Criminal Revision Case No. 206 of 2014. Case: G. Justus Abraham Vs State. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Revision Case No. 206 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K. Sridhar for S. Raveekumar and For Respondents: V. Arul, Government Advocate |
| Judges | B. Rajendran, J. |
| Issue | Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act, 1956 - Sections 2(3), 4(1), 5(1), 5(1)(d), 7, 7(2), 8; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 376 |
| Judgement Date | November 27, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
B. Rajendran, J.
-
The second accused in C.C. No. 7555 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet is the revision petitioner herein. He was implicated as an accused in Crime No. 5 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 5(1)(d) and 7(2) of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (hereinafter called as the Act) read with Section 376 of I.P.C. Upon trial in C.C. No. 7755 of 2010, the trial court convicted A-2/the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2012 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and the same was dismissed by a judgment dated 14.02.2014. It is the aforesaid decisions of the courts below which are questioned in this Criminal Revision Case.
-
The case of the prosecution is that the first accused Sukumar and the second accused Justus Abraham have paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the fourth accused Periyasamy for procuring ladies for them to get sexual pleasure. Accordingly, the fourth accused engaged one Kavya and Kavitha @ Suganya and asked them to proceed to M.B. International Hotel at Egmore, Chennai. On such instruction, the aforesaid two ladies proceeded to room No. 102 on 02.12.2008 at about 12.30 pm where A-1 and A-2 instigated them to have sexual intercourse with them and the accused have performed sexual intercourse with the girls. Thus, according to the prosecution, both the accused are guilty of the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. The third accused in this case is the Manager of the M.B. International Hotel, who allotted room to the second accused not in his original name but in a fictitious name viz., A.S. Daniel. As far as A-4 is concerned, he, as a broker, received money from A-1 and A-2 to procure the girls and asked the two girls to come to Albert Theater near Egmore. Accordingly, the two girls have come to Egmore and A-4 he paid to them Rs. 3,500/- and taken them to the hotel. Thus, the fourth accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4(1) and 5(1) of the Act.
-
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the proper perspective. The trial court as well as the appellate Court have simply brushed the material contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the time of occurrence. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there is no separate complaint given by the victim girls complaining that they were forcibly made to engage in prostitution. It is further contended that the statement of the two girls were recorded by the Magistrate before they were given permission to go with their relatives from the Government Home. However, when PW9, one of the victim girls was examined during the course of trial, she has stated that she was not compelled or coerced to engage herself in prostitution and she was arrested when she was merely talking with the other girl. She further deposed that she was arrested only on mere suspicion. Therefore, PW9 was treated as a hostile witness. Even in the cross-examination of PW11, another victim girl, she deposed that at the time when she gave the statement before the Magistrate soon after arrest, out of fear, she did not disclose that she was taken to the hotel by Periyasamy. She further deposed that she did not depose anything to the Magistrate as regards the sexual intercourse the accused had with her. Thus, the deposition of PW11 before the Magistrate soon after arrest and during the course of trial are contradictory to each other.
-
Next, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the investigation officer, who was examined as PW1 in this case, has stated that he received a tip...
To continue reading
Request your trial