with the seal of SK and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A and the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Mahesh. He further FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 6 deposed that three girls were also found sitting near the reception and one boy was also sitting with them and upon inquiry the name of girls were revealed as Jyoti W/o Sh. Sameer, Indu D/o Sh. Kamal Singh and Sanjana W/o Sh. Vipin and the person who was sitting besides these girls was Kuldeep S/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar. He further deposed that thereafter, they inspected the site and total 7 Plywood Cabins were found constructed in the second floor of the building with attached bathroom and when they checked the said cabins total 3 males and 3 females were found from three of the cabins which was locked from inside and upon inquiry the name of persons who were found in those cabins were revealed as Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Phool with Khushi in one of the chamber, from the other cabin one Vinay Verma and Nisha were found and in the third cabin Pankaj Chaudhary with Khushboo. He further deposed that in the meanwhile SHO along with ACP Concerned also reached there and he prepared Tehrir/Rukka Ex. PW1/B and handed over the same to Ct. Mahesh who got the present case FIR registered. He further deposed that after registration of the present case FIR, Insp. Rajeev Yadav came at the spot to whom further investigation was marked and he handed over the sealed envelope along with the seizure memo to him. He further deposed that the last number of the currency notes seized by him was 828 and 838. He correctly identified the accused Shailesh in the court today, correctly and identified the currecny note as Ex. P1 (Colly).
6. PW-2 HC Mahesh deposed on the same lines as that of PW-1 SI Sudeep being part of raiding party and accompanied SI Sudeep the raid conducted by them on receipt of secret information, thus, his testimony is not reproduced herein to avoid FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 7 repetition. He has also deposed that SI Sudeep made him a decoy Customer in a formal dress and handed over two currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination having No. 9VD864828 and 9VK776838 to him and briefed him. He further deposed that he went upstairs and remaining officials took position in the street itself and he went to the counter/Reception and asked them to some service and thereafter, the person on the reception namely Shailesh, produced three girls before him and offered him to choose one of them and he told the price for the service as Rs. 2,000/- to him and he gave him Rs. 1000/- ( Rs.500/- two notes which were given to me by SI Sudeep) and thereafter, he gave signal from the window which was situated at the back to the counter/reception to the remaining raiding party and all the police officials of raiding team came upstairs and he narrated the whole incident to SI Sudeep who prepared the relevant documents and conducted investigation.
7. PW-3 Inspt. Satish Kumar deposed that on 04.09.2020, he received an information through DO of SI Sudeep regarding immoral trafficking activity at Building NO. A7/8, Sewak Park, Dwarka Mor and upon this, he directed to SI Sudeep to do necessary investigation. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with staff in Govt. Vehicle reached at the spot and ACP Concerned also arrived at the spot and after giving necessary directions he along with SI Sudeep and ACP Concerned left the spot.
8. PW-4 Inspt Rajeev Yadav deposed that on 04.09.2020 after registration of present case FIR, further investigation was marked to him and he prepared site plan Ex. PW4/A, thereafter, he seized the items produced by SI Sudeep to him vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/B and he had also seized 3 currency notes of 500 denomination FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 8 vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C and he made inquiries from the ladies who were present there. He further deposed that he also served notice U/S 41 A Cr.P.C upon all those ladies Ex. PW4/D (Colly) and other persons who were present there Ex. PW4/E (Colly) and he arrested the accused Rahul, Shailesh and Kuldeep vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/F, Ex. PW4/G and Ex.PW4/H and conducted their personal search vide Ex. PW4/I, Ex. PW4/J and Ex.PW4/K and recorded their disclosure statement vide Ex. PW4/L (Colly). He further deposed that he served notice U/s 41 A Cr.P.C upon the owner of property namely Pradeep Kr. Mishra Ex. PW4/M and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW4/N and during investigation he also recorded statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He correctly identified the accused Rahul, Shailesh and Kuldeep in the court.
9. PW-5 ASI Vishal also deposed on the same lines as that of PW-1 SI Sudeep and PW-2 HC Mahesh Kumar, being part of raiding party and accompanied SI Sudeep/IO during the raid conducted by them on receipt of secret information, thus, his testimony is not reproduced herein to avoid repetition.
10. PW-6 W/HC Anita deposed that she joined the investigation of the present case with the IO and during investigation, IO served notice U/s 41 A Cr.P.C upon the accused Jyoti, Sangeeta, Priti, Sunita, Neeraj Devi and Indu in her presence i.e. Ex. PW4/D (Colly).
11. PW-7 Retired ACP Anil Dureja deposed that on 01.11.2020, he gave permission to the IO U/s 195 Cr.P.C i.e. Ex. PW7/A against the accused Rahul Kumar, Shailesh Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar.
FIR No. 897/202012. The statement of accused U/s 294 Cr. P.C was recorded on 30.05.2025 whereby he admitted the genuineness of present case FIR along with certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act ie. Ex. A-1, pursuant to which the PW at Sr. No. 11 was dropped from the list of witnesses.
13. Thereafter, completion of PE, the PE was closed and the matter was thereafter, listed for recording SA. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C to which accused denied all the incriminating circumstances against them to which they pleaded innocent , however, they opted not to lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
14. I have heard L.d. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel.
15. It is submitted by Ld. APP that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel argued that the evidence produced by prosecution side is not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused and moreover, there are number of contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Further, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the SHO who directed the complainant to conduct the raid was never examined by the prosecution and there is no documents to show that any such permission was given to conduct the raid or not. At the same time, there is no handing over memo of currency notes prepared during the raid.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
16. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR and investigation, is that on the basis of secret information, a raid was conducted at Building No. A-7/8, Second Floor, FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 10 Sewak Park (in the name of "SPA"), wherein a decoy customer (Ct. Mahesh) was deployed and payment of two Rs. 500 notes was handed over to him. When he went inside the premises, three girls were shown and service were offered, and accused persons were found in the premises, one at the reception (Shailesh), three girls (Jyoti, Indu, Sanjana) and a boy (Kuldeep) near reception. When the raid was conducted, in cabins persons Mahender with Khushi, Vinay Verma with Nisha and Pankaj with Khushboo were found in compromising positions. The currency notes were recovered from the reception person and cabins with locked doors and bath attached were found. On completion of investigation charges were framed as above.
17. It is pertinent to mention here that the ITPA is a specialized statute designed to combat commercial sexual exploitation, trafficking and immoral traffic in persons for commercial purposes. Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 read along these lines:
• Section 3 penalises "keeping, controlling, managing or assisting in the management of a brothel" for prostitution or traffic in persons for the purpose of prostitution.
• Section 4 deals with persons living on the earnings of prostitution or aiding/promoting prostitution.
• Section 7 deals with persons who carry on or participate in the business of prostitution in a notified area.
• Section 8 prescribes punishment and empowers courts under the statute.FIR No. 897/2020
St. vs. Rahul 11
18. In interpreting the statute, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have emphasised that the purpose is not merely to punish the prostitute (victim) but to penalise those who promote, manage, exploit or traffic persons for prostitution. For example, in Guria v. State of U.P. (Cr. App. No. 1373 of 2009, decided 31 July 2009) the Supreme Court considered Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 of ITPA and reiterated the legislative object. It is also observed that provisions of the Indian Penal Code are not automatically ancillary to the ITPA and special attention must be given to the scheme of the ITPA. In several recent high-court decisions it has been held that a woman who is a victim of prostitution cannot be prosecuted under Section 5 of ITPA, as the object is to penalise the trafficker/exploiter and not the victim. These precedents guide the interpretation of the provisions in question.
19. Turning to the fact of the case, a decoy customer Ct. Mahesh was briefed by SI Sudeep and given two currency notes of Rs. 500 each (nos. 9VD864828 & 9VK776838) and instructed to go upstairs to the second floor of the building in question. PW-1 & PW-2 have corroborated each other on this point. PW1/SI Sudeep deposed that upon signal from the window the raiding team entered, found Shailesh at reception, recovered the two currency notes from Shailesh in a sealed envelope Ex. PW1/A. Three girls (Jyoti, Indu, Sanjana) and one boy (Kuldeep) were found near reception; seven plywood cabins were found (three cabins locked from inside) each with bathroom; inside those cabins three couples: Mahender with Khushi; Vinay Verma and Nisha; Pankaj with Khushboo. PW2 (HC Mahesh) corroborated the handing over of the notes, the price quoted (Rs. 2,000) and the handing over of Rs. 1,000 (two notes) as advance. PW4 (Inspector Rajeev Yadav) further deposed to FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 12 seizure, arrest, personal searches, statements under 41A and 161 CrPC. The currency notes match. The site plan was prepared (Ex. PW4/A).
20. In the present case, the prosecution relied exclusively on the testimonies of police witnesses--PW-1 SI Sudeep, PW-2 HC Mahesh, PW-3 Inspector Satish Kumar, and PW-4 Inspector Rajeev Yadav. The raid was conducted without the presence of any independent witness, and despite the investigating officer admitting that several public persons were asked to join, no written notice was served on those who refused. The absence of independent corroboration in such a case, which touches moral and reputational aspects of individuals, seriously undermines the credibility of the prosecution. The Supreme Court in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395, has cautioned that where the entire prosecution case rests on police evidence, the court must insist on strong corroboration, failing which the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
21. The star witness, i.e., the decoy witness Ct. Mahesh PW-2 is a partisan witness and part of same police station of which the IO, SHO and the ACP are part of and that PW2 was administratively subordinate to the ACP/PW9, PW-3/SHO as well as to IO PW-1 SI Sudeep who acted on the instructions of the SHO and there is no corroborative evidence of any independent person to support his version.
22. In the present case, no independent public witness has been cited by the prosecution. Though, it is claimed by the prosecution that IO PW-1 SI Sudeep tried to associate some public persons in the raiding party however, they refused but the testimony of all the witnesses produced by the prosecution is insufficient regarding FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 13 the steps taken by the IO to associates independent witnesses during the raid. All this clearly shows non-compliance on the part of PW-1/IO of section 15 (2) of the ITP Act. Further, had PW-1 made any efforts for joining the public witnesses and they had refused to join the raiding parties, then PW-1 should have taken action against those witnesses u/s 187 IPC. However, PW-1 has not taken any such action and he has even failed to disclose name of persons to whom he tried to associate in the raiding party.
23. Since as already discussed above, no public witnesses have been associated in this case, in such circumstances, testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses PW- 1/SI Sudeep and PW-5 ASI Vishal are to be considered, however it is barred by the principles of hearsay so far as they have deposed regarding striking of a deal between decoy customer and the accused. Admittedly, these two witnesses have not heard conversation between PW-2 Ct. Mahesh and the accused persons. Therefore, whatever was told to these Four witnesses by decoy customer and shadow witness becomes barred by the principles of hearsay. Further, the testimony of PW-3/Inspr. Satish Kumar, PW-4/Inspr. Rajeev Yadav, PW-6/W/ HC Anita and PW-7/ACP Anil Dureja is formal in nature and is only meant to prove the documents which are exhibited with the chargesheet. They are not the eye witness of the alleged incident.
24. Now, we are left with the testimony of only one witnesses regarding striking of the deal for the purposes of prostitution between the decoy customer and the accused and it is the testimony of PW2, Ct. Mahesh (decoy, customer). Again, here is a difficulty. Ct. Mahesh is admittedly a police officer when the deal was struck between him and accused. In such circumstances, whatever was stated by the accused in presence of these witnesses is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C and therefore cannot be FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 14 relied upon in evidence. On this point, reference is drawn from judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in STATE Versus BASHIR AHMED AND OTHERS, 23 (1983) DELHI LAW TIMES 486 DELHI HIGH COURT which was a case under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act it was held that " in the present case the solicitation made by the accused to the police officer was not a confession made to him of an offence but was an offence committed in relation to a person who happened to be a police officer. Confession is always of past events. It cannot, therefore, be said that whatever was said by the accused to the police officer concerned was a confession, and inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. But it appears to me that the said statement of the accused having been made during investigation is excluded from evidence under Scion 162 Cr.P.C. Here, as in The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, A. 1. R 1964 S.C. 221, the investigation was commenced when the police office got the information and set the trap. The statement of the accused to the decoy police constable was, therefore, inadmissible in evidence under Section 162 Cr.P.C. it was Held further, that "it cannot be too strongly emphasized that it is wholly wrong for a police officer or any other person to be sent to commit an offence in order that an offence by another person may be detected. It is in the interest of prosecution not to use a police officer as a decoy. The prosecution in the present case has failed because of such use." It was held that Confession is not defined in the Evidence Act. But a 'confession' is not a statement by an accused 'suggesting the inference that he committed' the crime. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a confession. A confession must either admit in terms, the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence: Pakala Narayan Swami Vs. Emperor, AIR 1939 P.C 47. Now, the solicitation made by the accused to the police officer was not a confession made to him of an offence but was an offence committed in relation to a person who happened to be a police officer. Confession is always of past events. It cannot, therefore, be said that whatever was said by the accused to the police officer concerned was a confession, and inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. But, it appears to me that FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 15 the said statement of the accused having been made during investigation is excluded from evidence under Section 162 Cr.P.C with reference to a trap laid by the police. It was held in Maha Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1976 SC 449, that where the Inspector recorded the complaint, arranged the raid by noting each step taken thereafter in a regular manner, later or forwarded the complaint for formal registration of the case under Section 154-Cr.P.C at the Police Station and whatever he did in order to detect the accused while taking the bribe, all that came within the term 'investigation' under Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because investigation had commenced on recording by him of the complainant's statement disclosing a cognizable offence. Investigation may start without information or without reducing the same in writing under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In this case also, investigation was commenced when the police officer got the information and set the trap. The statement of the accused to the decoy police constable was, therefore, inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
25. In the present case, even otherwise no independent witness from the locality where this raid was conducted has been joined which again goes to the root of the matter and benefit of doubt ought to be given to accused persons. Further, the departure and arrival entry of the police officials to the police station have not been filed or proved by the prosecution to lend credence to the version of the prosecution. Further, admittedly PW-4 Inspr. Rajeev Yadav who was part of the investigation has categorically admitted that there was no board of SPA allegedly running at the spot was found there. At the same time there is no seizure of bill book in the name of said SPA. Moreover, there is no pictorial evidence to show that the alleged place contained small cabins wherein the illegal activity was being carried out. Therefore, the evidence given by witnesses cannot be accepted as sufficient to found a conviction.
26. Further, there is no handing over memo of the currency note by the IO/SI Sudeep to the decoy customer Ct. Mahesh and it is difficult humanly to memories the FIR No. 897/2020 St. vs. Rahul 16 serial number of the notes which were used by PW-2 Ct. Mahesh. The alleged recovery of Rs.1,000 from accused Shailesh is the only material evidence linking him to the offence. However, no seizure memo was attested by independent witnesses, nor were the notes photographed or subjected to forensic verification. Moreover, the supposed decoy operation lacked proper documentation such as a pre-raid and post- raid report, which are standard in such cases. The chain of custody of the seized notes was also not satisfactorily established. Such lapses go to the root of the prosecution's story.
27. The investigation also failed to prove ownership or tenancy of the premises. Though the property was said to belong to accused Rahul or Pradeep Mishra, no ownership document, rent agreement, or municipal record was placed on record. Without proof of ownership or control, the essential ingredients of Section 3 ITPA-- keeping or managing a brothel--remain unsubstantiated. It is emphasized that to establish brothel-keeping, the prosecution must show active management or control, not mere presence.
28. The law is well settled that in criminal trials, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the prosecution. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Even a strong suspicion cannot substitute proof. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused, as the presumption of innocence is a human right protected under Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified.
FIR No. 897/202029. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and finding, the accused persons namely Rahul, Kuldeep and Shailesh Kumar stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/S 4/7/8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and accused Rahul also stands acquitted for offnence punsiable U/s 3 of Immoral Traffic Digitally signed (Prevention) Act 1956. SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.11 16:05:26 +0530 Announced in the open court on (Saurabh Goyal) this day i.e. 11th November, 2025 JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed bySAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.11 16:05:29 +0530 (Saurabh Goyal) JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi.
FIR No. 897/2020