BHAGTI RAM PANDEY Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 02.08.2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 92/2001 arising out of FIR No. 236/2001 registered at Police Station Kamte Market by which the appellant -Bhagti Ram Pandey was convicted under Sec. 366 read with Sec. 368 IPC and Sec. 3, 4 & 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short: ITP Act), he has preferred the present appeal. Vide order dated 14.08.2003, he was awarded various prison terms with fine. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge -sheet was that the appellant along with his associates Zarina @ Razia and Hasina abducted/seduced the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) before 21.06.2001 with an intention to compel or force her to have illicit intercourse. The appellant and his associates used to run a brothel at Kotha No. 56, G.B. Road, Delhi and the prosecutrix 'X' was recovered from the said Kotha on 21.06.2001 at around 8.50 p.m.

(2.) On receipt of a secret information, raid was conducted by the police at Kotha No. 56, G.B. Road and two girls 'X' and 'Y' (assumed name) were recovered from there. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording statement of the victim 'X' (Ex. PW -1/A). 'X' and 'Y' were medically examined; they recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statements. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. In the complaint, the victim (X) disclosed as to how initially rape was committed upon her and her friend 'Z' (assumed name) by Deep Karan @ Sonu and Umesh Kumar @ Tinkoo in different jhuggies at Madipur after abducting them on their way to the park. Thereafter, 'X' was sent along with Zareena at 56, G.B. Road for the purpose of prostitution by Deep -Karan. Subsequently both Deep -Karan and Umesh were also arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against all of them for commission of various offences. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses to establish its case. In 313 statement, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the convicts have filed various appeals; the present appeal pertains to the appellant -Bhagti Ram Pandey.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. As per the victim 'X's statement (Ex. PW -1/A), she was initially abducted and forcibly raped by Deep -Karan in a jhuggi for about a month. Subsequently, Deep -Karan sold her to Zareena for Rs. 15,000/ -. She promised to provide her a good job and brought her to Kotha No. 56, G.B. Road; she was pushed into prostitution against her wishes there. In her Court statement as PW -1, she reiterated her version and implicated Deep Karan and Umesh Kumar for abducting her and her friend 'Z' and to have committed rape upon them in two different jhuggies at Madipur for about a month. Apparently, the appellant was not in the picture at that time and was not instrumental in their kidnapping or sexual assault. He had no nexus with Deep Karan to compel 'X' to indulge in prostitution at the Kotha. The appellant was not assigned any role whatsoever in bringing her to the Kotha. Allegations that emerged against him were that the said Kotha belonged to him and he used to share income generated by the prosecutrix 'X' and other sex -workers. Primarily, the allegations against the appellant pertain to the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act.