Back
C. V. BHADANG
Vishal Totala – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. These revision applications are at the instance of accused nos. 4, 6 and 7 challenging the order dtd. 6/12/2021 below application Exh.D-6 in Sessions Case (Ors.) No. 53 of 2018.
2. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has refused to discharge the applicants from the offence punishable under Sec. 370A of IPC.
3. According to the prosecution, the applicants along with the original accused no.5 were found taking massage in Sevanta Salon and Spa from girls who were allegedly trafficked. During the course of the raid, it was found that the applicants were lying naked and were receiving massage from the girls. It is in these circumstances that the FIR came to be registered against the applicants and others and after investigation a chargesheet has been filed.
4. The learned Session Judge while discharging the original accused no.5 has refused to discharge the present applicants. The applicant no.5 has been discharged presumably on the ground that he was not found lying naked.
5. Be that as it may, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that 'sexual exploitation', within the meaning of sub-sec. 2 of
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of sexual exploitation under Sec. 370A of the IPC involves engaging in sexual exploitation of a person who has been trafficked,....
At charge framing stage, prima facie material from decoy raid, marked currency recoveries, and scene details suffices to proceed under trafficking provisions despite victim denials of coercion.
Sexual exploitation – In absence of any evidence likely to come on record, securing conviction against accused is impossible and case can be quashed.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under trafficking laws without evidence of knowledge regarding the exploitation of individuals involved.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of trafficking, but may be liable under Section 370(A)(2) IPC if they had reason to believe victims were tra....
The absence of evidence proving that victims were trafficked or exploited negates the applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC against customers.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 370 of IPC, emphasizing the wide definition of 'exploitation' and the seriousness of offences involvi....
The sufficiency of evidence for framing charges under criminal law requires strong suspicion, and detailed evidence appreciation is not necessary at the stage of framing charges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence of exploitation for a conviction under Section 370(5)/34 of the IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
