The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of evidence required to prove the victim's age and conspiracy in cases related to immoral trafficking and prostitution.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Vide impugned judgment dated July 07, 2014, Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa, the appellant in Crl.A.951/2015 and Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup, the appellant in Crl.A.1284/2014 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (in short ‘ITP Act’). Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa was acquitted for the offences punishable Section 120B read with Section 420/366/372/373 IPC and substantive offences punishable under Sections 420/366A/372 IPC. Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup was acquitted for the offences punishable Section 120B read with Section 420/366/372/373 IPC and substantive offence punishable under Section 373 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated July 10, 2014, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 5 of ITP Act. Crl.A. 684/2016 has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the aforesaid impugned judgment acquitting the respondents for IPC offence and in Crl.A.Nos.951/2015 and 1284/2014, Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa and Faris Shuja Jalali @ Anup challenge their conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 5 of the ITP Act.

2. Learned counsel for Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa submits that the victim (PW-15) was not a minor at the time of alleged occurrence on 13th April, 2012 and ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 366A/372 IPC are not made out. The CBI failed to prove the date of birth of the victim through the birth certificate or any other document except the certificate Ex.PW-13/A which had been issued by Kishan Gurung (PW-13), the school teacher only on 11th June, 2012 i.e. after the alleged incident. Kishan Gurung issued the said certificate when the headmistress was on leave and further the said certificate is not even a certified copy of the admission register. No original admission register has been proved by the prosecution. The certificate issued by Kishan Gurung cannot be held to be an entry in any public register or official book made in discharge of the official duty. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as (2006) 5 SCC 584 Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of UP. Further, Kishan Gurung also stated that no birth certificate was provided by the parents of the victim at the time of admission nor was any signed form provided by the parents. The victim in the train ticket, which was used by her to travel from Darjeeling to Delhi, herself mentioned her age as 19 years. Witnesses, i.e. husband of the victim (PW-12), father of the victim (PW-14) and the victim (PW-15) have deposed falsely in respect of the date of birth at the instance of the CBI. No overt act has been attributed to the appellant Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa nor any evidence of conspiracy between the two accused led. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC are also not satisfied. There is no transfer of any property or valuable security. The victim herself deposed that she had come to New Delhi after she herself had called the respondent No.1 on numerous occasions asking him to find a job for her in New Delhi as she was having quarrels in her matrimonial home and Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa only wanted to help her to get a job to save her from cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. The conversation between the two accused in the immediate presence of the police officers is hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence cannot be relied upon. Further, the mobile phone which was used to record the conversation was not seized nor the owner of the mobile phone produced as a witness. Further, the conviction of Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa for offence punishable under Section 5 of the ITP Act is also not made out as no role has been attributed to the appellant for procuring/inducing or taking the victim for prostitution and therefore, he be acquitted of the charge of Section 5 of the ITP Act also. Hence, there being no merit in Crl.A.684/2016, the same be dismissed. Reliance is also