Appreciation of evidence in case of Immoral traffic prevention Act 1956

 P.W.3 Mrs. Ritu Vinod Kashyap happens to be one of the victim. She has deposed before the Court that she was married to Rakesh Kashyap. He used to beat her under the influence of alcohol. He was not willing to cohabit with her and therefore, she was constrained to leave her matrimonial home and had come to reside with her parents where she had resided for a period of 5 to 6 months. She did not wish to be a burden to her parents. Therefore, in search of work she had come to Pune. Rohit Sharma had brought her to Pune. He had sold her at the brothel and was in the said brothel since 8th March, 2008. She has identified the accused in the court as the brothel owner. She has deposed that the accused used to beat her as she had refused for prostitution. They were not provided with food, clothing and were abused in filthy language, if they refused to cooperate with the accused. She further deposed that at the time of raid, there were 14 to 15 girls alongwith her. There was one minor girl who caught hold the hand of the police personnel and expressed her desire to go back to her parent's house. According to her, the police had enquired with them and had offered to take them to their home town in case they desire to do so. Seven girls out of 14 to 15 girls had shown their willingness to accompany the police. In the cross-examination she has denied suggestion that she was tutored by the APP to depose in the court against the accused. To a question by the Court, P.W. 3 has specifically stated that during the span of 6 months, Police had visited the brothel many times but the victims were concealed when the police arrived and in case, they raised alarm they were beaten up. She has denied to have stated to the police in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that she had purchased the make-up articles. The said contradiction is marked as portion marked as "A". She has specifically stated in the cross-examination that Jamuna Tamang used to collect money. Similarly, one Poonam Didi also used to look after the transaction of the money. To the question as to whether she was knowing the house number and the floor of the said house, she has specifically stated that she was not allowed to go outside the house. Hence, the testimony of P.W. 3 is a sterling testimony and leaves no scope to disbelieve the victim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2009
Geeta Kancha Tamang.

Versus
The State of Maharashtra.

CORAM
: SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J
DATE : JUNE 10, 2014
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1437
Read original judgment here;click here

Print Page