Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1022 of 2018
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 481 of 2016
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.5.2016 and order of
sentence dated 12.5.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 186 of
2014].
Purnima Paun, wife of Late Ganpati Paun, resident of village Jaipur,
P.O and P.S. Kiriburu, District- West Singhbhum at Chaibasa,
Jharkhand. ...APPELLANT (Cr.A.1022 of 2018)
Santosh Kumar Kalindi, son of late Parmeshwar Kalindi, resident of
Murga Pada, Birswa Toli, P.O and P.S. Kiriburu, District West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ....APPELLANT (Cr.A. 481 of 2016)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ............RESPONDENT
......
For the Appellants: Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
M/s Gautam Kumar and Birat Kumar and
Pragati Prasad, Advocates.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
......
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
JUDGMENT
Dated: 17.10.2024
By Court:
I.A. No. 10642 of 2024 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 1022 of 2018
Since this criminal appeal has been taken up for final hearing,
this interlocutory application, filed for suspending the sentence and to
release the appellant, namely, Purnima Paun on bail, is dismissed.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1022 of 2018
With
These criminal appeals are directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 11.5.2016 and order of sentence dated 12.5.2016
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2014, whereby and
Page/1
whereunder, the appellants having been found guilty of charge under
Section(s) 370(5) and 120B of Indian Penal Code and has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of fifteen
years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for causing each of the offence.
2. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, assisted by other
counsel, submits that from the evidence, led by the prosecution, the
fact which is evident that all the girls who had gone to work at Delhi
and were allegedly taken by these appellants had returned within a
week. They further submit that admittedly from the evidence, it is clear
that there was no exploitation, far less sexual exploitation. They
further submit that the girls had gone to work because of poverty and
no force was applied.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits
that since the girls were minor, aged about less than 18 years, and no
consent was taken from their parents, the case is covered under
Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as Section 370 IPC is
concerned, age is not the constraint.
4. The FIR is at the instance of PW-1 (Geeta Honhaga). The
informant is the mother of one of the girl who went to New Delhi. She
stated that her girl went missing. She in search of the girl went to the
school and when the person, who cooked mid day meal, told her to
get in touch with her friend Chandu. She went to the house of
Chandu, where Chandu stated that her cousin had taken the girls to
Delhi. Chandu gave the mobile number of one Milan. The informant
then went to the house of village Mukhiya where she saw parents of
many girls had assembled as their children were also taken to Delhi.
Then it has come to light that Purnima Paun at the early hours in the
morning went and met Sarita Soy, who was also found missing in the
next morning.
On the basis of aforesaid information, Kiriburu P.S. Case
No. 04 of 2014 was registered for the offence under Sections 370(5),
370(6) and 120B IPC and Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. After investigation, the police
submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Thereafter the
Page/2
cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellants and the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Since the appellants
pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Sections 370(4), 370(5)
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and they were put on trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined ten
witnesses, who are as follows:-
P.W.1- Geeta Honhaga (the informant),
P.W.2- Kripa Purty,
P.W.3- Somvari Soy,
P.W.4- Nitima Tubid,
P.W.5- Marshal Boyapayi,
P.W.6- Madhusudan Tubid,
P.W.7- Sarita Soy,
P.W.8- Parvati Kido,
P.W.9- Kripa Shankar Sharma (I.O.) and
P.W.10- Susari.
6. Some documents were also exhibited in this case, which are
as follows:-
Ext.1- Signature of informant on written report.
Ext.1/1- Endorsement on FIR regarding the registration
of this case.
Ext.2- Formal FIR.
Ext.3- Confessional statement of accused Santosh
Kumar Kalindi.
Ext. 4- Confessional statement of accused Purnima Paun.
7. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, convicted the appellants for committing the offence under
Sections 370(5) and 120B IPC.
8. From the evidence, led by the prosecution, we find that the
important witnesses are P.Ws. 1, 7 and 10. P.W.1 is the informant of
this case whereas P.Ws. 7 and 10 are two girls who were taken to
Delhi and had returned.
P.W. 7 stated that Purnima Paun gave an offer to go to Delhi and
she along with Purnima Paun went to the house of Santosh Kalindi.
Santosh Kalindi then looking at the age of P.W. 7 stated that she is
minor and she will not be taken, but Purnima Paun forced him to take
the girl to Delhi. She stated that for one week she worked there in
one house and thereafter when phone call came from their village,
she was brought back to their native place. P.W. 10 also stated in the
Page/3
similar line that she was taken to Delhi.
P.W. 1 is the informant, who stated that her daughter was also
taken by Purnima Paun and Santosh Kalindi to Delhi for the purpose
of working. Later on, in cross-examination, she stated that the girl had
already returned.
9. In this case, the appellants have been convicted under
Section 370 IPC. Section 370(1) IPC defines the offence of trafficking,
which reads as under:-
370(1):- Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits,
(b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a
person or persons, by-
First.-- using threats, or
Secondly.-- using force, or any other form of coercion, or
Thirdly.-- by abduction, or
Fourthly.-- by practising fraud, or deception, or
Fifthly.-- by abuse of power, or
Sixthly.-- by inducement, including the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any
person having control over the person recruited, transported,
harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of
trafficking.
Explanation 1.-- The expression "exploitation" shall include
any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual
exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude,
or the forced removal of organs.
Explanation 2.-- The consent of the victim is immaterial in
determination of the offence of trafficking.
10. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that there
should be an element of exploitation. The word 'Exploitation' has been
defined in the Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition, as under:-
"Exploitation. Act or process of exploiting, making use of, or
working up. Utilization by application of industry, argument,
or other means of turning to account, as the exploitation of a
mine or a forest. State Finance Co. v. Hamacher, 171 Wash.
15, 17 P.2d 610, 613. Taking unjust advantage of another for
one's own advantage or benefit (e.g. paying low wages to
illegal aliens)."
Similarly, the word "exploitation" has been defined in
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Edition as under:-
"exploitation 1 a situation in which you treat someone
unfairly by asking them to do things for you, but give them
very little in return - used to show disapproval: [+of] The film
industry thrives on the sexual exploitation of women. 2 the
development and use of minerals, forests, oil etc for
business or industry : [+of] the controlled exploitation of
Page/4
resources | commercial/economic exploitation 3 the full and
effective use of something : [+of] greater exploitation of
these data 4 an attempt to get as much as you can out of a
situation, sometimes unfairly : [+of] the exploitation of
religion for political ends."
11. Further, the explanation (1) of Section 370 IPC explains
exploitation, which shall include any act of physical exploitation or any
form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery,
servitude, or the forced removal of organs.
12. From the evidence, we do not find any material which would
suggest that the girls were exploited. None of the witness stated about
exploitation. Admittedly, this is not a case of sexual assault nor of
indecent behavior with the girls. Further immediately after the phone
calls, they were made to return to their homes which was also
facilitated. Considering the aforesaid evidence, we do not find any
ingredients to attract Seciton 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code.
13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 11.5.2016 and
order of sentence dated 12.5.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 186 of
2014 is set aside. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed.
14. This Court directs the appellant, namely, Purnima Paun
[appellant of Cr.A (DB) No. 1022 of 2018] to be released forthwith
from custody, if not required in any other case. So far as appellant,
namely, Santosh Kumar Kalindi [appellant of Cr.A.(DB) No. 481/2016]
is concerned, since he is on bail, he along with his bailors are
discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.
15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated: the 17th October, 2024.
NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3.
Page/5
