- (1.) These two appeals have been taken up for hearing together as both the appeals are arising out of same judgment and order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 395 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellants along with three others for committing offence under Sections 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine. Sanjib Singh alias Sanjit Kumar Singh alias Indradev Singh has preferred C.R.A. No. 521 of 2010 while Bimal Sarkar has preferred C.R.A. 536 of 2010. Both the appellants have taken similar grounds in their appeal against the judgment. The grounds they have taken are stated below: (a) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective as far as these two appellants are concerned; (b) that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration the fact that both the appellants, being drivers of hired vehicles, were no way connected with the alleged immoral trafficking; (c) that the learned Trial Court wrongly interpreted that they were taking in order to justify the judgment for conviction; (d) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses, specially the victim girls, who categorically stated that the vehicles, which were driven by these two appellants, were hired from Barasat; (e) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellants had no intention to procure or obtain the victims for the purpose of prostitution; (f) that the judgement, being otherwise bad in law as far as these two appellants are concerned, is liable to be set aside.
(2.) Both the appeals are covered by this common judgment below:
(3.) The factual aspects of the prosecution case, on the basis of which the trial commenced in the learned Trial Court, in short, is stated below:;