Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. In the instant case too PW1 decoy customer was used to prove offences under S. 3 of ITP Act. From the testimony of PW1/decoy customer and PW2/shadow witness it is apparent that accused Kunti, Kamlesh, Moni and Sayda used the premises Jhuggi no. E-49/330, kalander Colony, Seemapuri, Welcome, Delhi for the purpose of the prostitution by themselves for their mutual gain. Thus, accused persons Kamlesh, Kunti, Moni and Sayda have committed offences punishable under S. 3 Of ITP Act.

19. In the case at hand. none of the witnesses of the prosecution deposed that there was any inducement by the accused persons Sayda and Moni to force or seduce accused Kamlesh and Kunti to illicit/procure prostitution by them. Thus, clearly, the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 5 of the ITP Act have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Accordingly, accused persons Sayda, Moni, Kunti and Kamlesh are acquitted for offences punishable under S. 5 of the ITP Act.

21. In the present case. none of the witnesses of the prosecution deposed that the accused persons Kamlesh, Kunti, Sayda and Moni attracted the attention of any person including decoy customer and shadow witness by words, gestures, wilful exposure of the person including decoy customer and shadow witness or soliciting or molesting any person including decoy customer and shadow witness so as to offend against public decency for the purpose of prostitution. Thus, clearly, the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 8 of the ITP Act have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Accordingly, accused persons Sayda, Moni, Kunti and Kamlesh are acquitted for offences punishable under S.8 of the ITP Act.

29. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons Moni, Sayda, Kamlesh and Kunti qua offences punishable under S. 3 of ITP Act & under S. 4 of ITP against accused Moni & Sayda.

30. The defence of the accused persons is that they are innocent and the police officials of PS Seemapuri used to regularly visit house of accused Sayda and they threatened and misbehave with her and her younger daughter in the year 2002-2003. In this regard she made complaint to the higher authorities against the police officials of PS Seemapuri and to take the revenge the staff of PS Seemapuri falsely implicated the accused persons in the false and frivolous present case. This defence has not been proved of preponderance of probability by the accused as complaints dated 22.04.2002 Ex DW1/A and Ex DW1/B and that mentioned in diary of correspondence Ex DW2/1 are the same has not been proved as per the Indian Evidence Act by the accused Sayda and even if it is believed that police of PS Seemapuri took revenge from accused Sayda for her complaints against police officials of PS Seemapuri but then why were accused persons Moni, Kunti and Kamlesh implicated and why would PW1 an independent witness depose against the accused persons. Thus, this defence of the accused persons is not believable and is of no assistance to the accused persons.