Delhi District Court
State vs . Chandra on 26 April, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/WEST: DELHI
STATE Vs. CHANDRA
FIR NO. : 126/91
U/SEC : 3/4/5 ITP Act
PS : Vikas Puri
JUDGEMENT
Serial no. of the case 2/10
Date of commission of offence 13.03.91
Date of institution of the case 08.02.94
Name of the complainant Inspector Soban Singh
Name of accused, parentage & Tajinder Singh, S/o Sh. Joginder
address Singh, R/o Hira Nagar, Patiala
(Dead). (Proceedings abated)
Chandra, D/o Lt. Sh. Chotte Lal,
R/o flat no. 247, JG-II, Vikas Puri,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved 3/4/5 Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final arguments heard 13.04.10
Final order Convicted
Date of Judgment 26.04.2010
JUDGEMENT
Brief Statement of the reasons for decision:
1. The prosecution case in brief are that acused Tajinder Singh and accused Chandra on 13.03.91 at 12.05 am (night) at flat No. 247, J.G.II, Vikas Puri, Delhi were found managing brothel and running prostitution from the above said place and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 3 of I.T.P Act.
Secondly, on the above mentioned date, time and place accuseds being over the age of 18 years knowingly lived on the earning of prostitute, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of ITP Act.
Thirdly, on the above mentioned date, time and place, accused no.2 offered herself in connivance with Tajinder Singh, S/o Sh. Joginder Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 5 of Immoral Traffic Act.
2. Arguments on charge were heard on 26.6.01. Submissions of both the parties were considered. Prima facie a case u/s 3/4/5 Act was found to be made out against the accused person. Accordingly, charge for the said offences was served against the accused. The accusation was read over and explained to accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. Accused no.1 got expired and proceedings were abated against him vide order dated 19.10.06.
3. The six prosecution witnesses that were examined during the course of the trial are as follows:
1. PW-1 HC Balbir Singh, who was duty officer.
2. PW-2 Inspector, Sobhan Singh, who is the IO of the case
3. PW-3 ASI Vimla, who accompanied the raiding party.
4. PW-4 ASI Mahipal Singh, who is MHCM
5. PW-5 HC Kishori Lal, is a decoy customer who accompanied raiding party.
6. PW-6 Inspector Lalit Joshi, who was also member of raiding party.
4. I have heard Ld. APP for state and counsel for accused and have gone through the case file very carefully. Ld. APP for state submits that in the present case accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/s 3/4/5 ITP Act on the basis of depositions made by various prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused submits that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and acquittal of the accused has been prayed for.
5. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guitly of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is also a settled proposition that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution case in a criminal trial throughout the course of the trial rests entirely and entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reason doubt in the prosecution case entitiles the accused to acquittal
6. In the present case against the accused Chandra, charge U/s3/4/5 under ITP Act were framed. However, when I examined the prosecution case & testimonies of witnesses and especially the material witness i.e. PW-5 who is decoy customer and PW-2 who is a IO of the case it is proved that accused offered herself for prostitution and from the cross-examination of PW-5, it is proved that she was offering herself for prostitution. It has never been alleged by the prosecution anywhere that accused was running a brothel or she was living from the earning of the prostitution or she procured induced or brought any person for the sake of prostitution. These allegations no where alleged upon accused Chandra in FIR or chargesheet. The case of the prosecution was that when the decoy customer made a deal with accused (Tajinder Pal) since expired he offered Chandra for prostitution. From the above it cannot be conclusively derived that accused was running this brothel or she was living on the earning of any prostitute or she brought any person for the sake of prostitution. No other person or gist was found involved in prostitution except accused Chandra.
7. On the basis of the record, at the most it can be said that she was offering herself for the purpose of prostitution. However, charge U/s 8 was not framed against the accused Chandra. This court is well with in its powers to change the accused and convict the accused if U/s 8 proved which is a minor offence.
8.. In the present case PW-2 IO in his examination in chief has deposed that upon information he formed a raiding party and a decoy customer was also taken alongwith it. While going for the raiding, some people were requested but none joined the investigation. He gave two notes of Rs.50/- to Ct. Kishori Lal who went in plain clothes as a decoy customer at the spot. Thereafter decoy customer went at the spot and gave signal. The accused were arrested and Rs.50/- notes were recovered from both the accused. Counsel for the accused has argued that recovery from the accused Chandra is bogus as no witness except ASI Bimla has signed the memo and currency notes numbers have not been mentioned in Ex. PW2/A i.e. memo. I find no force in this argument of Ld. Counsel for accused because it has been explained by the witness that to maintain decency accused was searched in other room by the lady police personnel. Therefore, I am of the view that in that case there is nothing wrong if only ASI Bimla had signed the memo. If I see the whole chain of events & testimonies of Pws 2, 3 and 5 which are unshaken, trustworthy & Corroborate the case of prosecution. Nothing material has come out in the cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit the case of prosecution. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. also, accused Chandra did not take any ground except saying that it was a false case. From the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5, PW-3 it has been proved that accused Chandra was found offering herself for prostitution and after the raid Rs.50/- note, duly signed by the IO, was recovered from her.
9. Therefore on the basis of the above said discussion accused is convicted U/s 8 of ITP Act. Now to come up on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL) ON 26th APRIL, 2010 MM/WEST/DELHI/ TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI