Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

292/120-B IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months RI) All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The aforequoted judgment of conviction has been assailed by the appellants in the instant appeals.

2. The short facts leading to the conviction need narration. Hari Prasad Sharma (Dy. S.P. (North) Ajmer (PW.9.) conducted a secret enquiry in regard to sexual exploitation of girls by certain persons in Ajmer. At the conclusion of enquiry a report (Ex.P.6) was submitted to S.P. Ajmer on May 30, 1992. This report came lobe lodged as FIR No. 107/1992 at Police Station Ganj Ajmer wherein Nasim @ Tarjen, Parvej, Kailash Soni, Sohil, Moijullah @ Puttan, Ishrat, Harish and Puroshottlam @ Babli were named as accused. The investigation of the case was subsequently transferred to C.I.D. (C.B.). In the course of investigation various nude photographs were recovered and accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation as many as four charge sheets were filed in. the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ajmer. All the cases were consolidated in Sessions Case No. 40/92 and tried by learned Sessions Judge Ajmer. Charges under sections 120-B, 376/120-B, 292, 292/120-B, 509/120-B and 376 IPC were framed against the appellants who denied charges and claimed trial. The case of the prosecution set out in the charge sheets was that the accused were guilty of rape and criminal conspiracy to get girls into their net on various false pretensions and promises. Their modus operand! was that the girls subsequent to being sexually abused would be photographed in compromising position to facilitate their continual exploitation both physically and mentally. The prosecution examined as many as 148 witnesses, articlised 20 items and exhibited 175 documents. Thereafter explanation of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recor-ded. The appellants denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. Four witnesses were examined by appellant Syed Anwar Chisti in defence. The learned trial Judge after hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove.

Co-accused Purushottam @ Babli was also arrested in the instant case but he committed suicide during trial; His father Jon Vaishly was examined by the prosecution as PW.31 but was declared hostile. Learned trial court placed reliance upon the aforequoted evidence and held that Mahesh Ludhani was guilty of criminal conspiracy, in sexually abusing the girls after photographing them in compromising position to facilitate their continual exploitation.

19. Appellant Harish Tolani was also charged under Section 120-B IPC. Against him the allegation was that he being an active partner of Ajmer Colour Lab got developed prints of obscene photographs in order to sexually abusing the girls to facilitate their continual exploitation. Ghanshyam Bhorani (PW.5) in his deposition slated that he, Kiran Kumar, Shanker, Tara Chand, Dev Kumar and Harish Tolani were the partners of Ajmer Colour Lab. Harish used to look after the cash and accounts and visit the Lab one or two hours in a day. Other work of the Lab was looked after by the technicians. Ashok Kumar (PW.6) who used to handle printing and developing work of the Lab, deposed that all the partners used to look after the Lab. Raju (PW.7) Uttam Kumar (PW.11), Shyam Kumar (PW.26), Pradeep Punjabi (PW.27) and Kiran Kumar (PW.29) did not support the prosecution story and deposed that all the partners used to sit at Ajmer Colour Lab. Janardan Sharma (PW. 143) who Investigated the case staled that Harish informed him that he burnt the photographs prepared at Ajmer Colour Lab. This information was drawn on a memo Ex, P.160 and Harish put his signatures. On the basis of the information site plan Ex. P.3 was drawn. Devendra Jain (PW.3) and John Vaishly (PW.31) were declared hostile. On the basis of the testimony of the hostile witnesses an inference was drawn by the learned trial judge that there was a dispute about photographs, it was held by the learned trial judge that Harish Tolani was a partner of Ajmer Colour Lab and he had knowledge that obscene photographs were printed and developed in his Lab.

From the above analyses of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is evident that Section 10 will come into play only when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more person have conspired together to commit an offence. In the instant case the prosecution has not produced any evidence of co-conspirator against the appellants Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani. The evidence that relied upon in convicting them, according to learned trial judge is circumstantial evidence. In the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment we have already referred Ihe evidence that has been relied upon by the learned trial judge against the appellants Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani. Having closely considered the entire material on record we are of the opinion that there do not exist reasonable grounds to believe that the appellants Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani conspired with the other accused persons to sexually abused the girls after photographing them in compromising position to facilitate their continual exploitation.

There is absolutely no evidence on record that could suggest that appellants Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani ever participated in the parties at Farm House, Poultry Farm and the House at Fie Sagar Road where Sangeeta (PW.15) and Madhu Bala (PW. 17) were allegedly raped by Nafees, Farookh, Puttan and Israt. The prosecution did not produce any evidence to establish that photographs Articles 1 to 5 were printed and developed in Ajmer Colour Lab and Bharosa Colour Lab. No obscene photograph was recovered by the investigating officer at the instance of the appellants Mahesh and Harish. We do not find the evidence of Tayal couple sufficient to convict appellant Mahesh. They did not say that appellant Mahesh ever made any attempt to blackmail them. Similarly testimony of investigating officers Hari Prasad and Janardan Sharma is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants Mahesh and Harish. They did draw site plans of the places where the photographs were allegedly burnt by the ,AppelIants Mahesh and Harish. But even if we place reliance on this evidence it does not establish that Mahesh and Harish had conspired with the co- accused persons to sexually abuse the girls after photographing them in compromising position to facilitate their continual exploitation.