Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Vide impugned judgment dated July 07, 2014, Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa, the appellant in Crl.A.951/2015 and Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup, the appellant in Crl.A.1284/2014 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (in short 'ITP Act'). Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa was acquitted for the offences punishable Section 120B read with Section 420/366/372/373 IPC and substantive offences punishable under Sections 420/366A/372 IPC. Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup was acquitted for the offences punishable Section 120B read with Section 420/366/372/373 IPC and substantive offence punishable under Section 373 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated July 10, 2014, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 5 of ITP Act. Crl.A. 684/2016 has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the aforesaid impugned judgment acquitting the respondents for IPC offence and in Crl.A.Nos.951/2015 and 1284/2014, Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa and Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup challenge their conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 5 of the ITP Act.

2. Learned counsel for Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa submits that the victim (PW-15) was not a minor at the time of alleged occurrence on 13th April, 2012 and ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 366A/372 IPC are not made out. The CBI failed to prove the date of birth of the victim through the birth certificate or any other document except the certificate Ex.PW-13/A which had been issued by Kishan Gurung (PW-13), the school teacher only on 11th June, 2012 i.e. after the alleged incident. Kishan Gurung issued the said certificate when the headmistress was on leave and further the said certificate is not even a certified copy of the admission register. No original admission register has been proved by the prosecution. The certificate issued by Kishan Gurung cannot be held to be an entry in any public register or official book made in discharge of the official duty. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as (2006) 5 SCC 584 Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of UP. Further, Kishan Gurung also stated that no birth certificate was provided by the parents of the victim at the time of admission nor was any signed form provided by the parents. The victim in the train ticket, which was used by her to travel from Darjeeling to Delhi, herself mentioned her age as 19 years. Witnesses, i.e. husband of the victim (PW-12), father of the victim (PW-14) and the victim (PW-15) have deposed falsely in respect of the date of birth at the instance of the CBI. No overt act has been attributed to the appellant Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa nor any evidence of conspiracy between the two accused led. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC are also not satisfied. There is no transfer of any property or valuable security. The victim herself deposed that she had come to New Delhi after she herself had called the respondent No.1 on numerous occasions asking him to find a job for her in New Delhi as she was having quarrels in her matrimonial home and Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa only wanted to help her to get a job to save her from cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. The conversation between the two accused in the immediate presence of the police officers is hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence cannot be relied upon. Further, the mobile phone which was used to record the conversation was not seized nor the owner of the mobile phone produced as a witness. Further, the conviction of Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa for offence punishable under Section 5 of the ITP Act is also not made out as no role has been attributed to the appellant for procuring/inducing or taking the victim for prostitution and therefore, he be acquitted of the charge of Section 5 of the ITP Act also. Hence, there being no merit in Crl.A.684/2016, the same be dismissed. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 3323 State of Kerala Vs. P.Sugathan & Anr. and AIR 2009 SC 2717 S.V.L.Murthy Vs. State, Rep. by CBI, Hyderabad.

3. Adopting the arguments on behalf of learned counsel for Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa learned counsel for Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup submits that no investigation has been carried out to show that Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup was involved in any prostitution racket. Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup was arrested in RC 3 on 13th April, 2012 and on 16th April, 2012 search was conducted at his flat whereafter he was implicated in the present case.

4. Learned SPP for the CBI submits that Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa and Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup hatched a conspiracy in the month of March- April, 2012 at Delhi to induce and procure minor girls for the purpose of sale and purchase for prostitution. In furtherance of the said conspiracy on 13th April, 2012, Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa sold the minor girl i.e. the victim at Lajpat Nagar bus stop near red light to Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup for monetary consideration and thus Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa committed offence punishable under Section 372 IPC. Since the victim was dishonestly induced to come to Delhi from Darjeeling on the false pretext of providing her a suitable job in Delhi, conspiracy to commit offence punishable under section 420 IPC has been committed by Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa and Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup. Further, called on the false pretext of providing her suitable job at Delhi knowingly that she will be sold for the purpose of prostitution, Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa and Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup are also liable for offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC. Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup having purchased the victim 'A' for the purpose of prostitution committed offence punishable under Section 373 IPC and since the girl was procured and induced for the purpose of prostitution, an offence under Section 5 of the ITP Act also stood committed. To prove its case, prosecution examined Abhishek Kumar Singh (PW-1), a friend of Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup, who stated that Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup was involved in commercial sexual activities and thus he kept distance from him and that his knowledge was personal on this count. Tej Kishan (PW-2) deposed about the recovery made pursuant to the search conducted. Further, Sardar Harvinder Singh (PW-3) was an independent witness who deposed about the confession of Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa. Vishal Gaurav (PW-4), Nodel Officer Bharti Airtel and Isar Babu (PW-5), Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile service produced the call details of the relevant phone numbers. Jaipal (PW-6) the landlord of the premises where Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup was staying as a tenant also deposed against him that there were complaints against Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup from neighbours that number of ladies used to visit his flat at odd hours. Sanjay Sharma (PW-8), Executive in J&K Bank provided the statement of account of Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup showing that approximately ₹22 lakh were deposited in his account during the period 25th June, 2010 to 25th June, 2012. Besides, the complicity of Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa was proved by husband of the victim (PW-12) and father of the victim (PW-14). The contention that victim was not proved to be a minor is also incorrect. Further, the victim in her testimony has given the detailed version how she was lured for coming to Delhi and then sold for prostitution. Considering the extensive evidence led by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 5 of the ITP Act be maintained and they be convicted for the offences acquitted by the learned Trial Court.

26. Consequently, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment acquitting Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa and Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420/366/372/ 373 IPC or the substantive offences thereof and convicting and sentencing the two for offence punishable under section 5 of the ITP Act.

27. Appellant Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa was undergoing sentence in RC- 3(S)/2012 SC-1/CBI under Sections 120B/420/344/363/366A/376 IPC and Section 5 of the ITP Act and when his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 12th February, 2016, however, he continued to remain in custody for the reason he was undergoing sentence in another conviction. In case Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa has been released pursuant to the sentence undergone in the other conviction, he will surrender to custody and undergo the remaining sentence. Sentence of appellant Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup was suspended vide order dated 21st August, 2015. He will also surrender to custody and undergo the remaining sentence.