Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"That the present case has been registered on the written complaint dated 25.8.2010 moved by Sonia Mahant to the SSP Hoshiarpur to the effect that complainant used to work with Geeta Mahant in group to earn livelihood. About 6 years back, Geeta Mahanat and his two other companion took the complainant to an undisclosed location and after administering intoxicant substance, surgically removed his penis and made him an eunuch. When the complainant regained conscious, the accused prevailed upon the complainant not to file any complaint against him and assured the complainant to involve him in the work carried out by the accused persons. The accused persons earmarked 18 specific areas for the exclusive working of the complainant. It was also complained that Geeta Mahant had forced the complainant into flesh trade against her consent and whenever complainant protested, she was subjected to physical cruelty and harassment at the hands of Geeta Mahant."

"20. So by going through entire evidence of the doctors as well as other witnesses of this case, it is clear that allegation levelled by complainant Sonia Mahant with regard to chopping his penis by accused Gita Mahant are not believable. The alleged incident of chopping of the penis of complainant has taken place in the year 2004 and present FIR has been registered in the year 2010. There is unexplained delay of six years for lodging the FIR. PW2- Ranjit Kumar alias Sonu (complainant) is important witness of this case but strangely enough that he keep quite for such a long period of six years when the alleged incident has taken place. He never bothered to move any application before any authority regarding the alleged incident. Even PW-1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh has specifically stated that injury is not fresh and it is six years old. It has come in evidence that this job of surgeon cannot be done without surgical intervention. He admitted that without the consent of patient, surgeon never do any operation or surgical intervention. In the present case there is no such consent of patient or proof of any surgical intervention for the alleged removal of penis of complainant., Furthermore, from the testimony of PW7-Resham Singh, it is clear that it was told to him by complainant that his penis was chopped by Gita Mahant by giving him intoxicant and thereafter he approached Kehar Singh, Municipal Commissioner before whom Gita Mahant accused has confessed her guilt. However, strangely enough prosecution failed to produce said Kehar Singh, Municipal Commissioner in the Court to prove the fact of confession made by accused."