Delhi District Court
Fir No. 94/08 Ps Kamla Market State vs Reena & Anr. on 5 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH.R.K. PANDEY, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : 02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 94/2008
PS: Kamla Market
U/s 3,4 & 8 ITP Act
State v. Reena & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. Sl No. of the case : 02401R1102952008
2. Date of Commission of the offence : 12.06.2008
3. The name of the informant : Inspector Bala Sharma
4. The name & address of accused : 1. Reena d/o Shankar persons
r/o H. No. 68,
Shardhanand Marg,
Farash Khana, Delhi.
2.Azad Ahmed
s/o Majibul Rehman
r/o H. No.68,Shardhanand
Marg,Farash Khana, Delhi.
5. Date of institution of FIR : 12.06.2008
6. Date of receipt of this case in
this court : 07.08.2008
7. The plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of reserving the case for order : 05.01.2016.
9. Date of Decision : 05.01.2016.
10.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
1. Prosecution case in brief is that on 12.06.08 at about 8:40 pm near staircase in the Varanda of Kotha no. 68, G.B.Road, Kamla Market, Delhi, accused FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.
Reena was found seducing the decoy customer Mohd Tamana for the purposes of prostitution in a public place and accused Azad Ahmad was found to be living on the earning of prostitution of coaccused and was found to manage the aforementioned place as brothel and allowed the aforementioned place for purposes of prostitution. Accused Reena was charged for offence punishable, u/s 8 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act( ITP Act) and accused Azad Ahmed was charged for offence punishable, u/s 3 & 4 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act( ITP Act) vide order dated 30.09.2010. In order to prove allegations against the accused persons regarding aforesaid offence prosecution has relied upon seven witnesses.
2. PW1 Ct. Nidan Singh deposed that on 12.06.08 he was working as driver on gypsy of SHO PS Kamla Market bearing no. DL 1 CJ 3601 and at about 8:10 pm he alongwith SHO PS Kamla Market reached near temple at G.B.Road where SI Sehdev, WCt. Sunita, HC Shiv Ram met who were patrolling in the area. PW1 deposed that on the directions of SHO PS Kamla Market he parked the vehicle near temple, police booth G.B.Road and remaining police team proceeded for patrolling.
3. PW2 HC Narinder deposed that on 12.06.08 he registered the FIR No. 94/08 EXPW 2/A on the basis of rukka received from HC Shiv Ram sent by Inspector Bala Sharma ,SHO PS Kamla Market. PW2 deposed that he made endorsement on rukka EXPW 2/B and handed over copy of FIR & original rukka to HC Shiv Ram for further handing over to SHO PS Kamla Market.
4. PW3 W Ct. Sunita deposed that on the date of incident she alongwith ASI Sehdev, HC Shiv Ram were on patrolling duty in the area of G.B.Road and at 8:10 pm,SHO PS Kamla Market met them near police booth and they accompanied SHO in the patrolling. PW3 deposed that SHO PS Kamla Market received information regarding prostitution in the area and SHO PS FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.
Kamla Market constituted a raiding party including SHO and above mentioned police officials and SHO requested some public persons to join the investigation and one Mohd Tamana joined the investigation who was briefed by SHO regarding the information of prostitution at Kotha no. 66. PW3 further deposed that IO/SHO had handed over Rs 250/ to Mohd Tamana and instructed him to go near Kotha no. 66 and give signal if found any person inducing him for prostitution. PW3 further deposed that Mohd Tamana went near the aforementioned place & gave signal and remaining police team reached at the spot. PW3 further deposed that on the instructions of SHO she conducted personal search of accused Reena in which Rs 200/ with signatures of SHO were recovered and HC Shiv Ram apprehended the accused Kimti Lal. PW3 further deposed that on interrogation with accused person, accused Reena told that she used to pay Rs 100/ to the owner of brothel house namely Azad for using the premises and she used to give Rs 50/ to Kimti Lal as broker charges. PW3 further deposed that IO prepared Tehrir and handed over the same to HC Shiv Ram who went to the PS & got the FIR registered and came at the spot alongwith copy of FIR & original Tehrir and handed over the same to SHO. PW 3 identified her signatures on the document EXPW 3/B i.e. handing over memo prepared by SHO while handing over note to Mohd Tamana, recovery memo EXPW 3/C and arrest memo EXPW 3/D and personal search memo of accused Reena EXPW 3/ E.
5. PW 4 Sh. Mahesh Kumar deposed regarding the disposal of case property on the basis of order of court dt. 18.07.12 and got proved the entries of cash register regarding deposition of cash amount of Rs 250 EXPW 4/A.
6. PW5 HC Rati Ram deposed regarding the details of case property as mentioned in register no. 19 EXPW 5/A.
7. PW6 HC Shiv Ram deposed that on the date of incident he alongwith ASI FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.
Sehdev, and Wct. Sunita were on patrolling duty in the area of G.B.Road and at 8:10 pm, SHO PS Kamla Market met them near police booth and they accompanied her in patrolling. PW6 deposed that SHO PS Kamla Market received information regarding prostitution in the area and SHO PS Kamla Market constituted a raiding party including SHO and above mentioned police officials and SHO requested some public persons to join the investigation and one Mohd Tamana joined the investigation who was briefed by SHO regarding the information of prostitution at Kotha no. 66. PW6 further deposed that IO/SHO had handed over Rs 250/ to Mohd Tamana and instructed him to go near Kotha no. 66 and give signal if found any person inducing him for prostitution. PW6 further deposed that Mohd Tamana went near the aforementioned place & gave signal and remaining police team reached at the spot .PW6 further deposed that on the instructions of SHO, WHC Sunita conducted personal search of accused Reena in which Rs 200/ with signatures of SHO were recovered and he apprehended the accused Kimti Lal. PW 6 further deposed that he conducted formal search of accused Kimti Lal and Rs 50/ currency note was recovered which was seized by SHO and memo EXPW 6/A was prepared. PW6 further deposed that on interrogation with accused person, accused Reena told that she used to pay Rs 100/ to the owner of brothel house namely Azad for using the premises and she used to give Rs 50/ to Kimti Lal as broker charges. PW6 further deposed that IO prepared Tehrir and handed over the same to him and he went to the PS & got the FIR registered and came at the spot alongwith copy of FIR & original Tehrir and handed over the same to SHO. PW 6 identified his signatures on the document EXPW 3/B i.e. handing over memo prepared by SHO while handing over note to Mohd Tamana, recovery memo EXPW 3/C.PW 6 deposed that accused Azad Ahmad was arrested by the IO and memo EXPW FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.
6/C was prepared and accused Kimti Lal was arrested by the IO and memo EXPW 6/B was prepared. PW 6 deposed that personal search of accused Azad Ahmad and Kimti Lal were conducted and memo EXPW 6/D & E were prepared.
8. PW7 Inspector Bala Sharma deposed that on 12.06.08 she was working as SHO PS Kamla Market and was on patrolling duty in the area and at about 8:00 pm she received telephonic massage regarding prostitution near the pillars of Kotha no. 68 & she instructed the driver of the vehicle to stop the vehicle near Hanuman Mandir adjacent to Kotha no. 68 and police officials namely ASI Sehdev, HC Shiv Ram and Wct. Sunita met her as they were on patrolling duty in the area of G.B.Road. PW 7 deposed that she constituted a raiding party including herself and above mentioned police officials and she requested some public persons to join the investigation and one Mohd Tamana joined the investigation who was briefed by her regarding the information of prostitution at Kotha no. 68. PW7 further deposed that she had handed over Rs 250/ to Mohd Tamana and instructed him to go near Kotha no. 68 and give signal if found any person inducing him for prostitution. PW7 further deposed that Mohd Tamana went near the aforementioned place & gave signal and remaining police team reached at the spot and WCt Sunita apprehended accused Reena and both were interrogated by the deponent and their personal search was conducted and in personal search of accused Reena Rs 200/ with signatures of SHO/IO were recovered and Rs 50/ was recovered from the accused Kimti Lal. PW 7 further deposed that she seized the recovered notes and memo EXPW 6/A & 3/C were prepared. PW7 further deposed that she recorded disclsosure statement of both the accused persons and prepared Rukka EXPW 2/B and handed over the same to HC Shiv Ram who went to the PS & got the FIR registered and came at the spot alongwith FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.
copy of FIR & original Tehrir and handed over the same to the deponent. PW 7 deposed that in the meantime she went to stairs and apprehended the accused Azad Ahmad, owner /Manager of brothel house and recorded his disclosure statement. PW 7 deposed that after registration of FIR, she prepared site plan and arrested the accused persons and got the personal search of accused persons conducted and prepared respective memos in this regard. PW 7 deposed that she recorded the statement of decoy customer and other police staff and got the accused persons medically examined through other police staff. PW 7 deposed that accused persons were lodged in lock up of PS Darya Ganj. PW 7 deposed that accused persons were produced before the court on next date.
9.After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Reena and Azad Ahmed were recorded separately under Section 313 read with Section 281 of Cr.PC in which all the incriminating evidence was explained to both the accused persons to which they denied but opted not to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly matter was fixed for final arguments.
10.It is argued on behalf of the State that prosecution witnesses duly proved the prosecution's case. Hence, prosecution's story is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, both the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
11.It is argued on behalf of the accused persons through their counsel that accused persons are innocent and were falsely implicated by the police. It is further argued that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials and their testimony is liable to be rejected being member of police team and interested witness without corroboration by independent witness or evidence. It is further argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.
13.Heard. Perused the record.
14.As per prosecution's story on 12.06.08 at about 8:40 pm near staircase in the Varanda of Kotha no. 68, G.B.Road, Kamla Market, Delhi, accused Reena was found seducing the decoy customer Mohd Tamana for the purposes of prostitution in a public place and accused Azad Ahmad was found to be living on the earning of prostitution of coaccused and was found to manage the aforementioned place as brothel and allowed the aforementioned place for purposes of prostitution.
"Brothel is defined in Section 2(a) ITP Act as a place including any house, room or place or any portion of house, room etc. which is used for purpose of sexual exploitation or abuse for gain of another person or for mutual gain for two or more prostitutes".
"Prostitution is defined in Section 2(f) of ITP Act as it means sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes and expression prostitute shall be construed accordingly".
Section 3 of ITP Act provide penal provision i.e. punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used by a brothel.
Section 4 ITP Act provide provision regarding punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution.
Section 5 of ITP Act provide provision regarding punishment for procuring, inducing or taking person for sake of prostitution.
Section 8 of ITP Act provide provision regarding FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.
punishment for seducing or soliciting any person for prostitution at public place or within sight of, and in such manner as to be seen or heard from any public place, whether from within any building or house or not.
15 On perusal of legal provision / penal provision as provided under the ITP Act 1956, basic requirement for liability u/s 3 of ITP Act is that there must be a premises which must be used for keeping a brothel or allowed to be used as brothel. In the present case, prosecution has not produced or proved any document that Kotha no. 68, G.B.Road , Kamla Market from where both the accused person were allegedly apprehended was actually in the possession of accused Azad Ahmed or same was kept or managed by the accused Azad Ahmed. Further prosecution has also not examined the public person Mohd Tammna to establish that he was sexually exploited or abused by the accused Reena for their mutual gain. Similarly, it is also not established by prosecution that accused Azad Ahmad was found to be living on the earning of prostitution of coaccused Reena as the alleged decoy customer Mohd Tammana was not examined on behalf of prosecution. Hence, ingredient of the offence punishable u/s 3 and 4 of ITP Act is also not proved, accordingly accused Azad Ahmad is acquitted for the same.
16. It is also not established that accused Reena procured or induced the decoy customer Mohd Tamanna for the sake of prostitution as he was not examined during the trial and testimony of other prosecution witnesses including PW1, PW3, PW6 & PW7 is hearsay evidence and not admissible. Accordingly, ingredient of offence punishable u/s 8 of ITP Act is not established and proved, hence accused Reena is acquitted for the same. In view of the above discussion, both the accused persons are acquitted from the present case. Bail bond, surety bond furnished u/s 437A Cr.PC shall remain in force for six months. Case property, if any, be confiscated to FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.
the State.
17.File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY)
on 05.01.16. MM02 (Central)Tis Hazari Court
DELHI
FIR No. 94/08 PS Kamla Market State v/s Reena & Anr.