Conviction for human trafficking upheld based on credible evidence, confirming the sale of a minor for domestic servitude.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No.172 of 2019. The appellant was convicted under Section 370 (4) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulations.

3. An FIR was lodged before police stating that the appellant Sultan Ali claiming to be a resident of Amolapam village near Napam Central University, became acquainted with the informant Mariyam Lakra. The appellant allegedly told the informant that he will keep her 11 year old daughter Minali Lakra in his house and provide school education to her. Accordingly, Mariyam Lakra handed over her daughter to the appellant. After that, Mariyam Lakra used to call the appellant over telephone but he never gave the telephone to her daughter to talk to her mother. Mariyam Lakra started to develop suspicion. One day, she went to Amolapam village in search of the appellant. The father of the appellant told Mariyam Lakra that the appellant had shifted his house to a rented accommodation at Poroua village and in that house, her daughter does not stay with the appellant. Thereafter, Mariyam Lakra came to know that the appellant along with another person called Saidul Islam had sold her daughter.

4. Police registered the case being Tezpur P.S. Case No.739 of 2018 under Section 420 and 370 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 34 of the said Code.

5. During investigation, the victim girl Minali Lakra was recovered by police. She gave statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. The victim girl told the Magistrate that the appellant had taken her to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. He took her in the house of his maternal grandmother. She was given the job of domestic help. There she was beaten up by unknown boy. She has stated that Sultan took her to Arunachal Pradesh on a promise that she will be sent to a school there. Thereafter, one day, one of her relative brought her back home.

6. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the present appellant.

7. During the trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses in order to prove the offences against the appellant. On the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the impugned finding.

8. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence.

9. The first prosecution witness to be examined is Mariyam Lakra. She has stated, inter alia, that she suspected that her daughter was handed over to an unknown person at Arunachal Pradesh for working as a domestic help. The witness had told that after recovery of her daughter, she told her that she was engaged as a domestic help in the house of an unknown person in Arunachal Pradesh.

10. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of her evidence.

11. The second prosecution witness is Smti. Basanti Das. She is the sister-in-law of Mariyam Lakra. So, the victim girl is her niece. Her evidence is based on whatever she had learnt from Mariyam Lakra. She has quoted the victim girl as saying to her that the appellant had sold her in Arunachal Pradesh for a price of Rs. 50,000/-. She said that the appellant also admitted the fact before her.

12. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of her