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