Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On the basis of the aforesaid, a case under Section 366A/372/373/376/342/109/34 IPC and 3/4/5/6 ITP Act was got registered. During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared at the instance of Prosecutrix 'S.B' and accused Rekha was arrested at her instance and her disclosure statement was got recorded. Prosecutrix was medically examined at LNJP hospital, the exhibits so collected from the hospital were also seized and her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was also got recorded before the ld. MM. It is pertinent to mention that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC Prosecutrix 'SB' stated that she was purchased by both the accused Sheetal and Rekha and thereafter both of them forced her into prostitution and her custody was subsequently handed over to her father.

Upon committal of the case the accused and on the basis of material on record vide order dated 23.08.2012, both the accused were charged for the offence under Section 366A/343 r/w Section 34 IPC, 109 r/w Section 376 IPC, under Section 23/26 JJ Act and under Sections 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act vide order dated 31.03.2014, an additional/amended charge under Section 373/34 against accused Rekha was framed. In addition to the above accused Sheetal was also charged for the offence under Section 373/34 IPC separately. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial when the aforesaid charges were read over and explained to them separately. Prosecution Evidence Prosecution examined 15 witnesses so far to prove the guilt of the accused persons.

I also find that the offence under Sections 23 & 26 JJ Act cannot be said to be made out against the accused persons. There is no evidence whatsoever in the testimony of the Prosecutrix that she was subjected to cruelty for mental or physical sufferings by the accused persons and thus Section 23 of the JJ Act cannot be said to be made out. Further, though it has been established that the Prosecutrix 'SB' was forced into prostitution, however, the same cannot be said to be hazardous employment within the meaning of Section 26 of the JJ Act. Accordingly, I find no reason to convict the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. SC No. : 32/13 State vs. Rekha & Anr. FIR No. : 20/2012 PS Kamla Market I also do not find myself in agreement with the submission of learned defence counsel that in view of the fact that ITP Act is a Special Act, hence offences under Sections 366A IPC and 373 IPC cannot be said to be made out against the accused persons. I find on going through the relevant statutory provisions that the said offences cannot be said to be similar and are rather distinct offences.

Moreover, lapses if any, in investigation cannot be said to be a ground for acquittal of the accused. In this regard reliance may be place upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and Others Vs State of Punjab AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1920. Similar view has been laid down in Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand Vs State of Haryana and another AIR 1999 Supreme Court 371 (1) Accordingly, both the accused are hereby held guilty for having committed offence under Sections 373/34, 366A/34 & 343/34 IPC and Sections 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act. Since there is no categoric evidence on record to show as to for how many days Prosecutrix was confined by the accused persons in the Kotha No.70, IIIrd Floor, Left Side, G.B.Road, SC No. : 32/13 State vs. Rekha & Anr. FIR No. : 20/2012 PS Kamla Market Delhi, both the accused Rekha and Sheetal instead of being convicted under Section 343/34 IPC have been convicted under Section 342/34 IPC. However, as discussed hereinabove the both the accused are acquitted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC & Sections 23 & 26 JJ Act. Let them be heard on the point of sentence. Announced in the Open Court on April 25, 2014 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions Judge­FTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.