Delhi District Court
State vs Alima Begum Ors on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, SOUTH-
EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Akansha Gautam, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 95733/2016
FIR No. : 857/2013
Police Station : Okhla Industrial
Area
Section(s) : 3/4/5/8 ITP Act
DLSE020056722016
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
ALIMA BEGUM
(Declared PO on 11.09.2019)
W/o Mr. Taslimuddin
R/o RZ 92, FF, Gali No. 13, Tughlakabad Extention,
New Delhi.
Permanent Address at Village, Bidyabari, PS Alakunda, Dist.
Prijali, Assam.
MANJU
W/o Lt. Mr. Bhado Haldar
R/o RZ-92, FF Gali no. 13, Tughlakabad Extention,
New Delhi.
Permanent Address at Village Bental, Post Rehroi, PS Rehroi, Dist
Nadia, West Bengal .
NIRMAL
W/o Gaurav @ Vipin
R/o H.no.160, Shiv Durga Vihar, Partly ward no.14, /village
Lakadpur, Faridabad, Haryana
...... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Inspector J.S. Mishra Alima Begum, Manju
2. Name of Accused : Digitally and Nirmal signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:17:31 +0530 1 / 16
3. Offence complained of or proved : 3/4/5/8 ITP Act
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 25.11.2013
6. Date of filing of case : 21.03.2016
7. Date of pronouncement : 12.09.2025
8. Final Order : Acquitted Argued by -: Sh. Rohit Lohia, Ld. APP for the State Sh. Akash Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION -:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 25.11.2013 at about 04:51 p.m., Inspector J.S. Mishra received an information regarding a sex racket running at H.no.92, Gali no.13, Tughlakabd Exention. The information was given to SCP, Kalkaji and she immediately asked to conduct a raid. The said information was noted vide DD no.35A and a raiding team was constituted.
Public persons were asked to join the raiding party but none joined and left the spot. SI Satinder Khatri was placed as a decoy customer and Ct. Dayanand as a shadow witness. SI Satinder Khatri approached the accused Nirmal as a customer and asked for prostitues after which she brought Alima Begum and Manju and asked the customer to choose between them. When the decoy customer chose Manju, he gave Rs.1,000/- to Manju and Rs.1,000/- to Nirmal. After observing the same the shadow witness Ct. Dayanand went out and gave a signal to the raiding party, upon whcih the accused persons were apprehended. The FIR was registered on the same day in PS Okhla Industrial Area.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED-
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and arrested the accused and on culmination of Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:17:35 +0530 2 / 16 the investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed on 21.03.2016. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused persons were summoned to face trial vide the same order.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, notice of accusation under Sections 3/4/5/8 ITP Act was framed against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE-
4. During the trial, the prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW 1 : Rajiv Budhraja PW 2 : Ct. Nitesh PW 3 : Inspector J.S. Mishra PW 4 : Inspector Satender Khari PW 5 : W/ HC Savita Rana PW 6 : HC Daynand PW 7 : SI Rajender Singh PW 8 : Inspector Raman Kumar Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW3/A : Note handing over memo of rupees 2,000/-
Ex. PW3/B : Seizure Memo of Rs.1,000/- Ex. PW3/C : Seizure Memo of Rs.1,000/- Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Date: Gautam 2025.09.12 16:17:40 +0530 3 / 16 Ex. PW3/D : Seizure Memo of condoms Ex. PW3/E : Tehrir Ex. PW3/F : Seizure Memo of rent agreement Ex. PW3/G Ex. PW3/H : Arrest Memos of accused Alima Begum, Nirmal and Manju Ex. PW3/I Ex. PW3/J
Personal Search Memos of accused Alima Begum, Nirmal Ex. PW3/K :
and Manju Ex. PW3/L DOCUMENTS ADMITTED UNDER SEC. 294 CrPC Ex.P/A/1 : Copy of FIR no.857/2013 Ex.P/A/2 : Certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act
5. The examination of prosecution witnesses is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE-
6. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC on 13.12.2024. In reply, accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They did not express willingness to lead defence evidence.
Digitally
signed by
Akhansha
Akhansha Gautam
Gautam Date:
2025.09.12
16:17:44
+0530
4 / 16
FINAL ARGUMENTS-
7. It has been argued by the ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that all the police witnesses who formed part of raiding team, have explained how the incident occurred in their examination. They have remained corroborated. Further, the seizure memos also support their claim. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
8. Per contra, ld. counsels for the accused persons have argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has also been argued on behalf of the accused persons that all the witnesses are formal in nature and there is no public witness to support the prosecution. Further, there are material inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution and there is no evidence to show that the alleged incident even occurred and the police personnels have foisted a false case against accused persons. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons deserve to be acquitted for the said offences.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS & FINDINGS
9. Having heard the submissions made by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons and having perused the record carefully, the findings of this Court is as below: -
10. It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. It has to be seen that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally
signed by
Akhansha
Akhansha Gautam
Gautam Date:
2025.09.12
16:17:50
+0530
5 / 16
11. In the present case in hand, the allegations against accused Nirmal is that she was found inducing and influencing girls for the purpose of prostitution and for the same, she joined accused Manju and Alima Begum to perform the job of sex workers. They would charge a sum of Rs. 2000/- from customers, out of which Rs.1000/- was taken by Nirmal and remaining Rs.1000/- was taken by Manju or Alima Begum, depending whoever engaged in coitus. Before proceeding further with the present case on merits, it would be pertinent to state in here the relevant provisions of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 (in brief) as well as law with regard to the same.
i. The accused was keeping a brothel or allowing her premises to be used as a brothel (u/s 3 ITP Act);
ii. She was living on the earnings of prostitution (u/s 4 ITP Act); iii. She procured or induced or took any person for the purpose of prostitution (u/s 5 ITP Act); and iv. The accused seduced or solicited for purpose of prostitution (u/s 8 ITP Act).
12. In State v. Bashir Ahmed, 1983 SCC OnLine Del 137 while dealing with similar facts as in the present case, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:
5. Morals and law are not synonymous. As soon as law enters the sphere of morals, its construction and implementation both seem to be fraught with difficulties.
One such law is this legislation relating to suppression of prostitution. Whatever be its origins and reason for its survival, be they biological, economical, social or psychological, prostitution is a practice as old as civilisation. It even came to be associated with devotion and dedication to gods, priests and temples. At one time courtesans carved for themselves an accepted niche in Digitally society nearing respectability. Still later it came to be signed by Akhansha protected, licensed and regulated by law. In spite of puritan Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:17:55 +0530 6 / 16 fervour it is difficult to totally eradicate this ancient practice unless the society guarantees to supply suitable employment and more rigorous its suppression is, more defiantly does it emerge overtly and covertly in other sophisticated forms. In general there is universal agreement that the practice of nonmarital sex as a profession is degrading to the dignity of mankind, of women in particular. In pursuance of ratification by India of the International Convention of the suppression of traffic in persons and of the exploitation of the prostitution by others, signed in New York in 1950 on May 9, the Act was enacted. One cannot fail to note that it primarily punishes miserable and helpless women who on account of circumstances are largely driven to live by this degrading trade. And one may pause to ask legitimately why not men except when he supplies her for the purpose be liable to punishment like her? That is one reason why the provisions of the Act should be strictly construed against prosecution.
6. Prostitution has been defined as follows:
"2. (f). 'prostitution' means the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercouse for hire, whether in money or in kind, and whether offered immediately or otherwise, and the expression 'prostitute' shall be construed accordingly."
7. It was urged that what the Act seeks to do is not to stop the profession or trade of a prostitute altogether: Shama Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 All. 57, and imposes reasonable restrictions on it.
MC Malerkotla v. Mushtaq, AIR 1960 Punjab 18. What it seeks to prohibit is the act of a common prostitute and, therefore, a single act of offer cannot amount to an offer for purposes of promiscuous intercourse. Promiscuity in prostitution means indiscriminate bartering of sex favours without any emotional attachment and for monetary considerations. In re Ratnamala, AIR 1962 Mad. 31, and Bai Shanta v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 Gujarat 211, it was pointed out that the purpose of the Act is not to render prostitution per se a criminal offence, but it is to inhibit or abolish commercialised vice as an organised means of living. So In re Kamala, AIR 1966 Madras 312, it was held Digitally signed by that merely to indulge in some flirtation with a stranger, or Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:17:58 +0530 7 / 16 to behave in such a way as to attract the attention of persons of the opposite sex, may be regrettable or immodest, but per se, it does not amount to any offence under the Act. It excludes a permanently kept concubine or a women taken without paying any consideration. The entire scheme behind the Act is not the proof of a single incident of prostitution or of the activities of a prostitute. There must be indiscriminate sexuality requiring more than one customer: In re Devakumar, (1972) 1 M.L.J. 200, and Bai Shanta (supra). In re Dhanalalcshmi1974 Cri. L.J. 61, it was observed that the phrase 'for purposes of prostitution' postulates plurality of instances of prostitution. A single instance would not suffice for the purpose of prostitution. But plural and indiscriminate sexuality can be inferred from the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and it is not necessary that the evidence of more than one customer of the prostitute should be adduced, vide T. Jacob v. State of Kerala, 1971 Cri. L.J. 952, and Krishnamurthy @ Tailor Krishnan v. Public Prosecutor, Madras, 1967 Cri. L.J. 544, and Devkumar (supra). Promiscuity lies in an intentional indifference in the selection of parties as long as they pay. The relationship is usually marked by brevity and inside contempt for each other. Mere offer for such promiscuous sex, in or near a public place will be an offence under Section 8 of the Act. If the facts alleged could be proved, then certainly the act complained of was an act for purposes of prostitution in this case.
8. What is then the evidence that prosecution has collected? It relies solely upon the statement of the accused themselves. Two questions in this regard have been raised, first whether what they did was in a public place and the second and more important one, whether the statements could be read in evidence against the accused.
10. As respects the second question, the learned Magistrate discarded the statements as confessions made to a police officer. 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 Digitally signed by Akhansha substantially all the facts which constitute the Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:18:02 +0530 8 / 16 offence: Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC.
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 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 Anti-Corruption police, it was held in Maha Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1976) 1 SCC 644 :
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 on 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 cognisable offence. Investigation may start without information or without reducing the same in writing under Section 154 Cr. P.C.: State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221. 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. The learned counsel defending the accused also attacked the employment of a police officer as a decoy. "It cannot be too strongly emphasised 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".: Bramnan v. Peek, (1947) 2 All E.R. 572 at 583- 584, approved in Kamalabai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 1189. I am in agreement with the criticism made in this regard. It is in the interest of the prosecution not to use Akhansha a police officer as a decoy. These prosecutions have failed Gautam because of such use. Digitally signed by Akhansha Gautam Date: 2025.09.12 16:18:07 +0530 9 / 16
13. Further in Renu Bansal v. U.T Chandigarh 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 4631, on the similar facts it was observed by Hon'ble high Court of Punjab and Haryana:
15. Now putting the facts of the present case on parameters of the aforesaid interpretations, I am inclined to hold that facts and circumstances prevailing over the case do not constitute offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The facts as exposed before me are that three ladies were sitting in the car, whereas, Deepak Chauhan, was standing outside.
He received a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the decoy customer, later on that money was recovered from the ladies. There is no such evidence that the ladies came out of the car intending to go with the decoy customer or that they offered their body for sexual intercourse to him. The allegations is only that as soon as decoy customer handed over the money to Deepak Chauhan, raid was conducted and money was recovered from the ladies, therefore, to my mind no ingredients appear to have been completed in order to record observations that either Deepak Chauhan was living on the earning of the prostitution or he was habitually in their company; he handed over the ladies for sexual intercourse to the decoy customer; he was acting as a tout or pimp between the ladies and the decoy customer or that the ladies were the prostitutes as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.
16. Now coming to the offence under Section 8 of the Act, it is not the case of chance detection. It was the decoy customer who had intentionally gone to Deepak Chauhan treating him to be as pimp or tout. Since there is no evidence that the ladies were offered to the decoy customer. Mere acceptance of money by him from the decoy customer and in the absence of other evidence of any other overt act leading to sexual intercourse, merely handing over the money to the ladies is hardly sufficient to prove that the money was received on behalf of ladies by him for the purpose of prostitution, much less for the purpose of sexual intercourse with those ladies or offering them for prostitution. As a matter of fact, since the three ladies sitting in the car are not Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:18:11 +0530 10 / 16 covered within the definition of 'prostitutes', the offence of acting as a tout or pimp by Deepak Chauhan as provided under Section 4 of the Act is not established. Similarly, when the ladies are not proved to be prostitutes having been found in the houses of defame and they even did not come out of the car or did any act towards sexual intercourse, they did not even show their intention to move with the decoy customer then to attract or endeavour to attract the customers by the three ladies by making gestures also can't be said to be proved. Particularly when no such part of the body was shown or offered by them to the decoy customer.
14. In the instant case, both the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable U/s 3/4/5/8 ITP Act. The allegations against them are that they were using premises i.e. House no.92, first floor, Gali No.9, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi as a brothel and were soliciting/ inducing prostitution for monetary gains. However, the prosecution has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to establish the possession of the said premises with the accused persons on the date of offence. PW-1/ Rajiv Budhiraja has entered the witness box and deposed that he is the owner of the house, which was allegedly used for prostitution. He has admitted entering into tenancy agreement with Sh. Gaurav @ Vipin, who is the husband of accused Nirmal from 21.05.2011 to 21.03.2013, however he has specifically deposed that the Gaurav@ Vipin did not renew the rent agreement in April 2013 and vacated the said house. The incident has occurred on 25.11.2013, when neither accused Nirmal nor accused Manju had any form of rights over the house, either themselves or through family members. Thus, the prosecution witness has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, no evidence is forthcoming to explain the nature of possession of the said property with the accused persons on the day of incident i.e. 25.11.2013. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons were in possession of the said Akhansha Gautam Digitally signed by Akhansha Gautam Date: 2025.09.12 16:18:14 +0530 11 / 16 property and in its absence, there exists no ground to assume that they were using the said property for the purpose of brothel. Therefore, there is no occasion to convict them for the offence punishable u/s 3 ITP Act.
15. It was upon the prosecution to prove that the girls namely Alima Begum and Manju alleged to be produced by accused Nirmal to the decoy customer were prostitute as per section 2(f) of ITP Act. Although it is stated in the charge sheet that accused Manju told the decoy customer that 'if he performs coitus with her, he will forget his wife', neither decoy customer SI Satender Khatri nor shadow witness Ct. Dayanand who was the shadow witness, never deposed with regard to the said fact in Court. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was over overt act on the part of accused Manju apart from receiving the money from decoy customer, SI Satender Khatri. As held by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Renu Bansal case (Supra) that mere acceptance of money from the decoy customer and in absence of other evidence of any other overt act leading to sexual intercourse, merely handing over the money is hardly sufficient to prove that the money was received for the purpose of prostitution, the prosecution has failed to show that the said girls namely Manju or Alima Begum squarely falls within the provision of section 2(f) of ITP Act.
16. Moreover, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of alleged decoy customer SI Satender Khatri and the shadow witness PW-3 Ct. Dayanand. The other prosecution witnesses except PW-1 and PW-2, were the members of the raiding party, who have derived information of the commission of the offence by the accused persons through the said two witnesses. They are mere hearsay witnesses. Further, the prosecution has failed Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Date: Gautam 2025.09.12 16:18:18 +0530 12 / 16 to place and prove on record DD entry bearing number 35-A to establish that all the members of the raiding party left the Police Station together for the said purpose. The said departure entry is indispensable for establishing their presence at the spot of alleged raid. Therefore, their presence at the alleged place, time and date of alleged raid is doubtful.
17. Besides, nothing incriminating exists against the accused persons namely Nirmal and Manju, except their alleged statements made to police officers soliciting prostitution. 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. Further, their mere presence at the spot does not attract any penal provision. Their presence has to be assumed innocuous unless it is established that they were also involved in running of a prostitution racket. There is not even an iota of credible evidence to believe that the said accused persons were involved in the said racket.
Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:18:21 +0530 13 / 16
18. The alleged prostitution racket is stated to have been busted by the raid conducted on 25.11.2013, at around 05:20 pm, in Gali No.9 of Tughlakabad extension, Delhi. The said place is admittedly a densely crowded residential area. Further, prosecution witnesses have also admitted presence of public persons near and at the said place of raid. Therefore, it is convincingly established that there were many public persons available at the spot of alleged raid. The criminal law has duly empowered the investigating officer/police officials to initiate action against the persons who refuse to participate in the investigation. But still, IO neither made any genuine and sincere efforts to join public/independent witnesses nor advanced any plausible explanation as to why no independent witnesses were examined by him. Hence, story of the prosecution is further shrouded in suspicion. The witnesses that are examined by the prosecution in the present case are police witnesses, who are interested in the success of the prosecution case and therefore, the probability of them being guided by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be ruled out. The police witnesses cannot be straightaway termed as unreliable witnesses, however, when there is a possibility of joining any public witness in the investigation and still no genuine and sincere efforts are made to join the independent person as witness, then the testimony of the police witness does not lend sufficient credence/reliability, unless it is corroborated by independent material witness. The non joining of the public witness creates doubt in the story of the prosecution as held in Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration 1987 CC 585 Delhi High Court.
19. The reliance can also be placed upon the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Harjit Singh V. State of Punjab [2002] SUPP1SCR581wherein it is held:-
Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:18:25 +0530 14 / 16 ".........50 Apart from the versions of eyewitnesses discussed above, the trial court attached importance to the fact that on a disclosure statement of accused Satinderpal Singh, pistol alleged to have been used by Inderjit Singh was recovered under memorandum Ext. P-19. We have referred to the statement of Investigating Officer Puran Singh (PW9). He is unable to explain the reason for not procuring the attendance and signature of independent witnesses on the disclosure statement Ex.PV and memorandum of recovery Ext. PU1. We have noted that these memoranda have been signed only by two police officers Faqir Chand and Virsa Singh. It is unbelievable that all the accused persons who have alleged to use their firearms/weapons kept all the arms concealed in an open field in a gunny bag under the heap of straw. In the absence of independent witnesses and the alleged place of concealment being accessible to the public, the evidence of disclosure statement and the consequent recovery of arms and weapons do not at all inspire confidence. In any case, it is not a piece of evidence which could be relied on by the trial court to convict the accused by treating it as eyewitness account."
I also find support from case titled as Aslam Parwez V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2003 CriLJ 2525 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"10......In view of these features of the case, we are of the opinion that the testimony of three police personnel, namely, PWs 10, 11 and 1 does not inspire confidence and it will be highly unsafe to place reliance upon the same in order to convict the accused specially when the public and independent witnesses did not at all support the prosecution case on any material particular."
20. Keeping in view the fact that the version of prosecution witness has remained uncorroborated by any other independent witness regarding the alleged raid and recovery of the said two currency notes of Rs.1000/- each, it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused persons. It has been held in 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that "Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of head constable and no independent witness examined-prosecution story appearing improbable and unnatural. Held that the prosecution case cannot be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted". Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.09.12 16:18:28 +0530 15 / 16 CONCLUSION:
21. For the reasons recorded above, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus placed upon it and so have failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons and accused persons namely Nirmal and Manju are acquitted of the charge U/s. 3/4/5/8 ITP Act. Bail bonds of accused Nirmal already furnished stands accepted u/s 437A Cr.P.C and shall remain in force for next six months. Accused Manju is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds u.s 437A Cr.P.C within 15 days from today. As far as accused Alima Begum is concerned, file be revived as and when she is arrested.
ORDER -: ACQUITTED Pronounced in open court on 12.09.2025 in presence of accused.
Note: This judgment contains 16 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date: 2025.09.12 16:18:32 +0530 (AKANSHA GAUTAM) JMFC-02/SE/Saket/ND 12.09.2025 16 / 16