Delhi District Court
State vs Arvaza Zulikha Etc on 5 January, 2026
1 / 18
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, SOUTH-
EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Akansha Gautam, DJS
DLSE020001062011
Cr. Case No. : 88052/2016
FIR No. : 24/2011
Police Station : Okhla Industrial
Area
Section(s) : 3/4/5/7/18 ITP Act &
14 Foreigners Act
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
i) Arvaza Zulikha D/o Yakuboyna (already convicted)
R/o Q-18-A, Jangpura, New Delhi.
ii) Shusevgeniia D/o Shusevgenii (already convicted)
R/o Q-18-A, Jangpura, New Delhi.
iii) Markobo D/o Abdulla
R/o C-67, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
iv) Dilfuza Paranova D/o Ollabergir
R/o C-67, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
v) Sanobar D/o Islam (already convicted)
R/o C-67, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
...... Accused persons
1.Name of Complainant : Dr. Joy Tirkey
2. Offence complained of or proved : 3/4/5/7/18 ITP Act & 14 Foreigners Act
3. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
4. Date of commission of offence : 02.02.2011 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:46:09 +0530 2 / 18
5. Date of filing of case : 24.06.2011
6. Date of pronouncement : 05.01.2026
7. Final Order : Acquitted Argued by -: Sh. Rohit Lohia, Ld. APP for the State Sh. Varun Narang, Ld. Counsel for the accused Markobo. Sh. Zubair, Ld. Counsel for the accused Dilfuza.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION -:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 02.02.2011 at about 03:40 PM, a secret informer came to the office of SIT, Crime Branch and informed SI Sharat Kohli that some foreign national girls were indulging in prostitution at C-Block, Lajpat Nagar, Part-I, New Delhi. The informer stated that if raid was conducted, they might expose a big sex racket in Lajpat Nagar area. Thereafter, the secret informer was produced before Dr. Joy Tirkey, Additional DCP/SIT and he, after inquiring about the facts of information, directed to form a raiding party. On 02.02.2011, at about 6:30 p.m., a raiding party along with secret informer reached at the aforesaid address. On verification from the neighbours, the address of the house was found as C-67, IInd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, Part-I, Delhi. On the directions of Dr. Joy Tirkey, SI Sharat Kohli called Rajesh Singh, who is owner of the said house and told him to came to the spot. Rajesh Singh reached at the spot at 8:15 p.m. and agreed to join raiding party. Thereafter, five currency notes of the value of Rs.5,000/- in the denomination of Rs.1000 was given to HC Amit Tomar and he was directed to use the said currency notes to strike a deal with foreign national women in return for sexual enjoyment. After finalizing of deal, SI Sharat Kohli informed the raiding party about the same. Thereafter, on the directions of Dr. Joy Tirkey, whole raiding party along with owner of the flat reached at C-67, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, Part-I, New Delhi from where five foreign national girls were Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:46:18 +0530 3 / 18 apprehended. The names of those five foreign national girls were revealed as Markobo, Sanobar, Dilfuza Palvanova, Arvaza Zulikha and Shusevgenia. After investigating the matter, it was found that the abovementioned five girls are indulged the prostitution and some were found staying in India without a valid visa and passport. Thereafter, all these girls were arrested and FIR was registered under Section 3/4/5/7/8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as 'ITP Act') and section 14 Foreigners Act.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED-
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and arrested the accused persons. On culmination of the investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed on 24.06.2011. After taking cognizance of the offences, the accused persons were summoned to face trial vide the same order.
COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 207 Cr.P.C. AND CHARGES
3. On their 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"). During the course of trial, accused Arvaza Zulikha and accused Shusevgenia@ Jaine pleaded guilty to the charges on 16.07.2011 and were accordingly, convicted and sentenced. Accused Sanobar Atadjanova pleaded guilty to the charges on 09.12.2015 and were accordingly, convicted and sentenced. On finding a prima facie case against the remaining accused persons, charge under Sections 3/7 of ITP Act was framed against the accused persons Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova on 23.08.2014 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Accused Marhoboi was also charged u/s 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:46:25 +0530 4 / 18 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 : Rajesh Singh PW 2 : ASI Lakshmi Sharma PW 3 : SI Shyam Lal PW 4 : ASI Amit Tomar PW 5 : Inspector Sharat Kohli DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A : Lease Agreement Ex. PW1/B : Seizure memo Search of HC Amit Tomar and the document pertaining to the Ex. PW1/C :
same
Ex. PW1/D : Seizure memo of currency notes
Ex. PW1/E : Site Plan
Ex. PW1/F
: Arrest memos of all the accused persons
toEx.PW1/J
Ex. PWI/K : Seizure Memo of rent agreement and DJB water bill
Ex. PW2/A
to : Personal search memos of accused persons
Ex. PW 2/E
Ex. PW2/F
: Disclosure statement of accused persons toEx.PW2/J Ex. PW4/A : Seizure memo of the photocopy of the electricity bill of flat Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:46:29 +0530 5 / 18 no.C-67 Lajpat Nagar Ex. PW4/B : Electricity bill of flat no.C-67 Lajpat Nagar Ex. PW5/A : Seizure memo of passport of accused Arbaza Ex. PW5/B : Seizure memo of electricity bill
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 03.12.2025. 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.
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.
Digitally
signed by
Akhansha
Akhansha Gautam
Gautam Date:
2026.01.05
16:46:33
+0530
6 / 18
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. Material prosecution witnesses like DCP Joy Tirke and Inspector Aarti Sharma have not entered the witness box. 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.
11. In the present case in hand, the allegations against accused Marhobo is that she was offered herself as well as four other occupants of the house namely Sanobar, Dilfuza Paranova, Shusevgeniia and Arvaza Zulikha for sexual enjoyment in lieu of money. They would charge a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per girl either at the same place or any other place to the customers.
Digitally
signed by
Akhansha
Akhansha Gautam
Gautam Date:
2026.01.05
16:46:37
+0530
7 / 18
Before proceeding further with the present case on merits, it would be pertinent to state in here the relevant provisions of Immoral Traffic (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) Prostitution in or vicinity of public places (u/s 7 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 society nearing respectability. Still later it came to be protected, licensed and regulated by law. In spite of puritan 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 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:46:42 +0530 8 / 18 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 that merely to indulge in some flirtation with a stranger, or 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 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:46:46 +0530 9 / 18 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 substantially all the facts which constitute the 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 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:46:52 +0530 10 / 18 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 a police officer as a decoy. These prosecutions have failed because of such use.
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 Akhansha Gautam Digitally signed by Akhansha Gautam Date: 2026.01.05 16:46:56 +0530 11 / 18 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 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 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:47:03 +0530 12 / 18 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, all the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable U/s 3/7 ITP Act as well as section 14 Foreign National Act. Accused Arvaza Zulikha and accused Shusevgenia@ Jaine pleaded guilty to the charges on 16.07.2011. Accused Sanobar Atadjanova pleaded guilty to the charges on 09.12.2015. The case proceeded for trial against accused Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova. The allegations against them are that they were using premises i.e. House no.67, second floor, Lajpat Nagar, 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/ Rajesh Singh 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. Kamal Suri, however he was kept in column 12 and not summoned by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. How the house was passed down from Kamal Suri to the accused persons has not been proven by the 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. 02.02.2011. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons were in possession of the said 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.
Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:47:07 +0530 13 / 18
15. It was upon the prosecution to prove that the girls namely Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova 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 Marhobo opened the door and offered herself and four other girls to the decoy customer, however there is no mention of any overt act done either by the decoy customer HC Amit Tomar nor shadow witness SI Sharat Kohli who was the shadow witness. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was over overt act on the part of accused Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova apart from receiving the money from decoy customer, HC Amit Tomar. 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 Marhobo or Dilfuza Paranova 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 HC Amit Tomar/ PW-4 and the shadow witness PW-5 SI Sharat Kohli. The other prosecution witnesses 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. The DCP who formed the raiding party i.e. Joy Tirke never appeared before the Court to depose qua the secret information received and the reason for forming a raiding party. The entire genus of formation of raiding party was based on the testimony of the above-said witness who did not appear in Court despite issuance of multiple processes. Similarly, the Investigating Officer of the present complaint who led the raiding party and did Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:47:12 +0530 14 / 18 the entire investigation after collection of evidences, never appeared in Court to depose and after issuance of multiple processes, Inspector Aarti Sharma and DCP Joy Tirke were dropped from the list of witnesses on 15.11.2025, giving a major blow to the prosecution story. Further, the prosecution has failed to place and prove on record any DD entry to establish that the members of the raiding party left the Police Station 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 Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova, 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 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:47:16 +0530 15 / 18 prostitution racket. There is not even an iota of credible evidence to believe that the said accused persons were involved in the said racket.
18. The alleged prostitution racket is stated to have been busted by the raid conducted on 02.02.2011, at around 06:30 pm, at C-67, Second floor, Lajpat Nagar, 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 entered the witness box 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.
Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:47:20 +0530 16 / 18
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:-
".........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 five 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 Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:47:24 +0530 17 / 18 "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".
21. Coming to section 14 of Foreigners Act, the provision states, 'Whoever --
(a) remains in any area in India for a period exceeding the period for which the visa was issued to him;
(b) does any act in violation of the conditions of the valid visa issued to him for his entry and stay in India or any part thereunder;
(c) contravenes the provisions of this Act or of any order made thereunder or any direction given in pursuance of this Act or such order for which no specific punishment is provided under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine; and if he has entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-
section (2) of section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting Court why such penalty should not be paid by him.
As far as the provision is concerned, only accused Marhobo has been charged for the same. Since the Investigating Officer has herself not entered the witness box to depose to the effect that the accused Marhobo was staying in India without any valid passport or visa, despite being a national of Uzbekistan, there are no grounds for convicting the accused for the same. There are no documents to record conviction of the accused as well. Even the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is to the effect of the provisions of ITP Act and the witnesses have only said the all accused persons were asked to produce visa and passport which only Dilfuza and Arvaza Zulikha could. How veer, the official Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2026.01.05 16:47:28 +0530 18 / 18 who actually seized the passports and made the said enquiry i.e. Inspector Aarti Sharma never entered the witness box to depose qua the same.
CONCLUSION:
22. 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 Marhobo and Dilfuza Paranova are acquitted of the charge U/s. 3/7 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Accused Marhobo is also acquitted of the charge u/s 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount, in accordance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The said bailbonds shall be accepted for the next six months.
ORDER -: ACQUITTED Pronounced in open court on 05.01.2026 in presence of accused. Note: This judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Digitally signedAkhansha by Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date: 2026.01.05 16:47:32 +0530 (AKANSHAGAUTAM) Judicial Magistrate First Class - 02 South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi.