Using the services of a minor for human trafficking constitutes a serious offense under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

JUDGMENT

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP.

2. The appellant/original accused herein is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months respectively by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur vide judgment and order dated 29th October 2014 in Sessions Case No. 164 of 2012.

3. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :

The appellant/original accused and the victim were residing in the same locality at Siddheshwar Nagar. They both were working in a factory on daily wages. The victim was earning wages to the extent of Rs.100/- per day after working for twelve hours and therefore she had ventilated her grievances before the appellant that the wages earned by her are meagre compared to the workload. The appellant had soon realised that the victim is vulnerable and therefore she had expressed that she could offer her a job which would yield Rs.500/- for one hour work. She had given no time to the victim to think about the offer by threatening her that in the eventuality she took time to think, there were several women who were seeking such job and that she would be constrained to offer the same to them. In such circumstances, the victim accompanied the appellant/accused. She was sent with strangers and gradually introduced to prostitution. The victim was further lured with an idea that if she had shifted to Mumbai, she would be in a better position to earn. The victim had succumbed to the said temptation and finally on 28th September 2011 had left the house of her parents at the instance of the appellant. She was sent alongwith a male person to Mumbai. The man had handed over the victim to the next link i.e. the brothel keeper. In the meanwhile the appellant/accused had informed the brothel keeper and the agent that the mother of the victim had filed a missing complaint. The appellant/accused was scared that she would be exposed to prosecution and therefore had recalled the victim. The victim was sent back to Solapur and was dropped at Akkalkot road. The victim returned home and narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother had then approached the police and lodged a report, on the basis of which, C.R. No. 176 of 2011 came to be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 328 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

4. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, the case rests upon the evidence of PW-1 Fatima Kareem Mujawar, mother of the victim and the victim herself. The date of birth of the victim is 29th November 1995 and the date on which she was taken for the purpose of trafficking is 20th September 2011, that is the victim was hardly 16 years old at the time of incident.

5. The prosecution has examined PW-6, Shivshri Mrutyunjay Nilange, the Medical Officer, E.S.I.C. Hospital, Solapur, who has stated that PW-1, mother of the victim had given birth to the victim in E.S.I.C. Hospital. He has placed on record the extract to substantiate that the date of birth of the victim is 29th November 1995. The Birth Certificate is at Exhibit 34. The Birth Register/ Janan Warta are maintained in normal course of the business and are public documents. It is the defence of the appellant/accused that the victim had voluntarily withdrawn herself from the custody of her mother and had voluntarily entered into the prostitution. Being a minor, volition of the victim cannot be taken into consideration.

6. Pw-1 Fatima Kareem Mujawar is the mother of the victim and has deposed before the Court that the house of the appellantaccused is hardly 5 to 6 houses fa