Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

a) "Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P." , reported in(2020) 12 SCC 467.
b) "KammariBrahmaiah v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P." , reported in(1999) 2 SCC 522.
c) "Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy &Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh",reported in (2009)12 SCC 546.
54) The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the appellant was not convicted only on the basis of statement of her husband which was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but on the basis of clear and uncontroverted incriminating evidence against her on record. She submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses including that of the victim girlclearly shows that the victim was induced to go with several adult male persons for sex in return for payment of money by those persons. She also submits that in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the present appellant also took money paid by clients for prostitution by victim "X". She submits that the electronic evidence, i.e., screenshot of WhatsApp chats and Facebook Page No.# 24/31 2026:GAU-MZ:55-DB Messenger also clearly showsthat the appellant along with her husband caused the victim "X" to be taken away by different men for the purpose of paid sex and the money paid against the same was received by the appellant along with her husband. She submits that the trial court hasrightly considered the incriminating evidence against the appellant and convicted her under Section 4(1)/5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as well as under Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376/109 of the Indian Penal Code and rightly imposed appropriate punishment under the aforesaid provisions. Hence, she submits that the conviction as well as sentence imposed on the appellant is liable to be upheld and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Page No.# 28/31 2026:GAU-MZ:55-DB

62) The minority of the victim "X" has not been challenged by the appellant in this appeal. While deciding the point No. 1 formulated by the trial court, in the impugned judgment, the trial court after considering the birth certificate of the victim "X" which was exhibited as Exhibit "M" as well as the uncontroverted testimony of PW-2 & PW-3, in that regard, came to the finding that the date of birth of the victim "X" is 12.01.2009 and at the time of the alleged incidents, she was "minor" within the meaning of Section 2(cb) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as well as a "child" within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012. As the said finding has not been challenged and since we are also of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the trial court regarding minority of the victim girl is based on the evidence available on record, no further discussion is required on the said issue.

64) As regards conviction of the appellant under Section 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is concerned, there are sufficient evidence on record to justify the same. The said provision penalizes any person who procures or attempt to procure a person, whether with or without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution. The Black's Law Dictionary describe the word "procure" as"(1) to obtain(something), especially by special effort or means; (2) To achieve or bring about (a result); and (3) To obtain a sexual partner for another such as minor or a prostitute."In the instant case, the uncontroverted evidence of the prosecution witnesses (mainly of PW-2 & PW-3),discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, clearly shows that the victim girl was procured by the appellant and her husband in the name of looking after her as their own child and thereafter, they induced her into prostitution. The evidence of victim girl, to the effect that she was knowingly sent, on 13.01.2022, by the appellant and her husband, with an unknown person by telling her that he is her uncle, who had committed forcible sex with her,has remained intact. Similarly, the evidence regarding the fact that the victim was subjected to sex by A3 & A4 on various occasioned and that the appellant and her husband (A1) use to physically assault the victim whenever, she refused to with the person whom they asked her to go with, also remained intact.The electronic evidence, i.e., screenshot of WhatsApp chats and Facebook Messenger also Page No.# 30/31 2026:GAU-MZ:55-DB clearly shows that the appellant along with her husband caused the victim "X" to be taken away by different men for the purpose of paid sex. The said evidence also remained uncontroverted as the defense side failed to demolish the same during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.The fact that the mobile phone of the appellant was used for such soliciting purpose also remained uncontroverted. These uncontroverted evidences, in our considered opinion, are sufficient for arriving at the finding of the guilt of the appellant under Section 5 (1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.