NARMADA GOVIND KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Appeals arise out of the common Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.864 of 2002.

(2.) Appeal No. 1055 of 2004 is filed by the original accused No.1, who was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3. 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA) and under Sections 373 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 3 of PITA, she was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, while for each of the remaining charges, she was sentenced to undergo R.I. For ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. Criminal Appeal No.1097 of 2004 is filed by original accused No.2 Ambadas, who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366-A read with Section 34. I.P.C., Section 372 of I.P.C. and under Section 5 of PITA and was sentenced to undergo R.I. For ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count. Accused No.3 was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366-A and Section 5 of PITA read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.5.2002. Simon George Pillai (P. W.5). who was working for International Justice Mission, an NGO. reported at the V.P. Road Police Station that accused No.l - Narmada Kamble was running a brothel in Shantabai Chawl and a girl Vaishali Ghodake. who was previously rescued from the very brothel, was again working as a prostitute in the same brothel and that she was a minor girl. He reported that as per the information collected by him, two girls were kept in that brothel for carrying on the prostitution. On the basis of the report lodged by him. P.W.6 - ACP Suresh Jadhav along with police party raided the room of the accused No.l Narmada in the said Shantabai Chawl at about 1.30 a.m. The room was shown to police party and panchas by P.W.5. On entering the room, it was found that there were two cots lying in the room separated by a curtain between the two. Two girls viz. Vaishali Ghodake and Renuka Basavaraj Swami Hiremath were sitting in the room with full make-up on their persons. On enquiry with the girls, ACP Suresh Jadhav (P.W.6) was satisfied that both the girls were minor and he took them in custody under a panchanama. After medical examination, the girls were referred to rescue home known as "Kasturba Mahila Wastigarh". Deonar. Vashali was the same girl, who was previously also rescued from the said brothel and her age was about 15-16 years, while Renuka was found to be aged 17 to 18 years. Both were found to be accustomed to sex. The present case is restricted to P.W.I Renuka alone. Initially, she had made a statement before the police that she was voluntarily in the prostitution. However, after she had settled in the rescue home, she informed P.W.3 Niru Sharma. the Probation Officer, who was in charge of that rescue home, that one Sunita, accused No.3, had allured her to go to Mumbai where she could get about Rs.2.000/- per month for the domestic work, but she had advised Renuka not to disclose to her mother that she was going to Mumbai. As per her advice, she went to Tuljapur Naka at Solapur, where Sunil, son of accused No.3 Sunita and one Ambadas, who is accused No.2, were present. Sunil explained that his mother i.e. accused No.3 Sunita was indisposed and she would be coming to Mumbai after two days. After that talk, accused No.2 Ambadas put Renuka in a truck and he also accompanied her in the said truck and they had reached Mumbai at about 3 p.m. That was the incident which had taken place about 5 to 6 months prior to the police raid.. According to her, after reaching at Mumbai, she was taken from Dadar to a hotel in Bombay Central where accused No.2 Ambadas told her that he would contact the people, who were to employ her, by telephone and saying so, he left the hotel. After sometime, accused No.2 Ambadas, accompanied by one more person, came back by taxi and then they took her to Bhendi Bazar by taxi. Finally, she was taken to a house, where one old lady was present. Ambadas, Renuka and that old lady were present in the room for some time. She was given food by that old lady. Within a short time, accused No. 1 Narmada came there and she straightaway told Renuka that she did not require any maid servant, but she would have to do prostitution. Accused No.1 Narmada took her to another room, where already two njore girls viz. Julie and Vaishali were present. They asked Renuka to take bath and to change her clothes. Then some make-up was put on her by some beautician and accused No.l Narmada told her to go out from the .room and stand and make signs to invite the customers. According to her, she was frightened, but she was forced into the prostitution by accused No.1. Initially, when she protested, the accused No. 1 Narmada told her that she had paid Rs. 10,000/- to accused Ambadas and for that consideration he had sold Renuka to her. She also informed that she was forced to indulge in prostitution and everyday some customers were brought to her by accused No. 1 Narmada. On the basis of this information given by P.W.I Renuka, P.W.3-Niru Sharma, Probation Officer prepared a written statement and obtained thumb mark of P.W.I Renuka. That written statement was submitted at the V.P. Road Police Station on 20.7.2002 by P.W.5 Simon . On interrogation by police, she verified that the said written statement was correct. After the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against in all five persons. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were implicated on the ground that they had knowingly provided the accommodation to accused No. 1 Narmada for carrying on the business of prostitution. All the five accused persons were put to trial. However, accused Nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted for want of sufficient evidence to connect them with this incident or with the business of prostitution, but accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were convicted and sentenced as stated above.