Free Judgments

Roma vs The State on 17 November, 2015

1. Aggrieved by their conviction under Sections 120B/368 read

with Section 366 and 323 IPC by a judgment dated 28.04.2005 of learned

Crl.A. 465/2005 & connected appeal. Page 1 of 8
Addl. Sessions Judge, Roma and Komal have preferred the instant

appeals. By an order dated 06.05.2005, they were sentenced to undergo RI

for five years with fine `1,000/- each under Section 368 read with Section

366 IPC and RI for six months with fine `500/- each under Section 323

IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-

sheet was that on 07.01.2000 a secret information was received by SI

V.P.Jha at around 07.30 p.m. to the effect that a girl kept forcibly in Kotha

No.54, First Floor, G.B. Road has been forced to indulge in prostitution.

On this information, a raiding team went to Kotha No.54, First Floor, G.B.

Road. ‘X’ (assumed name) aged around 26 years came forward and

lodged complaint (Ex.PW-1/A). Investigating Officer lodged First

Information Report. In her complaint, ‘X’ implicated Roma and Komal

for forcing her to do prostitution. Roma was apprehended from the Kotha.

‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

During investigation, statements of the relevant witnesses conversant with

facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was

filed against both the appellants for committing various offences under

Sections 342/363/368/376/323/109/34 IPC and 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 ITP Act.

By an order dated 24.07.2001, the appellants were charged for committing
Crl.A. 465/2005 & connected appeal. Page 2 of 8
offences under Sections 120B/368/323 IPC and 3, 4, 5 & 6 ITP Act. They

pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. In order to bring home

its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C.

statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and

pleaded false implication. They did not examine any witness in defence.

The trial resulted in their conviction as mentioned previously. It is

pertinent to note that the appellants were acquitted of the charges under

Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 ITP Act and the State did not challenge their


Source: Indian Kanoon