RAMU Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions for admissions, have been filed against the Order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, in C. A. No. 150/94 confirming the conviction imposed by the 14th Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, for the offence U/S. 366, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each. The first accused has filed Crl. R. C. No. 74/95 and accused 2 and 3 have filed the other revision.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that somewhere in June 1992, the first accused falsely promised to PWs. 1 to 3 that in Kalyan near of Bombay employment opportunities are available as Domestic Servants with good salary and free meals and P.W. 3 also knowing this through P.W. 1 agreed to be employed in Kalyan, that all these revision petitioners took these women and one Parvathi to Kalyan where they were sold to Banu and Susheela for prostitution, that these women were forced to submit to the prostitution after the sale to these persons, that P.Ws. 1 and 3 escaped from them and on the complaint of P.W. 1, P.W. 4 was rescued from the brother house. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have spoken the manner in which they were taken to Kalyan in Maharashtra State. P.Ws. 1 and 4 have deposed that as they were working as coolies in the construction works they came across the first accused (revision petitioner in Crl. R. C. 74/95) who informed that she was providing jobs in Kalyan near Bombay as domestic servants and this was informed to P.W. 3 also who was working in a Soap Company. All these three witnesses have narrated that the first accused took them to Central Railway Station the other accused joined and where they were taken by all these revision petitioners to Kalyan, that from there to the house of one Banu, who was carrying on the brothel house and the sale of P.W. 1 to her by these revision petitioners and the sale of P.W. 1 to her by these revision petitioners and the sale of P.Ws. 3 and 4 to Susheela. These three witnesses have spoken that as they were not aware that they were brought for prostitution, they refused to submit to the prostitution, but the brothel keeper tortured them and demanded back the money she had given to these petitioners, to have them released from her, they had to submit to her command. P.W. 1 would state that when she had been to the common lavatory, she scaled the wall and escaped to the Railway Station from where she reached Madras and P.W. 3 also has stated that hearing that P.W. 1 had escaped, she had also escaped from their clutches. It is also the prosecution case that as P.W. 1 gave a written complaint to the police, P.W. 7 was deputed for rescuing P.W. 4 and that P.W. 5, Uncle of P.W. 4, identified P.W. 4 in Kalyan and she was rescued. P.W. 6 is the Police Officer attached to C.B.C.I.D. Branch, Bombay, and he has deposed that on the request of P.W. 7 Inspector of Police from Madras, he went to the place known as Sonapur along with P.W. 5 and that P.W. 4 was rescued from the house of Yunak Banak.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners in Crl. R. C. No. 68/95 (Accused 2 and 3) contended that these accused did not have direct contact with the witnesses even as per the prosecution evidence and they simply went to Bombay along with the first accused Muniammal and therefore they cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. But P.Ws. 1 and 3 have narrated that all these three accused took them from Central Railway Station to Bombay, that as the travel was very much tedious, when they questioned, all the three accused tried to beat them as they were brought under their control and after reaching the house of the brothel housekeeper Banu, all these three accused were conversing with her. P.W. 1 has further stated that when she was staying in the house of Banu some time later, the second accused brought a girl to that house. Therefore, the evidence of all these witnesses show the conjoint action of these petitioners and even though accused 2 and 3 did not have any direct contact with these witnesses till they met them in the Central Railway, their subsequent conduct shows that all these three accused had already planned to take these poor women to Bombay for the purpose of forcing them to prostitution.