The judgment establishes the principle that actions leading to the enticement and kidnapping of a minor for the purpose of prostitution are punishable under the IPC and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

(Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.)

1. State has taken an exception to a judgment and order dated 9th December, 2013 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Session Case No.201 of 2013 by which respondent-accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C”) and Section 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short “Act of 1956”).

2. Facts in brief, are as follows.

3. Victim was a 14 years old girl and the daughter of the first informant. She was prosecuting her studies in a Ashram School in 9th standard situate at Gayachiwadi. It was a Boarding School. Her parents were residents of Nashik. Victim’s brother - Rajendra and his wife were residing at Kochargaon Taluka Dindori, District Nashik along with their children. The respondent-accused was a neighbour of Rajendra. Since families of the victim and the respondent-accused were acquainted, victim and other siblings used to call the respondent as “Mama” (maternal uncle).

4. Due to Holidays to the School, the victim had been to her brother Rajendra on 16th February, 2013. On 21st February, 2013, around 7.00 p.m, the victim had visited the house of the respondent-accused. At that time, wife of the respondent informed the victim that they would be visiting the temple of Goddess Saptashrungidevi on the following day, upon which, the victim expressed her willingness to accompany wife of the respondent along with her younger sister. The respondent, however, stated that the victim should not bring her younger sister. When victim returned to the house of her brother Rajendra and informed his wife about her intention to accompany with the wife of the respondent to go to Vani, Rajendra’s wife asked the victim not to accompany with the respondent and his wife.

5. However, on the next day, the victim had been to the house of the respondent who took her to Nashik under the pretext of purchasing clothes and Chappal. After reaching Nashik, the respondent took the victim to Thakare Galli, which is a red light area having brothels. The respondent met a woman and informed her that he had brought a girl. The said woman, after noticing the victim abused the respondent. The respondent thereafter approached another woman, a prostitute, and demanded a room. He asked the victim to enter into the said room immediately after it was provided to him by the said woman. No sooner did the victim enter into the room, she got scared as she noticed several cots kept in the said room. She started weeping and ran away from the said place. A few women met her on the way and asked as to what had happened with her. The victim narrated the incident to the said women who were Social Workers of one “Disha Sanstha” which takes care of welfare of the prostitutes. Said women informed the Police. Subsequently, the victim and the respondent were taken to Bhadrakali Police Station, Nashik. The victim again narrated the incident to the Police and gave phone number of her father and brother. Her father arrived at the Police Station and lodged a report against the respondent.

6. A crime was registered bearing C.R. No.27 of 2013 under Sections 363, 366A of the I.P.C and Section 5 of the Act of 1956 with Dindori Police Station on 22nd February, 2013.

7. P.W.7- Vilas Wamanrao Kohinkar, who was attached to Dindori Police Station as a Inspector held investigation into the crime. He recorded statements of the witnesses, drew panchanama and referred the victim for medical examination. After the investigation, he laid a charge-sheet against the respondent.

8. A charge was framed against the respondent by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik on 27th June, 2013 under the Sections referred hereinabove. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The respondent has denied the commission of the offences alleged against him raising a defence that the victim accompanied him at the behest of her brother and his wife. He did not