LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-534

BABITA Vs. STATE

Decided On October 05, 2018
BABITA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was sent up for trial in Sessions case no.158/03 registered on the basis of report under Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) submitted on conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) no.356/02 of police station Kamla Market, involving offences punishable under Sections 363, 368, 373, 376, 342, 323, 109, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act). Besides her, there were two other persons who were sent up for trial, they being Bhagti Ram Pandey and Shama, the latter having been declared a proclaimed offender.

(2.) The trial concluded with judgment dated 15.01.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby, inter alia, the appellant herein was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 342, 368, 373, 323, 109, 34 Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the ITP Act. By order of sentence passed on 20.01.2005, the trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5,000.00 for offence under Sections 373, 368, 109, 34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500.00 for offence under Sections 342 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.500.00 for offence under Sec. 323 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000.00 under Sec. 3 ITP Act; and rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act against the appellant, the fine of Rs.1,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00 respectively having been added for offences under Sec. 5 and 6 of ITP Act.

(3.) The present appeal was filed in July 2005 seeking to assail the judgment and order on sentence of the trial court. The remainder of the sentence was suspended and the appellant was enlarged on bail in terms of order dated 29.08.2006 on her application Crl. M (B) 1297/2005 subject to certain conditions including deposit of fine. It is stated that the fine was duly deposited before the appellant was released on interim bail pending the hearing on the appeal.