IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must provide credible and primary evidence to support charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Goa Children's Act, particularly when serious allegations such as child exploitation are involved.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. By way of present appeal filed under under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C. Appellant/accused no.1 is thereby challenging judgement and sentence dtd. 6/4/2017 and 27/4/2017 passed by the Children's Court at Panaji in Special Case No.44/2011 whereby appellant was charged for the offences punishable under Sec. 109 read with 376 of IPC, Sec. 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, under Sec. 2(m), punishable under Sec. 8(2) and Sec. 9(4) of Goa Children's Act, and was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.

2. (m) punishable under Sec. 8(2) and Sec. 9(4) of Goa Children's Act. The appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 109 read with 376 of IPC. No appeal has been filed on behalf of the State thereby challenging acquittal of the appellant under Sec. 109 read with 376 of IPC. Thus, the present appeal is restricted to the challenge raised by the appellant/accused no.1 for which she was found guilty and awarded sentence as disclosed in the judgment. 2. Matter was admitted on 4/5/2017. Records and Proceedings were called. Private paper-book has been furnished and, accordingly, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

3. Heard learned counsel Shri Galileo Teles, for the appellant and Shri Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the assistance of both the counsel, I have perused the entire record and more specifically evidence of the relevant witnesses.

4. Shri Galileo Teles submitted that charge-sheet was filed only against accused no.1 as accused no. 2 and 3 were shown as absconding. He would submit that case of the prosecution is in connection with a raid conducted on the premises wherein alleged activities of sexual exploitation of the victim child was being carried out by the accused no.1 and in support of accused no.2 and 3. He submitted that decoy customer was sent along with cash amount and a deal was allegedly clinched. Thereafter, the decoy customer along with victim girl went out and they came near the vehicle wherein other team members were stationed. Thereafter, the victim child was rescued and the house where the deal was made was raided. Accused no.1 was found in possession of the cash which the decoy had handed over to her. The panchanama was recorded.

5. Shri Teles then pointed out that neither the victim girl nor the decoy customer are examined before the trial Court to substantiate above aspects. According to him, the raiding team members being police officers deposed only on the basis of hearsay material, which has been accepted by the trial Court. He then submitted that it is also the case of the prosecution that conversation between the complainant and one lady was initially recorded. Similarly, the conversation between the decoy customer and accused no.1 was also recorded. Both these cassettes were played before the trial Court and found as not audible. Though the sample voice of the accused no.1 was collected during investigation, said sample voice along with alleged tape recorded conversation were not forwarded to the expert. No one identified the voice appearing on such tapes as that of the accused, the complainant or the decoy customer. Only producing some script allegedly prepared, is not going to prove such recording. Learned counsel Shri Galileo Teles then would submit that the panch witnesses examined before the Court are not at all disclosing any material which would prove charges against accused no.1. Even police officers deposed only on the basis of hearsay material. The case had no support since the decoy customer, the victim and other material witnesses are not examined during trial. There is absolutely no material to show that accused no.1 was living on the earnings derived from any immoral trafficking.

6. Learned counsel Shri Teles then would submit that medical examination of the victim is also not supporting the case of prosecution. Similarly, the age of the