The judgment established the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony, the independent nature of offences under the IPC and the ITP Act, and the presumption under Section 6(2A) of the ITP Act in cases involving minors forced into prostitution.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Rekha and Sheetal challenge the impugned judgment dated April 25, 2014 convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 373/34, 366A/34, 342/34 IPC and Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short ITP Act) and the order on sentence dated May 01, 2014 by which they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 373/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 366A/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence punishable under Sections 34/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 3 ITP Act; rigours imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 4 ITP Act, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 5(d) proviso (ii) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 6 ITP Act.

2. FIR No.20/2012 was registered under Section 23 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short JJ Act), Sections 366A/372/373/376/342/109/34 IPC and Sections 3/4/5 of the ITP Act at PS Kamla Market on the complaint of the prosecutrix “S” after she was rescued pursuant to the raid conducted at Kotha No.70, Third Floor, left side, G.B. Road by the local police in association with the NGO Shakti Vahini.

3. “S” stated that she was a resident of West Bengal, studied upto 9th standard in the year 2011. Her father was a contractor of making bus stands. In the village she became friendly with a boy. That boy allured her to go to Delhi and that on reaching Delhi he would marry her. Impressed by his words, she left for Delhi along with him around 5-6 months ago. The boy brought her to Sialdah Railway Station where she was introduced to a lady whose name she does not know and the boy stated that she should accompany that lady to Delhi and he would come to Delhi after 3-4 days. “S” came to Delhi along with that lady who took her to Majnu Ka Tila. That lady kept her for seven days at Majnu Ka Tila and then brought her to Kotha No.70, G.B.Road where she sold her to a lady named Sheetal for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The amount of Rs.30,000/- was given by Sheetal to that lady in her presence. Thereafter Sheetal told her that the prosecutrix had reached Kotha and that she will now have to do prostitution. When “S” refused to do prostitution, Sheetal along with another lady, who was present at the Kotha, namely Rekha threatened her stating that she could not go anywhere now, she will have to live at the Kotha and sell her body for earning money. Thereafter Sheetal and Rekha forcibly put her into prostitution and contrary to her wishes she was forced to have sexual intercourse with the customers. Whatever money was given to her by the customers, was taken away by Sheetal and Rekha, who did not permit her to leave the Kotha. Thus action be taken against them.

4. After registration of FIR, MLC of the prosecutrix “S” was conducted which showed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Her statement was recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW-9/B. During the course of trial her date of birth certificate was proved as Ex.P1 by PW-12 Dr.Anirban Roy, Health Officer and Registrar (Births and Death), Panihati Municipality, Calcutta which noted her date of birth as 22 April, 1995. Thus six months prior to the date of registration of FIR, that is, in September, 2011, when she was sold to Sheetal and forced into prostitution by Sheetal and Rekha, she was aged 16 years and 5 months.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that uncorroborated testimony of