MADHAVI JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant is the original Accused. She is challenging the judgment and Order passed by the Assistant sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, who convicted her for having committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Immoral traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (Act, for short). The Accused preferred an Appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, who was pleased to confirm the Order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The Applicant is challenging both these Orders which are passed by the lower appellate Court as well as the trial court.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 16-6- 2001, the SDPO, Vasco, Shri. Vishram Borkar, a. S. I. Kerkar, LPC Annie Ghaltag and two police Constables raided her house in the red light area at Baina when they received information that one minor girl had been confined in the room by the Accused and was forced into prostitution. P. S. I. Serafino Dias of the Vasco Police Station was also in the raiding party and they broke open the room and found one girl who was 14 to 15 years of age. She was brought to the Police Station and further investigation was carried out by the police Inspector Serafino Dias. He lodged a complaint and his F. I. R. was recorded on the same day. During the course of the investigation, the statement of the victim and the other witnesses was recorded and the minor girl Ulgawwa Chalwadi was sent for medical examination and thereafter she was sent to a protective Home at Merces. During the course of investigation, a sketch of the scene of offence was drawn and investigation was arranged in the Municipal Council to ascertain tiie name of the owner of the room. After the relevant information was obtained the Accused was arrested on 30-11-2001. A charge-sheet was accordingly filed against the Accused and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco committed the case to the Sessions Court. The assistant Sessions Judge framed a charge against the Accused who pleaded not guilty and accordingly thereafter the prosecution examined its witnesses. The prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses. The trial Court acquitted the Accused of the offence punishable under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5 and 6 of the said Act. The trial court, however, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as charge under Section 4 of the Act is concerned and accordingly convicted her for having committed an offence under Section 4 of the said Act and she was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The Accused was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo 1 month imprisonment. The trial Court directed that if the fine was realized, the entire amount of Rs. 1000/- should be paid to the prosecutrix.

(3.) Against the said Judgment and order, the Applicant/original Accused preferred an Appeal before the Sessions Judge who was pleased to confirm the Order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Applicant.