Delhi District Court
State vs Parveen Pandey on 17 May, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH SAURABH GOYAL,
JMFC-01, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. : Parveen Pandey & ors.
FIR No : 856/2021
U/s : 3, 4, 5, & 8 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956
P.S. : Dwarka North
1. Criminal Case No. : 6393/2022
2. CNR NO. : DLSW02-022538-2022
3. Date of commission of offence : 10.12.2021
4. Date of institution of the case : 18.05.2022
5. Name of accused & parentage : 1) Parveen Pandey S/o Sh
Chander Prakash Pandey
(Proceedings against him abated
as expired)
2) Rajat Sharma S/o Sh. Anil
Sharma
3) Kajal Devi
W/O Late Sh. Kuldeep Singh
4) Bhawna D/o Sh. Ganesh
5) Neha W/O Sh. Karan
6) Anamika Makhija
D/o Sh. Raj Kumar
7) Reena Daniel D/o Sh. John
Daniel
8) Geeta Devi D/o Sh Raj Kumar
Gupta
9) Ashna Kumari D/o Sh. Shashi
Shankar Tiwari
(All the accused NO. 3 to 9 were
already convicted/admonished
vide order dated 08.12.2022)
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
2
6. Offences charged with : U/s 3, 4, 5 & 8 of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act.
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 16.05.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 17.05.2025
Present : Sh. Vikas Kharb Ld. APP for state.
Accused Rajat Sharma in person (through VC).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Rajat Sharma only for having committed the offence punishable U/S 3/4/5/8 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act 1956 since other remaining accused persons namely Kajal Devi, Bhawna, Neha, Anamika Makhija, Reena Daniel, Geeta Devi and Ashna Kumari were already convicted / admonished vide order dated 08.12.2022 as they all pleaded guilty. The proceedings against the accused Parveen Pandey were abated as he has already expired.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of secret information regarding illegal/ immoral activities carrying on in one SPA in the name of Aashra near Malik Buildcon II, Sector 12, K M Chowk, Dwarka, Inspt. Pawan along with the raiding team and Secret informer reached 2 nd floor, Shop NO S4, near Malik Buildcon II, Sector 12, KM Chowk, Dwarka and on the pointing out by the Secret Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
3informer towards the said Ashra SPA, Inspt. Pawan made Ct. Hariom a decoy customer and handed over to him two currency notes of Rs. 500/- denominations and send him at the said SPA with instruction to give signal if the said secret information found correct and after some time, Ct. Hariom gave them signal and they alongwith other raiding party went inside the said SPA, where 4 girls namely Reena, Anamika, Neha and Bhawna alongwith the receptionist Girl namely Ashna, one boy namely Praveen Pandey were standing there and upon the personal search of Ashna by W Ct. Suman, the said currency notes were recovered. It is stated that two cabins were there in the SPA and on opening one of the cabin, one boy Jai Bhagwan alongwith one girl Kajal and from the other cabin a boy namely Mukul alongwith one girl namely Geeta were found and this case FIR was registered and thereafter, investigation was carried out and upon completion of investigation, accused persons were charge-sheeted for commission of offence U/s 3, 4, 5 &8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence, the copies of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and thereafter, the charged for offence U/S 3/4/5/8 IT (Prevention) Act vide is made out against the accused Rajat Sharma vide order dated 27.02.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
4. In order to prove allegations against accused, prosecution has examined the following twelve prosecution witnesses.
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
45. PW-1 Sh. Ajay Sharma s/o Sh. Dharam Singh deposed that he was the care taker of Shop No. S3 and S4, Malik Buildcon, Pocket 6, Sector 12 Dwarka, Delhi for last four years. He further stated that the rent agreement was executed between the Nisha Malik (owner of the said shops) and Rajat Sharma in his presence regarding the said shops. He further stated that he had received a Notice u/s 91 CrPC from the IO/Inspector Mohit Yadav Ex.PW1/A and that IO asked him for the rent agreement for the said shop and he handed over the rent agreement Ex. PW1/C to the IO which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He also identified the signatures of Nisha Malik at point A and and the signature of Rajat Sharma at point B on all pages on the said rent agreement stating that the said rent agreement was signed in his presence. He also stated that he can identify the accused Rajat also, if shown to him. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel whereby he stated that he was the caretaker of whole building in which Shop NO. S3 & S4 were located and whenever he visited the said shops, he never found accused Sh. Rajat Sharma there. He admitted the suggestion that he always found accused Praveen Pandey at the said shop during his visit to the said shops.
6. PW-2 Sh. Mukul Sharma has deposed that he is working as Security Guard in Flood Control Department, Vikas Puri, New Delhi and on 10.12.2021, at about 6:30 Pm, he along with his friend namely Sh. Jai Bhagwan, went to Sector 12 Dwarka, for having message in AASHRA SPA and after reaching at the above said SPA Centre, his friend Sh. Jai Bhagwan, inquired from the reception and they told them to pay Rs. 2000/- per person for massage to which they agreed for Rs. 1800/- for both of them and paid and one person asked them to sit in a room and thereafter, after some time police came at the spot and took them to the PS. He further deposed that he did not Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
5remember the name of the owner of the said SPA. Ld. APP for the sate with the permission of the court asked some leading question to this witness, whereby he stated that he could not tell if the name of the owner of the SPA was Mr. Rajat Sharma or not. This witness also failed to identify the accused Rajat Sharma in the court and stated that he had not seen him at the spot. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP for state with the permission of the court as he was resiling from her previous statement Mark A from point A to Point A1 and he is confronted with his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.Ci. i.e Mark A to which he denied to have given the said statement to the police officials. He also denied the suggestion that the person who was present at the said SPA Centre, had shown him 6 girls for having massage and he went to the room with one of the girl for having massage. He also denied the suggestion that the police has told him the name of the receptionist as Aashna Kumari and the name of the girl with whom he went into the room as Geeta Devi and the name of the girl with whom his friend Jai Bhagwan went into the room as Kajal Devi. He also denied the suggestion that the name of the SPA owner is Mr. Rajat Sharma and that the Mr. Praveen Pandey was the person who showed 6 girls to them at the SPA Centre.
7. PW-3 Sh. Jai Bhagwan S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh has also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-2 Sh. Mukul Sharma thus, his testimony is not reproduced herein to avoid repetition. Ld. APP for state also put leading questions to this witness with the permission of the court to which also he replied in the similar manner as that of PW-1 and during his cross examination by Ld. APP for state with the permission of the court, he again replied in similar manner as that of PW-1 and denied to have given any statement i.e. Mark B to the police officials.
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
68. PW-4 Inspt. Pawan Kumar is the complainant in this case, deposed that on 10.12.2021, he along with Ct. Ashish were on patrolling duty in a Govt. Vehicle in the evening and during patrolling duty, he received information from SI Jeet Ram regarding one SPA in the name of Aashra near Malik Buildcon II, Sector 12, KM Chowk, Dwarka where illegal/ immoral activities regarding trafficking were carrying on, thus, on receipt of the same, he along with Ct. Ashish reached near the said place and where Sl Jeet Ram, Ct. Hariom, W/Ct. Suman along with one secret informer were already present who met him. He further stated that he made inquiries from the secret informer who disclosed to him that on the 2nd floor, the present SPA in the name Aashra, is running in the said building where illegal Trafficking activities were carrying on, thus, they reached at the 2nd floor and on pointing out by the secret informer towards Shop No. S4, he prepared a raiding party and also requested some of the public persons to join the investigation but all of them refused to join and left the spot without telling their names and addresses. He further deposed that thereafter, he made Ct. Hariom a decoy customer and after searching him and send him there at the said SPA after giving him two currency notes of Rs. 500/-denomination with instructions to give signal, if the said secret information was found correct, thereafter, after some time, Ct. Hariom gave signal and they along with other raiding party went inside the said SPA where they found 4 girls along with one receptionist Girl namely Ashna and one boy namely Praveen Pandey, were standing there. He further deposed that they made inquiries from these girls who disclosed their name as Reena, Anamika, Neha and Bhawna and Ct. Hariom, told them that he had given the said currency notes to Receptionist Ashna and upon personal search of Ashna by Woman/Ct.Suman, the said currency notes were recovered. He further deposed that Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
7they searched the concerned SPA where two cabins were there and on opening one of the cabin they found one boy namely Jai Bhagwan along with one girl namely Kajal and on opening the second cabin one boy namely Mukul along with one girl namely Geeta were found. He further deposed that he also checked one nearby shop situated in front of said shop bearing NO. S-16 where the board of the SPA was installed in the name of Aashra but no person was found there, thereafter, after some time the accused Rajat Sharma came there who upon inquiry disclosed that he is the owner of the said SPA. He further deposed that thereafter, he shared the information with Sr. Officials and SHO and ACP concerned, reached at the spot who instructed him to take appropriate action. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared Rukka/Tehrir i.e. Ex. PW4/A and got the present case FIR registered through Ct. Ashish who went to the PS and thereafter, Inspt. Mohit Yadav came at the spot to whom the further investigation was marked and he narrated the entire facts to Inspt. Mohit Yadav about the present case. He further deposed that after the registration of present FIR, Ct. Ashish returned back to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to Inspt. Mohit Yadav/IO and thereafter, Inspt. Mohit Yadav prepared site plan at his instance i.e. Ex. PW4/B and also seized currency notes of Rs. 500/- each (total Rs. 1000/-) vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C. He further deposed that IO also arrested accused Praveen Pandey and Rajat Sharma in his presence and also recorded their disclosure statements in his presence. This witness correctly identified the Accused Rajat Sharma in the court. This witness also correctly identified the two currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination each bearing No. 6RT127022 and 7AL207187 i.e. Ex. PX 1 (Colly) brought by the MHCM and shown to the witness and stated that these are the currency notes which he handed over to Ct. Hari Om.
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
89. PW-5 SI Jeet Ram, PW-6 HC Ashish, PW-7 HC Hariom and PW-8 HC Suman, all deposed on the same lines as that of PW-4 Inspt. Pawan Kumar, being part of raiding team and accompanying PW-4 Inspt. Pawan Kumar on the day of incident. Thus, their testimonies are not reproduced herein to avoid the repetition.
10. PW 9 Inspt. Vijender Singh deposed that on 10.12.2021 he was posted as SHO PS Dwarka North and on that day, SI Jeet Ram telephonically informed him regarding one Aashra SPA Second Floor, Malik Buildcon, Plaza II, Sector 12 Main Market Dwarka whereby immoral trafficking activities were going on, thus, he directed ATO Inspt. Pawan Kumar to take immediate action and he also given the said information with the DO Concerned and informed the ACP Concerned about the same. He further deposed that during investigation of the present case, he along with ACP Concerned Sh. Sunil Kumar, went to the spot or alleged SPA and upon his instruction, further investigation of the present case was marked to Inspt. Mohit, thereafter, after the completion of the investigation by Inspt. Mohit, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court.
11. PW10 Inspt. Mohit Yadav deposed that on 10.12.2021 he was posted as Inspt. at PS Dwarka North and on that day DO informed him that further investigation was marked to him, thus, he went to the spot i.c. Aashara Spa S-4, Second Floor, Malik Buildcon, Plaza 11, near K M Chowk, above Bank of Maharashtras and Mehak Dhaba, Main Market Sector 12 Dwarka, New Delhi where Inspt. Pawan along with the other police officials met him and told regarding the incident, thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of Insp. Pawan Ex. PW4/B, also seized Rs. 1000/- vide Ex. PW4/C. He further stated that in the meanwhile Ct. Ashish came with the copy of FIR and original Rukka and handed over the same to him, thereafter, he Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
9arrested both the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B, conducted their personal search vide Ex. PW6/C & Ex. PW6/D. He further deposed that he also served notice U/s 41 A Cr.P.C upon the other accused persons i.e. Ex. PW10/A (Colly) and released them on furnishing of pabandinama Ex. PW10/B (Colly) and he also recorded disclosure statement of Rajat Sharma and Parveen Pandey vide Ex. PW6/E and Ex. PW6/F. He further stated that he also recorded the disclosure statements of other accused persons vide Ex. PW10/C (colly). He further stated that he served notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C i.e. Ex. PWI/A, upon the caretaker of said property/shop for providing him the rent agreement and other relevant documents and obtained the rent agreement which he seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that during investigation he also recorded statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he can identify both the accused persons if shown to him. Ld. Defence counsel does not dispute the identity of accused Rajat Sharma. He also correctly identified the case property i.e. Two Currency notes of Rs. 500/- is already exhibited as Ex. Pl.
12. PW 11 ASI Mahabir has deposed that on 10.12.2021, he along with SI Sahil and W Ct.Bala were on beat patrolling duty and during patrolling they received one information regarding raid conducted in one SPA in the name of Aashra near Malik Buildcon II, Sector 12, KM Chowk, Dwarka where illegal/ immoral activities regarding trafficking were carrying on, thus, on receipt of the same, they all went to said place and found that all the accused persons were already apprehended by Inspt. Pawan along with other police officials. He further stated that after registration of present case FIR further investigation was marked to Inspt. Mohit Yadav, who prepared the relevant documents, conducted the rest of the investigation and prepared Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
10the chargesheet and that he remained present at the time of investigation at the spot. This witness correctly identified the Accused Rajat Sharma in the court and also identified the currency notes as Ex. PX1 (Colly).
13. PW 12 ASI Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 10.12.2021 he was posted as DO/HC at PS Dwarka North and on that day, he received tehrir/ rukka Ex. PW4/A sent by Inspt. Pawan Kumar through Ct. Ashish and he made endorsement Ex. PW12/A upon the said rukka and registered the present case FIR Ex. PW12/B (Colly) along with certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He further stated that further investigation of the present case was marked to Insp. Mohit Yadav. Thereafter, the completion of PE, the matter was listed for recording of Statement of accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
14. Statement of the accused Rajat Sharma under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25.11.2024 in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations leveled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and have nothing to do with the alleged offence as he knew Parveen Pandey (since deceased) since a long time and he demanded money for opening some business and when he refused to grant him loan, he offered him a partnership in his business for which he agreed. He stated that he gave him Rs.3 lacs to open the business, however, he did not know the kind of business but he only received the profit amount. He stated that Praveen Pandey had never told him regarding any business. He stated that neither he ever visited any office nor he was present at the alleged spot of incident. Accused further opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
1115. 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 here are number of contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Further, I.d. defence counsel relied upon the decision given by High Court of Delhi in a case titled as State (Delhi Administration) vs. Bashir Ahmad & ors. reported as 1983 C.C. Cases 367 (IIC), in support of his contention that a single instance of offer of sexual intercourse does not constitute prostitution.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
16. It is observed that all the prosecution witnesses have deposed to the same effect and it has been testified by them that on the demand of decoy witness (PW- 7/Ct. Hariom), accused Parveen Pandey and Receptionist Ashna agreed to provide girls for prostitution and decoy witness entered into the SPA Rooms and found PW-2 Mukul with one girl namely Geeta and found PW-3 Jai Bhagwan with the girl namely Kajal. To sustain charge u/s 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the prosecution is bound to establish the important ingredient contained in the phrase "lives on the earnings of the prostitution". Before appreciating the evidence led by prosecution side, it would be useful to understand the meaning of terms 'prostitution' and 'lives on'.
17. The word 'prostitution' has been defined in Section 2 (1) of the Act as the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes. In order to constitute prostitution, the act of the female must be an act of offering her body for Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
12promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind. The promiscuous sexual intercourse means indiscriminate (not restricted to one individual) sexual intercourse, that is to say, proof of one sexual intercourse is not enough. What Act seeks to prohibit is the act of a common prostitute and therefore, a single act of offer cannot amount to an offer for purpose of promiscuous intercourse. Promiscuity in prostitution means indiscriminate bartering of sex favours without any emotional attachment and for monetary considerations. Promiscuity lies in an intentional indifference in the selection of parties as long as they pay. It excludes a permanently kept concubine or a woman taken without paying any consideration. It should be proved that the person concerned indulges in indiscriminate sexual intercourse with several persons. Even if the several acts of intercourse are not directly and fully proved, there should be material to show that the person is in the habit of having indiscriminate sexual intercourse. On the aforesaid aspects, reference can be made to Ved Prakash V State, 1989 Cr.L.J. 671 (Mad); Bai Shanta V State of Gujrat, AIR 1967 Guj. 211; in re Dhanalakshmi, 1974 Cr.L.J. 61. Thus, the term 'earnings of prostitution' means the hire charges, whether in cash or in kind, which a prostitute receives for offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse.
18. The term 'lives on' means 'has or treats as source of income'. To 'live on the earnings of prostitution' means 'to treat the earnings of prostitution as a source of income'. Thus, a person whose only source of income or a part of whose source of income is the earnings of prostitution of a women or girl is said to live on the earnings of prostitution and is punishable under this section. The expression 'living on' normally connotes living parasitically.
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
1319. In the case in hand, it is evident that prosecution has not been able to produce an iota of evidence to show that the co-accused Ashna was a prostitute from whom the recovery of Rs. 1000/- (two currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination) was made. Further, the prosecution has projected accused Geeta and Kajal also as prostitutes, however, no recovery whatsoever has been made from their possession, Even if it is believed that receptionist Ashna and Accused Parveen Pandey were collecting the money from the customers, no recovery whatsoever has been shown to be effected upon their personal search, from them as well. Admittedly, no independent witness has been produced in support of prosecution case nor any recovery of money or any other material has been affected to prove that co-accused was involved in the activities of prostitution. The star witness, i.e. the decoy witness (PW7/ Ct. Hariom) is a partisan witness and there is no corroborative evidence of any independent person to support his version.
20. In the present case, the independent public witnesses i.e. PW-2 & PW3 have been cited by the prosecution to prove it's story, however, both these witnesses have denied in to-to giving of any statements U/s 161 Cr. P. C to the police officials and have further denied that there were 6 girls who were available for giving massage. They have completely denied all the incriminating evidence collected by the IO and it is surprising to note that when PW-2 & PW-3 were found inside the SPA Room with accused Geeta and Kajal and the investigating agency is portraying them also as prostitutes, it implies that PW-2 & PW-3 were accomplice of the accused involved in the present case were promoting the offence of prostitution by offering the money to the girls. Rightly so, no person would depose against himself and admit that he Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
14was found inside a SPA room with the prostitute just to support the case of the prosecution.
21. Though, it is claimed by the prosecution that PW-4 Inspt.Pawan Kumar (First IO) tried to associate some public persons in the raiding party, however, they refused but the witness himself has admitted that he has himself not seen any immoral activity being done by the boys and girls inside the cabin as it was locked. He further admitted that he did not get conducted the medical examination of any of the boys and girls found in the cabin to ascertain the sexual activities between them. From the above, it is clear that there is non-compliance on the part of PW-4 (First IO) of section 15 (2) of the ITP Act. Further had PW-4 made any efforts for joining the public witnesses and they had refused to join the raiding parties then PW-4 should have taken action against those witness's u/s 187 IPC. However, PW-4 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, which makes the prosecution story doubtful.
22. Further, though PW-4 also stated that he had informed ACP regarding secret information received on his mobile phone and concerned ACP gave his assent telephonically for conducting raid. However, no such call record between PW-4 and concerned ACP has been produced on record and admittedly there is no written permission on record for carrying out raid and concerned ACP has also not been examined to prove that he gave permission to conduct the raid inspite of the fact that he was also projected as a witness available at the time of raid. Thus, it is concluded that prosecution has failed to prove compliance of section 15 (1) of ITP Act.
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
1523. Since as already discussed above, no public witnesses have been associated in this case, in such circumstances, testimony of PW-5 SI Jeet Ram, PW-6 HC Ashish, PW-8 W HC Suman and PW-9 Inspt. Vijender Singh is 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 witnesses have not heard conversation between PW-7 Ct. Hariom and accused persons. Therefore, whatever was told to these witnesses by decoy customer and shadow witness becomes barred by the principles of hearsay.
24. Now, we are left with the testimony of only two witnesses regarding striking of the deal for the purposes of prostitution between the decoy customer and the accused and it is the testimony of PW7 Ct. Hariom Singh (decoy customer) and PW-4 Inspt. Pawan and PW-10 Inspt. Mohit Yadav. Again, here is a difficulty that PW-7 Ct. Hariom and Inspt. Pawan Kumar were admittedly police officers when the deal was struck between the decoy witness and the accused persons. 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 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 Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
16was 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."
25. 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 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.
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
1726. 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.
27. 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 seal was also not handed over to any independent witness but to member of raiding party which again creates doubt about the correctness of seizure memo. 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. At the same time, it is observed that the PW-7 Ct. Hariom, has identified in the court the two currency notes of Rs. 500/- each seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C to be the same as the one given to the receptionist Ashna and from whom the recovery was effected. It is pertinent to mention that there is no signatures made by any member of the raiding party upon the said currency notes and there is no mention about the Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.
18number of the currency notes which were given to the Decoy witness i.e. PW-7 Ct. Hariom and the number on the currency notes recovered from the receptionist Ashna. It is difficult to comprehend as to how in the absence of either signatures or the number or any other identification mark, how the witness correctly identified the same. The only conclusion which follows is that the whole story projected by the investigation agency is false and concocted.
CONCLUSION:
28. For the reasons recorded above, it is concluded that prosecution failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Rajat Sharma is pronounced not guilty and is accordingly, acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 3, 4 , 5 & 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Previous Bail Bonds of the accused, if any, stands canceled and surety, if any, stands discharged. Original documents, if any, be released after cancellation of endorsement, if any, against proper receipt and identification. SAURABH by Digitally signed SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.17 15:31:20 +0530 Announced in the open court on (Saurabh Goyal) this day i.e. 17th May, 2025 JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.05.17
(Saurabh Goyal)
15:31:24 +0530
JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
Fir no. 856/2021 St. Vs. Parveen Pandey & ors.