Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Sabitri Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2018, CRAN 2 of 2019, 3 of 2020, 4 of 2022 (Old CRAN 2685 of 2019, 4533 of 2020)
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Indian Penal Code - Procuring minor victims for prostitution - Sections 344/120B and 366A/120B - The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for procuring minor victims for prostitution under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and one Manowar Bibi were convicted for procuring minor victims for prostitution. The victims were recovered from the premises and medically examined, confirming their status as minors. The appellant was found to have procured the minor victims for prostitution and received money from customers for such activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, dismissing the appeal and connected applications. The period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry, and trial was set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon her.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proof of the prosecution case, the age of the victims, and the appellant's involvement in procuring the minor victims for prostitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the minor victims, their medical examination, and the radiological report to establish the appellant's guilt in procuring the minor victims for prostitution under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Joymalya Bagchi, J. - Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2018 and 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench - II, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 01 (07) of 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 31 of 2013 convicting the appellant and one Manowar Bibi for commission of offence punishable under Sections 344/120B and 366A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 344/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code; both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. On 30.11.2012 Joint C.P., Crime received a complaint from one Hasina Begum and her husband Noor Islam that their minor daughter had been bought by the appellant and was being used for prostitution. On the basis of such complaint a raid was organised. The raiding team was led by one Tapan Saha and comprised of a number of officers including Tandrima Gupta (PW 8). The team went to 52/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road popularly known as Bata More. Office of a NGO named CINIASHA was situated near the spot. A member of NGO joined the raiding party. Upon entering the premises the raiding party went to the first floor and knocked the door. Appellant opened the door. The raiding party found the floor was divided in small cubicles. In one of the cubicles three girls who appeared to be minor were sitting. On query they disclosed their identities. They stated that they had been brought to the premises on the pretext of giving job as domestic workers. They were detained by the appellant and utilised for prostitution. Monowara Bibi and her husband Yaqub were also complicit in the crime.
3. Statement of one of the victims was recorded and treated as F.I.R. The victims were recovered and various articles were seized from the place of occurrence. Victims were medically examined and were found to be minors. Their statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and Monowara Bibi @ Yeasmin. Charges were framed against them under Sections 344/366A/372/373/120B of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined eight witnesses including two victims viz. PW 1 and PW 2 and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.
6. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgement and order dated 31.08.2018 and 01.09.2018 convicted and sentenced the appellant and Monowara Bibi, as aforesaid. They were acquitted of the charges under Sections 372/373/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present appeal.
7. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits prosecution case has not been proved beyond doubt. One of the victims i.e. de facto complainant was not examined. Her statement which was treated as F.I.R had not been proved. Initial complaint to the police also did not see the light of the day. He submits ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code have not been proved. He contends there were number of tenants in the premises and appellant cannot be said to be in sole occupation of the premises. He prays for acquittal.
8. Mrs. Roy, learned Counsel for the State submits prosecution case stood proved through the evidence of the victims PWs 1 and 2. PW 6, medical officer, who examined the victims stated they were 15 to 17 years and 16 to 18 years respectively at the time of occurrence. Hence, the appeal is lia
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on clear and consistent testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements to establish the nature of the offense and modify the c....
Corroboration of the victim's testimony by other witnesses and the interpretation of medical evidence in cases of minor rape are crucial in establishing guilt.
The evidence of a rape victim should be treated on par with an injured witness, and mere penetration is sufficient to constitute rape.
The judgment established that evidence of penetration, even of the slightest degree, is necessary to establish the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court upheld the convictions for trafficking and sexual exploitation of minors, emphasizing the reliance on medical evidence for age determination in the absence of official documents.
The court reaffirmed that a minor's consent is irrelevant in sexual offences, highlighting that inducement under IPC Section 366A is sufficient for conviction, while conviction under Section 372 requ....
The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in protecting minors from sexual exploitation, emphasizing that substantial evidence is crucial for conviction under the POCSO Act.
The credibility of a minor witness, establishment of common intention, and proof of continuous torture under Section 498a/302/34 IPC were the central legal points established in the judgment.
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
