SADULLAH MOHIDDIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant original accused against the judgment and order of conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Sessions Case No. 501 of 1971 dated 11th April, 1974 convicting the accused under sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(d) and 6(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (hereinafter referred to for brevity sake as "the said Act") read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him on each count for a substantive sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of six months.

(2.) As it has been pointed out to me by Mr. Hattangadi for the appellant that the learned Judge has disbelieved all the prosecution witnesses on material points required for the purpose of convicting the accused, not only that but has acquitted the accused for a charge framed under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code disbelieving the prosecution evidence, by strange reasoning suddenly after observing that the prosecutrix is not reliable and has not given the truthful version on material points and after discussing the law that in a case relating to sex ordinarily the evidence of prosecutrix is required corroboration, however, he suddenly in para 130 of his judgment observed that he relied upon the evidence of the girl. This paragraph No. 130, in the submission of Mr. Hattangadi is a strange reasoning, if one were to read paragraphs 1 to 129 of the judgment. He submitted that though the learned Judge has rightly stated some of the principles of Criminal Jurisprudence which are to be followed, instead of applying those principles, has fallen into an error to have accepted the evidence of the prosecutrix and convicted the accused under minor charges, viz., sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(d) and section 6(1) of the said Act read with section 34 I.P.C., even though he has acquitted the accused under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. Hattangadi carefully took me through some of the most relevant paras of the judgment of the learned Judge and pointed out to me how the learned Judge has disbelieved the main prosecution witnesses on all material points. In view of this part of the judgment and in view of the fat that the entire approach of the learned Judge appearing to be that there is some evidence against the accused, having obtained some document from the girl-the prosecutrix purporting to be a promissory note for Rs. 7,000/- and to bring pressure on the relation of the accused to return the girl to the accused and Gangubai, threats were given to the maternal uncle Anni Pujari to pay Rs. 7,000/- or return the Girl and Anni Pujari (P.W. 4) having been threatened, had complained about the same to (P.W. 5), Abbas, relying upon this piece of evidence, the learned Judge through having held that on material points, the prosecution evidence is not acceptable, has convicted the accused under the sections of the said Act as stated above.