The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the prosecutrix's core allegation of being forced into prostitution and the finding of a commercial angle to the alleged offences based on her testimony.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal, inter alia, impugning a judgment dated 30.03.2016 passed by the ASJ-01(East), Karkadooma Courts, New Delhi, whereby they were convicted of the offences for which they were charged. Rekha (the appellant in Crl. A 518/2016) was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 109 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘ITP Act’) and Subhash (the appellant in Crl. A No. 555/2016) was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376 and Section 109 read with Section 376 of the IPC and Section 5 of the ITP Act.

2. The appellant, Rekha, impugns an order on sentence dated 26.04.2016, whereby she was sentenced to (i) four years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for committing the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 376 of the IPC; and (ii) seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for committing an offence punishable under Section 5 of the ITP Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The appellant, Subhash, impugns an order on sentence dated 26.04.2016, whereby he was sentenced to undergo (i) four years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for committing an offence punishable under Section 366A of the IPC; (ii) ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for committing an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC; (iii) seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for committing an offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC and (iv) ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for committing an offence punishable under Section 5 of the ITP Act. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The father of the victim (hereinafter ‘the complainant’) had alleged that his daughter/victim aged about 12 years (hereinafter ‘the prosecutrix’) – who was a student in fourth standard in a Government School in Mandawali– had gone to school on 29.01.2011 but had not returned back. Pursuant to his complaint, FIR bearing no. 31/2011 was registered at PS Mandawali under Section 363 of the IPC. The prosecutrix could not be found, however, on 05.09.2011 the prosecutrix returned back and thereafter, the complainant brought her to the Police Station. Thereafter, she was medically examined and her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC was recorded. On 06.09.2011, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.PC was recorded.

5. The prosecution’s case rests almost entirely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. It is, thus, important to examine her testimony as well as her statements recorded earlier

6. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the Cr.PC was recorded on 05.09.2011. She stated that about seven-eight months ago, she went to the house of her friend Pooja without informing her parents. She stated that the father of her friend Pooja (that is, the accused – Subhash) took her to Kolkata and came back after leaving her in a village. She stated that she did not like it there (gaon mein mera man nahi laga). She informed a Baba, who was a resident of that village, about the same. The Baba called the accused, Subhash, and thereafter, the accused took her back to Delhi. She stated that the accused and his wife R