Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 366a of indian penal code in Sc No. 19/13 State vs Kanan Mandal Etc. Page No. 1 Of 38 on 27 August, 2013Matching Fragments
Case of Prosecution:
1. On 06.04.2009 vide DD No. 21A an information was received by W/SI Kusum Dangi regarding trafficking of a minor girl at the address i.e. SC No. 19/13 State Vs Kanan Mandal etc. Page No. 2 of 38 H.No. A201, Sharma Market, Pul Prahladpur, Badarpur, Delhi. Thereafter, W/SI Kusum Dangi along with SI Mukesh Kumar, W/Ct. Mukesh, W/Ct.
Reetu, HC Pritam and Ct.Virender reached at the aforesaid address where the complainant Vijay Diwakar gave a written complaint to the police. Subsequently, on the statement of complainant Vijay Diwakar and recording on a chip regarding selling of minor girl, case under section 366A/372 of IPC was registered against the accused persons. Accused Samar Mandal and Kanan Mandal were arrested. Personal search memo of accused Kanan Mandal was prepared and Rs. 15,000/ in cash were recovered from the possession of her. Statement of both the prosecutrix namely 'M' and 'P' ( name withheld to keep their identity confidential) was recorded by the police and on the basis of their statements accused Mukesh, Manju were also arrested by the police. Both the prosecutrix namely 'M' and 'P' were medically examined. Bone age estimation examination of prosecutrix P was got conducted by the police. Statement of both the prosecutrix were recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and on their statement complainant/accused Vijay Diwakar was also arrested by the police in this case. His medical examination was also got conducted by the police. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under section 366A/372/373/120B/34 IPC & 4/5/6 ITP Act against accused Samar Mandal, under section 366A/372/373/120B/34 IPC & 4/5/6 ITP Act against accused SC No. 19/13 State Vs Kanan Mandal etc. Page No. 3 of 38 Kanan Mandal, under section 372/366A/373/120B/34 IPC & 4/5/6 ITP Act against accused Manju, under section 373/120B/34 IPC & 4/5 ITP Act against accused Mukesh and under section 366A/373/354/376/120B/109/34 IPC & 5/6 ITP Act complainant/accused Vijay Diwakar was filed in the court.
49. Section 366A IPC provides: "Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
SC No. 19/13 State Vs Kanan Mandal etc. Page No. 29 of 38
51. As per the case of the prosecution accused persons had induced prosecutrix namely 'M' and 'P' so that they may be forced or seduced to sexual intercourse with coaccused Vijay Diwakar and also sold prosecutrix namely 'P' to Vijay Diwakar for Rs. 15,000/ with the intention that she would be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with coaccused Vijay Diwakar. So far as all these three sections are concerned, both the prosecutrix have categorically deposed about these inducement. Prosecutrix namely 'M' has specifically deposed against the accused Kanan Mandal and Samar Mandal who had persuaded her to indulge in flesh trade and she was being paid by both of them. As per her statement from 21.03.2009 to 25.03.2009 she had indulged in sexual intercourse with different persons at the house of Kanan Mandal and Samar Mandal as she was in need of money and persuaded by accused that if she wants to get money she has to go in flesh trade. Similarly, as per statement of prosecutrix 'P' accused Mukesh had brought the prosecutrix at the house of Manju who took Rs. 1,000/ from accused Kanan Mandal and handed over 'P' to her and ultimately Kanan Mandal and Samar Mandal sold the girl to accused Vijay Diwakar for Rs. 15,000/ so that she may be used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse. The testimony of both the prosecutrix on these points is consistent and trustworthy. Even the complaint on which the present FIR is registered is lodged by accused Vijay Diwakar stating that he had paid Rs. 15,000/ to Kanan Mandal and Samar Mandal for the minor girl SC No. 19/13 State Vs Kanan Mandal etc. Page No. 30 of 38 'P'. The said amount of Rs. 15,000/ has been recovered on the spot from accused Kanan Mandal. There is no doubt about the recovery of the money from the possession of accused Kanan Mandal. Nothing adverse came out from the cross examination of both the prosecutrix. Rather, their statements are inconformity with the complaint lodged by the accused Vijay Diwakar with the police. From the statement of the prosecutrix namely 'M' it is proved that accused Kanan Mandal and Samar Mandal induced her to indulge in flesh trade as she was in need of money so that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with Vijay Diwakar and it also proved that Mukesh and Manju had sold P to coaccused so that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with Vijay Diwakar. It is also proved that Mukesh, Manju, Kanan Mandal and Samar Mandal in furtherance of their common intention have sold the prosecutrix 'P' firstly to Kanan Mandal and then to Vijay Diwakar so that she may be used for prostitution or illicit intercourse. However as the prosecutrix 'P' is held to be major and all the accused are charged for inducing both prosecutrix so that they may be forced or seduced for illicit intercourse with coaccused Vijay Diwakar and as the sentence in both the sections i.e. 366 and 366A IPC is same and the charge is similar, hence I convict all the accused persons under section 366 IPC and acquit them under section 366A/372/34 IPC. No criminal conspiracy is proved on record and as such no conviction can be held under section 120B IPC as well.
Conclusion:
56. In view of the above said discussion, prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Kanan Mandal, Samar Mandal, Mukesh and SC No. 19/13 State Vs Kanan Mandal etc. Page No. 37 of 38 Manju. Therefore, accused Kanan Mandal, Samar Mandal, Mukesh and Manju are held guilty and convicted for the offence under section 366/34 IPC and acquitted under section 366A/372/120B/34 IPC. Accused Kanan Mandal and Samar Mandal are also convicted for the offence under section 4,5 & 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. Accused Vijay Diwakar is however acquitted of the offence under section 376/354/120B IPC. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.08.2013.