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.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Both the appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 and 19.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Sealdah, South 24-Paraganas cum Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012 in Special Trial No.4(4) of 2019 convicting and sentencing the appellants in the following manner:-

(i) Dharmendra Chowdhury, (appellant No.1 in CRA 453 of 2019) and Bijoy Sardar (non-appealing accused) under Sections 120B/363/370/ 372 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of the POCSO Act and under Section 5 of the Immoral Trafficking Act;

(iii) Jitendra Chowdhury (appellant No.2 in CRA 453 of 2019) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120B/363/370/372 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and under Section 5 of the Immoral Trafficking Act;

(iv) Ashrafi Chowdhury (appellant No.3 in CRA 453 of 2019) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120B/370/372 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of the POCSO Act;

(v) Asha Nag @ Priyanka Chowdhury (appellant in CRA 451 of 2019) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120B/363/370/372 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of the POCSO Act and under Section 5 of the Immoral Trafficking Act.

Prosecution case:-

2. The victims PWs 1 and 3 come from impoverished background. They used to live at Sealdah Railway Station. PW 2 is the father of one of the victims (PW 1). On 28.08.2017 PW 2 made a statement before police alleging on 19.08.2017 his daughter (PW 1) and another girl (PW 3) had gone missing. Few days ago he had seen both the girls talking to one Bijoy Sardar. He suspected that Bijoy had kidnapped and trafficked them. PW 2’s statement was reduced into writing and treated as FIR in Narkeldanga P.S. Case No. 203 of 2017 dated 28.08.2017 under Sections 120B, 363, 367, 370 of the Indian Penal Code. On the same day Investigating Officer (PW 14) recovered the two victims and arrested Bijoy Sardar. Victims were medically examined. Their statements were recorded before Magistrate. Medico legal examination to determine their age was also conducted.

3. Pursuant to the statement of the victims Investigating Officer raided Kancharapara and arrested Dharmendra Chowdhury and his wife Asha Nag @ Priyanka Chowdhury. He submitted charge-sheet. Second Investigating Officer (PW 15) conducted further investigation. During further investigation he went to Uttar Pradesh. He identified the place of occurrence which was under lock and key. Place of occurrence had been let out to a tenant. He went to the house of Jitendra Chowdhury and arrested him. During TI parade examination PW 1 identified Jitendra. He also arrested owner of the house, Ashrafi Chowdhury. He submitted supplementary charge-sheet.

4. Charges were framed against the appellants and one Bijoy Sardar. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.

5. In conclusion of trial, trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 and 19.07.2019 convicted and sentenced the appellants and one Bijoy Sardar, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeals.

Evidence on record:-

6. PWs 1 and 3 are the victims. PW 1 deposed she used to reside at railway platform. PW 3 was her friend. In 2017 she was introduced to Bijoy Sardar who is a trolley puller. Bijoy took her to the residence of Dharmendra Chowdhury and Asha Nag @ Priyanka Chowdhury on the pretext of working as a maid servant. Dharmendra and Asha forced her to cook. Thereafter, Dharmendra took her to Uttar Pradesh as a stage dancer. Spectators used to sexually assault her. One person whom she identified as Jitendra forced her to drink liquor and committed rape. She fled from the place. Her father lodged complaint. She was rescued from Sealdah Police Station. She made statement before Magistrate. During cross-examination, she stated she had no residential accommodation. She used to help