ROMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by their conviction under Sections 120B/368 read with Section 366 and 323 IPC by a judgment dated 28.04.2005 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Roma and Komal have preferred the instant appeals. By an order dated 06.05.2005, they were sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 368 read with Section 366 IPC and RI for six months with fine Rs. 500/- each under Section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 07.01.2000 a secret information was received by SI V.P.Jha at around 07.30 p.m. to the effect that a girl kept forcibly in Kotha No.54, First Floor, G.B. Road has been forced to indulge in prostitution. On this information, a raiding team went to Kotha No.54, First Floor, G.B. Road. 'X' (assumed name) aged around 26 years came forward and lodged complaint (Ex.PW-1/A). Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. In her complaint, 'X' implicated Roma and Komal for forcing her to do prostitution. Roma was apprehended from the Kotha. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. During investigation, statements of the relevant witnesses conversant with facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the appellants for committing various offences under Sections 342/363/368/376/323/109/34 IPC and 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 ITP Act. By an order dated 24.07.2001, the appellants were charged for committing offences under Sections 120B/368/323 IPC and 3, 4, 5 & 6 ITP Act. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. In order to bring home its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. They did not examine any witness in defence.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Recovery of the prosecutrix from Kotha No.54, First Floor, G.B. Road, on 07.01.2000 is not under challenge. Appellants' plea is that 'X' had come voluntarily for prostitution and she was never wrongfully confined. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was aged around 26 years on the day of incident. She was a married lady having two children. She lived in village Kanaipur Colony, PS Uttarpada, Distt. Googli (West Bengal). She left home without informing her husband. A 'Missing Person Report' was lodged by him. The exact date when the prosecutrix left her home is not on record. In her complaint (Ex.PW-1/A), she disclosed that about 9 or 10 months before she had come to Howrah in search of work. When she was sitting at railway station at around 9 or 10 a.m. a lady subsequently identified as Rekha allured her to accompany her on the pretext to provide her a job. Rekha took her to an unknown place and kept her for ten days there. Thereafter, she was brought by train to Delhi. Rekha handed over her to a lady at Kotha No.54, First Floor, G.B. Road. 'X' further disclosed that subsequently she came to know that Rekha had sold her for Rs. 20,000/- - Rs. 25,000/-. Thereafter, she was forced by Roma and Komal to indulge in prostitution. On her refusal, they used to thrash her. She further accused them of sharing the income received by them from the customers. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-1/B) recorded on 10.01.2000, she named Rekha to have kidnapped her on the pretext to provide her job. From Howrah, she was taken to Bihar. After about 10 days, Rekha sold her to Roma and Komal at Delhi. When she requested them to allow her to go, she was not permitted to do so. She was pushed into prostitution and on her refusal, she was beaten. Similar is her Court statement as PW-1.