JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants namely Asha and Rakesh, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') challenging the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2009 and order on sentence dated 29.01.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in Sessions Case 260/07, arising out of FIR No. 384/2004, registered at Police Station Jama Masjid under Sections 366/376/368/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Sections 3/4/5/6 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (`ITP Act'), whereby learned Trial Court convicted both the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act. By virtue of order on sentence dated 29.01.2009, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 3 of ITP Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of ITP Act. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 5 of ITP Act.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant no. 2, during the pendency of the present appeal, had unfortunately passed away and accordingly the proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 13.02.2023.

3. The case of prosecution is that appellants were living on the earnings of prostitution and were running a `brothel' at their residence with a number of girls indulging in prostitution.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the victim `X., a 19 years old girl, used to work as a nurse in Calcutta. It was alleged that on 06.12.2004, her neighbor Deepak had promised to get her a respectable job in Delhi and she had accompanied him to Delhi where he had kept her at a guest house in old Delhi area and had repeatedly raped her. When she had insisted on getting a job as nurse, he had taken her to appellant no. 2 i.e. Rakesh at Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi, where she was forced to indulge in prostitution by Rakesh and his wife/appellant no. 1 i.e. Asha. Upon resistance, objection and refusal of victim to indulge in such activities, the appellants had told her that they had purchased her and she would have to follow their command. On 14.12.2004 at about 10 AM, the victim had run away from the house of appellants and had requested one auto driver to drop her at Railway Station, but instead, he had dropped her at some Gurudwara, and the Gurudwara officials had handed over her to the police. On the basis of her statement, present FIR was registered against the appellants and they were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 366/376/368/120B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act, and charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 366/368/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4/5/6 of ITP Act.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. After completion of trial, the appellants were convicted vide impugned judgment as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, leading to the filing of present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants states that fair investigation has not been carried out by the Investigating Officer in the present case. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the fact that when statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, an official interpreter had to be brought to the Court which took 20 days, therefore, it is stated that suspicion arises as to how the police was able to arrange any interpreter when they were investigating the matter on the same day, when the statement of victim was recorded by p