The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with evidentiary standards for electronic records and the importance of witness credibility in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Since both the appellants have been convicted by a common Judgment & Order, both the appeals have been taken up for disposal.

[2.] The appellants being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge – II, Aizawl in S.C No. 41/2017 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 344/2017 convicted them under Section 4(1) Part – II read with Section 4(2)/5(1)(a)(c)(d) Part – I of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act) and thereafter, sentencing them to undergo seven (7) years imprisonment each for conviction under Section 4(1) Part – II read with Section 4(2) of the ITP Act and further, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years for conviction under Section 5(1)(a)(c)(d) Part – I of the ITP Act with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with a default clause have filed the instant appeals. According to the learned Trial Court, since it was a single transaction, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

[3.] The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.07.2016, a written FIR was received from Inspector R. Chhawnkima to the effect that they came across one Facebook group called “I DUH2 LO POST LA,,,I DUH2 IN LO CHE VE RAWH…” (Post whatever you want, do whatever you feel like) in which one Mapuia Hrahsel posted “ROOM & Girl first class call girl duh tan, 8259887500 ah min lo be dawn nia. Inbox, watsp, phonecall” (For those interested in room and first class call girl, please call, inbox or whatsapp at 8259887500). When enquiry was made, it was found that two (2) persons who are the present appellants both of Nursery Veng, Aizawl were involved in the illegal selling of some girls for the purpose of prostitution thereby living on the earning of prostitution. Hence, Aizawl P.S Case No. 284/2016 under Section 4(1)/4(2/5(2) of the ITP Act was registered and investigated into. Although the case falls under the jurisdiction of SDPO, Aizawl South, the case was initially endorsed to Mr. P.C. Laltanpuia, SDPO, Aizawl North since the SDPO, Aizawl South was on leave. It was later on endorsed to Mr. F. Lalbiakzauva, SDPO, Aizawl South since SDPOs are appointed as Special Police Officers to deal with offence under the ITP Act within their jurisdiction vide Home Department Notification under Memo No. A.60011/2/88-HMP dated 03.01.1997. The previous case I.O P.C Laltanpuia carried out the investigation at the initial stage wherein, he examined the complainant and he also formally arrested the two (2) accused persons/appellants in the presence of witnesses by preparing formal arrest memo. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer seized a black coloured rucksack with Rs. 500/- and a red ladies purse with Rs. 250/- from the alleged victim Lalthakimi. A Carbon Mobile phone was seized from Jacob Lalramtiama and a Mobile phone handset Samsung Galaxy J2 from the accused David Lallawmawma. Further, a Birth Certificate in respect of the victim Lalthakimi was also seized. The alleged victims Lalthakimi and Angie Lalhlimpuii during the investigation made their statements which was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. Upon conclusion of the investigation and having found a prima facie case established against the accused persons under Section 4(1)/4(2)/5(1)(a)(c)(d) of the ITP Act. Mr. F. Lalbiakzauva, SDPO, Aizawl South submitted the chargesheet. Charge was then framed against the appellants under the aforesaid sections of law on 23.03.2017 and to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Accordingly, trial was initiated against the appellants and in the process, the prosecution examined 14 prosecution witnesses. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC but they did not produce any witness in their defence. Consequently, the learned Trial Court upon hearing the parties convicted and sent