Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Accused Alamgir, Sangita and Sheetal have been sent to face trial for commission of offence punishable U/s 366­ A/368/372/373/323/376/109/34 IPC & 3,4,5,6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.11.2006, Inspector Rakesh Giri alongwith other staff was on patrolling duty and present near Kotha No. 54 where at about 3.50 PM, a person namely Mohd Idris Ali Vishwas met him and informed that his sister­in­law (Sali) Sharifa Khatoon was confined in Kotha No. 71 and requested that she may be rescued from there. The information was conveyed by Inspector Rakesh Giri to NGO Shaktivahini whose Director Nishi Kant assured to reach there within 5­10 minutes. At about 4.10 PM, Mr. Nishi Kant from NGO Shaktivahini met then near Kotha No. 54 and police party alongwith him and Mohd Idris Ali Vishwas conducted raid at Kotha No. 71, III Floor left side where out of the girls found present there, Mohd Idris identified his sister in law Sharifa Khatoon. Enquiries were made from Sharifa Khatoon alias Mamooni alias Jyoti and other girls. Statement Ex. PW2/A of Sharifa Khatoon was recorded on the basis of which rukka was sent for registration of the case through SI G.S. Sharma. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant Sharifa Khatoon. One other girl Manoti was also recovered from that Kotha alongwith Sharifa Khatoon and they were sent for medical examination and ossification test to ascertain their age. Accused Sheetal was apprehended from the kotha, interrogated and arrested. Subsequently on 22.02.2007 accused Sangeeta was arrested in this case.

So far as offence U/s 366 IPC is concerned, the complainant Sharifa Khatoon has specifically stated that accused Alamgir Mistry alias Bura brought her from her village on the pretext of taking her to his sister who was residing in Mumbai alongwith her husband to which she agreed. At the railway station, one person introduced by accused Alamgir as Ganesh also met them and accompanied them in the train. On the way, accused Alamgir told her that she was taking her to Delhi to get her a job to earn money and after she was brought to Delhi, accused Ganesh had talked to a lady on phone and then two ladies reached station in a rickshaw and one of them was accused Sheetal, correctly identified by complainant Sharifa Khatoon. Sheetal and her companion brought her to a place where after sometime Ganesh alongwith accused Alamgir also reached there but she was made to sit in a room and not permitted to meet accused Bura and Ganesh and that accused Bura and accused Ganesh left that place after taking money from accused Sheetal but she did not know the purpose of giving money by Sheetal to them. On the night she realized that the said place was used for immoral purpose and she was also asked to have physical relations with the customers coming there. She was compelled to have physical relations with 4/5 persons including one Tomar relation of accused Sheetal and whenever she expressed her unwillingness to indulge in such acts, she was threatened and given beatings by accused Sangita. This part of the statement of the complainant Sharifa Khatoon is sufficient to prove on record that it was accused Alamgir alias Bura who induced Sharifa Khatoon to accompany him on the pretext of taking her to her sister residing in Mumbai but subsequently induced her to stay at Delhi for getting employment and earn money but after coming to the Delhi Railway Station, contacted accused Sheetal, handed over the complainant to her and then collected the money from accused Sheetal which could obviously for selling the complainant to Sheetal knowing fully well that he was selling the complainant to a lady who was running a brothel where the complainant would be compelled to have illicit intercourse with the customers visiting that place. Statement of PW3 Idris who is brother­in­law (Jija) of the complainant further proves that when he visited his native place at 24 Pargana West Bengal, through a girl who had earlier run away from Kotha No. 71, G.B. Road, Delhi, he came to know that a girl matching the description of Sharifa Khatoon his sister­in­law was also at Kotha No. 71, G.B. Road, Delhi and then he came to Delhi on 29.11.2006 and contacted the police officers present near Kotha No. 54 and informed about the information available with him. It has also come in the statement of PW3 Mohd Idrish that police made a telephone call to someone on which a person from some NGO reached there and informed about the facts by the police and then the police alongwith him and that person from the NGO reached Kotha No. 71, III Floor where he identified his sister­in­law Sharifa Khatoon out of the girls present there and she was rescued by the police. Here it is important to note that neither Mohd Idrish nor Sharifa Khatoon had anything adverse against accused Sheetal or Alamgir so as to lodge a false complaint against any of them. It also cannot be ignored that Alamgir was not arrested from Kotha No. 71, G.B. Road, Delhi and either during cross­examination of PW2 & PW3 or while making statement U/s 313 Cr.PC, accused Alamgir has not given any motive for PW2 Sharifa Khatoon and PW3 Mohd Idrish to falsely implicate him in this case when he was already in custody in a case FIR No. 342/06 under Section 20 (B) NDPS Act of PS Bashir Hut in West Bengal. It is a matter of judicial record that presence of Alamgir was obtained through production warrants and even wireless message was sent for seeking his production and appearance in this case. The complainant had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate accused Alamgir in this case had he been not the person who induced her to accompany him initially to Mumbai but instead brought her to Delhi and sold her to accused Sheetal who compelled her to indulge in prostitution. Statement of Mohd Idris is also sufficient to establish that it was only through a girl who managed to run away from Kotha, he came to know about the presence of Sharifa Khatoon at Kotha No. 71 and with the police help, in the presence of one person from NGO, the police recovered her from Kotha No.71 on his identification. As Mohd Idris is also resident of Village Matpada, PS Bashir Hat, PO Bhawala, Distt. North 24 Pargana, West Bengal and was genuinely concerned about the whereabouts of his sister in law and followed the available leads regarding the presence of his sister in law at Kotha No. 71 then contacted the police officers present there and complainant was rescued on his identification, further proves that she was brought from her native place by accused Alamgir and sold to accused Sheetal who was running a brothel, to compel her to indulge into prostitution. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Alamgir for commission of offence punishable U/s 366 IPC. He is held guilty and convicted for commission of offence U/s 366 IPC.

In view of above discussion, as the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Alamgir for the offence punishable U/s 366/34 IPC, he is held guilty and convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s 366/34 IPC but his offence U/s 363/372/34 IPC is not proved, hence he is acquitted of these charges.

Against accused Sheetal, prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for commission of offences U/s 376 readwith Section 109, 368 IPC & Section 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act for which she is held guilty and convicted. However, as the offence punishable U/s 373/34 IPC & Section 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act have not been proved against her, she is acquitted of these charges.

2. Sheetal D/o Neo Rati, R/o Kotha No. 71, III Floor, Left Side, G.B. Road, Delhi PS Kamla Market U/s 366/34, 376 r/w 109, 368 IPC and Sec.4 ITP Act Date of arguments : 26.10.2009 Date of order : 26.10.2009 ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard the convicts Alamgir and Sheetal and their counsel Sh. Pradeep Chaudhary on the point of sentence. I have also heard Sh. S.C. Sharma, addl. PP for the State. On behalf of State, it has been submitted that both the convicts were instrumental in compelling an innocent village girl into flesh trade and they deserve no leniency and maximum punishment may be awarded to them so that it sends signal to the potential offenders.