1 CRA No.640/2001 2025:CGHC:56590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 640 of 2001 Smt. Kamla Shetty, aged about 67 years, W/o late Gopal Shetty, R/o D.B. Marg, Opera House, Bombay. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Nandini, District, Durg, C.G. ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Vikrant Pillay, Advocate through legal aid. For Respondent-State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 20.11.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/07/2001, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 276/1997, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 5(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, with default stipulation. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.24 10:45:41 +0530 2 CRA No.640/2001 1. Facts of the case, in brief, is that due to quarrel between the mother of victim namely Tejabai PW-3 and victim, due to which, the victim had gone somewhere. During search, one Govind Nai told her that the victim and Sukhwanti had been sold by Nepali watchman Jeetbahadur for Rs.8000/- and Rs.1800/- respectively. Thereafter, Jeetbahadur took both of them to Mumbai where the victim along with Sukhwanti stayed in the house of Kamla shetty for a number of days. It is alleged that when the victim told appellant to release her, the appellant refused and threatened to kill her. During investigation, police came to the spot i.e. Flat No.15 Girgaon road Mumbai and recovered the victim from the possession of the appellant, which is vide recovery Panchnama Ex.P-1. Appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-13. Medical examination of victim was conducted. After completion of investigation, final report was prepared. 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this 3 CRA No.640/2001 appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had forcibly kept the victim in her flat. PW-8 Investigating Officer was not empowered under Section 13 of the Act to carry out the investigation, the entire proceedings conducted by him is without authorization and jurisdiction. Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim had stated that when Bhagwati took her residence, where already 12 women were residing, but no single women was recovered by the Investigating Officer from there. He further submits that no evidence merges on record that the appellant had any nexus with Flat No.15, Girgaon Road. No documentary proof of ownership of the flat was collected during investigation, where victim was recovered. He submits that the entire case of prosecution is doubtful and concocted, just to implicate the appellant in a false case. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt 4 CRA No.640/2001 by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. PW-1 Sukhbati stated in her evidence that she does not know the accused present in the Court. She stated that one day, she along with Rajbati/victim gone to watch Circus at Durg. From there, both of them along with Nepali Watchman and another person went Bombay. After reaching Bombay, Nepali Watchman took her and Rajbati to one lady and were kept in brothel, where 15 women already kept there. She along with Rajbati stayed there for 2 -3 months, where she was forced to do the work of prostitute. She deposed that the woman who made them to commit prostitution was known as ‘Anita’, and she does not know anyone else name. She further stated that the police interrogated and recorded her statement. She categorically stated that she had not told the police that the woman running the brothel was named Kamlabai, because she does not know her name. She stated that she does not know how the police wrote the name of Kamlabai in the case. She further stated that it is incorrect to say that the accused Kamla present before the trial court, is the same woman who was 5 CRA No.640/2001 running the brothel. 8. PW-4, Rajbati/victim supported the statement of Sukhbati, PW-1. She stated that she herself had gone to Bombay. She categorically stated that she has no knowledge that the Nepali watchman had taken her to a brothel, whose owner was Kamla Shetty/accused. In cross-examination, she stated that she knows Bhagbati, who lives in Bombay. She further stated that she met Bhagbati in Bombay, who was engaged in prostitution. 9. PW-3, Kejabai, mother of victim stated in her evidence that her daughter was also staying with Binda Sonarin and used to bring customers for Binda Sonarin. Her daughter used to drink alcohol and stay at the house of Binda Sonarin. She categorically stated that the behavior of her daughter was not good, and because of that, she had run away to Bombay. 10. From the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim had stated that when one lady namely; Bhagbati took her to her residence, where already 12 women were residing, but no single women was recovered by the Investigating Officer from there. In the recovery panchnama (Ex. P-1), the address of the place where the victim was found is recorded as Warli House, Flat No. 15, Girgaon Road. In contrast, the location where the appellant/ accused was arrested is stated as Opera House, Flat No. 15, Girgaon Road. Therefore, the place of recovery of the victim and 6 CRA No.640/2001 the place of arrest of the appellant/accused were different. Thus, the discrepancy in the addresses establishes that the victim was recovered from a location different from the one where the appellant/accused was arrested. Apart from that, Section 13 of the Act has not complied in the case to carry out the investigation. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, PW-1 (Sukhbati) and PW-4 victim (Rajbati) have categorically denied knowing the accused present in court. PW-1 expressly stated that the woman operating the brothel was named Anita. Both the witnesses neither identified the accused Kamla/appellant as the person involved in the alleged trafficking or prostitution activities. PW-1 specifically stated that she never gave the name “Kamla” to the police and does not know how it entered the police papers. PW-4 (victim) stated that she had no knowledge that the Nepali watchman had taken her to any brothel run by “Kamla Shetty/appellant.” Her testimony, therefore, does not support the prosecution’s allegation against the accused. 12. The testimony of PW-3, the mother of the victim, further weakens the prosecution case. She stated that her daughter was voluntarily staying with Binda Sonarin, was involved in bringing customers, used to consume alcohol and had run away to Bombay due to her own conduct. This evidence indicates voluntary departure and contradicts the theory of trafficking or procurement by the accused. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. mentions that 7 CRA No.640/2001 the victim was taken to a place where 12 women allegedly resided, yet no such women were recovered by the Investigating Officer. This inconsistency casts serious doubt on the prosecution version. 13. The recovery panchnama (Ex. P-1) shows the victim was found at Warli House, Flat No. 15, Girgaon Road, whereas the accused was arrested from Opera House, Flat No. 15, Girgaon Road. These are distinct locations, and the prosecution has offered no explanation for this material discrepancy. This mismatch directly undermines the allegation that the accused was found at or associated with the place from where the victim was recovered. 14. Further, there is clear non-compliance of Section 13 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, as the mandatory investigation through a Special Police Officer and the procedural safeguards under the Act were not followed. Such non-compliance vitiates the investigation and renders the prosecution case unsustainable. 15. In view of the above contradictions, lack of identification, material discrepancies in recovery and arrest locations, and serious procedural lapses, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused Kamla Shetty/appellant with the alleged offences. The benefit of doubt must go to the appellant/accused. 16. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against 8 CRA No.640/2001 her. The appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by her at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 17. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep