Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjeet Kaur on 4 October, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Ranjeet Kaur
FIR No. 152/89
PS: Karol Bagh
U/s 3 /4/5 & 7(2) of I.T.P
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. no. of the case :
B) The date of commission : 27.04.89
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Ins. R.P.Gautam
D) The name & address
of accused : 1. Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo
W/o Tarsem Singh R/o
T-975, Ashoka Pahari,
Faiz Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
2.Dayawati @ Dolly
W/o Hukam Chand R/o
Jacole Pura, Gurgaon
(Haryana).
3.Sunita Khanna W/o
Sanjay Khanna @ Amar
Singh R/o 53 Village
Dheerpur, Nirankari
Colony, Delhi.
4. Anita Jain @ Kamlesh
W/o Padam Singh D/o
Ramesh Jain R/o C-980,
Jahangir Puri,Delhi.
5..Bhupinder Singh S/o
Gurmukh Singh Malhotra
R/o 119/19 Railway Colony,
Continue....
2
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
E) Offence complained of : U/s 3 /4/5/7 (2) of
I.T.P
F) The plea of accused : All accused-Pleaded
not guilty
G) Final order : Accused Ranjit Kaur is
convicted for the offence
U/s 3(1)/4(1)/5(1)/7(1)
of I.T.P.Act.
:Accused Sunita and
Dayawati are convicted
for the offence U/s 7(1)
of I.T.P.Act
:Accused Anita Jain is
acquitted.
:Proceedings qua accused
Bhupender Singh were
abated in view of his
death vide orders dated
30.01.04
H) The date of such order : 04.10.07
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.4.89 at about 2.30 p.m SHO Inspector R.P. Gautam of PS Karol Bagh received a secret information that one lady Billo offers ladies and girls for prostitution from House No. T-975, Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road, Karol Continue....
3Bagh through one Bhupinder Singh, a shopkeeper of Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh. On this information SHO alongwith SI Lakshmi Chand, SI Rajender Singh, HC Babu Ram, Ct. Krishan Kumar and lady Ct. Anita Devi reached at Arya Samaj Road, Ajmal Khan Road Chowk at 2.40 pm when they met SI Harish Chand Joshi and Ct. Kartar Singh who were on patrolling duty in civil clothes and they were also joined in. Meanwhile one Abhimanyu Bakshi S/o Dharmveer Bakshi met them and was told about the secret information, whereupon he agreed to join the raiding party. Thereafter Abhimanyu Bakshi was made a decoy customer. 3-4 other public persons were requested to join the raiding party but they went away telling their personal difficulties. One of those persons told his name as Devinder Kumar S/o Mulchand R/o Government quarters, Dev Nagar, Delhi. Without wasting time SI Harish Chand Joshi in civil clothes was made a shadow witness and directed to accompany the decoy customer. The personal search of decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi was carried out and no currency note was left in his possession. Thereafter SHO Inspector R.P. Gautam handed over four currency notes of Rs 100/- to the decoy customer and handing over memo of currency notes, mentioning their number Continue....
4to this effect, was prepared. Abhimanyu Bakshi was directed to talk to Bhupinder Singh for making available the girls for prostitution and on deal being finalized was directed to accompany Bhupinder Singh to Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh , as a customer for prostitution. He was further instructed to introduce SI Harish Chand Joshi as his friend and a trader from Bombay and was told to indulge in sexual activities after selecting the girl of his choice. SI Harish chand Joshi was directed to give his aforesaid introduction and to hear the talks by being present near the decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi. He was further instructed to inform the raiding party by coming out by spitting after the decoy customer starts indulging in sexual activities with the girl of his choice. The decoy customer, the shadow witness alongwith the secret informer were sent to the Gaffar Market and on the pointing out of the secret informer, the decoy customer talked to Bhupinder Singh who was standing at one of the counters. After deal was finalized all the three persons reached at House No T-975, Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh at 4.10 p.m. The raiding party hid itself outside the said premises and was waiting for the signal. At 4.30 p.m SI Harish Chand came out of the said house coughing and spitting & Continue....
5thereby gave the signal whereupon the raiding party entered the said house. On entering in the ground floor of the house it was found that there was a double bed and the door was covered with a curtain. The decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi was found indulging in sexual activities with accused Dayawati@ Dolly on the bed. There was only one cloth on the body of the decoy customer and accused Dayawati had removed her Salwar and had kept the same near the pillow. Both of them were found hugging and kissing each other. On seeing the police party the accused Dayawati got up suddenly and tried to cover her body. She was asked to wear her Salwar with the help of lady Constable and the decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi also wore his clothes. After apprehending Dayawati the raiding party reached at the first floor where they found accused Bhupinder Singh, Ranjit Kaur @ Billo, Anita Jain, Sunita and Sonia Mehara @ Sonu aged about 14 years. The names and addresses of all those persons were revealed after inquiry. On the information of decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi the personal search of accused Bhupinder Singh was carried out wherein one currency note of Rs.100/- was recovered. On personal search by lady Ct. Anita one currency note each of Rs. 100/-
Continue....
6denomination were recovered from the Bra worn by the accused Ranjit Kaur @ Billo, Dayawati @ Dolly and Sunita. On comparison these currency notes were found to be the same which were given to the decoy customer. At this point of time the decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi and shadow witness SI Harish Chand Joshi stated that the accused Bhupinder Singh had struck a deal with them for sexual intercourse with a girl of their choice for Rs.400/- and they went at House No T-975, Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh and the accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo had offered Dayawati @ Dolly, Anita Jain, Sunita and Sonia Mehra @ Sonu aged about 14 years for prostitution. The accused Dayawati @ Dolly, Anita Jain, Sunita give their consent but Sonia Mehara @ Sonu aged about 14 years had refused the same while crying. The 400/- rupees were given to accused Ranjit Kaur @ Billo. On the asking of Bhupinder Singh the decoy customer had selected Dayawati @ Dolly and the shadow witness had selected Sunita for sexual intercourse. The said activities were carried out within 200 mtrs from Bhai Joga Singh School. The rukka was prepared and the case U/s 3/4/5/6/7 of ITP Act 1956 was registered against the accused persons through Ct. Kartar Singh.
Continue....
7Thereafter the site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and accused persons were apprehended. Child Sonia Mehra @ Sonu who was rescued from the brothel was sent to Nari Nekatan and was subsequently handed over to her father Sh. Janak Raj Mehra on the orders of Court.
2. After investigation challan was filed U/s 3/4/5/6/7 of ITP Act against the accused Ranjit Kaur @ Billo, U/s 3/4/5/6/7 (2) of ITP Act against the accused Bhupinder Singh, U/s 3/4/5/6/7(2) of ITP Act against the accused Sunita and U/s 7 of ITP Act against the accused persons Dayawati @ Dolly and accused Anita Jain.
3. After supplying the complete copies to the accused persons and complying with the provisions of 207 Cr.P.C. the arguments on charge were heard. Ld. Predecessor Sh. S.K. Gupta, vide his order dated 8.3.95 had framed charge U/s 7 of ITP Act against accused Dayawati, Anita and Sunita and U/s 3/4/5/7(2) of ITP Act against accused Bhupinder Singh and Ranjit Kaur @ Billo to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Continue....
8
4. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses.
PW-1 is lady Ct. Anita Devi, who as per her deposition , on 27.4.89 was posted in Women Cell, Pahar Ganj and on receipt of call to this effect had accompanied the police party at House No. T-975, Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh for raid. She has deposed that one public witness had also joined the police party. She has further deposed that when the police party entered the said house one girl and boy on the first floor and the remaining accused persons were apprehended and she has correctly identified them in the court. She has proved personal search of accused Sunita, Anita, Ranjit Kaur @ Billo, and Dayawati @ Dolly vide Ex.PW1/A,B,C & D respectively.
PW-2 is Laxmi Chand Bansal, PW-12 is HC Kartar Singh, PW-3 is Inspector Harish Chand Joshi. All these three witnesses were members of the raiding party and had deposed on the lines of the prosecution case and have corroborated the version of each other and that of the prosecution story.
PW-4 is Lal Saheb who was the duty officer at the relevant point of time and has proved the registration of FIR in the present case Continue....
9and its copy as Ex.PW4/A. PW-5 is Anil Kapoor, UDC from Home Department who has proved the Government notification Ex.PW7/A vide which all SHOs besides the other police official mentioned in the notification were given the powers of special officers in the ITP Act.
PW-6 D.K. Sharma, Sub-Registrar from Birth and Death Department of MCD, Karol Bagh has proved the birth certificate dated 13.12.74 Ex.PW6/A which shows that female child was born to Smt. Shakuntla W/o Janak Raj on 10.12.74. As per the case of the prosecution the said certificate is with respect to child Sonia who was rescued from the brothel.
PW-7 Abhimanyu Bakshi is the most material and star witness of the prosecution who acted as a decoy customer. He has also broadly deposed on the lines of the prosecution case onall material points except on the point of preparation of documents at the spot. At the request of Ld. APP he was declared hostile on that point and in his cross examination by Ld. APP he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has admitted and proved the factum of preparation of various documents like Jama Talashi vide Ex.PW7/A Continue....
10bearing his signature at point A. He has admitted the preparation of various documents vide Ex.PW3/A, B, C, D, E, F & G and Ex.PW1/A, B, C & D bearing his signatures.
PW-8 Soniya has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, she has admitted that the police officials had visited the house of her Grand Mother 'Billo' at Faiz Road, Karol Bagh.
PW-9 is Ved Prakash, PW-10 is Hans Raj and PW-11 is Janak Raj. All of them have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. In their cross examination also by Ld. APP they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. However, none of them was a material witness whose non supporting the case may prove fatal to the case of prosecution.
PW10 is Hans Raj, PW-11 is Janak Raj , PW-12 is HC Kartar Singh and PW-13 is Inspector R.P. Gautam, who was the SHO of PS Karol Bagh at the relevant point of time and IO of the present case. He has also deposed on the lines of the prosecution case and has deposed about the raid and the investigation carried out by him. He has supported the case of prosecution on all material points. During trial accused Bhupinder Singh had expired and accordingly the Continue....
11proceedings were abated against him by Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 30.1.04.
5. Statement of remaining four accused persons U/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded and stand of all the accused persons are of general denial. The accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo has stated that she is innocent and had nothing to do with the case as alleged and that as the police had falsely implicated her. She further stated that she had never used the said premises as a brothel house and even she did not know about the other accused persons arrested in this case & that this is a planted and false case. Accused Dayawati @ Dolly stated that she came to meet her in-laws at Karol Bagh and was falsely implicated in this case by the police & that she is innocent and no where concerned with the occurrence and other co accused. Accused sunita has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She further stated that she went to leave her child to school at Ashoka Pahari where some persons were gathered on the road and when she stopped to see the incident, she was apprehended by the police at that time. She further stated that she had no concern with other co- accuseds. Accused Anita stated that she is innocent and falsely Continue....
12implicated as she had come to the market for shopping while police apprehended her on the bus stop, when she was going towards her house at Jahangir Puri by bus. She further stated that she has where concern with the co accused.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused persons and perused the record carefully. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo and I have gone through the same.
7. The most material and star witness of the prosecution PW-7 is the decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi who has deposed on the lines of the prosecution and has supported the case of the prosecution on material points in his examination in chief except on the point of preparation of documents at the spot. At the request of Ld. APP he was declared hostile on this point and in his cross examination he has supported the case of the prosecution fully. In his evidence he has deposed that on 27.4.89 at about 2.45 p.m he was coming at Arya Samaj road, Ajmal Khan Crossing and was met by the police party and Continue....
13SHO Inspector R.P. Gautam who was present in the vehicle with other police officials including SI Harish chander Joshi and SI Bansal. PW-7 has further deposed that he was handed over Rs.400/- by Harish to pay to the ladies to whom he had been asked to contact. Thereafter they reached at Gaffar Market where they met Bhupinder Singh. He has also deposed that he introduced Harish as his friend who came from Bombay and accused Bhupinder Singh told them that he can arrange a girl for Rs.400/- and he ( PW-7) can choose any one he likes. It is further deposed by him that other persons of police party were at a distance of 15-20 yards away. He has also deposed that accused Bhupinder Singh took them to House no. T-975 which was a kuchha house and asked him to pay Rs.400/- and took Rs.400/- from him for distributing among themselves and showed 3-4 ladies to them. He has also deposed that lady Anita, Sonia and Sunita and Dayawati were shown to him and that the girl Sunita was arranged for Harish Kumar while one of the other ladies present was selected by him. The said ladies took them to up-stairs & asked them for enjoyment and Harish was asked to occupy the adjoining room. It is further deposed by him ( PW-7 ) that the other police officials who were accompanying Continue....
14them at the time of dealing were also present outside the house. He has further stated that lady which was selected for him had put off her clothes and also asked him ( PW-7) to put off his clothes to which he asked for two minutes and gave signal to SHO and other police officials who were in the civil dress, who came inside with lady Constable. One minor child and four mature girls were apprehended. He has further deposed that currency notes of Rs.400/- were recovered from the possession of the ladies after their personal search and were tallied from the currency notes which were given to him by the Harish and they were found to be the same notes. This witness has correctly identified all accused ladies in the court but had failed to identify the accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo and had explained that due to lapse of time of 14 years he is not able to recollect the same. He has proved the four currency notes of Rs.100/- each Ex.P1, 2, 3 and 4. This witness has proved Jama Talashi vide Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. He has also admitted the signing of the documents but not remembered the title of the said documents, vide Ex.PW3/B, PW3/G, PW3/C, PW3/D, PW3/E, PW3/E and PW3/F. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo he Continue....
15has admitted that all the documents except personal search and recovery memo was prepared in the PS.
8. Ld. counsel for accused persons have strongly contended that the testimony of this witness is full of contradiction and cannot be relied upon. Ld. counsel for accused persons has pointed out to the deposition of this witness, wherein he has stated that SI Harish had handed over him the four currency notes, whereas the case of the prosecution is that SHO Inspector R.P. Gautam had handed over him the said currency notes. He has further pointed out that this witness has stated that on being asked to take of his ( PW-7) clothes by the lady, he asked for two minutes and gave signal to the SHO and raiding party, whereas the case of the prosecution is that this witness was actually indulging in sexual activities with the accused Dayawati with only one cloth on this body and both of them were kissing each other and that the signal to the raiding party was given by SI Harish and not by this witness. He has further argued that the accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo was identified by this witness in his testimony and that this witness was declared hostile on the point of preparation of documents Continue....
16on the spot. However, in my considered opinion the discrepancies pointed out by Ld. counsel for accused persons are not very material and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. The testimony of this witness has been consistent with the story of the prosecution on material points. The minor discrepancies pointed are not of much significance specially, in view of the fact that the testimony of this witness was recorded after approximately 14 years of the incident and this witness has given the explanation that due to lapse of time he is unable to recollect the same. It is common knowledge that different people have different memory capacity. Even otherwise 14 years is a very long time to remember the incident in minutest detail. Further more it is settled law that while appreciating evidence 'grain' is to be separated from 'shaff'. This PW-7 is a public witness and admittedly had no enemity with the accused persons or even has been alleged or suggested to him in his cross examination. There is no ground as to why he would falsely implicate and depose against the accused persons. Further more he has deposed consistently as per the version of the prosecution and it is clear from his testimony that he was joined in the investigation at the relevant date and time by the police Continue....
17officials and after his personal search Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A he was handed over four currency notes of Rs.100/- each vide handing over memo Ex.PW3/B bearing his signatures and that he alongwith SI Harish met accused Bhupinder Singh at Gaffar Market and accused Bhupinder Singh offered them to arrange girl of their choice for Rs.400/-, Thereafter they reached at House no. T-975, Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh and their 3-4 ladies were shown to them out of which one was 13-14 years of age and accused Bhupinder Singh took Rs.400/- from him to distribute among themselves. Lady Anita, Sonia and sunita and Dayawati were shown to him and that the girl Sunita was arranged for Harish Kumar and ladies took them to up stairs and asked them to enjoy and that lady which was with him ( PW-7) had put of her clothes and asked him (PW-7) to also put of his clothes. On signaling police party arrived and Rs.100/- each were recovered from the possession of the ladies which were found to be the same which were given to him ( PW-7). Thus from the testimony of this prosecution witness it stands proved that the girls Anita, Sunita and Dayawati @ Dolly were shown to decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi and shadow witness Harish out of Continue....
18which one girl Sunita was arranged for SI Harish and another lady Dayawati @ Dolly was arranged for decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi for sexual intercourse. This witness categorically denied the suggestion of Ld. counsel for accused persons that he ( PW-7) had not joined the raid. Ld. counsel for accused persons could not extract anything else substantial in the cross examination of this witness which may prove fatal and thus the testimony of this witness on material points has remained un-controverted and stands proved.
9. PW-3, the shadow witness Harish Chander Joshi has supported the version of the prosecution fully and has not deviated even slightly. He has corroborated the version of the PW-7 the decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi. Even on the points on which PW-7 had slightly deviated from the case of the prosecution, this witness has deposed as per the case of the prosecution. He has deposed that Inspector R.P. Gautam searched the pocket of decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi and nothing was left in his pocket and memo to this effect was prepared vide Ex.PW3/A and which was signed by PW- 7 decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi at point 'A' to 'A'. Thereafter four Continue....
19currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were handed over to decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi after giving suitable instructions that they ( PW-7 & 3) should go to Gaffar Market at the shop of Bhupinder Singh and bargain with him for arrangement of some girls for sexual intercourse and in case deal is settled to take him ( Bhupinder Singh ) to Ashoka Pahari. He has proved delivery memo for handing over the four currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination to decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi vide Ex.PW3/B bearing his signatures at point 'B' to 'B'. He has further deposed that he along with decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi and source went to Gaffar Market, and on the pointing out of the source, decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi asked accused Bhupinder Singh at his counter to show some colourful things and that on questioning by Bhupinder Singh decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi explained that this witness(PW-3) was his friend who had come from Bombay and he ( PW-7 ) wanted to please him ( PW-3). He has further deposed that Bhupinder Singh asked to pay Rs.400/- for two girls to be used by both of them, on which decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi got agreed. Thereafter Bhupinder Singh took them at House No T-975, Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh Continue....
20and introduced them to Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo and told her that Rs.400/- has been decided for two girls and accordingly Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo called four girls Anita, Sunita , Dayawati @ Dolly and Sonia Mehra @ Sonu in the room out of which first three girls gave their consent for sexual intercourse, but the child Sonia @ Sonu aged 14 years started weeping and refused to do any such act. Thereafter, on the asking of Bhupinder Singh the decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi made payment of Rs.400/- in the form of four currency notes of Rs.100 /-to Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo, whereupon the Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo asked the girls to go out. This witness has further deposed that decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi selected Dayawati @ Dolly and he selected Sunita for himself. He has further deposed that Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo handed over one currency note to Dayawati @ Dolly who after receiving Rs.100/- went inside the room of decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi after closing the curtain. She ( Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo ) also paid Rs.100/- to Sunita and accused Bhupinder Singh and also kept Rs.100/- inside her Bra. This witness has further deposed that thereafter he gave the pre-determined signal of coughing and spitting, whereupon the entire police raiding party including SHO Continue....
21entered the room of decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi. Accused Dolly was found naked at lower portion of the body and decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi was putting on his under wear & they were hugging and kissing each other. Dolly immediately picked up her Salwar and tried to conceal her modesty. This witness has further deposed that one currency note of Rs.100/- each was recovered by lady Constable Anita from inside the Bra of accused persons Sunita, Dayawati @ Dolly and Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo. He has deposed that one currency note of Rs.100/- was also recovered after the search of the accused Bhupinder Singh and all four currency notes were tallied with the currency notes mentioned in handing over memo and were found to be the identical. He has further deposed that currency notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C bearing his signatures. He has further proved the seizure of Rs.100/- from accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo vide Ex.PW3/D, from Dolly vide PW3/E and from accused Sunita vide PW3/F bearing his signatures. He has further deposed that one minor child Sonia was rescued vide memo Ex.PW3/G and that Jama Talashi articles of all four accused persons was taken in his presence vide Ex.PW1/A to 1/D. Even in the cross Continue....
22examination of this witness nothing substantial was extracted by ld. counsel for the accused persons which may demolish the case of the prosecution. The testimony of this witness has covered certain deficiencies ( though not very material) in the testimony of decoy custom. PW-3 has also correctly identified all the four accused persons including Ranjit Kaur during his testimony in the Court. Thus identity of accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo, who was not identified by PW-7 decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi also stands proved.
10. PW-1 Anita Devi, PW-2, Laxmi Chand Bansal, PW-12 HC Kartar Singh and PW-13 Inspector R.P. Gautam have also corroborated the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-7 and have supported the version of the prosecution.
11. PW-1, lady Ct. Anita Devi has proved the personal search memos of accused Sunita Ex.PW1/A, of Anita Ex.PW1/B, of Billo is Ex.PW1/C and of Dayawati Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter she has proved recovery of Rs.100/- currency notes each from them except from Anita to which were given to the decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi Continue....
23by the police for indulging in sexual activities with the prostitutes.
12. PW-4, SI Lal Sahab has proved registration of FIR in the present case and its copy vide Ex.PW4/A.
13. PW-5, Anil Kapoor, UDC from Home Department has proved notification Ex.PW7/A vide which all SHOs including SHO Inspector were given the powers of special Officer in the ITP Act and thereby proved that SHO Inspector R.P. Gautam was competent to conduct the said raid as the said "Act" without any permission from any higher official or any other higher authority.
14. PW-6, D.K. Sharma, Sub Registrar, Birth and Death, MCD Karol Bagh, Delhi has proved the date of birth of child Sonia as 10.12.74 and thereby proving that she was a child minor at the date of incident.
15. PW-8 Sonia the child who was allegedly forced into the prostitution and had refused to indulge in the said activities had Continue....
24turned completely hostile and has not supported the version of the prosecution at all and even in her cross examination by Ld. APP she has denied all the suggestions and has not deposed as per the version of the prosecution. Thus the charge of forcing this minor child into prostitution by the accused Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo does not stand proved.
16. It is not proved by the prosecution that Ranjeet Kaur was the owner or lessee or licencee of the said premise. However, in my considered opinion it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that she ( Ranjeet Kaur @ Billo ) was the owner of the said house. It was merely sufficient for the prosecution to prove that she was a keeper of the said house in any capacity. As per the Section 3 of the ITP Act, it has been successfully proved by testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Even in their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons have not given any reason as to why they were implicated in this case. Hence there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and plea taken by the accused in their statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. appears to be an after thought to Continue....
25escape their liability.
17. Ld. counsel for accused persons has relied upon the judgment in the case of "Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan," AIR 1976, Supreme Court 985 and had argued that SHO Inspector R.P. Gautam, who was the 'complainant' himself should not have investigated the case and it goes the root of the case. However, the judgment relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the accused persons is clearly distinguishable on facts and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances in the present case as in the judgment cited the complainant was the same HC who was offered bribe and who had carried out the investigation after registration of the case which is not the case here now. Ld. counsel for accused persons has relied upon the judgment in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. The State, Crl.M.(M) No. 481/99 and Cr.M.No. 957/99. However, the said judgment is also not applicable in the present case as in the judgment cited case was investigated by an Inspector and not by an SHO, whereas the present case was investigated by an SHO who is a special officer as per the notification proved on record. Ld. counsel for accused persons has Continue....
26further relied upon the case of "Vedaprakash Vs. State," Cr.M.P. 13637 if 1987 D/- 24.2.1988 and argued strongly that one instance of sexual activity without any actual sexual intercourse is not enough and that the facts must disclose that the place was used for frequent sexual intercourses for prostitution. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gaurav Jain, Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others, Respondents AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3021= 1997 AIR SCW 3055 held that " The essential ingredient, therefore, is a place being used for the purpose of sexual exploitation or abuse. The phrase ' for the purpose of indicates that the place being used for the purpose of the prostitution may be a brothel provided a person uses the place and ask for girls, where the person is shown girls to select from and where one does engage or offer her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire. In order to establish prostitution, evidence of more that one customer is not always necessary. All that is essential to prove is that a girl/lady should be a person offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire. Sexual intercourse is not an essential ingredient. The inference of prostitution would be drawn from diverse circumstances established in a case. Sexuality has got to Continue....
27be established but that does not require the evidence of more than one customer and no evidence of actual intercourse should be adduced or proved. It is not necessary that there should be repeated visits by persons to the place for the purpose of prostitution. A single instance coupled with the surrounding circumstances may be sufficient to establish that the place is being used as a brothel and the person alleged was so keeping it. The prosecution has to prove only that in a premises a female indulges in the act of offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire. On proof thereof,it becomes brothel".
"In AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 567 " Krishanmurthy Vs. Public Prosecutor, Madras" The prosecution case, briefly, was that the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), PW-4, having information that the house occupied by the appellant was being used as a brothel with three girls, Saroja, Ambika and Lakshmi deputed Shanmugham, PW-2 as a decoy, on August 22, 1962. Shanmugham was given three marked 10 rupee currency notes by PW-4. He went to appellant's place and was shown the three girls. He selected Ambika and paid Rs.30/- in those marked currency notes to the appellant. He Continue....28
and Ambika then went inside a room. Thereafter, the police party raided the house the decoy Shanmugham and Ambika disheveled condition in that room. PW-4 recovered the marked currency notes from the possession of the appellant. The main question in appeal was whether the facts found make out of the offence under S.3 (1) of the Act. It was held that one will be guilty of the offence Under S.3(1) of the Act if he does any of the acts mentioned in that sub-section in relation to a brothel. The appellant's house, on the facts found was being used as a brothel. The girls were offered for the purpose of prostitution. The house was used for such purposes, undoubtedly for the gain of the appellant who pocketed the money which was given by PW-2 for committing prostitution on Ambika. Of course, it can be presumed that the girls, who were being offered for the purpose of prostitution, would also obtain monetary gain out of the amount paid by PW-2. The appellant can therefore justifiably be said to be "
keeping a brothel".
The contention that a solitary instance of the house of the appellant being used for the purpose of prostitution will not suffice for establishing that the house was being kept as a brothel' was not Continue....
29accepted by the SC. It was held that " it may be true that a place used once for the purpose of prostitution may not be brothel, but it is a question of fact as to what conclusion should be drawn about the use of a place about which a person goes and freely asks for girls, where the person is shown girls to select from and where he does engage a girl for the purpose of prostitution. The conclusion to be derived from these circumstances about the place and the person ' keeping it' can be nothing else than that the place was being used as a brothel and the person in charge was so keeping it. It is not necessary that there should be evidence of repeated visits by persons to the place for the prostitution. A single instance coupled with the surrounding circumstances is sufficient to establish both that the place was being used as a brothel and that the person alleged was so keeping it". The apex court in these facts which are similar to the facts of the present case before us held that " We are of opinion that the facts found in the present case justify the conclusion that the appellant was keeping a brothel at his house". The appellant's conviction under S. 3 (1) of the Act is therefore correct."
As per the testimony of Pw-13 IO Ins. R.P.Gautam it stand Continue....
30proved that on 22.04.89 a secret information was received at about 2:30 p.m about one lady Billo who used to do the business of prostitution at house no. T-975, Ashoka Pahari, FaizRoad, Karol Bagh with the help of one Sh Bhupender Singh of Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh. From the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-13, it stands proved that a raiding party consisting of HC Babu Ram, Ct Kishan Kumar and one decoy customer Abhimanyu Bakshi was handed over four currency notes of Rs 100/- each. After preparation of handing over memo , the decoy customer and Shadow witness SI Harish Chand Joshi were sent to the shop of Bhupender Singh at Gaffar Market. It further stands proved that police party , after finalization of the deal , hid itself near house no. T-975,Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road waiting for the signal of shadow witness SI Harish Chand Joshi after finalization of deal of prostitution. From the testimony of PW-7, the independent public witness who was a decoy customer, it stand proved that he alongwith shadow witness SI Harish Chand Joshi who was represented as his friend from Bombay went to Bhupender Singh at Gaffar Market and that the said Bhupender offered that he can arrange a girl for Rs 400/- and thereafter both the them reached at Continue....
31house no. T-975, Ashoka Pahari, Faiz Road where 3 /4 ladies were shown to them and Rs 400/- was given to one of ladies to be distributed amongest the ladies. This witness has further proved that lady Suita was arranged for shadow witness SI Harish Chand and another lady was arranged for him (decoy customer) for prostitution and that lady which was arranged for him (PW-7) had taken off her clothes and had also asked this witness to take off his clothes. PW -3 Shadow witness SI Harish Chand Joshi has also deposed on the lines of the prosecution case and has corroborated this part of testimony of this witness. Thus, from the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-7, it stand proved that the said amount of Rs 400/- was given by Bhupeder Singh to Ranjit Kaur and that the accused Sunita agreed to indulge in prostitution with shadow witness SI Harish Chand Joshi and accused Dayawati actually indulged in sexual activity (prostitution) with the decoy customer. From the testimonies of Pw-1, Pw-2, PW-3 and PW-13, it stand proved that at the time of raid, accused Dayawati was found indulging in sexual activity with decoy customer. From the testimonies of Pw-1, PW-2 ,PW-3, Pw-7 and PW-13,it stand proved that out of the said amount of rs 400/- given for prostitution,amout of Continue....
32Rs 100/- each was shared by accused Bhupender Singh, Rajit Kaur, Sunita and Dayawati as they were found in possession of currency notes of Rs 100/- each which was bearing the same number as were given to the decoy customer by the IO.
18. Ld counsel for accused persons had strongly contended that the testimony of Pw-3 is not admissible being hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C, however, I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for accused persons as no statement was made by any of the accused to this witness and that this police witness did not utter a single word during entire transaction and has deposed on the basis of what ever his eyes saw and what ever was stated by accused persons to the decoy customer and not to him. Ld counsel for accused persons has further stated that police witnesses are interested witnesses and their testimonies cannot be relied upon. It is a settled law the that the testimonies of the police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police witnesses,if their testimonies otherwise appears to be believable, which is the case herein. PW-13 IO has stated that the said prostitution was being Continue....
33carried out from the said house within 200 meter of vicinity of school. No suggestion was given to this witness by accused persons in his cross examination that there was no such school, thereby admitting this part of testimony of this part of this witness. Hence, it stands proved that the said prostitution was being carried out within 200 meter of vicinity of a public place i.e school.
19. From the aforesaid discussion, it stand proved that on the date of incident, accused Ranjit was using house no. T975, Ashoka Pahari, FaizRoad, for the purpose of sexual exploitation/ abuse of the other prostitutes namely Dayawati and Sunita for her own gain and that she was keeping and managing the said brothel. Since it was her first offence in the said section and nothing has come on record that she had ever indulged in the said offence previously, therefore, she is liable to be convicted for the offence U/s 3(1) I.T.P.Act, 1956 for keeping the brothel. Further she being above the age of 18 years of age was knowingly living holy or in part on the earnings of other prostitutes namely Dayawati and Sunita as she was found to be sharing the prostitution money and is liable for the punishment for the Continue....
34offence U/s 4(1) I.T.P.Act, 1956 for living on the earnings of prostitutes. She is also liable for procuring two persons i.e Dayawati and Sunita with their consent for the purpose of prostitution, as these two ladies agreed to indulge in prostitution and shared the prostitution money, thereby making her liable for the offence U/s 5(1a) I.T.P.Act, for procuring for the sake of prostitution. She is also liable for carrying on prostitution in the vicinity of a public place i.e school and hence is guilty of offene U/s 7(1) of I.T.P.Act.
20. The other two accused persons namely Dayawati and Sunita who carried on prostitution in the vicinity of a public place are also liable for the the offence U/s 7(1) I.T.P.Act, 1956. However, third lady accused namely Anita Jain is given benefit of doubt as she had not indulged in prostitution and further decoy customer had merely stated that she was shown to them as one of three girls to them and no solicition or inducement on her part has been deposed. She was not selected and had not indulged in prostitution or given her consent or shared prostitution money Hence, she is acquitted. The charge U/s 6 of I.T.P against accused Ranjeet Kaur for detaining a person in Continue....
35premises where prostitution is carried on is not proved. All the other accused persons except accused Bhupender Singh (against whom proceedings were abated) and accused Anita who has been acquitted, are convicted. Accordingly, accused Ranjit Kaur @ Billo is convicted for the offence U/s 3(1), 4(1), 5(1a) and 7(1) of I.T.P.Act. Accused Dayawati @ Dolly and Sunita are convicted for the offence U/s 7(1) of I.T.P.Act.
Announced in the open court (Ashutosh Kumar)
today i.e on .04.10.2007 Metropolitan Magistrate
Delhi
Continue....
36
Continue....
37
Continue....