Delhi High Court
Pooja vs State on 17 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: August 08, 2016
% Judgment Delivered on: August 17, 2016
+ CRL.A. 1313/2015
POOJA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Pooja challenges the impugned judgment dated July 29, 2013
convicting her for offences punishable under Sections 373/34, 368/34, 109
read with 376 IPC and the order on sentence dated July 31, 2013 directing
her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay
a fine of `10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 373/34 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of
`10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 368/34 read with Section 109
and 376 IPC.
2. Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel for Pooja contends that
there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5. PW-4, during
her cross examination was confronted with her statement made to the police
wherein she did not tell to police that she met Saleem in the train and he
gave her water to drink after which she became unconscious. PW-5 stated
that they were given to drink water on their way back from the house of
Muslima and the lady who gave them water to drink was an old lady. It was
also contended that Pooja herself was wrongfully detained, confined and
forced into prostitution thus she herself was a victim at the hands of the main
accused persons namely Meena and Mohd. Saleem.
3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that apart from
the two prosecutrix, Insp. Ved Singh Malik PW-6 is also a witness who
conducted the raid at Laxmi Nagar and recovered the prosecutrix. Both the
prosecutrix were minor at the time of the incident. There is no reason to
doubt their testimony. The contradictions pointed out are minor in nature.
PW-5 deposed against Pooja and stated that Pooja was the head of the kotha
and she had also threatened her. Moreover, the two prosecutrix were
recovered from the house of Pooja.
4. FIR No. 256/2004 was registered under Sections 323/328/342/365/
373/376/109/34 IPC and Section 3/4/5/6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956 (in short 'ITP Act') at PS Shakarpur on the complaint of the
prosecutrix M examined as PW-4 who deposed in the Court that she was
residing at Muipunj Gram. One day, she along with prosecutrix A, PW-5 was
going to visit her elder sister Muslima at Basan Diya by the train. In train,
one girl gave them water and after drinking, both PW-4 and PW-5 became
unconscious. When they regained consciousness, they found themselves in a
house in Delhi. Pooja and Meena (declared as proclaimed offender) were
present there who told PW-4 that she has been sold to them by Saleem and
Raju. From that day, they were forced to do 'gande kaam'. They were forced
to sleep with the customers who used to establish physical relations with
them against their wishes. They were not allowed to go outside or to make
any call. She came to know that the house was at G.B. Road. At the time of
incident her age was between 16 to 17 years. The aforesaid trauma went on
for about one year. On their refusal, the accused persons used to beat them
with Chaabuk (hunter). Whenever raid was conducted by the police, they
were kept in small chambers constructed inside the house. Besides them,
there were around 10-15 girls, who were also forced to indulge in
prostitution. They were not given any money. She further stated that due to
frequent raids by the police, she was shifted to the house of Pooja at Laxmi
Nagar in order to conceal her. The other girls including PW-5 were left at
G.B. Road. After 4-5 days of her stay at Laxmi Nagar, raid was conducted
by the police and she was recovered.
5. PW-5 deposed in sync with the version of PW-4. PW-5 stated that she
was threatened by Pooja that if she did not indulge into prostitution, then her
sister and other family members will be brought to the kotha. She stated that
Meena along with Pooja used to force her to indulge into prostitution. Pooja
was the head/didi of the kotha. During her cross examination, she stated that
she cannot identify Saleem. She denied the suggestion that Pooja was
brought forcibly for the purpose of prostitution.
6. The contradiction in the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 was only with
respect to the fact how they were brought to the kotha. In their statement
recorded by the police the two witnesses stated that they were brought to
Delhi on the allurement of a job by Saleem. The witnesses have been duly
confronted with this portion of their previous statement. This has no
bearing on the role of Pooja qua whom both the witnesses have categorically
deposed coupled with the version of police officer who recovered PW-4
from the house of Pooja and PW-5 from the Kotha. Furthermore, PW-5 and
PW-6 have denied the suggestion that Pooja was herself a victim who was
forced to indulge into prostitution. Further even if earlier pooja was forced
into prostitution the same would not exonerate her from the offence of
forcing other minor girls into prostitution.
7. I find no merit in the appeal. The judgment of conviction and the order
on sentence are upheld.
8. Appeal is dismissed. Appellant will undergo the remaining sentence.
9. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
updation of the Jail record.
10. TCR be returned.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 17, 2016
'vn'
.
