G. JUSTUS ABRAHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second accused in C.C. No. 7555 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet is the revision petitioner herein. He was implicated as an accused in Crime No. 5 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 5(1)(d) and 7(2) of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (hereinafter called as the Act) read with Section 376 of I.P.C. Upon trial in C.C. No. 7755 of 2010, the trial court convicted A -2/the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, with fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2012 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and the same was dismissed by a judgment dated 14.02.2014. It is the aforesaid decisions of the courts below which are questioned in this Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the first accused Sukumar and the second accused Justus Abraham have paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - to the fourth accused Periyasamy for procuring ladies for them to get sexual pleasure. Accordingly, the fourth accused engaged one Kavya and Kavitha @ Suganya and asked them to proceed to M.B. International Hotel at Egmore, Chennai. On such instruction, the aforesaid two ladies proceeded to room No. 102 on 02.12.2008 at about 12.30 pm where A -1 and A -2 instigated them to have sexual intercourse with them and the accused have performed sexual intercourse with the girls. Thus, according to the prosecution, both the accused are guilty of the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. The third accused in this case is the Manager of the M.B. International Hotel, who allotted room to the second accused not in his original name but in a fictitious name viz., A.S. Daniel. As far as A -4 is concerned, he, as a broker, received money from A -1 and A -2 to procure the girls and asked the two girls to come to Albert Theater near Egmore. Accordingly, the two girls have come to Egmore and A -4 he paid to them Rs. 3,500/ - and taken them to the hotel. Thus, the fourth accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4(1) and 5(1) of the Act.

(3.) NEXT , it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the investigation officer, who was examined as PW1 in this case, has stated that he received a tip off at about 14.15 hours on 27.12.2008 regarding prostitution being carried on in M.B. International Hotel at Egmore. Thereafter, he has requested Jabaraj and Parameswari attached to a Non -governmental organisation to come to Egmore to witness the raid to be conducted by him. Further, there is variation in the time of raid in the hotel. According to PW12, Jabaraj, on the request made by PW1, Inspector of Police, he came from his office at Arumbakkam to Egmore Railway Station at 3.15 p.m. whereas, according to PW1, on his request, PW12 came to Egmore Railway Station at about 2.30 p.m. on 27.12.2008 and the raid was conducted at about 2.30 p.m. Thus, there are lot of difference in the time at which the raid was conducted in the hotel. The learned counsel further contended that PW1, Inspector of Police, has not produced his general diary before the trial court to show the time at which the raid was conducted. According to PW1, in his cross -examination, on the next day viz., 28.12.2008 at about 6.00 am, he has arrested A -4 Periyasamy near Poonamallee in the presence of witness Jabaraj and Parameswari. Whereas, PW12, Jabaraj in his deposition has stated that he went to the Police Station at about 6.00 am on 28.12.2008 and A -4 was arrested at 7.00 am near Nallammal Hotel opposite to Albert Theater at Egmore. Thus, there is a total contradiction with respect to the time of arrest of A -4, as deposed by PW1 in this case.