SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 4812

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
JUSTICE, J
Jacob Lalramtiama – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
S.C No. 41/2017 | Criminal Trial No. 344/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei
For the Respondents: Ms. Linda L. Fambawl

Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and evidence needs proper certification for admissibility, especially regarding electronic records.

Headnote:(A) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Sections 4 and 5 - Conviction and sentence for involvement in prostitution - Appellants convicted and sentenced to seven years under Section 4 and three years under Section 5 of the ITP Act, running concurrently - Case arose from internet solicitation for prostitution and subsequent police investigation. (Paras 2, 3)

(B) Evidence - Admissibility of electronic records - Printouts from social media required proper certification under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act; absence of certificates renders evidence inadmissible. (Paras 32, 33)

(C) Witness reliability - Victim testimonies were inconsistent and lacked corroboration, leading to doubt on credibility; reliance on Section 164 statements deemed invalid due to lack of cross-examination opportunity. (Paras 37, 39)

(D) Burden of proof - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction not sustainable due to evidential inconsistencies. (Paras 41)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were arrested based on an FIR regarding solicitation for prostitution via a Facebook group. During the investigation, electronic records were gathered, but not properly certified. Victim testimonies presented inconsistencies and lacked corroboration. (Paras 2, 3, 33)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimony and inadmissibility of certain electronic evidence. (Paras 41)

Issues: Whether the investigation was valid under the ITP Act, the admissibility of electronic evidence without proper certification, and the credibility of witness statements. (Paras 5, 30, 39)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that proper certification of electronic records is mandatory for admissibility; inconsistencies in witness statements along with the lack of cross-examination opportunities rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to uphold conviction. (Paras 32, 41)

Result: Appeals granted; convictions set aside and appellants released.

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 sentenced the appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top