KHALI SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAXMI Martha. Paramananda Martha, Khali Sahu and Sahajada Bibi were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nayagarh. Laxmi and Paramananda were convicted under Section 366/34, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default to R.I. for one month more. Khali was convicted under Section 366/109, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default to R.I. for one month more. Sahajada Bibi was convicted under Section 201, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - in default to R.I. for 10 days more. Sahajada Bibi did not file any appeal before the Sessions Judge and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge against her has become final. Laxmi and Paramanda filed one appeal while Khali filed a separate appeal. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 12 -3 -1974. He made an observation that the sentences imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge were lenient. Criminal Revision No. 146 of 1974 has been filed by Khali Sahu while Criminal Revision No. 148 of 1974 has been filed by Laxmi and Paramananda. Criminal Revision No. 146 of 1974 was admitted by Acharya. J. on 4 -4 -1974. He did not issue any notice of enhancement while Panda. J. issued notice of enhancement on Laxmi and Paramanda in Criminal Revision No. 148 of 1974 at the time of admission on 8 -4 -1974. Both the criminal revisions arise out of the same case and have been heard together.

(2.) PROSECUTION case may be stated in short. Khali Sahu is a resident of village Durgaprasad. Laxmi and her foster son Paramananda are residents of village Manikagoda. Both the villages are not far off from each other and are in the sub -division of Nayagarh in the district of Puri. Khali traffics in girls. His wife Surabala and Lumi are sworn friends. There was thus intimacy amongst Laxmi, Paramananda and Khali. Kanakalata Sahu (P.W.11) is the daughter of Dinabandhu Naik (P.W. 17) who had a large number of children, but no means. P.w. 17 is a labourer and extremely poverty -stricken. While P.W. 11 was about 15 years old she was taken in as a foster daughter by Khali. This is how, though the surname of P.W. 11 should have been 'Naik', it is 'Sahu'. Taking advantage of the helplessness of P.W. 11 Khali got her married to Dhaneswar Kar (P.W.13) on acceptance of Rs. 740/ - as bride's price. Dhaneswar Kar is a Brahmin. It was given out at the time of marriage that P.W. 11 was a Brahmin though in fact she was a Chasa (cultivating class). P.w. 11 was ill -treated by P.W. ] 3. She left P.W. 13's house and took shelter under Khali who again got her married to Pitambar Panda (P.W.2) on acceptance of about Rs. 900/ - as bride's price. On the occasions of both the marriages, p.W. 11 was asked by Khali, to give her name as Subarna and to say that she was a Brahmin girl. The marriage with P.W. 2 was negotiated by Surabala, wife of Khali, and Khira Dei. After p. w: 11 remained for some time with P.W. 2, Khira Dei disclosed that P.W. 11 was not a Brahmin. P.w. 11 was chastised by P.W. 2 and she left his house and again took shelter under Khali. While she was with Khali, Laxmi and Paramananda came to the house of Khali and had some secret talks with him. They suggested to P.W. 11 that she should come with them and see Calcutta. P.w. 11 was pregnant then. She was extremely reluctant to go to Calcutta. At this juncture Khali persuaded her and almost compelled her to go to Calcutta in the company of Laxmi and Paramananda. Out of fear for Khali she agreed to go to Calcutta. Laxmi gave the proposal that P.W. 11 would go up to Khurda Road in the company of Paramananda and thereafter they would go together. On 13 -5 -1971 P.W. 11 went upto Bbubaneswar in the company of Paramananda as they did not find Laxmi at Khurda Road. From Bhubaneswar all the three went together by train to Calcutta and reached the building 15 -F in Durga Charan Mitra Street in Calcutta (Sonargachhi) and P.W. 11 was lodged in room No. 4.. There she learnt from other inmates of that house that Laxmi was running a brothel by procuring several girls, some of whom were from Orissa. P.w. 11 was not taken to any other part of Calcutta for sight -seeing. On the contrary Paramananda left Calcutta for the village soon after without giving any intimation to P.W. 11 when she wanted to know the whereabouts of Paramananda, Laxmi falsely gave out that he had gone to bazar. A few days thereafter two Punjabees were introduced into room No. 4 in a particular night for having sexual intercourse with P.W. 11 on their paying Rs. 40/ - to Laxmi. The door was hinged from outside and Laxmi was guarding there. The two Punjabees stripped P.W. 11 off her clothes and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. P.w. 11 protested and her protest invited the attention P.W. 6 and P.W. 15. At the instance of P.W. 15, P.W. 11 was rescued and the Punjabees went away after taking refund of Rs. 40/ - from Laxmi. On 30 -5 -1971 when Laxmi was busy in cooking,. P.W. 11 with the assistance of the landlady of the house Pramilabala Banerjee (P.W.7) and Jaharlal Roy (P.W. 15) who was looking after the affairs of P.W. 7 escaped. At the Howrah Station she got into a compartment of the Howrah -Hyderabad Express in which Shrimati Prabhamayi Devi (P.W.1), the President of the Orissa Branch of Association of Moral and Social Hygiene, was travelling for Cuttack. P.w. 11 narrated the entire story to P.W. 10. At Cuttack P.W. 11 was kept by P.W. 1 in their Association House. P.w.11 became seriously ill and had an abortion. P.w. 1 submitted a report to the Police -Ext.1 dated 16 -6.1971. P.w. 11 filed a report (Ext. 8) dated 3 -8 -1971 which was treated as the F.I.R.

(3.) ON these findings ordinarily there will be no room for argument on facts in revision. As the case, however, is of a peculiar nature I head the two revisions as if they were appeals and gave full freedom to the learned advocates for the parties to place the evidence at length after having heard the learned Counsel I am satisfied that the Courts of fact made a correct appreciation of the evidence and there is no room for interference. The evidence of P.W. 21 and P.W. 1 was rightly discarded by the trial Court and was not pressed into service by the appellate Court.