IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.
Sakina Bibi – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. No. 554 and 551 of 2012
Decided On : 04-12-2017
Trafficking - Conviction under IPC Sections 366A, 372, 373 - IPC Section 366A, 372, 373
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the trafficking of a Bangladeshi national to India, where she was forced into prostitution. The victim was lured by an individual, sold to a brothel, and forced to engage in sexual activities. The prosecution presented evidence from multiple witnesses, including the victim's testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty under IPC Sections 366A and 373, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and imposing fines. The court emphasized the societal and psychological impact on trafficking victims and highlighted the need for effective judicial intervention to combat such crimes.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the trafficking of the victim, her age, and the culpability of the appellants in facilitating her exploitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and legal provisions related to trafficking and prostitution to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court emphasized the societal context and the impact on the victim in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The criminal appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were found guilty under the relevant IPC sections, with sentences and fines imposed. The court also directed compensation to be paid to the victim through the Bangladesh High Commission.
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.
1. The challenge in these appeals are to the judgment of Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Track 2nd Court Alipore, passed in S.T. No. 6(4) 09 under section 366B/120B/ 372/373 of I.P.C. directing the conviction of the appellants namely Sugbey alias Sumitra Devi and Sakina Bibi under the aforesaid sections. Since these appeals arose from the same incident and from the same judgment, so on consent of the parties both these appeals are to be disposed of by a common judgment.
2. According to the appellants, learned trial court was totally oblivious to the factual aspects and legal aspects and failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives.
3. In the interest of effective adjudication factual aspects needs to be recapitulated. By way of prefatory observation it can be said that if anybody wants to go through the F.I.R. with his inner eyes, he would see that the F.I.R. was not written by ink but by tears. This weeping victim is a Bangladeshi National. She developed an intimacy with one Sohag (Md. Wahidul Islam Molla) and that Sohag proposed her for a short trip. He took the victim to Jessore and handed over her to an unknown person, who ultimately sold her to a brothel situated at Khidirpur. The appellant Sakina Bibi used to look after her and in lieu of that the victim delivered her income, which she received by way of satisfying about 15 to 16 lusty brutes per day. The place is unknown to her and she had to stay there for about 4 months. She ventilated her suffocating experience. Ultimately the police recovered her.
4. In order to prove the case prosecution has produced 9 witnesses from their gallery. PW-1 i.e. victim deposed in this case. PW-2 and PW-3 are the witnesses to the seizure list, PW-4 is the doctor, who had examined the victim, PW-5 to PW-7 are the Judicial Magistrates, and PW-8 is the member of the raiding party and PW-9 is the Investigating Officer. In such cases it cannot be expected that other sex workers would come to depose. Therefore, the victim herself is the best witness. In her evidence, she stated as to how Sohag allured her and how she arrived at Khidirpur. There is no dispute that she is a Bangladeshi National. In course of her evidence in chief she has stated that she had love affairs with one Sohag, who assured to marry her and requested to her to come to India. She responded and thereafter, Sohag brought her and ultimately she was handed over to the appellant Sakina Bibi and Sumitra Devi and she was kept there under their custody. In that night, she slept alone in a room. In the morning she asked Sakina about the whereabouts of Sohag and Sakina told that Sohag has already left. However, Sakina provided her food and brought her to the accommodation of Sumitra Devi. In that accommodation, she was provided with skirt and ganjee etc. and she was asked to stand on the gate of the building. Customers of that red light area used to give her money and she had to hand over the same to. Sakina and Sumitra Devi. Thereafter she was taken in a room and the said person raped her forcibly. In such a fashion she had to satisfy 15 to 16 customers per day and when she refused she was threatened with dire consequence. She identified the accused appellant before the Court. Thereafter, her statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate. She also identified the accused appellant in court and jail also. In course of cross-examination, she has also given an ocular manifestation of her statement. She categorically stated that there was a liquor shop just opposite to her accommodation. By putting some questions to her, the appellants took the stand that the victim could have come out from the situation, if at all she wanted. Referring her statements in cross-examination that many houses are there in or around the said red light area, buses and rickshaws are being plied, at the back side there is a road and that there is police Camp, mosque an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.