Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
Sections 3, 4 & 5—Immoral trafficking and engaging victim in prostitution—Conviction—Discrepancies in prosecution story and inconsistencies and gaps in investigation as well as statements of witnesses points out that prosecution has not been able to explain, beyond reasonable doubt, as to how a person who did not know Hindi was able to make a detailed statement to them which was recorded under Section 161 CrPC, or as to how the complainant was able to communicate herself to the auto driver or sewadars of the Gurudwara and to the other subsequent police officials without the aid of any interpreter, especially so, as when she was produced before Magistrate, she did not understand Hindi or English at all and knew only Bangla as clearly mentioned in the statement of interpreter and the Magistrate—For charge of prostitution to sustain, the prosecution was to prove acts of “sexual exploitation”, committed by accused persons for “commercial purposes”—It was also to be proved that house in question fell under the meaning of “brothel” and was being used for sexual exploitation or abuse for some “gain”—No evidence on record, in the form of any money trail, to show that appellants had sexually exploited the victim for any commercial purpose or that they had gained out of alleged use of house as brothel so as to sustain the charge of living on the earnings of prostitution or of running a brothel—Sexual exploitation or abuse of victim could also not be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution—Moreover, identity of two other girls who were allegedly being kept in the house of appellants for the purpose of prostitution as alleged by victim could neither be established and nor even finds mention in the entire investigation or charge-sheet filed by the prosecution—Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt since evidence brought on record was insufficient to return a finding of guilt against them for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act—Conviction set aside.
[Paras 25 to 30]
Decision : Appeal allowed