SANJANA RAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dtd. 15/10/2018 and order on sentence dtd. 30/10/2018 passed in SC No. 27254/2016 titled as CBI Vs. Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa and Ors., arising out of FIR No. R.C.3(S) 2012-CBI/SC-1/New Delhi, registered at Police Station CBI/SC.I/New Delhi, under Ss. 344/366A IPC Ss. 4/5 of ITP Act, whereby appellant has been sentenced to undergo as follows:-

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case as per the prosecution are that information was received vide e-mail dtd. 17/2/2012 from one Sh. Nirnay John, a functionary of an NGO namely, Mankind on Action for Rural Growth ('MARG') based in Darjeeling, West Bengal, regarding missing of 14 years minor girl 'RL' (prosecutrix herein) for seeking CBI help on urgent and immediate basis to rescue the said missing girl, who seemed to be in the net of inter-state gang of traffickers. 'RL' was recovered on 22/2/2012 by the officials of Special Crime Unit - I of CBI, New Delhi, from the market of Village Munirka, New Delhi, while she was with the appellant - Sanjana Rai @ Ankita Rai. 'RL' was thereafter interrogated by the Special Police Officer and she gave a written complaint stating that she is resident of Darjeeling and her father is a tourist guide at local Zoological Park, Darjeeling and her mother deserted her family about thirteen years ago. 'RL' asked one 'AG' (prosecutrix in another case bearing RC No. 5(S)/2012-SC I/CBI, New Delhi), a married lady of her village for help and the said 'AG' recommended the prosecurix to go to Delhi for employment through one of her acquaintance/friend, namely, Anand Vishwa, who was residing in Delhi. On 19/11/2011, prosecutrix reached Siliguri Bus Stand, where Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa met her and took her to Delhi by train and thereafter to a house at Nehru Place, where wife of Anand Vishwa, namely, Babita was already present, who delivered a baby girl on 25/11/2011. According to the prosecutrix accused Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa forcibly established physical relations with her and also subjected her to sexual exploitation at the hands of several persons. 'RL' also alleges that when she was subjected to sexual exploitation for the first time, she was made to eat something and after consuming it, she felt giddiness. 'RL' further alleges that accused Anand Vishwa took her to the house of his friend i.e. accused/appellant Sanjana at Village Munirka, who was aware that Anand Vishwa was involved in trade of supplying girls for commercial sexual exploitation. According to the prosecutrix, on 29/11/2011, she left the house of accused - Anand Vishwa and started living with the appellant and thereafter, the appellant - Sanjana sent the proxecutrix to the house of co- accused Ajay Vishwa, where she stayed for one month, who also established physical relations with the prosecutix several times. Prosecutrix further stated that she managed to escape from there and came back to the house of the appellant.

(3.) During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. According to the prosecution, the appellant knowingly and intentionally sent the prosecutrix to accused Birendra Kumar Singh @ Pandit at Munirka for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation for monetary gains, despite knowing that prosecutrix was a minor girl. The co-accused Birendra Kumar Singh @ Pandit not only forcibly raped the prosecutrix, but also subjected her to commercial sexual exploitation at the hands of his clients.