JUDGMENT Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP. 2. The appellant/original accused herein is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months respectively by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur vide judgment and order dated 29th October 2014 in Sessions Case No. 164 of 2012. 3. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows : The appellant/original accused and the victim were residing in the same locality at Siddheshwar Nagar. They both were working in a factory on daily wages. The victim was earning wages to the extent of Rs.100/- per day after working for twelve hours and therefore she had ventilated her grievances before the appellant that the wages earned by her are meagre compared to the workload. The appellant had soon realised that the victim is vulnerable and therefore she had expressed that she could offer her a job which would yield Rs.500/- for one hour work. She had given no time to the victim to think about the offer by threatening her that in the eventuality she took time to think, there were several women who were seeking such job and that she would be constrained to offer the same to them. In such circumstances, the victim accompanied the appellant/accused. She was sent with strangers and gradually introduced to prostitution. The victim was further lured with an idea that if she had shifted to Mumbai, she would be in a better position to earn. The victim had succumbed to the said temptation and finally on 28th September 2011 had left the house of her parents at the instance of the appellant. She was sent alongwith a male person to Mumbai. The man had handed over the victim to the next link i.e. the brothel keeper. In the meanwhile the appellant/accused had informed the brothel keeper and the agent that the mother of the victim had filed a missing complaint. The appellant/accused was scared that she would be exposed to prosecution and therefore had recalled the victim. The victim was sent back to Solapur and was dropped at Akkalkot road. In the meanwhile the appellant/accused had informed the brothel keeper and the agent that the mother of the victim had filed a missing complaint. The appellant/accused was scared that she would be exposed to prosecution and therefore had recalled the victim. The victim was sent back to Solapur and was dropped at Akkalkot road. The victim returned home and narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother had then approached the police and lodged a report, on the basis of which, C.R. No. 176 of 2011 came to be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 328 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 4. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, the case rests upon the evidence of PW-1 Fatima Kareem Mujawar, mother of the victim and the victim herself. The date of birth of the victim is 29th November 1995 and the date on which she was taken for the purpose of trafficking is 20th September 2011, that is the victim was hardly 16 years old at the time of incident. 5. The prosecution has examined PW-6, Shivshri Mrutyunjay Nilange, the Medical Officer, E.S.I.C. Hospital, Solapur, who has stated that PW-1, mother of the victim had given birth to the victim in E.S.I.C. Hospital. He has placed on record the extract to substantiate that the date of birth of the victim is 29th November 1995. The Birth Certificate is at Exhibit 34. The Birth Register/ Janan Warta are maintained in normal course of the business and are public documents. It is the defence of the appellant/accused that the victim had voluntarily withdrawn herself from the custody of her mother and had voluntarily entered into the prostitution. Being a minor, volition of the victim cannot be taken into consideration. 6. Pw-1 Fatima Kareem Mujawar is the mother of the victim and has deposed before the Court that the house of the appellantaccused is hardly 5 to 6 houses far from her own house. That the appellant-accused was on visiting terms to her house and thereafter had got acquainted with her daughter. When PW-1 had realised that the appellant-accused has a doubtful character, she had discontinued her daughter from accompanying the appellant-accused to work. That the appellant-accused was on visiting terms to her house and thereafter had got acquainted with her daughter. When PW-1 had realised that the appellant-accused has a doubtful character, she had discontinued her daughter from accompanying the appellant-accused to work. According to her on 20th at midnight, she realised that her daughter was not at home. She had suspected that her daughter must have gone to visit the appellant and therefore she rushed to the house of the appellant and found that she was also not at home and therefore she lodged a missing report, which is at Exhibit 31. After returning on 23rd, the victim had informed her mother that the appellant had sent her with one boy on motorcycle to the Railway Station. She also informed that few weeks ago, she was taken to Kondhi and handed over to a man for sexual relations. Hence, PW-1 had lodged a report, which is at Exhibit 21. A suggestion was given to the witness that the date of birth of the victim is 29th November 1992, however, PW-1 has clarified that she did not remember the date of birth. In any case, the documents are on record, which would show that the victim was born in 1995. According to PW-1, she had checked the purse of her daughter in which she found certain tablets and upon enquiry, her daughter had disclosed that the appellant had given the tablet to her so that she feels drowsy. PW-1 had shown those tablets to the Police but as usual, unfortunately, the Police had not seized the tablets and sent it for forensic examination and therefore the charge under Section 328 of Indian Penal Code could not be sustained. 7. Pw-2 is the victim herself. She was studying in Urdu High School in 7th standard and could not read and right Marathi. She has categorically stated that she was lured by offering Rs.500/- per day. That the appellant used to take her at about 11.00 am. to 12.00 noon everyday and she was giving her a tablet. In the eventuality, she refused to take the tablet, she was administered the same forcefully. After consuming the said tablet, PW-2 used to feel giddiness and then she was handed over to some man. The said incident had taken place for more than 4-5 times. to 12.00 noon everyday and she was giving her a tablet. In the eventuality, she refused to take the tablet, she was administered the same forcefully. After consuming the said tablet, PW-2 used to feel giddiness and then she was handed over to some man. The said incident had taken place for more than 4-5 times. That the victim was given Rs.500/- to 600/- per week instead of per day and she was threatened by the appellant that in the eventuality she disclosed it, she herself would be exposed. PW-2 has categorically stated that on 20th September 2011, the appellant-accused had handed her over to a man, who had covered his face. The said man had taken her to the Railway Station on the motorcycle. He had given her in the custody of another lady and a man and then she was taken to Mumbai. That as soon as she alighted on the Railway Station, the said lady received a call from the appellant who informed about the missing report filed by the mother of the victim and hence she was brought back home. A suggestion was given to the witness that she has given the said evidence or rather she had initiated prosecution at the instance of one Ejaz Bagwan who is the Corporator of the said area. Despite several dodges, the victim could not be shattered in the crossexamination. The tenor of the cross-examination would show that the accused had made a frail attempt to suggest that the victim girl had eloped with a boy and then she was chased by her mother. The victim had stood the test of cross-examination. 8. Pw-7, Uttam Madhukar Jadhav is the investigating officer who has elaborated the conduct of the appellant. He has deposed before the court that upon receipt of missing complaint, he had called the appellant and Ambika Swami through lady police constable and had enquired with them. He has stated that when the accused was called for enquiry, an advocate had come to the police station and asked as to why his client has been called in the police station and thereafter the appellant-accused was released by the police. He had then received M.L.C. of the victim. On 23rd September 2011, the victim and her mother had been to the police station and their statements were recorded in presence of the members of Mahila Dakshata Samittee. He had then received M.L.C. of the victim. On 23rd September 2011, the victim and her mother had been to the police station and their statements were recorded in presence of the members of Mahila Dakshata Samittee. The victim had disclosed to the police fairly all that she had to go through during the preceding two days. At the time of causing arrest, the appellant had even gone to the extent of threatening PW-7 in the words as "Mere nad ko mat lago, nahito mai tumko kam ko lagaungi". PW-7 had conducted investigation as per rules. PW-7 has categorically admitted that "It is true that I have not investigated as stated by the complainant regarding the tablets given to the victim". 9. In view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and taking into consideration the sterling testimony of PW-2 and PW-1, it can be safely inferred that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant-accused had used the services of minor girl to earn her own living. The victim was lured by the appellant. The victim was a minor and had fallen prey to the offer made by the appellant. It appears that this is a case of human trafficking. It was incumbent upon the police to trace the other links in the same chain of trafficking but the investigating agency has conducted a restricted investigation only pertaining to the victim. It was incumbent upon the investigation to trace the persons who had taken the victim to Mumbai. It was the duty of the investigating officer to take the investigation to it''s logical end and only then several young vulnerable girls could be saved from such people like the appellant. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. 10. The professional fees to be paid to Mr. Ovalekar are quantified as per rules to be paid by High Court Legal Aid Services Committee.