Delhi District Court
Fir No. 154/05 St vs . Reena And Imran Ps: Kamla Market on 31 May, 2011
Page 1/6
FIR no. 154/05 St vs. Reena and Imran PS: Kamla Market
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE CENTRAL05, DELHI
STATE VS. Reena and Imran
FIR NO: 154/05
P. S. Kamla Market
Date of institution of case : 22.03.2005
Date on which case reserved : 11.05.2011
for judgment
Date of judgment : 31.05.2011
Advocates appearing in the case :
Sh. Vakil Ahmad, Ld. APP for State
Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, J.P. Suhag, Abhishek Sabarwal, counsels for accused Imran
JUDGEMENT U/S 355
Cr.P.C
.:
a) Date of offence : 21.02.2005
b) Offence complained of : Charge u/s 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral
Trafficking Prevention Act
c) Name of complainant : Sh. Ram Singh
d) Name of accused, his : 1).Accused Reena (already convicted
parentage & residence on 18.09.2006) D/o Sh. Shankar Lal
R/o Kotha no. 68, 1st Floor
Right Side G.B. Road.
Delhi
: 2). Imran S/o Imtiyaz
R/o Gali no. 12, Keshav Nagar,
Loni, Ghaziabad, UP
Page 2/6
FIR no. 154/05 St vs. Reena and Imran PS: Kamla Market
e) Plea of accused : Falsely implicated.
f) Final order : Convicted.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that the present case FIR was lodged on the complaint of complainant Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Mahadev that when he was going on the road near kotha no. 68, G.B. Road, Delhi, at about 7 PM, on 21.02.2005, a woman wearing purple suit and black shawl, aged about 28 years and a young man wearing black and white shirt and blue jeans, aged about 20 years, came near him near the jina of kotha no. 68 and induced him to pay Rs. 120/ to her and go upstairs with her for sexual intercourse and the young man also stated the same thing and stated that he will take commission of Rs. 40/ from the complainant to have sex with the lady, but the complainant refused and went ahead and met the police officials and told them the entire story and asked them taking necessary legal action against both the accused persons. On the complaint of complainant, FIR was lodged and the raiding party was prepared and at the pointing out and identification of complainant, the accused persons Reena and Imran were arrested by the police and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2. Charge u/s 3 for running a brothel house, u/s 4 for asking commission and living on earnings of prostitution and u/s 5 for inducing the complainant Ram Singh and procuring accused Reena for the sake of prostitution of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act were framed against accused Imran to which he Page 3/6 FIR no. 154/05 St vs. Reena and Imran PS: Kamla Market pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Reena pleaded guilty and was convicted on 18.09.2006 on the plea of guilt and trial against accused Imran was started by the Ld. Predecessor Court.
3. Prosecution has examined five witnesses to prove its case. PW2 is the DO ASI Bishan Lal who exhibited copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/A. PW1 is complainant Ram Singh who reiterated the same facts as mentioned in the complaint. He was duly crossexamined and discharged. PW3 W. Ct. Urmila, PW4 Retired ACP Ajit Singh and PW5 SI Devi Saran are the witnesses of arrest who prepared raiding party on the complaint of complainant and arrested accused Reena and Imran from kotha no. 68, G.B. Road at the instance of complainant. Necessary documents of arrest and personal search were exhibited.
4. In his crossexamination, PW1 Ram Singh stated that he is working in G.B. Road parking opposite kotha no. 55, but he denied that he knew the accused prior to the incident. He stated that he drew the conclusion that accused was working as a pimp because he asked him for Rs. 40/. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed in 3/4 cases prior to this case.
5. PW3 W. Ct. Urmila stated in her examinationinchief that on 21.02.2005, she was on patrolling duty with IO SI Ajit Singh and ASI Devi Saran and had reached in front of kotha no. 68, G.B. Road at about 7:10 PM when one person namely Ram Singh came and got his statement recorded and the IO told him to go to the place and police will follow him. She stated that IO requested several public persons to join investigation, but all left the spot without disclosing Page 4/6 FIR no. 154/05 St vs. Reena and Imran PS: Kamla Market their names, therefore, a raiding party consisting of police officials was organised, which followed the complainant and hid themselves near kotha no. 68 and at about 7:20 PM at the instance of complainant, one lady namely Reena and one person namely Imran were arrested. IO prepared the rukka and case was registered through ASI Devi Saran and prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and arrested the accused persons and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/E. In her crossexamination, PW3 stated that she had made departure entry before leaving the police station but she did not remember the entry number due to lapse of time. She denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were executed within the police station and accused had been falsely implicated in the case.
6. PW4 Retired ACP Ajeet Singh who was IO in this case and PW5 SI Devi Saran deposed on the same lines. No material discrepancy was found in the crossexamination of witnesses.
7. After closure of PE, statement of accused Imran u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent and is falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not lead any defence evidence, hence final arguments were heard and case was kept for order for today.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF.
8. After hearing final arguments and after perusal of case file, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not placed on record any oral or documentary evidence to prove that accused Imran was running brothel house and Page 5/6 FIR no. 154/05 St vs. Reena and Imran PS: Kamla Market offered his premises to be used for purpose of prostitution, hence no case for conviction of accused Imran u/s 3 ITP Act is made out. Neither the prosecution witnesses have stated in their evidence that accused was running the brothel house nor the prosecution has produced any document to show that accused was owner or incharge having possession of any brothel house being used for purpose of prostitution, hence, accused Imran stands acquitted of offence u/s 3 ITP Act.
9. The perusal of above stated facts and evidence also show that no case for conviction of accused u/s 5 of ITP Act is made out. The only allegation against accused Imran is that he had demanded commission of Rs. 40/ from complainant Ram Singh but there are no allegation or evidence regarding the crucial fact of procurement or attempt of procurement of any person for the purpose of prostitution. This court is of opinion, on the basis of above stated facts, that accused Imran had not induced or procured the coaccused Reena for purpose of prostitution. Rather, the coaccused Reena was herself engaged in the job of prostitution and had offered herself to complainant Ram Singh for Rs. 120/. It is not the case of prosecution that it was only on the inducement of accused Imran that coaccused Reena started the work of prostitution. The perusal of above stated facts show that she was already into the job of prostitution and had not been induced to do so. The coaccused Reena had already pleaded guilty and had been convicted. The ingredients of Section 5 ITP Act are not complete in this case, hence accused Imran stands acquitted u/s 5 ITP Act.
10. As far as Section 4 ITP Act is concerned, subsection (2)(c) is clear Page 6/6 FIR no. 154/05 St vs. Reena and Imran PS: Kamla Market that where any person over the age of 18 years is proved to be acting as a tout or pimp on behalf of a prostitute, it shall be presumed until contrary is proved, that such person is knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution of another person within the meaning of sub Section (1) of Section 4 ITP Act.
11. From the perusal of facts and evidence of this case, it is clear that accused Imran was demanding commission of Rs. 40/ from complainant Ram Singh for the purpose of prostitution by coaccused Reena. Complainant as PW1 has categorically stated this fact on oath and has correctly identified the accused in court. Hence, accused Imran is presumed to be a tout or a pimp of prostitute Reena (who has already admitted her guilt and has been convicted) and is presumed to have been living on the earnings of the prostitution. The ingredients of Section 4 of ITP act are complete in this case. Accused has not led any defence evidence to rebut the presumption raised u/s 4 ITP Act which is a mandatory presumption of law. Hence, accused Imran stands convicted u/s 4 ITP Act. Fix for hearing on quantum of sentence on 02.06.2011 at 2 PM.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 31st May, 2011 MM05(CENTRAL),DELHI