NIRMALA @ MINI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein stood arrayed as the fourth accused in Crime No.293/2008 of Kalpakanchery Police Station for offences punishable under sections >3, >4, >5 and >7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and sections 366A and 376(2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It was alleged by the prosecution that a 16 year old girl was procured by the accused and lodged in a house, which was allegedly used as a brothel. On getting information, search was conducted and the above victim along with the petitioner herein and few other women were also taken into custody. It was alleged by the prosecution that the main accused had procured the victim girl and used her for the purpose of sexual abuse along with the petitioner herein and two other women. After investigation, final report was filed and all other accused except the petitioner herein faced the trial in SC.No.443/2012. After trial, all the accused except the petitioner herein and accused No.7, were acquitted. A7 was found guilty of offences punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against the petitioner herein was split up and is now pending as LP.No.57/2016 in SC.No.443 of 2012 of Additional Sessions Court-I (Special Court for the Trial of offences against Children), Manjeri. The petitioner herein has approached this court contending that in the light of Annexure-A3 judgment, the substratum of the case as against the petitioner herein has broken and no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner herein was charged with offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Act and there was no allegation of any other offence against her. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to various paragraphs of the judgment in Annexure-A3 and submitted that main allegations are attributed to the seventh accused alone. Accused Nos.5 and 6 stood charged for identical offences as that of the petitioner herein. Those accused were found not guilty and were acquitted. Hence it was contended that the petitioner herein stand on the same footing as accused Nos.5 and 6, against when the prosecution could not adduce any evidence.

(3.) After perusal of the judgment in detail, I also agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. Since accused Nos.5 and 6 were acquitted and since they stand on the same footing as that of the petitioner herein, I am inclined to hold that the benefit of acquittal should enure to this petitioner also.