JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The challenge in these appeals are to the judgment of Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Track 2nd Court Alipore, passed in S.T. No. 6(4) 09 under section 366B/120B/ 372/373 of I.P.C. directing the conviction of the appellants namely Sugbey alias Sumitra Devi and Sakina Bibi under the aforesaid sections. Since these appeals arose from the same incident and from the same judgment, so on consent of the parties both these appeals are to be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. According to the appellants, learned trial court was totally oblivious to the factual aspects and legal aspects and failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives. 3. In the interest of effective adjudication factual aspects needs to be recapitulated. By way of prefatory observation it can be said that if anybody wants to go through the F.I.R. with his inner eyes, he would see that the F.I.R. was not written by ink but by tears. This weeping victim is a Bangladeshi National. She developed an intimacy with one Sohag (Md. Wahidul Islam Molla) and that Sohag proposed her for a short trip. He took the victim to Jessore and handed over her to an unknown person, who ultimately sold her to a brothel situated at Khidirpur. The appellant Sakina Bibi used to look after her and in lieu of that the victim delivered her income, which she received by way of satisfying about 15 to 16 lusty brutes per day. The place is unknown to her and she had to stay there for about 4 months. She ventilated her suffocating experience. Ultimately the police recovered her. 4. In order to prove the case prosecution has produced 9 witnesses from their gallery. PW-1 i.e. victim deposed in this case. PW-2 and PW-3 are the witnesses to the seizure list, PW-4 is the doctor, who had examined the victim, PW-5 to PW-7 are the Judicial Magistrates, and PW-8 is the member of the raiding party and PW-9 is the Investigating Officer. In such cases it cannot be expected that other sex workers would come to depose. Therefore, the victim herself is the best witness. In her evidence, she stated as to how Sohag allured her and how she arrived at Khidirpur. There is no dispute that she is a Bangladeshi National. In such cases it cannot be expected that other sex workers would come to depose. Therefore, the victim herself is the best witness. In her evidence, she stated as to how Sohag allured her and how she arrived at Khidirpur. There is no dispute that she is a Bangladeshi National. In course of her evidence in chief she has stated that she had love affairs with one Sohag, who assured to marry her and requested to her to come to India. She responded and thereafter, Sohag brought her and ultimately she was handed over to the appellant Sakina Bibi and Sumitra Devi and she was kept there under their custody. In that night, she slept alone in a room. In the morning she asked Sakina about the whereabouts of Sohag and Sakina told that Sohag has already left. However, Sakina provided her food and brought her to the accommodation of Sumitra Devi. In that accommodation, she was provided with skirt and ganjee etc. and she was asked to stand on the gate of the building. Customers of that red light area used to give her money and she had to hand over the same to. Sakina and Sumitra Devi. Thereafter she was taken in a room and the said person raped her forcibly. In such a fashion she had to satisfy 15 to 16 customers per day and when she refused she was threatened with dire consequence. She identified the accused appellant before the Court. Thereafter, her statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate. She also identified the accused appellant in court and jail also. In course of cross-examination, she has also given an ocular manifestation of her statement. She categorically stated that there was a liquor shop just opposite to her accommodation. By putting some questions to her, the appellants took the stand that the victim could have come out from the situation, if at all she wanted. Referring her statements in cross-examination that many houses are there in or around the said red light area, buses and rickshaws are being plied, at the back side there is a road and that there is police Camp, mosque and liquor shop, the counsel argued that there was a chance of her coming out from the said accommodation. He added that she could have taken the help of neighbours. In our tradition bound non-permissive society everybody frowns upon such sex-workers. He added that she could have taken the help of neighbours. In our tradition bound non-permissive society everybody frowns upon such sex-workers. Nobody takes care of them rather used to avoid them. In our country, sex workers' profession are viewed obliquely. Police camp may be there but normally they do not take any action unless reported. Who would report to the police personnel is a big question. Not only that sometimes some persons patronises the flesh traders for some known and unknown reasons. When she was recovered by the police, she was kept in 'Sukanya Home' and then she mustered courage and deposed in detail. On Perusal of her evidence it seems to me that one can visualise what happened to the victim. 5. It was also argued by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that for the purpose of coming to India from Bangladesh, a passport is required and if it is so, how the victim came to India is a matter to be explained by the prosecution. Infiltration in our country from Bangladesh is not unknown. In many occasions, some people came to India through border by obliging the officials who are entrusted to see it and sometimes by throwing dust in the eyes of law enforcing agencies, they manage to come to India. This is a stern reality, which a court of law cannot ignore. There is no challenge that the victim is not a resident of Bangladesh and at the same time there is no challenge that the victim was recovered from a red light area of Khidirpur. Admittedly Sohag, who had allured victim to come to India is a Bangladeshi National. There is no suggestion given to the victim that she did not have any acquaintance with the said Sohag. The seizure list prepared by the police goes to show that she was recovered from the brothel. There is no dispute that the victim was in her teens. Even by way of stretching imagination, it cannot be said that the police has brought the victim from Bangladesh and kept her, in the brothel only to implicate these appellants. Anti-trafficking section of Detective Department has recovered the victim. Local police station was completely cynical about such type of sex racket. Even by way of stretching imagination, it cannot be said that the police has brought the victim from Bangladesh and kept her, in the brothel only to implicate these appellants. Anti-trafficking section of Detective Department has recovered the victim. Local police station was completely cynical about such type of sex racket. How Sohag brought her by crossing the border either by himself or by some other means, is within the special knowledge of the appellants. 6. This ill-omened lady was in her teens had given an ocular manifestation of her said plight before the police, Judicial Magistrates, and finally before the trial court. She faced cross-examination and stood like a 'Rock of Gibraltar'. Staking her honour and knowing it fully well that her chance of marriage, and rehabilitation is very remote she disclosed everything. Why she would tell a lie and what did she gain by implicating the appellants is a question of billion dollars. On a careful scrutiny of her evidence I find impress of truth in it. The argument that without a passport how could she come to India would no tenure any dividend to the appellants. Therefore, such argument is demonstratably unsustainable. 7. The seizure list proved by PW-2 and PW-3 goes to show that she was recovered from the brothel and defence could not shake their evidence. 8. The doctor concerned has opined, after a radiological examination that the victim was in between 15 to 17 years. The doctor concerned categorically stated that on the basis of radiological examination he has come to the conclusion. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that law demands that there are must be plus and minus two years theory to be added or deducted from the age ascertained by the doctor. He further argued that if two views are possible, the view which helps the accused has to be taken into consideration. On perusal of the evidence of the doctor, I find that he came to the conclusion only on the basis of position of teeth and nothing else. 9. It is perhaps needless to say that the medical evidence about age should be quite precise, and be diligently given. If the doctor has not worked out relevant scientific investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the age, his statement does not amount to legal proof and is not better than that the opinion of a layman. 9. It is perhaps needless to say that the medical evidence about age should be quite precise, and be diligently given. If the doctor has not worked out relevant scientific investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the age, his statement does not amount to legal proof and is not better than that the opinion of a layman. The expert opinion of the doctor as to age is a relevant and important piece of evidence. Although it is a different matter, what weight the court will attach to it, in its assessment. To ascertain the age, the doctor is required to consider the result of examination of teeth, height, weight and also ossification test. The ossification test refers to the radiographic (X-ray) examination of the bones of children and young people up to about the age of twenty, to assess their age by the appearance of ossifications centres in the very young and the time of fusion of the epiphyses (separate centres of ossification at the ends of long bones and in parts of others) with the main body of the bone (metaphyses), There is a general progression of such appearance and fusion, so that an approximate time table can be constructed up to about the age of 20 years. 10. It is axiomatic truth that the determination of the age on tests based on physical peculiarities, (where test of ossification has not been done) is generally not very certain. Where the opinion of the doctor was formed on judging by the teeth, appearance and voice, from the time immoral the Court observes that a certificate based on it is worthless. The said proposition has been accepted since the decision of Privy Council. The indication of age afforded by appearance of wisdom teeth is notoriously untrustworthy. In this instant case, the said doctor did not ascertain the age by way of ossification. There are catena of decisions that opinions based on fusion of epiphyses of the bones is more trustworthy than that of other test. Therefore, the opinion given by the concerned doctor is wholly unacceptable. 11. According to the victim, she was 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence. The said offence was reported in the year 2007 and at the time of deposition i.e. in 2009, she stated that her age was 18 years. Therefore, the opinion given by the concerned doctor is wholly unacceptable. 11. According to the victim, she was 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence. The said offence was reported in the year 2007 and at the time of deposition i.e. in 2009, she stated that her age was 18 years. There was no challenge made by the appellant in course of cross-examination regarding her age. Therefore, the opinion given by the doctor cannot be accepted, on the contrary the victim's own statement has to be accepted in the absence of proper medical examination. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Sugbey @ Sumitra Devi argued that his client is in no way connected with the alleged offence. She never imported the so called victim from Bangladesh nor enticed away the girl for engaging her as a sex worker. He submits even for argument sake she at best may be the landlord (although challenged that she is not the owner of that house) but that does not mean that she is involved in the commission of crime. The victim girl at the time of deposition categorically stated that the other appellant Sakina delivered her in the custody of this Sugbey @ Sumitra Devi. The victim had to deliver her income from prostitution to this lady and Sakina and in turn she has provided her food and the victim was asked to stand on the footpath to attract the customers of sex. She has identified the appellants on dock also. Her such evidence has not been demolished in course of cross-examination. It is true that Sugbey did not import her from Bangladesh but she had taken the custody of the victim and kept her in her room and exploited her by engaging her as a prostitute. Therefore, her involvement in the commission of offence under section 373 is amply proved. In the interest of academic discussion the relevant provision is quoted below: "S. 373. Therefore, her involvement in the commission of offence under section 373 is amply proved. In the interest of academic discussion the relevant provision is quoted below: "S. 373. Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of any person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation I.-Any prostitute or any person keeping or managing a brothel, who buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of a female under the age of eighteen years shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have obtained possession of such female with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution. Explanation II.-"Illicit intercourse" has the same meaning as in section 372." 13. The said section speaks if anybody buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of any person under the age of 18 years and if that lady is used for the purpose of prostitution then section 373 of I.P.C. lies. Here Sakina Bibi had taken the victim to this accused/appellant who in turn, provided her a room, food and clothing and in lieu thereof she had compelled the victim to be sexually exploited. The very word "otherwise, obtains possession of any person" indicates without buying or hiring if anybody obtains possession of such person, who is under the age of 18 years comes within the ambit of section 373 of I.P.C. It is true that she has not committed any offence under section 366B of I.P.C. but committed an offence under section 366A I.P.C. 14. There is no direct evidence that Sakina Bibi imported this girl from Bangladesh or from the State of Jammu & Kashmir, so she cannot be punished under section 366B of I.P.C. but from the evidence on record it is crystal clear that she induced the victim, who is under the age of 18 years to do an act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she shall be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse to another person. This Sakina Bibi had delivered the victim under the custody of other appellant Sugbey so that the victim becomes a sex worker under the custody of Sugbey. It is in evidence that Sohag had delivered money to Sakina Bibi. Therefore, intention of Sakina Bibi was very clear. Accordingly, instead of section 366B she should be punished under section 366A of I.P.C. Although charge is not framed under section 366A of I.P.C. yet for the said offence no separate charge is necessary. The accused appellants cross-examined the prosecution witnesses at length. So, they will not be prejudiced. 15. On a synoptical resume of the entire evidence on record and the documents which are exhibited, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the case under section 366A/372 of I.P.C. against the appellant Sakina Bibi and section 373 of I.P.C. in respect of the appellant Sugbey @ Sumitra. 16. One has to understand that a girl, who is the victim of trafficking not only suffers from sexual trauma, but also suffers from the agony of being ostracised by the society and thus became a victim of being socially handicapped. Very recently National Crime Records Bureau's Report speaks that West Bengal is on the top of the list. Certainly judiciary has to play an effective role to curtail the rate of such crime by imposing adequate sentence within the legal frame work. 17. Accordingly, these criminal appeals failed. The appellants Sakina Bibi is hereby found guilty under section 366A and 373 of I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence committed under section 366A/373 of I.P.C. and the appellant Sugbey is hereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence committed under section 366A/373 of I.P.C. and the appellant Sugbey is hereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence committed under section 372/373 of I.P.C. The period of detention already undergone shall be set off accordingly. If the fine is realised from the convicts, 50% of the same shall be paid to the victim towards compensation through Bangladesh High Commission because the victim is a Bangladeshi National. The Criminal appeals are dismissed. Let a copy of this order and LCR be sent to the learned Court below at once for information and taking necessary action.