Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 146 (BOM)

Anju Shah v. State, Through Public Prosecutor

2014-01-22

T.V.NALAWADE

body2014
JUDGMENT : The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No.17/2006, which was pending before the President, Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 342, 323, and 366-A of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'PITA'). For offences punishable under Section 8(9) of Goa Children's Act, 2003 also there is conviction. The maximum sentence of imprisonment of 7 years is given under the provisions of PITA and all sentences are to run concurrently. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The prosecutrix is a Bangladeshi national. At the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years. One Parveen alias Aarti hails from the village of prosecutrix from Bangladesh. Jitendra alias Jitu is the husband of Aarti. Aarti, her brother and father used to visit the house of the parents of the prosecutrix. They were insisting the father of the prosecutrix to send his daughter to Dubai for work and they were representing that there was opportunity to make good income. Ultimately, the father of prosecutrix consented to send the prosecutrix to Dubai. He made the arrangement of money for preparation of records like passport, etc. and this amount was given by the father of prosecutrix to relatives of Aarti. In November, 2004, the aforesaid persons took prosecutrix from the custody of her father. They somehow crossed the border of Bangladesh and entered West Bengal, India without valid papers. From Hawra, the prosecutrix was taken to Mumbai by train. Jitu played major role in taking the prosecutrix across the border. After reaching India, Jitu gave instructions to prosecutrix and two other similar girls who were brought to India from Bangladesh, not to disclose their real name and address. He gave caution to them and said that in case of disclosure of real information it may not become possible to them to return to Bangladesh. They were given names of Hindus from India. When the prosecutrix reached to Mumbai, she noticed that Aarti had already reached Mumbai. Jitu and Aarti purchased clothes for these girls and they did some work on these girls like colouring their hair, bleaching their body, etc. They were given names of Hindus from India. When the prosecutrix reached to Mumbai, she noticed that Aarti had already reached Mumbai. Jitu and Aarti purchased clothes for these girls and they did some work on these girls like colouring their hair, bleaching their body, etc. The two other girls were sent to Bangalore and the prosecutrix was taken to the room of one Rekha from Mira road, Mumbai. The prosecutrix was kept there for few days and she was told that they were finding job for her. The prosecutrix is educated up to 8th standard and as it was new country for her, she could not make any guess about the intention of these persons. 3. After few days, Aarti sent prosecutrix to Ahmadabad, Gujarat with Rekha and Anju. Aarti was taken to the lodge of one Mukesh. There attempt was made to force the prosecutrix to allow one man to have sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix started crying and she refused for doing so. This man asked Mukesh to take the prosecutrix away and thus the first attempt of these persons failed. These persons gave severe beating to prosecutrix. Anju also took part in giving her beatings. They stopped supplying food to prosecutrix and they gave threats to starve her. They insisted that she should work as a prostitute for them. Aarti reached Ahmadabad in the meantime. 4. On the next day, the prosecutrix was again taken to the lodge of Mukesh. On this occasion, the prosecutrix was confined in a room with customer. This customer raped the prosecutrix and for doing so Aarti and Anju helped the customer. The prosecutrix had bleeding through her private part. The amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken from the customer by these persons and representation was made to the said man that prosecutrix was virgin. As the bleeding did not stop, the prosecutrix was taken to Mumbai and there some medical treatment was given to her. After recovery of prosecutrix from aforesaid injury, she was again taken to Ahmadabad. This time Anju took her to Ahmadabad. She was directly taken to the residential place of Ranjana (appellant). In the flat of Ranjana, Anju and prosecutrix stayed for few days. They obtained room on rent basis and Anju shifted there with prosecutrix. After recovery of prosecutrix from aforesaid injury, she was again taken to Ahmadabad. This time Anju took her to Ahmadabad. She was directly taken to the residential place of Ranjana (appellant). In the flat of Ranjana, Anju and prosecutrix stayed for few days. They obtained room on rent basis and Anju shifted there with prosecutrix. On one day prosecutrix used mobile handset of Anju when she was not there and contacted her uncle and she disclosed how she and her family was deceived. Anju realised that the prosecutrix had used her mobile hand set and she became angry with her. 5. On one day, accused took prosecutrix to the flat of one Ranjana Pathak where one male customer had already arrived. There accused and Ranjana tried to force the prosecutrix to sleep with the customer but prosecutrix refused. Ranjana and accused assaulted prosecutrix on that night. Prosecutrix was refusing to work as a prostitute. On the next morning, the prosecutrix was again taken to the place of accused. The same customer was waiting there. On this occasion, the said customer used force and raped the prosecutrix. This customer gave Rs.4,000/- to accused and Ranjana and out of this amount accused took her share of Rs.1,000/-. On other occasion accused forced prosecutrix to entertain another customer in the rented premises and collected Rs.5,000/- from the said customer. 6. The prosecutrix was again taken to the house of Ranjana. On this occasion the expected customer did not turn up. After sometime college going boy came to the house of the accused. They were confined in one room. When the prosecutrix told that she was forced to work as prostitute, the boy did not abuse her. The accused however collected money from this boy. 7. On the following day of the last incident accused left Ahmadabad for Mumbai as she wanted to bring one more girl to Ahmadabad. While leaving accused gave instructions to the prosecutrix to work as per directions of Ranjana. Ranjana expected the prosecutrix to work there as a prostitute. On the following day, the prosecutrix attempted to contact parents from one STD booth and son and daughter of Ranjana gave severe beating to her. Accused also gave beating to her when she learnt about the incident. Due to the beating prosecutrix sustained bleeding injury to her mouth. 8. Accused then returned from Mumbai with one more girl. On the following day, the prosecutrix attempted to contact parents from one STD booth and son and daughter of Ranjana gave severe beating to her. Accused also gave beating to her when she learnt about the incident. Due to the beating prosecutrix sustained bleeding injury to her mouth. 8. Accused then returned from Mumbai with one more girl. Accused took prosecutrix to Gandhigram, Gujarat, where one Manoj was running a brothel. At this place, Manoj forced prosecutrix to work as a prostitute. The prosecutrix requested the wife of Manoj to help her and when she told her that she was not willingly doing such work, the wife of Manoj helped her and she convinced Manoj not to use prosecutrix as a prostitute. 9. Manoj then sent prosecutrix to Mumbai. With the hope that Bappi will help her in returning to Bangladesh the prosecutrix contacted him. However, Bappi contacted accused. Prosecutrix then contacted Rekha. This was done prior to leaving for Mumbai from Gandhigram. In Mumbai Rekha collected prosecutrix from railway station and she took prosecutrix to one Prabha, a resident of Thane. Prabha promised to find a job for prosecutrix in Goa and she gave promise that she would see that prosecutrix earns at least Rs.30,000/- per month. As the prosecutrix wanted to return to Bangladesh, she went to Goa for making money. One more male person was there in the company of Prabha. The prosecutrix and two more girls were kept in one room situated on the backside hotel by name 'Konkan'. After 2 to 3 days Prabha asked prosecutrix to go with customers and work as prostitute. When prosecutrix refused to do so she was forcibly made to sit in a car where three male persons were sitting. These persons took her to a room and where one of them raped her. They took prosecutrix to one hotel where these persons made inquiry of availability of room. The hotel manager refused to give room to these persons. There was some quarrel between hotel manager and these three persons. One of the persons did some mischievous act and was beaten by the persons from the hotel. Others ran away to escape, but the prosecutrix and the third man were detained in the premises of the hotel where the incident took place. The hotel Manager called police. 10. There was some quarrel between hotel manager and these three persons. One of the persons did some mischievous act and was beaten by the persons from the hotel. Others ran away to escape, but the prosecutrix and the third man were detained in the premises of the hotel where the incident took place. The hotel Manager called police. 10. After arrival of police, the prosecutrix gave false information to them as per the instructions given to her by Jitu. Then she took police to Prabha where she was residing. After seeing police Prabha ran away. The prosecutrix was then kept in Apna Ghar. In this place one NGO collected information from prosecutrix and this information was supplied to police. 11. On the basis of information given by the prosecutrix, police traced most of the aforesaid persons, who were involved in the sex racket. These persons included the persons who had brought the prosecutrix from Bangladesh, who had forced her to work as prostitute at aforesaid places. Three separate charge sheets were filed by police as per the information supplied against different groups from different places. In the present case, charge was framed against the accused for aforesaid offences and also for offence punishable under Section 8 of Goa Children's Act. The three cases viz. special case no.23/5, 24/5 and 17/6 were tried simultaneously. Common offence was recorded in all the three cases of most of the witnesses. In view of the nature of the offence and the evidence given by the prosecutrix, it can be said that the Court could have joined the charges. In the present case, the record of cross- examination of Medical Officer who ascertained the age of the prosecutrix is not tagged but such cross-examination is available in other case. It appears that due to mistake, cross-examination is not attached in the present case. This Court has perused such evidence also. 12. The Trial Court has believed the prosecutrix. The Trial Court has held that at the relevant time, the age of prosecutrix was less than 16 years. In view of the nature of the allegations made against the present accused, the defence taken by the present accused and the offences for which the conviction is given the discussion of that part of evidence which is as against the accused only is sufficient in this case. 13. In view of the nature of the allegations made against the present accused, the defence taken by the present accused and the offences for which the conviction is given the discussion of that part of evidence which is as against the accused only is sufficient in this case. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued the point of jurisdiction. She submitted that there is a probability that the prosecutrix has completed 18 years of age as the medical officer has given evidence that the age of prosecutrix was 16 (+) plus minus six months. She submitted that the possibility of the error is of two years. Under Section 30 of Goa Children's Act, 2003, Children's Court is created and the Children's Court gets jurisdiction only when the offence is committed against child as defined under this Act. Under this Act, a 'child' is a person who has not completed 18 years of age. Under the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of PITA, more severe punishment is provided when the victim is a child or minor. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the evidence in respect of the age of the prosecutrix needs to be considered first. 14. The recording of evidence of the prosecutrix was started on 9/07/2007 and on that day the prosecutrix gave her age as 16 years. The evidence of the prosecutrix and her father shows that the prosecutrix was taken out of the custody of her father in November, 2004. The evidence as a whole of a prosecutrix shows that within few months, less than 4 months of crossing of the border, she was taken to Ahmadabad two times and on the second occasion the offence was committed by the accused against her. On the second occasion, the prosecutrix had stayed in Ahmadabad for a period of about one month. Thus, as per the evidence of prosecutrix she had crossed the age of 14 years but she had not crossed the age of 15 years at the relevant time. 15. Mohamad N. Mollah/PW4, the father of prosecutrix has given evidence in chief that the prosecutrix was very young and minor when Aarti alias Parveen took her from his custody by saying that she is taking her to Dubai. He has given specific date 29/11/2004 as the date of leaving Bangladesh. 15. Mohamad N. Mollah/PW4, the father of prosecutrix has given evidence in chief that the prosecutrix was very young and minor when Aarti alias Parveen took her from his custody by saying that she is taking her to Dubai. He has given specific date 29/11/2004 as the date of leaving Bangladesh. His evidence shows that the prosecutrix called him on two occasions, first within few days after leaving his house and then after few months. His evidence shows that when he last contacted the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix was in the custody of police. The record shows that in April, 2005 the prosecutrix was taken in custody in Goa by police. Thus, the incident in question took place within 4 to 5 months of leaving Bangladesh by prosecutrix. 16. The father of prosecutrix was put to extensive cross-examination. It is brought on the record that the elder daughter of PW4 was studying in tenth standard in November, 2004. After this daughter, one son was born but the son died and after that the prosecutrix was born. The evidence shows that prosecutrix had appeared for examination of eighth standard. The evidence shows that prosecutrix had failed in the examination of fifth standard. His evidence shows that he has no knowledge about the age which is required to be completed for giving admission in school in Bangladesh. He tried to say that they send children to school when their children start walking and talking. During cross-examination, it is specifically stated by him that the prosecutrix was born in the year 1990. From this evidence it can be said that as per the versions of prosecutrix and her father, the age of the prosecutrix was between 14 and 15 years. 17. Dr. Andre Fernandes/PW9 has given evidence that he examined the prosecutrix on 14/07/2005 to ascertain the age. His evidence shows that he examined the prosecutrix both clinically and radiologically. He has given evidence that on the basis of examination he came to the conclusion that on the date of examination, the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years, plus minus 6 months. This witness was also put to extensive cross-examination, but nothing could be brought on record to create doubt about the evidence. The report of the medical examination is at Exhibit 56 and the record prepared by him is at Exhibit 57. This witness was also put to extensive cross-examination, but nothing could be brought on record to create doubt about the evidence. The report of the medical examination is at Exhibit 56 and the record prepared by him is at Exhibit 57. The crime was registered after many months after the examination of the prosecutrix. Hence, there was no reason to create false record. In view of aforesaid evidence, this Court holds that at the relevant time the age of the prosecutrix was less than 16 years. 18. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the case reported as 2013 ALL MR (Cri.) 3929 in the case of Mahesh V/s. State of Maharashtra on the point of determination of the age. This Court has made some observations which are as under : 13. 'Age' as ingredient of both the aforesaid offences is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This 'proved' under section 3 of Evidence Act need to be proved like any other fact in criminal case. Oral evidence as to the age may always be available in such a case. Where a person gives evidence on oath, the Court is expected to start with presumption that he has spoken the truth. Only because in a case like present one, when there is oral evidence on age and it is given by the interested witnesses like mother or father, the Court is expected to look for corroboration. Corroboration need not be only of expert evidence. Corroboration may be of circumstances which may be different for each case. The opinion of doctor on clinical or radiological examination cannot be accepted straight way as a legal proof. The margin of error is of two years on either side even when the age is ascertained on the basis of radiological examination. [Reliance placed on AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1297 [Jaya Mala V/s. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.]. It is only medical opinion and other evidence including oral evidence cannot be discarded only because the medical evidence is in conflict with the oral evidence. Further, the medical evidence cannot stand against entries made in birth register, which are properly authenticated. It is only medical opinion and other evidence including oral evidence cannot be discarded only because the medical evidence is in conflict with the oral evidence. Further, the medical evidence cannot stand against entries made in birth register, which are properly authenticated. Entry made in birth register has presumptive value in view of section 17(2) of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and this position of law needs to be kept in mind, when there is conflict between medical evidence and the other evidence. 19. In the present case, as there is corroboration of medical evidence to the oral evidence of prosecutrix and her father, this Court holds that prosecution has proved that the prosecutrix had not crossed 16 years of age. 20. The prosecutrix/PW1 has given evidence that Rekha called Anju, accused to her residence from Mira road, Mumbai. She has deposed that after arrival of Anju, Rekha told Anju, accused that she was to find job for prosecutrix. Everywhere the word 'job' is used, but the evidence is sufficient to infer that they wanted to use the prosecutrix as a prostitute. The prosecutrix has given evidence that Aarti was out of station for sometime. She had gone to Bangalore and after arrival of Aarti, prosecutrix was taken to Ahmadabad by Rekha and Anju, under pretext that there was a job for prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has deposed that in Ahmadabad she was taken directly to the lodge of one Mukesh. She has deposed that at about 7.00 p.m. she was taken to a room of this lodge by Anju and Mukesh. She had deposed that a man was lying in naked condition in this room and to this man Mukesh informed that the prosecutrix was a 'sealed pack', a virgin girl. She has deposed that Anju and Mukesh asked her to sleep with the customer to which she refused. She has deposed that after refusal Anju and Mukesh started assaulting her. She has deposed that when she started crying bitterly, the man asked Anju and Mukesh to take the prosecutrix out of the room. She has deposed that she was again given beating by Anju and Mukesh. The prosecutrix has deposed that from the lodge she was taken to other hotel by Anju. She has deposed that threats were given to her at this place that she would be starved and her life would be made miserable. She has deposed that she was again given beating by Anju and Mukesh. The prosecutrix has deposed that from the lodge she was taken to other hotel by Anju. She has deposed that threats were given to her at this place that she would be starved and her life would be made miserable. Threat was given to her that she would not be sent back to Bangladesh. Her evidence shows that on that day she was not given food, she was starved. She has deposed that on the following day she was again taken to lodge of Mukesh. This time Aarti and Anju had taken her to lodge. She has deposed that on this occasion, she was taken to a room where a customer was already present. She has deposed that both of them closed the room from inside and by giving threats of serious consequences they asked the prosecutrix to sleep with the customer. She has deposed that even when she was crying and not ready, she was compelled to remove the clothes. She has deposed that both Anju and Aarti forced her to lay on the bed and also caught hold of her hands and that way they helped the customer to rape her. She has deposed that when the said man was taking this sexual intercourse, Anju and Aarti were laughing. She has deposed that she suffered lot of pain and bleeding started from her private part. She has deposed that bleeding was not stopping and so she was taken to Mumbai for medical treatment by Anju an Aarti. She has deposed that medical treatment was given to her. She has deposed that amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken by these persons, Mukesh, Anju and Aarti from the aforesaid customer by making the aforesaid representation to him. 21. The prosecutrix has deposed that when she recovered, she told Anju that she was not happy and she was not willing to sleep with the customers. She has deposed that Anju had a talk with her and Anju collected photographs of the relatives which were with the prosecutrix. 22. The prosecutrix has deposed that aforesaid accused then sent her with Anju again to Ahmadabad. She has deposed that on this occasion Anju took her directly to the house of Ranjana where they stayed for 4 to 5 days. 23. 22. The prosecutrix has deposed that aforesaid accused then sent her with Anju again to Ahmadabad. She has deposed that on this occasion Anju took her directly to the house of Ranjana where they stayed for 4 to 5 days. 23. The evidence of prosecutrix shows that Anju took a room on rent basis in Ahmadabad and she shifted prosecutrix to that room. 24. The prosecutrix has given evidence that in this room they stayed for about 20 to 25 days. Her evidence shows that on one day, Anju took her to the house of Ranjana in the evening time and there Anju and Ranjana insisted that prosecutrix should entertain a male customer and allow him to have sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix has deposed that when she refused, Anju assaulted her. Prosecutrix has deposed that when she started crying the male customer asked these two women to remove the prosecutrix out of the room. 25. The prosecutrix has given evidence that on the next morning, Anju again took prosecutrix to the house of Ranjana. She had deposed that customer of the previous day was already present in the house of Ranjana and on that day she was locked and confined in a room of house of Ranjana. She has deposed that on this occasion, the said customer virtually raped her and force was used by him. She has deposed that, she saw that when the customer was leaving the house of Ranjana, the customer gave money to Ranjana and Anju. In chief examination prosecutrix has deposed that Anju had disclosed to her that customer had given Rs.4,000/- and out of that amount of Rs.1,000/- was given to Ranjana by Anju, and the remaining amount was with Anju. In the cross-examination it is brought on record that amount of Rs.4,000/- was handed over by the customer to both Ranjana and Anju and Ranjana had kept Rs.1,000/- for herself. 26. The prosecutrix has given evidence that on other occasion Anju had invited the customer to the rented room itself and there prosecutrix was compelled to work as a prostitute. On that occasion the money was taken by Anju. 27. The prosecutrix has given evidence that on one more occasion she was taken to the house of Ranjana by Anju where customer was expected to come. On that occasion the money was taken by Anju. 27. The prosecutrix has given evidence that on one more occasion she was taken to the house of Ranjana by Anju where customer was expected to come. She has deposed that expected customer did not turn up, but after sometime a college boy came there. She has deposed that when she disclosed that she was not willingly working as a prostitute, the boy did not abuse her and gave some money to her. She has deposed that from the boy money was collected by Ranjana. 28. The prosecutrix has deposed that when Anju learnt that when she had gone to Mumbai prosecutrix had attempted to contact her parents, she gave beating to the prosecutrix. Her evidence shows that Anju had brought one more girl from Mumbai who was also asked to work as a prostitute. Evidence of prosecutrix shows that from Ahmadabad she was taken to Gandhigram and there she was handed over to Manoj, who was running a brothel. She has deposed that Manoj used her as a prostitute at his place many times. 29. The evidence of prosecutrix shows that when prosecutrix requested the wife of Manoj to help her and when she told her that she was not willingly doing such work, the wife of Manoj helped her and she convinced Manoj not to use prosecutrix as prostitute. The evidence of prosecutrix shows that Manoj supplied false information to Anju to protect the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix shows that with the help of Manoj she left Gandhigram subsequently. Prior to that she had tried to contact some persons who could have helped her to return to Bangladesh but evidence shows that those person supplied information to Anju and Anju remained in contact with Manoj to collect information about prosecutrix. 30. Prosecutrix identified Anju in the Court. The evidence of a special judicial magistrate show that he held test identification parade for giving opportunity to the prosecutrix to identify Anju. His evidence and record at exhibit 88 and 89 show that Anju was identified by prosecutrix. It needs to be kept in mind that Anju was traced on the basis of information given by the prosecutrix to the police. 31. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses remained un-shattered after extensive cross-examination. The prosecutrix was from Bangalesh. She had studied up to 8th standard. It needs to be kept in mind that Anju was traced on the basis of information given by the prosecutrix to the police. 31. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses remained un-shattered after extensive cross-examination. The prosecutrix was from Bangalesh. She had studied up to 8th standard. She had come to a country unknown to her. The language of this country was not known to her and Anju was also not known to her. Thus there was no reason for prosecutrix to falsely implicate Anju in such a case. The record shows that the trial Court noted conduct of Anju. The finding of the trial Court in respect of credibility of the prosecutrix in view of the aforesaid circumstances cannot be disturbed by the appellate Court. 32. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Court from Goa cannot have jurisdiction as the allegations against Anju are that she participated in the sex racket at Mumbai, Ahmadabad and Gandhigram. On this point, the learned Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 5(3) of PITA and Section 178(d) of Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions run as under: 5. Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution (3) An offence under this section shall be triable, (a) in the place from which a person is procured, induced to go, taken or caused to be taken or from which an attempt to procure or taken such persons made; or (b) in the place to which she may have gone as a result of the inducement or to which he/she is taken or caused to be taken or an attempt to take him/her is made. 178. Place of inquiry or trial (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 33. The wording of these sections and the facts of the present case are sufficient to show that the Court from Goa where the prosecutrix was taken in custody, had the jurisdiction. 33. The wording of these sections and the facts of the present case are sufficient to show that the Court from Goa where the prosecutrix was taken in custody, had the jurisdiction. Though there was no charge for offence for conspiracy, the evidence of prosecutrix shows that before trafficking her, there was a plan to use her as a prostitute. Such offence, sex racket involves many persons and the business is done by using modus operandi which is situated for such purpose. In such case, it is noticed that girls are shifted from place to place by the persons involved in the racket. At every place different persons run the brothel house and the girls are kept rotating from place to place. Thus, the persons involved in this business have links with each other though they are working at different, remote places of India. In view of the facts of the case, it needs to be presumed that the offence was a continuing one and provisions of Section 178(b to d) are applicable. 34. The evidence discussed above is sufficient to prove the offences punishable under Section 366-A, 342 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. The evidence is also sufficient to prove the offences punishable under Section 4 and 5 of PITA. The presumption available under Section 4 can be used against the appellant. However so far as the offence punishable under section 8(9) of Children's Act is concerned, it can be said that conviction for such offence is not possible. The Children's Act is made for the State of Goa and it is not applicable to the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat. On this point the case reported as 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 3628 in the case of in the case of Deepak Nanku Singh V/s. The State of Goa, can be referred. This Court holds that Trial Court has committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 8(9) of the Children's Act. 35. The Trial Court has given minimum penalty as provided under provisions of PITA. So there is no reason for interfering on the point of penalty also. 36. Only to set aside the conviction and sentence given for the offence punishable under Section 8(9), appeal needs to be partly allowed. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. 35. The Trial Court has given minimum penalty as provided under provisions of PITA. So there is no reason for interfering on the point of penalty also. 36. Only to set aside the conviction and sentence given for the offence punishable under Section 8(9), appeal needs to be partly allowed. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction given in respect of the offence punishable under Section 8(9) of the Children's Act is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of offence punishable under Section 8(9) of the Children's Act. Appeal of the appellant in respect of the remaining conviction and sentence given for the offences punishable under Section 366-A, 323, 342 of IPC and Section 4 and 5 of PITA stands confirmed. Appellant to surrender to bail bonds. Issue conviction warrant against the appellant for taking her in custody for undergoing the remaining sentence.