1 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::
HYDERABAD
Present: MISS. SHEETAL D.B.,
II Additional Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad.
TUESDAY, THE 07 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
SESSIONS CASE NO. 260 OF 2 019
(In PRC No.03 of 20 19 )
Committed byXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Crime Number and Police StationCr.No.276 of 2017 P.S. Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
Name & description of the A1) Smt. Kalpana Goswamy, W/o. accusedKishan Goswamy, Age: 47 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Flat No.407, Prashanth Towers, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
A2) G. Naveen, S/o.G.Mallesh, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 1-3-144/1, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. (Accused no.2 is discharged by this court as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.628 of 2024, dated 27.05.2024)
A3) Paresh Lal Chan Masvani, S/o. Lal Chand Masvani, Age: 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-4-812, Paragon Venkatadri Apartment, Flat No.409, B-block, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. (Accused no.3 is discharged by this court as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2023, dated 29.12.2023) Name and description of the com-The State represented by Inspector of plainantPolice, P.S. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Prosecution conducted bySri P.J. Rama Krishna, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent/State.
2 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
Accused defended bySri E. Radha Krishna, Counsel for Accused No.1.
Offence chargedUnder Section 370 of IPC & Sec.3, 4 & 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the CourtAccused No.1 is found guilty.
ResultIn the result, accused no.1 is found guilty for the offence section 370 of IPC and section 3, 4 & 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 1956 and accordingly she is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Accused no.1 is sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand Only) for the offence U/sec.370 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergoSimple Imprisonment for a period of One year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand Only) for the offence U/sec.3 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. In default of payment of fine amount, sheshallundergoSimple Imprisonment for a period of One month. Accused no.1 is further sentenced to undergoSimple Imprisonment for a period of One 3 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 year for the offence U/sec.4 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five years and to pay a fine of 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for the offence U/sec.5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. In default of payment of fine amount, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Total fine amount imposed is Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only). All the substantive sentences ofAccusedNo.1shallrun concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the accused no.1 during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The above set off is not relating to imprisonment for default sentence. MOs.1,2,4,6,7,9 & 10 shall be confiscated to state and Mos.3, 5 & 8 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri P.J. Rama Krishna, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent State/
Complainant and of Sri E. Radha Krishna, Advocate, Counsel for Accused
No.1, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- 4 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, P.S., Musheerabad, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.276 of 2017 for the offence under Section 370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 & 5(1)(a) of The Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
a) On 04-10-2017 at 04.30 PM, LW.1/PW.1/D. Santosh Kumar,
Additional Inspector of Police, PS Musheerabad, lodged a report stating
that on the same day at 01.00 PM, he received credible information that one lady by name Kalpana Goswamy was running a brothel business in
Flat No.407, B-Block, Prashanth Towers, Musheerabad, by engaging female sex workers. Believing the said information to be true, he informed and obtained permission from the higher officials, made a GD entry, and secured the presence of two mediators, namely 1) E. Srinivas and 2) P.
Sai Kumar, and drafted search proceedings under Section 165 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, he along with his staff Lw.4/PW.3/P. Rama Raju – SI of Police,
Lw.5/K. Vinod Kumar – SI of Task Force, Lw.6/P. Gopi – PC.9752, Lw.7/B.
Krishna – PC.9740, Lw.8/Ravi – HG.5019, Lw.9/Smt. PLS Devi –
WPC.8709, Lw.10/Smt. Yellamma – WHG.1842, and Lw.11/Smt. P. Jyothi – WHG.8689, proceeded to the spot and reached there by 02.00 PM.
Thereafter, PW.1 sent PW.3 as a decoy along with cash of Rs.2,000/- from 5 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 the CP fund to the spot at Flat No.407, B-Block, Prashanth Towers,
Musheerabad, and instructed him to pass a signal if the deal was finalized.
Accordingly, PW.3 went inside the flat, and after 10 minutes, he gave the signal. Immediately, PW.1 along with his other staff and mediators went to the spot and knocked the door, upon which a lady opened the door, and on verifying the premises, they found the decoy along with the organizer in the hall, and two male persons and two women in separate rooms.
b) On enquiry, the lady disclosed her name as 1) Kalpana Goswamy (A1); the two male persons disclosed their names as 2) G. Naveen (A2) and 3) Paresh Lalchand Masrani (A3); and the two women disclosed their names as 1) Shelam Krithika Reddy and 2) Pulpati Govindamma. Later, search proceedings were served on A1. On further interrogation, A1 admitted the commission of the offence. Accordingly, PW.1 recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1, seized 03 unused condoms from the possession of A1, one Samsung mobile, 02 unused condoms and cash of Rs.30,500/- from the possession of Naveen/A2 (customer), and one Samsung mobile, 02 unused condoms and cash of Rs.14,000/- from the possession of Paresh Lalchand Masrani/A3 (customer), in the presence of mediators PW.5/E. Srinivas and Lw.15/P. Sai Kumar. Thereafter, he brought all the accused persons and victims, along with the seized articles, to PS Musheerabad.
6 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
c)Basing on the above complaint, Lw.17/PW.6/B. Ravi Kumar Reddy,
SI of Police, registered a case in Crime No.276 of 2017 under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956, and handed over the case file to Lw.18/PW.7/S. Rama Chandra
Reddy, Inspector of Police, for investigation. During the course of investigation, PW.7 examined the victims Lw.12/PW.4/Shelam Krithika
Reddy and Lw.13/P. Govindamma, and effected the arrest of accused
Nos.1 to 3. Thereafter, the accused were produced before the jurisdictional Court and remanded to judicial custody. PW.7 also produced the victims, i.e., Lw.12/PW.4/Shelam Krithika Reddy and Lw.13/P.
Govindamma, before the Committal Court and got them send to Prajwala
Rescue Home, Tukkuguda, Shamshabad, R.R. District. Thereafter, PW.7 got the statements of the victims, i.e., Lw.12/PW.4/Shelam Krithika Reddy and Lw.13/P.Govindamma, recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, on his transfer, PW.7 handed over the CD file to
Lw.19/T.Srinatha Reddy. After receipt of the CD file, Lw.19/T. Srinatha
Reddy verified the investigation already done by PW.7, obtained certified copies of the statements of the victims recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., and after completion of the entire investigation, Lw.19/T. Srinatha
Reddy, filed the charge sheet for the offences under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
7 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
3.Basing on the material available on record, the learned XVII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, took
cognizance of the offence under Section 370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 & 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against Accused Nos.1 to 3, and registered the case as PRC No.3/2019. On appearance of the Accused
Nos.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them U/Sec.207
Cr.P.C. Since the offence U/Sec.370 of IPC is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Metropolitan
Sessions Court, Hyderabad under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.
4.The case was registered as S.C. No. 260 of 2019 by the
Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and was made over to this Court for
trial and disposal, in accordance with law.
5.On the appearance of the Accused Nos.1 to 3, and on hearing learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Accused.
Accused No.3 filed discharge petition vide Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2023 and
Accused No.2 filed separate discharge petition vide Crl.M.P.No.628 of 2024, both the petitions were allowed on 29.12.2023 & 27.05.2024 respectively and they are discharged from this case. Thereafter, Accused no.1 was examined, and charges are framed against Accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 & 5(1)(a) of 8 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, read over and explained to her. Having understood the same, Accused no.1 denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused No.1 is defended by her counsel.
6.Out of 19 witnesses cited by the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7, got marked Ex.P1 to P9 and MOs.1 to 10. The rest of the witnesses, i.e., LW.3/K. Brahmaji Rao, Lw.5/K.Vinod Kumar–SI of Task Force, Lw.6/P.Gopi -PC.9752, Lw.7/B.Krishna -PC.9740, Lw.8/Ravi -HG.5019, Lw.9/Smt. PLS Devi -WPC.8709, Lw.10/Smt.Yellamma-
HG.1842, Lw.11/Smt. P.Jyothi-WHG.8689, Lw.13/P.Govindamma,
Lw.15/P.Sai Kumar, Lw.16/Vijaya Durga/Learned Judicial Officer,
Lw.19/T. Srinatha Reddy, are given up by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
7.After the completion of the prosecution evidence, Accused
No.1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to her. Having understood the same, Accused No.1 denied the same and further stated that she do not have any defence evidence on her behalf.
8.Heard arguments of Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the
Learned Counsel for accused No.1. Perused the material on record.
9 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
9.Now the point for determination is :
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4 & 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7; got marked Ex.P1 to P9 and MOs.1 to 10.
11.PW.1/D. Santosh Kumar – the then Additional Inspector of
Police, PS Musheerabad, deposed in his evidence that he worked as
Additional Inspector (DI), PS Musheerabad, from 26-08-2015 to
26.09.2018. He further deposed that on 04-10-2014 at about 1.00 PM, he received credible information about a woman by name Kalpana Goswami (A1) running a brothel business at Flat No.407, B-Block, Prashanth
Towers, Musheerabad, by engaging female sex workers. Believing the information to be true, he informed the same to his superior officers and obtained authorization from the ACP, Chikkadpally. After making relevant entries in the General Diary, he secured two panch witnesses i.e., E.
Srinivas/PW.5 and LW.15/P. Sai Kumar. Then, he along with PW.5, LW.15
P. Sai Kumar, PW.3, LW.5/K. Vinod Kumar – SI of Task Force, LW.6/P.
Gopi – PC.9752, LW.7/B.Krishna – PC.9740, LW.8/Ravi – HG.5019, 10 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
LW.9/Smt. PLS Devi – WPC.8709, LW.10/Smt. Yellamma – WHG.1842, and LW.11/Smt. P. Jyothi – WHG.8689, proceeded nearby the scene of offence and sent P. Ramaraju (PW.3) as a decoy with cash of Rs.2,000/- to Flat No.407, B-Block, Prashanth Towers, by instructing him to engage a sex worker and to give a signal if the deal was finalized. Accordingly,
PW.3 went inside the flat and after 10 minutes gave a signal. Then, he along with other staff and mediators went to Flat No.407 at about 2.20
PM. As they knocked on the door, a lady opened it, and they entered the premises. They found the decoy and the organizer in the hall, and two male persons and two women in separate rooms. He further deposed that, on enquiry, the lady who opened the door disclosed her name as Kalpana
Goswami (A1), stating that she was the organizer. The others (customers) disclosed their names as G. Naveen (A2) and Paresh Lal Chand Masvani (A3), and the two women (victims) found with A2 & A3 disclosed their names as 1) Sheelam Krithika Reddy (PW.4) and 2) P. Govindamma (LW.13). Thereafter, he disclosed his identity to the organizer and served the proceedings (Ex.P1) to A1.
12.PW.1 further deposed that before proceeding to the scene of offence, he obtained authorization (Ex.P.2) from the ACP, Chikkadpally on 04.10.2017 to conduct a search of the premises. After serving a copy of the search proceedings to Accused No.1, she confessed to the commission 11 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 of the offence, stating that she was organizing brothel business in Flat
No.407 of the said apartment. Accordingly, he recorded her panchanama (Ex.P.3 is the relevant portion of the confession panchanama of A1) in the presence of PW.5 and LW.15/P. Sai Kumar and seized 01 Oppo cell phone (MO.1), 01 Micromax cell phone (MO.2), and 03 unused condoms (MO.3) from the possession of A1. Accused No.2 also confessed to the commission of the offence, and based on his confession (Ex.P4 is the relevant portion of the confession panchanama of A2), one Samsung cell phone (MO.4), 02 unused condoms (MO.5), and cash of Rs.30,500/- (MO.6) were seized from his possession. Thereafter, Accused No.3 also confessed to the commission of the offence, and based on his confession (Ex.P5 is the relevant portion of the confession panchanama of A3), one
Samsung cell phone (MO.7), 02 unused condoms (MO.8), and cash of
Rs.14,000/- (MO.9) were seized from his possession. He also seized cash of Rs.2,000/- (MO.10) from the decoy police officer. Thereafter, he brought the accused persons, along with the seized property and victim girls, to PS Musheerabad and submitted a report (Ex.P.6), handing over the accused, victims, and seized property to PW.6/SI of Police,
Musheerabad. Thereafter, the SI of Police registered a case and recorded his statement.
12 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
13.During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that he has not filed any document to prove the presence of Accused No.1 at the scene of offence. He further stated that PW.5 and LW.15/P.Sai Kumar are local residents of Musheerabad. He denied the suggestion put to him that
Ex.P.2 (Authorization from ACP) was not handed over to PW.6 along with
Ex.P.6 (Report). He also denied the suggestion that no such search was conducted, and that Ex.P.1 (Search Proceedings) was prepared at the police station, and that MOs.1 to 3 were not seized from the possession of
Accused No.1, and that Accused No.1 did not confess to the commission of the offence.
14.The evidence of Pw.1 is on the same lines as that of the report/complaint (Ex.P.6) lodged by him. The seizure of Mos.1 to 9 under cover of Exs. P3 to P5 in pursuance to the search proceedings (Ex.P.1) as deposed by Pw.1 in his evidence, is totally corroborating and is in the same lines as that of the contents of report/Ex.P.6.
15.As seen from the cross-examination of Pw.1, except vague suggestions, nothing substantive has been elicited from him (Pw.1) by the learned defence counsel, to disprove his testimony with regard to the search of the premises i.e., Flat No.407, Prashanth Towers Apartment,
Musheerabad and seizure of Mos.1 to 9 from the possession of Accused 13 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
Nos.1 to 3 respectively under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama, the relevant portion of which is marked as Exs.P3 to P5 respectively.
16.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused no.1 is organizer of the present crime and that she is running brothel business at
Flat No.407, Prashanth Towers Apartment, Musheerabad, where she is living as a tenant. The owner of the said Flat Sri. K. Bhramaji Rao, is cited as Lw.3, but unfortunately the said witness could not be examined as he was reported died during the course of trial. Nevertheless, the prosecution examined the watchman of the said apartment, Sri M.Prabhakar as Pw.2.
17.PW.2/M. Prabhakar, who is the watchman of Prashant Towers apartment, Musheerabad, deposed in his evidence that he worked as a watchman at Prashanth Towers Apartment, Musheerabad, from 2014 to 2019. He further deposed that, in routine, every night he used to make rounds around the said apartment. Accordingly, on 04.10.2017, while he was on rounds, he found some women in Flat No.407. He went to Flat
No.407 and found some police personnel also present there. The police apprehended the tenant of the said flat along with two men and two women and took them to the police station. Thereafter, he was also called to the police station on the same day, and his statement was recorded by 14 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 the police. He further deposed that Accused No.1/Kalpana is the said person who stayed in Flat No.407 as tenant and was caught by the police.
Pw.2 identified Accused no.1 in the open court hall during the course of his evidence.
18.During cross-examination, PW.2 stated that there are 72 flats, 36 shops, and a godown in Prashanth Towers apartment, and two watchmen are working there. He further stated that there is no practice of maintaining a visitors' register and that he does not know the name of the owner of Flat No.407 or his profession. He also stated that the owner never stayed in Flat No.407. Further, he denied the suggestion that he never worked as a watchman in the said apartment.
19.It is the version of Pw.2 that A1 resided as a tenant in Flat
No.407, Prashanth Towers Apartment, Musheerabad, and that he/Pw.2 worked as a watchman at the said apartment. It is also his version that on 04.10.2017 as usual when he went on rounds in the said apartment, he noticed some women in the said Flat no.407 and that the police apprehended the tenant of the said flat along with two men and two women. Pw.2 during the course of his evidence has identified A1 as the said person who stayed in the Flat No.407, Prashanth Towers Apartment,
Musheerabad, as tenant and was caught by the police.
15 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
20.As seen from the cross-examination of Pw.2, surprisingly there is neither any denial nor any suggestion is put to him (Pw.2) by the learned defence counsel specifically denying that A1 was residing in Flat
No.407, Prashanth Towers Apartment, Musheerabad, as tenant during the relevant period of time, as deposed by him. Further, except vague denial that Pw.2 never worked as watchman at Prashanth Towers Apartment,
Musheerabad, nothing substantive has been elicited to disprove his testimony to the effect that he (Pw.2) worked as a watchman at the said apartment during the relevant period of time. Nothing either has been elicited from Pw.2 to disprove or discredit his testimony to the effect that
A1 lived as a tenant in Flat No.407 of the said Apartment during the relevant period of time, and also the identification of A1 by Pw.2 in the open court during the course of his evidence.
21.It is also pertinent to note here that the evidence of Pw.2 to the effect that when he went to flat no.407 while on rounds, he saw the police apprehending Accused no.1 along with two men and two women, is also no where denied by the accused no.1. Moreover, the said fact of apprehension of Accused no.1 along with two men and two women from
Flat no.407 of Prashant Towers Apartment, Musheerabad, on 04.10.2017 is corroborating with the testimony of Pw.1. Nothing has been brought on record by the accused no.1 nor anything worthy is elicited from Pw.2 by 16 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 the learned defence counsel to shake the credibility of the testimony of
Pw.2 to the effect that he worked as a watchman at Prashanth Towers
Apartment, Musheerabad, and that Accused no.1 lived as tenant in Flat no.407 in the said apartment and that he saw the police apprehending accused no.1 along with two men and two women at the said Flat No.407 in the said apartment.
22.It is relevant to mention here that Pw.2 being the watchman of the said apartment during the relevant period of time, is a competent person and material witness to speak about the tenants living in the Flats in the said apartment and also the visit by the police to the said apartment and the apprehension of accused no.1 along with two men and two women at the Flat No.407 of the said apartment. Therefore the testimony of Pw.2 is totally believable and reliable, more particularly when as stated supra, nothing substantive has been elicited from him to disprove his evidence.
23.PW.3/Sri. P. Rama Raju, is the then S.I. of Police, PS
Musheerabad, who acted as a decoy. Pw.3 deposed that he worked as
Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Musheerabad, from September, 2014 to
November, 2017. He further deposed that on 04.10.2017 at about 01.00
PM, PW.1 received credible information, and on his (Pw.1’s) instructions, he along with other staff accompanied PW.1 to Flat No.407 of Prashanth 17 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
Towers, Musheerabad Main Road. He further deposed that on Pw.1’s instructions, he agreed to act as a decoy and went to Flat No.407 with
Rs.2,000/-. He knocked on the door, and a lady by name Kalpana
Goswami (A1) opened the door, and he entered the house. It is a three- bedroom flat, and he found two pair of male and female persons in two separate bedrooms. Meanwhile, PW.1 and other staff entered the flat on his signal. Thereafter, the male and female persons who were in separate bedrooms were brought into the hall, and PW.1 conducted a panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized cell phones; used and unused condoms, and some cash. They were then taken to the police station, and a report was given by Pw.1 to PW.6. Thereafter, PW.7 recorded his statement. Pw.3 identified the Accused No.1 in the open court during the course of his evidence.
24.During cross-examination, PW.3 denied the suggestions of the learned defence counsel that the place where PW.1 was standing was not visible from Flat No.407 and that there was no possibility of giving a signal, and that he identified Accused No.1 at the instance of police, and that he knew where the accused were standing in the court hall.
25.From the cross-examination of Pw.3, it is noticed that except vague suggestions, nothing substantive has been elicited from him.
18 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
Further no suggestion is put to Pw.3 in denial of he (Pw.3) visiting to the crime scene i.e., Flat no.407 at Prashant Towers, Musheerabad, as a decoy on 04.10.2017 at 01.00 pm. Further, there is no denial of the testimony of Pw.3 with regard to the presence of A1 and also two pair of male and female in two separate bed rooms in the said flat and also the search of the said Flat and seizure of MOs.1 to 10 by Pw.1 in his presence.
So also, except vague suggestion, nothing substantive has been elicited from him/Pw.3 to disprove or discredit the identification of A1 by him in the open court during the course of his evidence.
26.The evidence of Pw.3 with regard to the raid and search of the
Flat No.407, Prashant Towers Apartment, Musheerabad, i.e., the crime scene and the apprehension of A1 and the customers i.e., two men (customers) and two women (victims) at the said Flat, is also corroborating with the testimony of Pw.1 supporting the prosecution case.
27.PW.4/Shelam Krithika Reddy, is one of the victims. Pw.4 deposed that she knows LW.13/P. Govindamma and that in the year 2017 she/Pw.4 was running a beauty parlour by name Sindhu Beauty Parlour at
ECIL. LW.13/P. Govindamma was working in her beauty parlour. She further deposed that LW.13/Govindamma has a friend by name Pooja, and that A1/Kalpana Goswami is also a friend of LW.13/Govindamma. She further deposed that the said Pooja made her speak with A1, and A1 19 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 stated that there is beauty parlour work at her residence in Musheerabad.
Accordingly, she (Pw.4) along with LW.13/P. Govindamma went to her (A1’s) house. After their entry into the house, Accused No.1 offered them water by opening the fridge, and she (Pw.4) found some condoms in the fridge. Meanwhile, Accused No.1 introduced a male person to
LW.13/Govindamma @ Divya and sent them into a room. Accused No.1 tried to convince her (Pw.4) to indulge in brothel activity, but she refused.
Meanwhile, some police personnel came into the house and took them along with them. The police recorded her statement, and thereafter she was sent to Prajwala Home. She further stated that after a few days, her statement was also recorded by a Magistrate.
28.During cross-examination, except a vague suggestion to PW.4 that she did not state to the police as stated in her evidence and that they did not go to the house of Accused No.1 on 04.10.2017, which was however vehemently denied by her (Pw.4), nothing was put to her nor anything substantive has been elicited from her to disprove or shake the credibility of her evidence.
29.The evidence of Pw.4 is totally consistent with the facts of the prosecution case. As stated supra, except vague suggestions that she (Pw.4) has not stated any of the facts deposed by her in the chief examination to the police and that she did not go to the house of A1 on 20 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 04.10.2017, nothing substantive has been elicited to disprove her testimony to the effect that A1 called her/Pw.4 and Lw.13/Govindamma (another victim) to her residence on the pretext of beauty parlour work at her (A1’s) residence i.e., crime scene herein. Surprisingly, no suggestion is put to Pw.4 in denial of her testimony to the effect that when she along with Lw.13 went to the house of Accused no.1, she (Pw.4) found some condoms in the fridge when A1 opened the fridge to offer water to them.
So also, no suggestion is put to her in denial of her testimony that
Accused no.1 introduced a male person to Lw.13/Govindamma and sent them into a room and tried to convince her/Pw.4 to indulge in brothel activity and also the apprehension of A1 to A3, herself (Pw.4) and another victim/Lw.13/Govindamma by the police by conducting raid. From what emerges from the testimony of Pw.4 is that, Accused no.1 procured the victims i.e., Pw.4 & Lw.13/Govindamma by calling them to her residence on the pretext of having Beauty Parlour work, and induced them into brothel activity at her residence i.e., Flat No.407, Prashant Towers,
Musheerabad.
30.In the case of State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sartaj Khan (2017 SCC Online Utt. 1504), it was held that:
“deceptive inducement (promising a victim a fun trip or shopping) to bring them into a new jurisdiction for 21 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 exploitation constitutes trafficking under section 370 of
IPC. The intent to exploit combined with the act of inducing victim to move is sufficient for conviction, even if the victim initially agreed to the movement.”
31.In the instant case, it is specifically testified by Pw.4 that she is running a beauty parlour and that Lw.13/P.Govindamma was working in her beauty parlour and that Accused no.1 had called her and Lw.13/
P.Govindamma to her residence/Flat on the pretext of having beauty parlour work at her residence i.e., crime scene herein, and that she (A1) induced her (Pw.4) and Lw.13/P.Govindamma into prostitution by promising easy earnings and sent Lw.13/P.Govindamma and a male person into one room and also induced Pw.4 to indulge in prostitution, but she refused. Pw.4 being one of the victims, is a material witness to the prosecution case. There is nothing elicited from Pw.4 by the learned defence counsel to make this court disbelieve her testimony.
32.The fact that Accused no.1 called Pw.4 and Lw.13/
P.Govindamma to her residence stating that she has beauty parlour work, is no where denied. Moreover, it is neither the plea nor the case of accused no.1 that she (A1) had assigned/given any beauty parlour work to Pw.4 and Lw.13/P.Govindamma at her residence for the purpose of which she (A1) had called them to her residence. This clearly manifests 22 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 that Accused no.1 by playing fraud and deception, procured the presence of Pw.4 and Lw.13/P.Govindamma at her residence on the false pretext of having beauty parlour work at her residence, with an intention to exploit them and to involve them into the activity of prostitution. Therefore, in view of the said facts and also in view of the observation in the case law cited above, the inducement by accused no.1 to make Pw.4 and Lw.13/
P.Govindamma to visit her residence on the pretext of beauty parlour work, and indulge in prostitution invariably amounts to recruitment of
Pw.4 and Lw.13/P.Govindamma by accused no.1 for the purpose of exploitation, by playing fraud and deception, which constitutes an offence under section 370 of IPC.
33.As stated supra, there is nothing on record to disprove the testimony of Pw.4 with regard to above mentioned facts. Moreover, the evidence of Pw.4 is also in corroboration with that of the testimony of
Pws.1 to 3 with regard to A1 running a brothel activity and also the apprehension of A1 to A3, Pw.4 & Lw.13/Govindamma by the police after conducting search proceedings.
34.PW.5/E, Srinivas, is one of the panch witnesses to the search proceedings and confession-cum-seizure panchanama. He deposed that about 8 years ago, one day at about 02:00 PM, the police of Musheerabad called him to the police station, and thereafter they took him and another 23 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 person (whose name he could not state) to a flat on the 4th floor of
Prashanth Towers, Musheerabad. There, they found five persons in different rooms of the flat. Thereafter, the police recorded the confession statements of the said five persons and seized four cell phones and cash of about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- from their possession in his presence under confession-cum-seizure panchanama. The contents were read over to him, and his signature was obtained. He further deposed that Accused
No.1 present in the Court hall is one among the five persons who were present at the said flat. The witness (Pw.5) also identified his signature on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama dated 04.10.2017 and also identified MOs.1, 2, 4, & 7, during the course of his evidence.
35.During cross-examination, PW.5 stated that he cannot not say the flat number where the police conducted the panchanama and further admitted that no date or time is mentioned underneath his signature on the panchanama. He further admitted that he cannot say how much cash was seized from each of the five persons and also he cannot say the denomination of the seized cash. He further stated that he does not know who the owner of the said flat is. He denied the suggestions that his furniture shop is located behind the police station and that no persons were present at the said flat; that nothing was confessed by any person in 24 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 his presence, and that nothing was seized from the possession of Accused
No.1 in his presence.
36.The testimony of Pw.5 with regard to the location of Scene of
Offence; the persons present at the Scene of Offence and also seizure of cellphones and cash from the possession of the said persons present at the scene of offence, under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama, is corroborating with the testimony of Pw.1. That apart, the descriptive particulars of Pw.5 discloses that he is the local inhabitant of the place of conducting seizure panchanama. Further, it cannot be ignored that Pw.5 during the course of his evidence has identified A1 in the open court hall and categorically stated that A1 is one among the five persons who was present at the flat at the time of panchanama. Moreover, Pw.5 also identified Mos.1, 2, 4 & 7 during the course of his evidence.
37.Nothing worthy has been elicited from Pw.5 by the learned defence counsel to disprove the confession-cum-seizure panchanama conducted by police PS Musheerabad, at the crime scene in his presence and seizure of cellphones and cash i.e., Mos.1, 2, 4 & 7 at the instance of said persons present at the Flat and also the identification of A1 by Pw.5 in the open court hall during the course of his evidence.
25 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
38.Albiet, Pw.5 has not specified how much amount of cash is seized from each of the five persons, I am of the considered view that that per se is not a ground to discredit the entire testimony of Pw.5, more particularly when nothing substantive has been elicited to disprove his evidence with regard to seizure and identification of MOs.1, 2, 4, & 7 at the instance of A1 to A3 under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in his presence.
39.PW.6/B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, is the then S.I. of Police, PS
Musheerabad, and he deposed that on 04.10.2017 at about 16:30 hours, he received an English typed complaint from PW.1, based on which he registered a case in Cr. No. 276 of 2017 under Section 370 IPC and
Sections 3, 4, and 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and issued FIR (Ex.P.7) to all concerned. Thereafter, on the same day, he handed over the CD file to PW.7 for further investigation.
40.During cross-examination, except vague suggestions that he registered the FIR based on a false complaint lodged by PW.1, nothing substantive has been elicited by the learned defence counsel to disprove the registration of FIR (Ex.P.7) by PW.6.
41.PW.7/S. Ramachandra Reddy, is the then Inspector of Police,
PS Musheerabad, who is the first Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 26 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 04.10.2017, he received the CD file along with A1 to A3, two victim ladies, and the seized property from PW.6, verified the investigation, and found it to be on correct lines. He further deposed that on the same day, he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 at the police station.
Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence, i.e., Flat No.407, Prashanth
Towers, Musheerabad, and examined and recorded the statements of
PW.2 and LW.3/Bhramaji. He then returned to the police station and recorded the statements of PW.3, PW.4, LW.5/K. Vinod Kumar – SI of
Task Force, LW.6/P. Gopi – PC.9752, LW.7/B. Krishna – PC.9740,
LW.8/Ravi – HG.5019, LW.9/Smt. PLS Devi – WPC.8709, LW.10/Smt.
Yellamma – WHG.1842, LW.11/Smt. P. Jyothi – WHG.8689, and LW.13/P.
Govindamma. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused no.1 to 3, effected their arrest by issuing arrest memo, and produced them before the XVII
ACMM Court, Hyderabad, for judicial remand. He also produced the victims, i.e., PW.4 and LW.13/P. Govindamma, before the XVII ACMM
Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, obtained permission, and sent them to
Prajwala Home, Tukkuguda, Shamshabad, Hyderabad. Thereafter, he gave a requisition to LW.16/Smt. Vijaya Durga, the then XIII Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, to record statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, LW.16 recorded the statements (Ex.P.8 and
Ex.P.9). Thereafter, upon his transfer, he handed over the CD file to
LW.19/T. Srinath Reddy for further investigation. LW.19/T. Srinath Reddy 27 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 verified the investigation, deposited the seized property before the XVII
ACMM Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against A1 to A3.
42.During cross-examination, PW.7 admitted that he did not file any rental agreement or document to show that Accused No.1 was a tenant in the said Flat. However, he categorically stated that he had examined the owner of the said Flat. He also admitted that he did not examine any neighbouring flat residents. Further, he denied the other vague suggestions put to him. However, nothing substantive was elicited in his cross-examination to disprove the investigation done by him.
43.The learned Additional P.P. submitted that the evidence of
Pws.1 to 7 are corroborating with each other and in consonance with the facts narrated in the prosecution case and that the said evidence of Pws.1 to 7 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and MOs.1 to 10 invariably establishes the guilt of the Accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence prayed to convict the accused no.1.
44.On the contrary, the learned counsel for accused no.1 vehemently argued that the prosecution case suffers from many lacunas and as such the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Accused no.1 28 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 for the offence alleged against her beyond all reasonable doubt and hence prays to acquit accused no.1.
45.From the totality of the circumstances of the case, the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 and their cross-examination coupled with Ex.P.1 to
P.9 and MOs.1 to 10 and discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the fact that Accused no.1 is a tenant in Flat no.407, Prashath Towers,
Musheerabad, which is a crime scene, is no where denied. Moreover, the fact that accused no.1 is living in the said flat as tenant, is also corroborated by the testimony of Pw.2, who worked as watchman at the said apartment during the relevant period. Further, the prosecution with the help of Pw.4/victim has successfully established that the accused no.1 procured the victims i.e., Pw.4 and Lw.13/P.Govindamma at her residence on the false pretext of calling them for beauty parlour work at her (A1’s) residence i.e., crime scene and thereafter induced them into prostitution by sending Lw.13/P.Govindamma into a room with a male person and lured Pw.4 to indulge in prostitution. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4 recorded by Lw.16/Smt. Vijaya Durga, the learned Magistrate, is marked as Ex.P.8, but no contradictions were pointed out by the learned counsel
for Accused no.1, in the evidence of Pw.4 as compared to her statement
under section 164 Cr.P.C./Ex.P.8.
29 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
46.It is pertinent to note here that another victim i.e.,
Lw.13/P.Govindamma was not examined by prosecution. The record discloses that the police had filed report stating that the whereabouts of
Lw.13/P.Govindamma are not known. Hence, basing on the said report, the learned Addl. P.P. had given up the evidence of Lw.13/P.Govindamma.
Therefore, the non-examination of Lw.13/P.Govindamma who is the another victim, was due to the circumstances of not knowing her whereabouts and not able to secure her presence despite serious efforts.
Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the failure of the prosecution to examine Lw.13/P.Govindamma does not have any bearing to the prosecution case, more particularly when the prosecution examined the other victim (Pw.4) who is a material witness who testified in support of the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution with the help of the testimony of Pw.4 has successfully proved that the Accused no.1 procured Pw.4 and Lw.13/P.Govindamma for exploitation by practicing fraud and deception on the pretext of beauty parlour work at her house.
47.The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bindo Ganesh Patil Vs.
The State of Maharashtra (2018 SCC Online BOM 2177) clearly held that:
30 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 “Section 5 of the PITA pertains to procuring, inducing or taking [person] for the sake of prostitution. This offence is complete when a person procures another person for prostitution or induces such person to go from any place with intent that such person becomes the inmate of a brothel or to take such a person from one place to another to carry on prostitution.”
In the case of Subbaiah & another V s. State of Madras, (G.A.No.21/64 dated 14.09.1965), it was held that:
“Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to presume an immoral purpose. It was further held that if certain conditions are met, it is reasonable to conclude that the parties intended to commit an offence under Act (then the Suppresion of Immoral Traffic in
Women and Girls Act), even if they weren’t caught in the act”.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Jain Vs.
Union of India (1997) 8 SCC 114 specifically held that:
31 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 “It is not necessary that there should be repeated visits by persons to the place for the purpose of prostitution. A single instance coupled with the surrounding circumstances is sufficient to establish both that the place was being used as a brothel and the persons alleged was so keeping it.”
The above said ruling in Gaurav Jain case was a reiteration of the case in Krishnamurthy @ Tailor
Krishnan Vs. Public Prosecutor (1967) 1 SCR 586, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“a single instance of a brothel being operated is sufficient to constitute an offence under the Act (then the Suppression of
Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act) .”
48.The testimony of Pw.4 that accused no.1 had called her and
Lw.13/P.Govindamma to her residence/Flat stating that there is beauty parlour work at her (A1’s) residence and induced Pw.4 and
Lw.13/P.Govindamma and exploited them and sent Lw.13/P.Govindamma into a room with a male person and also lured Pw.4 to indulge in prostitution, invariably goes to show that accused no.1 being tenant in the 32 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 said house/Flat was using the said house/Flat as brothel and procured
Pw.4 and Lw.13/P.Govindamma by playing fraud and deception, on the pretext of calling them to her house for beauty parlour work with an intention to exploit them into prostitution, thereby clearly making out a case of trafficking by practicing fraud or deception, within the ambit of section 370 of IPC and also under section 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
49.Further, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 and Pw.7 more particularly the seizure of MOs.1 to 9 at the instance of A1 to A3 and MO.10 from the decoy (Pw.3) also invariably goes to show that A1 being a tenant in the
Flat No.407/crime scene, was using the said house/Flat as a brothel for running brothel activity, which clearly makes out a case under section 3(2)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
50.It is germane to mention here that there is no established legal or social relationship such as marriage or family ties between the said men and women i.e., A2 & A3 and Pw.4 & Lw.13/P.Govindamma who were found at the house of A1 in two separate rooms at the time of search conducted by Pw.1. Therefore, the said circumstances without any established legal and social relationship between A2 & A3 and Pw.4 &
Lw.13/P.Govindamma, coupled with the seizure of incriminating material i.e., Mos.1 to 9 more particularly the unused condoms (MOs.3, 5 & 8) 33 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 from the possession of A1 to A3 respectively, clearly indicates the activity of running a brothel in the house of A1 where she was living as a tenant.
51.Further, the fact that accused no.1 is the organizer, running the said brothel house and that she by practicing fraud and deception had influenced Pw.4 and Lw.13/P.Govindamma to visit her house by playing fraud and deception and compelled them into prostitution, goes to show that accused no.1 was knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution of the said victims, thereby constituting an offence under section 4 of The
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. In view of the above, a presumption under section 4(2) of the said Act is drawn against accused no.1, which is however rebuttable. Surprisingly, there is nothing on record on behalf of accused no.1 nor anything substantive has been elicited by
A1 from the prosecution witnesses to rebut the said presumption.
52.The learned counsel for Accused no.1 further argued that admittedly no independent witness or neigbours of the alleged scene of offence were examined by the investigating officer. True that in the present case as admitted by Pw.7/1st Investigating Officer, he/Pw.7 has not recorded the statements of neighbours of the alleged scene of offence.
But, as elaborately discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no denial of the fact that accused no.1 was living as a tenant in the said Flat
No.407, Prashant Towers, Musheerabad, at the relevant period of time, 34 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 where the alleged offence took place and there is nothing on record to disprove the presence of A2 & A3 (customers), Pw.4 and
Lw.13/P.Govindamma (victims) at the crime scene/Flat at the time of the raid and search conducted by Pw.1 at the crime scene/Flat and also the seizure of MOs.1 to 9 at the instance of A1 to A3 and MO.10 from the decoy (Pw.3).
53.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Appabhai & another Vs. State of Guajarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, held that:
“The prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses, as public witnesses keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable.”
54.Therefore, in the circumstances discussed above and in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that mere failure of the Investigating
Officer/Pw.7 to examine the neighbours to the scene of offence is not fatal to the prosecution case, more particularly when the said failure of Pw.7 to examine the neighbours of the scene of offence, is satisfactorily explained by him/Pw.7 stating that none of the neighbours have come forward to give statement.
35 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
55.An important aspect which is to be noted here is that as per section 15(2) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, at least one women shall be called upon before making a search and to attend and witness search.
56.In the present case, the panch witnesses for the search proceedings and seizure panchanama i.e., Pw.5 and Lw.15/P. Sai Kumar are male persons, which implies that the no woman panch witness, as contemplated under section 15(2) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, was present during the search proceedings. It is relevant to mention here that the said violation of section 15(2) of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, in not securing any women inhabitant to attend and witness the search, is no where pointed out by the learned defence counsel in the entire trial proceedings nor any prejudice is shown to be caused to Accused no.1 by non-compliance of Section 15(2) of the said Act. Be that as it may, the evidence of Pw.1 (who conducted search of the premises i.e., the residence of accused no.1 after serving the search proceedings/Ex.P.1), discloses that apart from Pw.1, Decoy (Pw.3),
Panch witnesses to the search i.e., Pw.5 and Lw.15/P. Sai Kumar, the women police i.e., Lw.9/PlS. Devi-WPC.8709, Lw.10/Smt. Yellamma-
WHG.1842 & Lw.11/P. Jyothi-WHG.8689 of PS Musheerabad, were present and attended the search proceedings. Nothing substantive from the cross- 36 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 examination of Pw.1 was elicited to disprove the presence of the above said women police i.e., Lws.9 to 11 during the search proceedings.
57.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bai Radha Vs. State of Gujarat (1969) 1 SCC 43, observed that:
“In the absence of any prejudice, having shown by non-compliance with the provision of Section 15(2), proceedings or trial cannot be quashed.
However, the Court has to be very careful and cautious in weighing the evidence where there has been such failure on the part of the investigating agency.”
Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalpnath Rai vs. State (through CBI); (1997) 8 SCC 732, observed that “there can be no legal proposition that evidence of police officer is unworthy of acceptance in case of absence of a witness during police raid. At the most, it would cast a duty on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the police officer. If the evidence of a police officer is found acceptable, then it would be the erroneous proposition that the court must reject the prosecution version, solely on the ground that no witness was present.” 37 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
Similarly, in the case of Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab; (1996) 11 SCC 685, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “unless a prejudice is shown to be caused to the applicant during trial by the applicant, the prosecution story merely on the violation of Section 15(2) of the Act cannot be thrown out.”
Further, in the case of Mona (Ms.) Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC Online Raj. 3038, it was held that:
“The direction of section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is directory in nature and not mandatory. Mere violation of section 15(2) of The
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 will not vitiate the proceedings as held in the realm of appreciation of evidence under each and every case.”
58.In the instant case, admittedly the section 15(2) of The
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, to secure the presence of atleast one woman inhabitant of the locality to attend and witness the search, has not been complied. As discussed supra, the accused no.1 has not putforth any ground to show any element of prejudice caused to her (A1) due to non-presence of a woman panch witness during search proceedings.
Further, as stated supra, no objection as to the irregularity of section 15(2) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is pointed out or 38 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 argued by the learned counsel for Accused no.1. Therefore, in view of the above, and also in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Courts in the case law cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the said violation of section 15(2) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in not securing the presence of at least one woman local inhabitant to attend and witness the search proceedings, is only an irregularity, and the same by itself does not vitiate the entire search proceedings. The fact that
Lws.9 to 11, the women police personnel were present during the said search proceedings at the residence of A1, which is not denied or disputed, cannot be ignored.
59.From the totality of the circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution by way of cogent evidence, has proved the foundational facts and its case i.e., raid & Search of Flat No.407, Prashant Towers Apartment,
Musheerabad (Crime Scene); finding two men i.e., A2 & A3 (customers) and two women i.e., Pw.4 & Lw.13/P.Govindamma (victims) who are unrelated to each other, in the said Flat where accused no.1 was living as tenant and also the seizure of incriminating material i.e., MOs.1 to 9 at the instance of A1 to A3 under cover of panchanama and MO.10 from
Pw.3 (decoy). All the above said circumstances put together invariably and clearly indicates and establishes that accused no.1 who lived in the 39 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019 said flat as a tenant, was running a brothel in the said premises/Flat and that the said Flat was used for immoral purpose and that the victims i.e.,
Pw.4 & Lw.13/P.Govindamma were procured by accused no.1 by playing fraud and deception for the purpose of prostitution. The prosecution also succeeded in establishing that Accused no.1 was involved in trafficking not one but two persons i.e., Pw.4 & Lw.13/P.Govindamma (victims herein) for immoral purpose and exploitation, which attracts punishment under section 370(3) of IPC.
60.Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution with the help of reliable and cogent evidence has successfully established the guilt of Accused no.1 for the offences under section 370 of IPC and section 3,4 & 5(1)(a) of The
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence Accused no.1 is liable to be convicted for the said offences.
61.In the result, accused no.1 is found guilty for the offence section 370 of IPC and section 3, 4 & 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and accordingly she is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
Partly dictated by me to the Copyist of this court and partly typed directly to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of April, 2026.
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD
40 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
Quantum of Sentence:
62.Accused No.1 and her counsel is present and she is questioned on quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offences proved against her, for which Accused no.1 pleaded that she is having two unmarried daughters and one son and they are dependent on her, and hence prayed to take a lenient view.
63.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence proved against the accused no.1, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for applying the beneficial provisions of section 360 of Cr.P.C. to her. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be met by imposing appropriate sentence to the accused no.1 for the offences proved against her.
64.In the instant case the Accused no.1 is found guilty for the offence involving the trafficking of more than one person i.e., Pw.4 and
Lw.13/P.Govindamma (Two victims herein), which attracts punishment under clause (3) of Section 370 of IPC.
65.Accordingly, the Accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand Only) for the offence 41 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
U/sec.370 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of
One year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand
Only) for the offence U/sec.3 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 In default of payment of fine amount, she shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of One month. Accused no.1 is further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year for the offence U/sec.4 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Accused No.1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five years and to pay a fine of 1000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only) for the offence U/sec.5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 In default of payment of fine amount, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Total fine amount imposed is Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only). All the substantive sentences of Accused No.1 shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the accused no.1 during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The above set off is not relating to imprisonment for default sentence. MOs.1,2,4,6,7,9 & 10 shall be confiscated to state and Mos.3, 5 & 8 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.
42 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
66.The Accused No.1 is defended by a private counsel. The
Accused No.1 is furnished with a copy of this judgment and she is apprised of her right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and also about her right to avail free legal aid.
Partly dictated by me to the Copyist of this court and partly typed directly to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD
::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::
Witnesses Examined:
On Behalf of Prosecution
Prosecuti Name of Witness Description on Witness No. 1D. Santosh KumarInformant/The then Addl. Inspector of Police, PS Musheerabad 2M. PrabhakarWatchman of Prashant Tower Apartment 3P. Rama RajuThe then S.I. of Police, PS Musheerabad/ Acted as decoy 4Shelam Krithika Victim Reddy 5E. SrinivasPanch witness for confession-cum- seizure panchanama. 6B. Ravi Kumar Reddy S.I. of Police/Registered FIR 7S. Ramachandra Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer Reddy 43 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
On Behalf of Defence
Prosecuti Name of Witness Description on Witness No. NilNilNil
Exhibited Documents:
On Behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by No. /Attested by 1Search ProceedingsPw.1 2Authorization from ACP, ChikkadpallyPw.1 3Relevant portion of Confession Pw.1 panchanama of A1 4Relevant portion of Confession Pw.1 panchanama of A2 5Relevant portion of Confession Pw.1 panchanama of A3 6Report Pw.1 7FIR in Cr.No.276 of 2017Pw.6 8164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4Pw.7 9164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.7 Lw.13/P.Govindamma
On Behalf of Defence
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by No. /Attested by NilNilNil 44 Of 44 Fair Judgment in SC.No.260 of 2019
Material Objects/Muddamals:
On Behalf of Prosecution
Material Description of the Object/Exhibit Proved by Object /Attested by No. 1Oppo CellphonePw.1 2Micromax CellphonePw.1 303 unused condomsPw.1 4Samsung CellphonePw.1 502-unused condomsPw.1 6Cash of Rs.30,500/-Pw.1 7Samsung CellphonePw.1 802-unused condomsPw.1 9Cash of Rs.14,000/-Pw.1 10Cash of Rs.2000/-Pw.1
On Behalf of Defence
Material Description of the Material Proved by
Object Object/Exhibit /Attested by
No. NilNilNil
Sd/-
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD