SHAIK RAMJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were four accused in Crime No. 13/93 registered under Secs.366-A and 372 I.P.C. Two accused, being A-3 and A-4 were absconding, the charge was split and A-1 and A-2 were tried after committal. They were tried by Assistant Sessions judge, Eluru. A-1 was convicted for the offence under Section 366-A. I.P.C and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine she had to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months. She was also convicted for the offence under Section 372 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine she was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. A-2 was acquitted,

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned PublicProsecutor and the record was examined.

(3.) The Prosecution levelled the following allegations against the accused:The de facto complainant Afzalunnisa alms Puthli Begum is the mother of the victim Shaik Ashia. She is resident of Tangellamudi, Eluru town. A-1 is also resident of the same area. A-2 is resident of Nawabpet, Eluru and he is working as N.M.R. in Telephones Department at Eluru. A-3 and A-4 are residents of Bombay and are running a prostitution home at Bombay. The victim Ashia used to participate in dramas. Having come to know that Ashia was fond of acting in dramas, A-1 and A-2 planned to procure her and sell her at Bombay to a brothel. In pursuance of their design A-1 and A-2 approached Ashia, promised her that she would be given a chance to work in dramas in Vijayawada city, then took her to Bombay and sold her away to a brothel house run by A-3 and A-4 for an amount of Rs. 8,000/- for the purpose of being used as a prostitute. Ashia was tortured there and was forced to take up the profession of prostitution and entertain customers sent by A-3 and A-4.The brothel house was run by A-3 and A-4 in 14th lane, Kamatipura, Bombay. During her stay at the brothel the said victim sought the help of a Tea vendor by name Laxman Shinde who used to supply tea to the brothels in Kamatipura area. She also gave certain letters to him for being posted to her husband Rajasekhar who was resident of Tangellamudi, Eluru. When Rajasekhar received the letters he informed the matter to the de facto complainant who is mother of the victim. Thereafter, the de facto complainant gave a complaint to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Eluru 11 Town Police Station who registered a case in Crime No. 13/93 on 12th January, 1993. The Police party on the basis of the information in the letter, led by M. A. Shareef, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Eluru II Town Police Station, proceeded to Bombay on 25th January, 1993. They contacted Laxman Shinde who had written the letters to Rajasekhar, the husband of the victim, the said Laxman Shinde gave some information to the Police and the Police party proceeded to the brothel house run by A-3 and A-4, the victim was spotted out and liberated from the house at 7.00 p.m. on 28th January, 1993. She was brought back to Eluru on 30th January, 1993. M.J.V. Bhaskar, Sub- Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Police Station recorded the statement of the victim girl on 30th January, 1993 and on the basis of the statement of the girl the case was registered now in terms of Section 366-A and 372 I.P.C. and an altered F.I.R. was issued. In the first instance on the complaint of the de facto complainant the F.I.R was registered as missing report. During the course of investigation A-1 and A-2 were arrested on 31st January, 1993. The victim was sent to the Government Hospital, Eluru for examination. She was also referred to the Professor, Forensic Medicine, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada for age determination who certified that the victim's age would be between 17 and 18 years on the date of examination by him. Accused 3 and 4 could not be arrested and the charge sheet was filed. Charges were drawn against Accused 1 and 2 under Section 366-A and 372 I.P.C. Seven witnesses were examined by the Prosecution. After the evidence was taken, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded who denied the allegations. No defence was led.