IMPORTANT POINT
There is no justification for interference in appeals against acquittal when the findings recorded by the High Court are reasonable and possible on the basis of the evidence on record.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376, 326/120-B-Ajmer Sex Scandal involving 11 accused persons-Newspaper report that young school and college girls were lured by a gang which misled them and took them to places for parties etc.-They were thereafter forcibly subjected to sexual exploitation-Girls were photographed in obscene poses and thereafter blackmailed by threatening their exposure and adopting other means-Evidence of victim girls-Prosecution for offences u/ss 120B, 292, 292/120B, 507/120B, 376 and 376/120-B, IPC-Trial Court convicted appellants of offences u/ss 120-B and 292/120B IPC also-However High Court affirmed their conviction u/ss 376/120-B, IPC and Section 376 IPC only-Four appellants were named by several witnesses-Evidence on record establishing offence u/s 376 IPC against appellants P and I and offence u/s 376/120B IPC against A and M -Their convictions rightly recorded.
       Held : These four accused have been named by several witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. They were always found present at the farm house or at the house of Farukh. It would be too much of a co-incidence that they were accidentally present at the relevant time at those places. It was sought to be argued that so far as Anwar and Meradona are concerned it is not alleged that they had committed the offence of rape. It was therefore, contended that they cannot be held to be members of the conspiracy. This submission must be rejected. So far as Anwar is concerned he is not as innocent as he pretends to be. In fact he also made overtures to Monika Jain (PW-43) but she was able to extricate herself from the situation. This only shows that Anwar accused was not a silent spectator or a casual visitor to the farm or to the house of Farukh where these nefarious activities were carried on. So far as Meradona is concerned it is no doubt true that there is no allegation of his having raped any girl or having misbehaved with any one of them. What, however, is apparent from the evidence on record is that he used to transport the girls to the farm house and the house of Farukh from their respective residences or the school. The evidence also discloses that he was responsible for arranging food etc. for them. It is not necessary that in order to be a co-conspirator each one of the conspirators should act in an identical manner. What is essential is that they must agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act. Different members of the conspiracy may be assigned different roles with the object of committing the agreed illegal act. Meradona was certainly aiding the others to commit the illegal act which was the object of their conspiracy. Having regard to his conduct and the evidence on record it is quite obvious to us that he was aware of what was happening and the role played by him establishes the fact that he was also a member of the conspiracy in which he was assigned the role of transporting victims. He was, therefore, clearly guilty of the offence of conspiracy. We are, therefore, satisfied that the evidence on record clearly establishes the offence under Section 376 IPC as against Puttan and Ishrat and the offence under Section 376/120-B IPC against Anwar and Meradona. As noticed earlier they have been acquitted of the other charges levelled against them and therefore it is not necessary for us to go into those aspects of the prosecution case. (Paras 30 to 33)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376, 376/120B-Acquittal of two accused-Sex scandal of luring young girls, sexually exploiting them by taking their photographs in obscene poses-These two accused were more concerned with developing of films and printing of photographs taken while the victims were in a compromising position-Prosecution case that with the help of such photographs the victim girls were sought to be blackmailed-No evidence that these photographs were recovered from these two accused-No obscene photographs recovered from their Labs-Whether High Court was justified in acquitting these two accused of the offences-(Yes).
       Held : The High Court has given weighty reasons while recording the acquittal of these two respondents. It found that there was no evidence on record to suggest that respondents Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani ever participated in the parties at the farm house or at the house of Farukh where PW-15 and PW-17 were allegedly raped. There was also no evidence to establish that the photographs, articles 1 to 5 were printed and developed either at the Ajmer Colour Lab or the Bharosa Colour Lab. Moreover no obscene photograph was recovered by the Investigating Officer at the instance of these two respondents. The solitary incident of Shail Bala Tayal (PW-41), who was not one of the victims, did not prove anything against them because she did not even remotely suggest that with the help of those photographs Mahesh Ludhani attempted to blackmail her. The searches carried on by Hari Prasad Sharma and Janardhan Sharma did not reveal anything and there was nothing to suggest that they had conspired with the co-accused to sexually exploit the girls after photographing them in a compromising position and to facilitate their continued exploitation. We find the reasons recorded by the High Court to be supported by evidence on record. The findings are reasonable and possible on the basis of the evidence on record. No evidence has been brought to our notice which may persuade us to set aside the findings recorded by the High Court. We, therefore, find no justification for interference in these appeals against acquittal. We, therefore, uphold the acquittal of these respondents, namely Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani by the High Court. (Paras 38 & 39)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-These appeals arise out a common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated July, 20, 2001.

2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 459, 460, 461 and 462 of 2002 have been preferred by appellants who were convicted by the trial court and whose convictions and sentences have been affirmed by the High Court in appeals preferred by them. Criminal Appeal Nos. 463-469 of 2002 have been preferred by the State against that part of the judgment and order of the High Court whereby four of the appellants before the High Court (respondents in the appeals preferred by the State) were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

3. There were 11 accused persons against whom charge sheet was submitted by the police. Out of them Naseem absconded after he was released on bail and therefore could not be tried alongwith the remaining accused. One Purshottam died only a few days after he was released on bail. Farukh Chisty was found to be mentally unbalanced and, therefore, the trial against him was suspended. The remaining eight accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1992. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order of May 18, 1998 found all the accused guilty of the offence under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, default to suffer further 2 years rigorous imprisonment. He also found all the accused guilty of the offence under Section 376/120-B and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He also convicted and sentenced all the accused under Section 292/120-B IPC and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Two of the appellants, namely Moijullah @ Puttan and Ishrat Ali were also found guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

4. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order, while upholding the conviction of the appellants before us only under Section 376 IPC against Puttan and Ishrat and under Section 376/120-B IPC against Anwar and Shamshuddin @ Meradona, acquitted Parvez Ansari, Mahesh Ludhani, Kailash Soni and Harish Tolani of all the charges levelled against them. The State has preferred appeals against their acquittal.

5. The case of the prosecution is that several reports appeared in the newspapers regarding a sex scandal in the city of Ajmer to the effect that young school and college girls were lured by a gang which misled them and took them to places for parties etc. whereafter they were forcibly subjected to sexual exploitation by them. The girls were photographed in obscene poses and thereafter black-mailed by threatening their exposure and adopting other means. When this fact came to the notice of the administration one Hari Prasad Sharma (PW-9) who was then Deputy Superintendent of Police (North), Ajmer was entrusted with the task of conducting a secret enquiry into the whole affair and submit a report. After making an enquiry, PW-9 submitted his report dated May 30, 1992 (Ext. P-6) to the Superintendent of Police. After considering the report the same was lodged at the Police Station Ganj, Ajmer on the basis of which a formal First Information Report No. 107/1992 was registered. After investigation the accused were put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Ajmer variously charged under Section 120-B, 292, 292/120-B, 507/120-B, 376 and 376/120-B IPC.

6. As many as 148 prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case, apart from 20 material objects and 175 documents. Amongst the accused only Sayed Anwar Chisti examined four witnesses in defence.

7. Several girls who were allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation and black mailing were examined as prosecution witnesses, and not surprisingly many of them turned h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1329

IMPORTANT POINTThere is no justification for interference in appeals against acquittal when the findings recorded by the High Court are reasonable and possible on the basis of the evidence on record.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no justification for interference in appeals against acquittal when the findings recorded by the High Court are reasonable and possible on the basis of the evidence on record.