Case Note & Summary
The appellants, accused Nos. 2 and 3, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.865 of 2002 for offences under Sections 373, 366A, 368, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The prosecution case, based on an FIR registered on 11th April 2001, alleged that on information received, a raiding party led by PSI Shinde and PI Prasan Yogiraj More went to Sonapur, Bhandup, to rescue girls engaged in prostitution. One Kamakshi Rajan Kounder informed the raiding party that she and another girl, Vijaya @ Menaka (PW-1), a minor, were confined in a brothel run by Mallika, an eunuch (accused No.2), and another eunuch (accused No.3). Vijaya pointed out Mallika as the person who confined the girls. The trial court convicted the appellants, leading to this appeal. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-1 Vijaya, and found it to be inconsistent and contradictory on crucial aspects such as her age, the manner of inducement, and the duration of confinement. The court noted that the prosecution failed to produce corroborative evidence like medical reports or independent witnesses to support the allegations. The court held that the testimony of the sole prosecutrix was not reliable enough to sustain the conviction, and the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Immoral Trafficking - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Reliability - The conviction of accused under Sections 373, 366A, 368, 323 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of PITA was set aside as the testimony of the sole prosecutrix (PW-1) was found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and lacking corroboration on material aspects such as age, confinement, and trafficking. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 373, 366A, 368, 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 is sustainable based on the evidence of the sole prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated January 30, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.865 of 2002 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Law Points
- Testimony of a victim in trafficking cases must be scrutinized with care
- but if found reliable
- conviction can be based on it
- however
- if the testimony is inconsistent and lacks corroboration
- acquittal is warranted. Sections 373
- 366A
- 368
- 323 IPC and Sections 3
- 4 of PITA require proof of inducement
- confinement
- or trafficking beyond reasonable doubt.
