Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sunita @ Neha Machhindra Chandne and Sharda Machindra Chandne, were convicted by the trial court for offences under Section 370 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (PITA), and Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years and fine. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who are mother and daughter, were running a brothel at Sirasdevi Phata, Georai, and that the victim (respondent No. 2), a 17-year-old girl, was found in a room with a decoy customer during a raid on 05.01.2018. The victim was allegedly procured by the sister of appellant No. 1 under the pretext of providing work. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the victim's testimony and the recovery of condoms and currency notes. The appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies. The victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) contradicted her testimony in court; in her Section 164 statement, she claimed she was forced into prostitution, but in court, she stated she went voluntarily. The medical examination did not reveal any signs of recent sexual assault. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellants induced or compelled the victim for exploitation under Section 370 IPC. The recovery of condoms and currency notes was not sufficient to establish procurement or detention under the PITA. The victim's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Human Trafficking - Section 370 IPC - Essential Ingredients - Prosecution must prove that the accused induced or compelled the victim to be trafficked for exploitation - In the absence of evidence of inducement, threat, or coercion, conviction under Section 370 IPC cannot be sustained (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 - Sections 5 and 6 - Procuring and Detaining a Person for Prostitution - The prosecution must establish that the accused knowingly procured or detained the victim for prostitution - Mere presence of the victim in a brothel and recovery of condoms is insufficient to prove procurement or detention (Paras 13-15). C) Criminal Law - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 read with Section 17 - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - The victim's testimony must be reliable and corroborated by medical or other evidence - Inconsistencies in the victim's statement and lack of medical evidence of recent sexual assault lead to acquittal (Paras 16-18). D) Evidence Law - Testimony of Victim - Corroboration - While the testimony of a victim of sexual offences may be sufficient for conviction, it must be trustworthy and consistent - In this case, the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC contradicted her court testimony, rendering it unreliable (Paras 19-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants for offences under Section 370 IPC, Sections 5 and 6 of the PITA, and Section 4 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption of innocence
- Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Corroboration of victim testimony
- Essential ingredients of trafficking under Section 370 IPC
- Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
- POCSO Act
