GEETA KANCHA TAMANG Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is convicted vide Judgment and Order dated 8th August, 2009 in the Sessions Case No. 781 of 2008 by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune of the offence punishable under Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1.000/-. i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for three month. The appellant is also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Hence, this Appeal. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :

(2.) P.W. I is Vimal Bidve who was attached to Shukrawar Peth Police Station. She has deposed as per the first information report. She has identified the accused in the court as the person whom she was arrested on the spot. She has proved the contents of the first information report which is at Exh. 14. She has deposed that the minor girls were produced before Juvenile Court. They were then produced before the Child Welfare Board alongwith report of P.W. 1. The major girls were sent to Government Women's Hostel at Mundhwa, Pune. The child was born to one of the victim girl. The defence has failed to shatter the evidence of P.W. 1 in the cross-examination. It is elicited in the cross-examination that she does not have the special authority or permission nor she was an officer on special duty under the PITA Act. She has admitted that there is no documents to establish that the accused is the owner of the said building nor they had noticed any leave and licence agreement in the name of the accused. She had denied the suggestion that she had given the crux of the first information report to the writer and it was the writer who had prepared the complaint and hence, there is no scope to doubt the testimony of P.W. 1, who happens to be the first informant.

(3.) P.W. 2 Shrikar Manohar Devalalkar is the panch for the scene of offence. He has proved the contents of the panchnama. He has also deposed that when they went inside the room they found some girls were sitting. One minor girl caught hold of the lady police and told that she wished to go to her house as she had been forced into prostitution. The accused has also failed to make a dent in the testimony of P.W. 2.