Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 415 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Seema

2024-06-14

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) Heard learned counsel for the parties on Delay Condonation Application. 2. As per office report, there is a delay of 72 days in filing the Government Appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Since, the reasons given by the State in the Delay Condonation Application supported by the affidavit, are sufficient and well explained, therefore, the delay in filing the government appeal is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) made therefor is allowed. Special Leave to Appeal No.214 of 2014 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Leave to Appeal Application. 4. This leave to appeal has been preferred by the State/ appellant against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.77 of 2019 State Vs. Seema and Another, whereby, the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them under Sections 370(1)(2), 354, 342 IPC and Section 4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 5. It is the case of the prosecution in short that Anti Human Trafficking Cell, Haridwar got certain information on 29.09.2014 that the respondent/accused Seema has rented an accommodation in Tehri Visthapit Colony, Ranipur, Haridwar, where, she was running a sex racket business with co-accused Shahnawaz (who died during trial). At this information, Inspector Vijay Chandra Singh Gusain along with police party went to the house in-question and knocked the door at around 04:00 PM; after some time, one woman and a man came out in objectionable position. In the other room, 04 women/victims were found sitting in a corner; on being questioned, the woman told her name as Seema w/o Bablu @ Ramesh Jaat, R/o Shagna Police Station Purkaji, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh and the person found in objectionable condition revealed his name as Satish, S/o Shivcharan, R/o Ramdham Colony Mahdood Thana Ranipur Haridwar. On being searched from the left pocket of trousers, two condoms of masti brand were recovered and a Samsung mobile black Reliance Sim No. 9358797670 and two notes of 100 Rs. were recovered. On being searched from the left pocket of trousers, two condoms of masti brand were recovered and a Samsung mobile black Reliance Sim No. 9358797670 and two notes of 100 Rs. were recovered. The another person, who revealed his name Shahnawaz (deceased), was also searched and on being searched, a Samsung Duo black colored mobile Sim No.8495419671 from left pocket of trouser and another Carbon A-51 mobile Sim No.8006306994 from another pocket, were recovered and from the back pocket of trouser, three notes of Rs.100/- and visiting card were also found from the black vallet. The recovered mobiles were sealed and the vallet and notes were sealed in a white cloth and fard was prepared. In another room, four women were found and on being asked one-by one, they told their name and address. One gave her name as Lovely D/o Aino Sheikh, R/o Gali No.2, Simb Nagar, Indira Camp, Maharani Bag, Delhi and told that Shanawaz had brought her from Delhi on the pretext of getting work in Haridwar and pushed her into this prostitution business by threatening and committing maarpeet. She told that she is originally from Calcutta; she was kept hostage and not allowed to go anywhere; she did not want to stay there and asked the police to save her; on being searched, a mobile phone was recovered from her possession. The second victim gave her name as Chinki d/o Harish Chand, R/o Sarafa Bazar, Thana Kotwali Muzaffarnagar; she told that Shahnawaz brought her to Seema on the pretext of job and pushed her to prostitution business; she also informed the police that the respondents/accused persons also charged thousands of money for introducing them to the customers; on being searched, a mobile phone and one white lady’s bag was recovered from her. The third victim told her name Farhana D/o Mohd. Hanif, R/o Sarvat Peeth, Thana Kotwali Muzaffarnagar and the fourth victim told her name as Sonia @ Annu D/o Subhash Kashyap, R/o Shakumbhari Vihar, Thana Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. They both told that they were pushed into this business and were brought there on the pretext of giving employment. 6. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the respondents/accused persons and Shanawaz were brought for trial by the prosecution; they denied charges and claimed trial. 7. They both told that they were pushed into this business and were brought there on the pretext of giving employment. 6. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the respondents/accused persons and Shanawaz were brought for trial by the prosecution; they denied charges and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW-1 Vijay Chandra Singh Gusain, PW-2 Head Constable Usha Dhyani, PW-3 Annu @ Sonia, PW-4 Constable 218 Vikram Singh, PW-5 S.I. Deepak Kathait and PW-6 Inspector Yogendra Singh (Retd.), before the learned trial court to prove its case against the respondents/accused persons and documentary evidences were also produced. 8. Learned trial court did not find favour with the prosecution version and by reason of the judgment and order dated 30.11.2023, acquitted the respondents/accused persons as stated in Para 4 of this judgment. However, the proceedings against accused Shanawaz were abated on 12.09.2022, as he died during the pendency of the aforesaid trial. 9. The reasons which have been cited by the learned trial court for recording the findings of the acquittal against the accused persons are that out of 04 victims, only PW-3 Annu @ Sonia was produced by the prosecution during trial, but she did not support the prosecution version and categorically stated in her evidence before the Court that on 29.09.2014, she came to visit Haridwar and on search of job; she has no knowledge about respondents/accused persons Seema, Satish and deceased Shanawaz; she never went to the house of Seema; they never forced her into prostitution nor did her parents force her to do anything wrong. The police had caught her from Har ki Pairi, Haridwar not from Seema’s house. She did not know the other victims and in cross-examination, she told that she never met any of them before. Out of 04 victims, only one was examined, and, therefore, learned trial court did not believe the story of the prosecution. Even in their statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., all the victims stated that they came to Haridwar for visit and police arrested them. 10. Out of 04 victims, only one was examined, and, therefore, learned trial court did not believe the story of the prosecution. Even in their statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., all the victims stated that they came to Haridwar for visit and police arrested them. 10. Since, learned trial court has found no evidence against the respondents/accused persons and even, PW-3 did not support the case of prosecution, therefore, learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar came to this conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondents/ accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and giving them benefit of doubt, and, accordingly, acquitted respondents/accused persons. 11. Having heard learned State Counsel and having gone through the judgment and order dated 30.11.2023 impugned in the present leave to appeal application, we do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. 12. Consequently, Government Appeal No.133 of 2024 is also dismissed.