POOJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pooja challenges the impugned judgment dated July 29, 2013 convicting her for offences punishable under Sections 373/34, 368/34, 109 read with 376 IPC and the order on sentence dated July 31, 2013 directing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 373/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 368/34 read with Section 109 and 376 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel for Pooja contends that there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5. PW-4, during her cross examination was confronted with her statement made to the police wherein she did not tell to police that she met Saleem in the train and he gave her water to drink after which she became unconscious. PW-5 stated that they were given to drink water on their way back from the house of Muslima and the lady who gave them water to drink was an old lady. It was also contended that Pooja herself was wrongfully detained, confined and forced into prostitution thus she herself was a victim at the hands of the main accused persons namely Meena and Mohd. Saleem.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that apart from the two prosecutrix, Insp. Ved Singh Malik PW-6 is also a witness who conducted the raid at Laxmi Nagar and recovered the prosecutrix. Both the prosecutrix were minor at the time of the incident. There is no reason to doubt their testimony. The contradictions pointed out are minor in nature.