MORJINA BIBI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was directed against the order of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore under Section 366 read with Sections 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

(2.) Shortly put the petitioner's case is that accused Marjina Bibi took Rupa Mondal to Bombay assuring her to give job as maid servant from Canning on 17.01.2007 but instead of giving her any job Marjina Bibi sold Rupa to a prostitute quarter and when Rupa did not give consent to this immoral job then she and her minor son were assaulted and tortured and compelled her to carry on the work of prostitution. One day she fled away and lodged a complaint on the basis of the complaint police took up investigation of this case and submitted charge sheet against Marjina Bibi under Sections 366 and 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Hence the prosecution case.

(3.) From the side of prosecution in order to bring home the charge leveled against Marjina Bibi eight witnesses were examined including Rupa Mondal as P.W. 1., P.W. 2 Manoj Naskar, P.W. 3 Sandhya Naskar happens to be the parents of Rupa. P.W. 4 Gita Biswas has been declared hostile by the prosecution and remain unshaken during the course of the cross examination and her oral testimony did not help the prosecution case in any way. P.W. 5 Sumitra Roy, worker of Garanbose Gram Bikash Kendra under Canning P.S. It is a drafted complaint as per the instruction of Rupa and read over and explained the same to Rupa and thereafter signed on it. Admittedly Sumitra Roy (P.W. 5) has no knowledge about the alleged incident only she drafted the petition of compliant. Jhuma Hari was examined as P.W. 6 she went to Bombay along with Rupa and on the V.T. Station she was detained by the T.T.E. as she was travelling within ticket and police send her back to the home. She contended that she cannot say whether Rupa has gone along with Marjina. During the course of the cross-examination Jhuma Hari contended that she is not stated anything to police but it was her admission that she went to Bombay along with Rupa with Marjina Bibi. Gobinda Kundu was examined as P.W. 7 and he was a police A.S.I, attached to Usthi P.S. He received the complaint and as per direction of O.C. endorsed the same and the case was handed over to S.I.K. Debnath for investigation. So, it is needless to mention that P.W, 7 is also a formal witness. P.W. 8 Pradip Kr. Chakraborty was the I.O. of this case. These eight witnesses examined from the prosecution side. Though P.W. 4 as I discussed earlier has not stated anything against the accused. P.W. 5 Sumitra Roy is a formal witness. P.W. 2 Jhuma Hari accompanied with Rupa to Bombay but she was detained by the T.T.E. sent back to West Bengal and she frankly admitted that it was unable for her to state whether Rupa went with Marjina but she admitted that during the course of the cross examination that Rupa went to Bombay along with Marjina P.W. 7 as I pointed out as a formal witness. P.W. 8 Pradip Chakraborty is the I.O. of this case. In view of aforesaid discussion it is crystal clear that the entire prosecution case depends upon the ocular version of P.W. 1 - P.W. 3 and to some extent Jhuma Hari who is examined as P.W. 6. According to Rupa (P.W. 1) she was married and Marjina a resident of Canning came to her for a job of maid servant in Kolkata with a lucrative salary. Rupa was accompanied by Jhuma Hari and all of them went to Bombay as per advice of Marjina where Jhuma was detained at V.T. Station and send back to Kolkata. Rupa escaped with Marjina and went to a prostitute area. Marjina took Rupa and her son in a house at Bombay and engaged her in immoral work. Rupa protested as a result she was mercilessly beaten by Marjina Bibi. The ocular version of Rupa she duly corroborated by her parents and Jhuma. After perusal of entire evidence on record I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. It was needless to mention that there are minor discrepancies here and there but that does not damage the entire prosecution story. Furthermore, it is very vital in this case as I analyze that Rupa and her parents were cross-examined at length by the learned Lawyer for the defence but could not restrict anything from them and they remain unshaken during the course of the cross-examination which proves the prosecution case to the point.