2618 NAFR 1 - Rajesh Goswami S/o Gorelal Goshwami Aged About 30 Years R/o v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Bango, District Korba
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.03.04 13:46:30 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 984 of 2018 2025:CGHC:2618 NAFR 1 - Rajesh Goswami S/o Gorelal Goshwami Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sayar, Police Station Udaipur, Sarguja Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Kotmarra, P. S. Pasan District Korba Chhattisgarh. versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) --- Appellant CRA No. 346 of 2018 1 - Shambhu Prasad Agrahari S/o Jugal Kishor Aged About 50 Years R/o Bidanv, P.S. Koushambi, District Koushambi U. P. Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) ---Appellant CRA No. 445 of 2018 1 - Anit Kumar Gupta S/o Sharda Prasad Aged About 44 Years R/o Premnagar, Agra, P. S. Shahganj, Distt. Agra U. P. 2 - Kailash Kumar S/o Harbeer Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Railway Colony Alladeen, Kaangala, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh. -- Respondent(s) --- Appellants CRA No. 611 of 2018 1 - Smt. Nisha Bai W/o Late Mahendra Panika, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Kotmarra, Police Station Pasan, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Parvati Panika, W/o Ram Manohar, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Kotmarra, Police Station Pasan, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Versus --- Appellants 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bango, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 2 CRA No. 1085 of 2018 1 - Keshwar Goswami S/o Shri Ramthel Aged About 40 Years R/o Sayar Police Station Udaypur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bango District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) --- Appellant For Appellants For Respondent : : Shri Shailendra Dubey, Shri Rajesh Jain, Shri Vinod Tekam, Shri Aman Kesharwani and Shri Sidharth Dubey, Advocates. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 15.01. 202 5 1. Though, all these appeals are listed in the motion hearing list for further hearing, however, with the consent of the parties, the matters are being heard finally. 2. All these appeals arise out of same crime number, same sessions trial and by a common judgment, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 3. All the appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: Appellant/Accused Conviction Sentence Rajesh Goswami 420 IPC In CRA No.984 of 2018 RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment, additional RI for 1 month. 366, 368, 370 RI for 7-7 years and fine of Rs.500- 3 IPC 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1-1 month Shambhu Prasad Agrhari (In CRA No.346 of 2018) 366, 368, 370 IPC RI for 7-7 years and fine of Rs.500- 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1-1 month. Anit Kumar Gupta & Kailash Kumar (In CRA No.445 of 2018) 368 & 370 IPC RI for 7-7 years and fine of Rs.500- 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1-1 month.
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Nisha Bai & Smt. Parvati Bai 366, 368, 370 IPC. (In CRA No.611 of 2018) RI for 7-7 years and fine of Rs.500- 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1-1 month. Keshwar Goswami (In CRA No.1085 of 2018) 366, 368, 370 IPC RI for 7-7 years and fine of Rs.500- 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1-1 month 420 IPC RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, victim PW-1, is a married lady having two children. She was residing at village Tulsibhawna along with her husband and children. Since she was not having good health, she had gone to her maternal aunt’s house in the year, 2016 at village Mareya, District Surguja, where her maternal aunt was taking treatment by exorcism where the victim also asked to play exorcism upon her so that she could feel good and then she exchanged her mobile number and address with the appellant Kamlesh Goswami. After some days, the appellant Kamlesh Goswami called and asked her to come at Madanpur to take him to her house. The appellant Kamlesh Goswami played exorcism in the house of victim for whole night, cooked chicken and taken Rs.1500/- cash. After some days, he again came to her house along with his friend Keshwar and again played exorcism and taken Rs.1200/-. The act of playing exorcism was repeatedly done by the appellant Kamlesh and ultimately he influenced her to go to 4 Gorakhpur for effective exorcism. On that day also they cooked meat there and obtained consideration. On 02.03.2016 the appellant Rajesh came to her house in guise of Sadhu and asked her to come to Gorakhpur with him. Despite her protest, he took her with him. Firstly, she had gone to her parents house where she left her children and then appellant Rajesh took her to village Chotiya and from Chotiya she was taken to village Jadga and ultimately to Pendra Road. At Pendra Road, they met with appellant Parvati Bai and Nisha Bai and they also influenced the victim to go to Gorakhpur and then they boarded train from Pendra Road and proceeded towards Allahabad. The appellant Rajesh asked her not to disclose about her previous marriage and convincing her for her second marriage. The appellant Parvati Bai and Nisha Bai were also pressurizing her not to disclose about her previous marriage. They took the victim to Allahabad where victim Shambhu Prasad met them and all of them took the victim from Allahabad to Agra by train. They stayed in the house of appellant Anit Kumar Gupta where the appellant Kailash was also present. The appellant Kailash was having photographs of four different girls and after selling the victim for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- in the house of appellant Anit Kumar Gupta, the appellant Shambhu, Rajesh, Parvati Bai and Nisha Bai returned back to there house. The victim was residing in the house of Anit Kumar Gupta and ultimately she made a telephonic call to her sister from the mobile phone of appellant Anit Kumar and informed that she has been sold at Agra and informed the entire incident to her. Her sister, in turn, informed about he incident to her brother in law (husband of victim) 5 and then they lodged a report on 08.03.2016 at Police Station Morga. On 08.03.2016 a missing report was registered by the police and then the police party went to Agra to take her back. They were in contact with the appellant Anit Kumar through his mobile phone. When Anit Kumar Gupta came to railway station Agra, the police party caught hold him. On being interrogated with the help of Shahganj Police, Agra, he disclosed that the victim is in his house and then victim was recovered from there. The appellant Kailash was also taken into custody and photographs of number of girls were recovered from him. The accused persons were taken to police Station Bango and then their arrest memo were prepared. On 11.03.2016 itself, from the appellant Rajesh, the bronze utensils, Dhoti Towel, Red colour thread, vermilion and herbal medicines and mobile phone were seized. On 12.03.2016 mobile phone of appellant Anit Kumar Gupta was also seized. Mobile phones were seized from appellant Kamlesh and Nisha Bai, motorcycle and mobile phone were seized from appellant Keshwar and Mobile phone of sister of the victim was also seized. Shambhu Prasad was put to Test Identification Parade (in short, TIP) which was conducted by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Morga and victim has duly identified the appellant Shambhu Prasad and then his mobile phone was also seized. 5. The statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 420, 366, 368, 370/34 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, 6 Korba from where the same has been transferred to the trial court for its trial. 6. The trial court has framed charge against the appellants Anit Kumar Gupta and Kailash for the offence under Section 370 and 368 IPC, against the appellant Rajesh, Kamlesh and Keshwar for the offence under Sections 420, 366, 368 and 370 IPC, against the appellants Nisha Bai, Shambhu Prasad Agrahati and Parvati Panika for the offence under Sections 366, 368 and 370 IPC. The accused person denied the charge and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused persons have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 8. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Hence these appeals. 9. Learned counsel for the respective appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis for their conviction. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution that the appellants have allured the victim, pressurized and took her for the purposes of human trafficking. The victim herself was ready to go with the appellants for the purpose of exorcism and she travelled up to 7 Allahabad and Agra without raising any objection and complaint to anyone. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, it reflects that victim came into knowledge that she was being taken by the accused persons for the purposes of her second marriage, despite that she has not raised any alarm and not protested. Rather, she was ready for her second marriage and she travelled up to Allahabad and Agra. There is no ingredients of either cheating or abducting the victim or even the human trafficking. The conviction has been made only on the apprehension that victim was being abducted by the accused persons for the purpose of human trafficking. Therefore, there is lack of cogent and clinching evidence against the appellants and under the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence available on record, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt and they may be acquitted from all the charges. Learned counsel for the appellant– Keshwar Goswami would submit that there is no allegation against Keshwar that in any manner he abducted or connected with the other accused persons for human trafficking. The only allegation against Keshwar is that he dishonestly deceives the victim to receive certain money from her on the pretext of playing exorcism. Therefore, his offence at the most is made out only under Section 420 IPC for dishonestly receiving money from her. He has already undergone sufficient jail sentence and therefore his sentence may be considered to be sufficient for the offence of Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Nisha Bai, Parvati Bai and Shambhu, would submit that there is no allegation against them that they, in any manner, allured or pressurized her to go to Allahabad 8 and Agra. There is no connection with the other appellants and they were only the co-passengers with the victim up to Allahabad. Being co- passenger, they developed friendship with victim, but neither allured her nor assisted the other accused persons in any offence. Learned counsel for the appellant Anit Kumar Gupta and Rajesh Goswami would submit that there is no material collected by the prosecution that victim was being sold or they engaged in human trafficking or oven they tried to sell the victim while she was residing in the house of appellant Anit Kumar. The victim came there in search of her livelihood along with other persons and she was a tenant in the house of appellant Anit Kumar. He, in any manner, is not involved in human trafficking. There is no allegation against him that he has made any attempt to sell her to any other person. The ingredients of Section 370 IPC are missing in the case and the appellants cannot be convicted for human trafficking and they are entitled for their acquittal. 10. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the submissions and would submit that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses the guilt of the appellants have duly been proved. The victim PW-1 have categorically deposed the role played by each of the accused persons and the manner in which she was being taken to Allahabad and Agra. She also disclosed the conduct of each of the accused persons which does constitute the offence of cheating, abduction and human trafficking. Even though victim travelled up to Allahabad and Agra, she was under the influence of accused persons that she was being taken by them for exorcism. After relieving the victim at Agra, the other accused persons left the place which itself shows that she was victim of human trafficking. The appellant Anit Kumar and Rajesh tried to sell 9 her to other persons for which they attempted by showing her photographs to other persons. From the call records collected during investigation it has been proved that accused persons were connected to each other through mobile phone which is an additional link of circumstances which makes the appellants guilty for the alleged offence. The trial court after adverting the entire evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused persons which is absolutely justified and needs no interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of case. 12. PW-1, the victim, have stated in her evidence that she got married since eight years back and she is having two children. At the time of Chherchhera festival she went to her maternal aunt’s house where exorcism was going on by the accused Kamlesh. She also shown her interest in exorcism as she was also feeling ailment. Accused Kamlesh replied her that exorcism would be played upon her in her house. Kamlesh asked her to discuss in her family and on the next day when she discussed, her family members were ready for the same and they exchanged their mobile number. Her husband also had a talk with Kamlesh and he took him to his house. In the night exorcism was done and he received Rs.1500/- and went back. After about a week he again came to her house alongwith accused Keshwar and again done exorcism and after receiving consideration they went back. They came under the influence of appellant Kamlesh and when her husband got ill, he made a telephonic call to appellant Kamlesh to which he replied that she will be treated by his Guru and asked to manage Rs.500/- cash. On the next day, he again came along with appellant Rajesh 10 whom he projected as his Guru. He along with appellant Rajesh again played exorcism. Rajesh convinced her for her better treatment at Gorakhpur and assured that two other ladies will accompany her. On the next day she left her house along with Rajesh and had gone to her parents house where she left her children. Rakesh asked her to take her Adhar Card and identity card. Thereafter, she along with Rajesh came to village Chotiya and thereafter to Pendra where appellant Parvati and Nisha joined them. Thereafter, they boarded train from Pendra. When they reached at Allahabad by train, appellant Shambhu met them at railway station. Rajesh informed her that he is not taken her for exorcism, but has taken for her marriage. Appellant Rajesh also accepted that he has cheated her and has taken her for marriage. He pressurized her not to disclose that she is already married. Rajesh also convinced the appellant Parvati and Nisha not to disclose about her previous marriage to anyone. From Allahabad, they came to Maihar and from there she was taken to Rajasthan by Rajesh, Parvati, Nisha and Shambhu. They stayed in a house there for whole night and they had a talk with that old person in whose house they stayed in night. In the next morning, they showed her to that old person. The appellant along with that old person thereafter shown her to a boy, but he refused to marry with her on the ground that she is not talking anything. On the next day, she was taken by Rajesh, Parvati, Nisha and Shambhu to Agra. They had gone to the house of appellant Anit at Agra and after leaving her in the house of Anit, all of them left his house one after one and she alone was there in the house of Anit. The appellant Anit took her photographs and sent it to various places through internet along with photographs of other girls. In the 11 house of Anit, his wife, niece and his children gave her herbal ointment which she regularly applied on her body. Anit tried to keep her updated so that she will be married to any good place. She raised suspicion on the conduct of the appellant Anit and then she asked Anit to call her sister also and showed her photograph. Then she made a mobile call to her and informed about the scam and asked her to come there and to take her back and then Anit started talking with her sister and when her sister along with police persons came to Agra, they caught hold Anit and thereafter reached to the place where she was kept. It is further stated by her that at that time she was not in the house of Anit, but was kept in his sister in laws house. The appellant Kailash who used to visit regularly to the house of Anit was having photographs of four girls. Anit and Kailash tried to sell her. She heard their conversation. She identified the accused persons before the police and also identified the appellant Shambhu in TIP which is Ex.P/1. The recovery Panchnama Ex.P/3 was also prepared. She further states that when the appellant Nisha, Parvati, Rajesh and Shambhu were leaving the house of Anit, he (Anit) gave them Rs.30,000/- cash. At this stage, she was declared hostile on some point of her police statement and then she stated that mobile phone of her sister has also been seized by the police. In cross examination, she states that she disclosed in her police statement that she got exorcism on herself by the appellant Kamlesh and if it is not there in her police statement, she could not tell the reason. She did not know the appellant Kamlesh and Rajesh and she introduced Kamlesh when she had gone to her maternal aunt’s house. Rajesh had asked her to come alone for exorcism and that was the 12 reason her husband did not accompany her. When they proceeded from Pendra Road to Allahabad by train, she asked from the appellant Rajesh as to where they are going, to which, Rajesh informed her that they are going to Gorakhpur Shiv Mandir. There were number of passengers in the train, but she did not ask from anyone about the destination of train and when she deboarded from the train, she was unaware about the place where she was. When they boarded train at Pendra, Rajesh disclosed her that she was being taken for her second marriage and she was being cheated also to take her for marriage. The appellant Nisha and Parvati were sitting on her side. When the appellant disclosed her that she was being taken for her marriage, despite that she has not made any complaint to anyone. Even, upto Allahabad and Rajasthan she has not disclosed that appellant Rajesh has taken her by cheating. She also did not disclose the person Ganesh who came to her at Rajasthan. She admits that in the house of appellant Anit she was not confined in a room, but was free to move anywhere. She used to go shop along with wife of Anit. She also used to go to the house of his sister. During her stay at the house of appellant Anit, she has not disclosed that she was being taken there by cheating and she can inform the persons there that she was being cheated, but she has not informed them. Except her sister, she herself has not made any telephonic call to anyone. She further admits that when her sister reached at Agra, at that time, she had gone to the house of sister in law of Anit for visiting and when the police persons came to the house of Anit, she was being called from there. Anit gave money to appellant Shambhu which were expended upon them. In further cross examination, she has stated that 13 at the time when she had gone to Allahabad from Pendra and Agra from Allahabad, the appellant Kamlesh and Keshwar were not with them. She admits that after taking permission from her husband, she had gone to Pendra, Allahabad and Agra alongwith appellant Rajesh. She admits that she informed her mother that she on her own will had gone along with accused persons for her treatment. She further states that before boarding train at Pendra, Rajesh has not disclosed that she was being taken for her marriage and it is disclosed only after boarding train. At that time, she was having her mobile phone with her and having all the mobile numbers of her husband, sister and other family members. She admits that none of the accused persons have stopped her from talking to her family members. She also admits that she has not disclosed to anyone that she was being abducted by the accused persons. Even after seeing police persons in the train, she did not make any complaint. She disclosed before the police that she gave Rs.1500/- cash to accused Kamlesh and Rs.1200/- to accused Keshwar. She admits that she herself made a call to appellant Kamlesh and Keshwar to her house for her treatment. Kamlesh and Keshwar asked for travelling expenses, which she gave. She admits that since she could not recover from her ailment, she asked the appellant Rajesh to get her treated outside and on her request appellant Rajesh took her to Allahabad and Agra for her treatment. She admits that Keshwar, Kamlesh, Rajesh and Nisha have not taken any amount from anyone in her presence. She admits Rajesh and Nisha came back to their house saying that they are having some problem in their family. She admits of her residing in the house of Anit at Agra and he has not committed any wrong with her. She was not 14 having any complaint with Anit. There was no conversation between her, Anit and Kailash about any transaction. She has further stated in her evidence that she did not know as to at which village Parvati Bai was residing. She admits Parvati did no accompany her from village Morga and she was not having any relation of her trafficking. 13. PW-2, is the sister of victim, who have stated that she identify the accused persons. She saw her sister in her parents house then her mother informed her that her sister had gone for exorcism and will return till evening. When she did not return for 2-3 days, they lodged a report to the police. After about 5-6 days her sister called her through mobile phone and informed that she stuck in a scam at Agra and asked her to come there and take her back. Thereafter, they went to Agra with police persons by train. They were in contact with the appellant Anit by their mobile phone and reached to her sister. She further states that police seized certain articles from the accused persons, but she could not remember however she has signed the seizure memos. With respect to seizure of article, she is declared hostile and in cross examination she admits that the articles have been seized from the accused persons. In cross examination, she states that she was being informed by her mother that victim has left her children and had gone for exorcism and will return back till evening. She denied that her sister was having mobile phone with her. She could not remember her mobile number. She stuck in saying that on the next day they lodged report to the police. She admits that on 07.03.2016 she had a talk with the victim by mobile phone and on the next day on 08.03.2016 they lodged a report to the police. She admits that victim has not disclosed her the places 15 where she visited. She disclosed the manner in which she reached upto the house of Anit with the help of police. She had seen the appellant Kailash first time at Agra police station and she signed the documents at the instance of police. She further admits that her sister had gone to Agra after informing her husband. She admits that appellant Keshwar and Kamlesh have not gone to Agra. She did not meet appellant Nisha Bai and Rajesh at Agra. 14. PW-3, the Husband of victim, have stated in his evidence that he identified the appellants by their face. He did not identify the appellant Nisha. About an year back, his wife had gone to her maternal aunt’s house where Kamlesh was playing exorcism. His wife also asked him to play exorcism upon her as she was feeling ailment and then they exchanged their mobile number. After few days, Kamlesh came to his house and played exorcism on his wife for 2-3 times and ultimately stated that he will call his Guru. Thereafter, appellant Kamlesh came along with appellant Keshwar and again played exorcism. In all the times, he gave money to appellant Kamlesh for the said act. After repeated act of said exorcism they again came along with appellant Rajesh projecting him as his Guru. Rajesh also played exorcism and then he asked her to go to Gorakhpur for further process of exorcism. He gave Rs.1000/- to appellant Rajesh and they returned back. After two days of the said act, the appellant Rajesh alone came to his house and convinced him for Gorakhpur and assured him that two other ladies will also go along with his wife, but he did not disclose their names. Thereafter, he left his both the children at village Morga in the parents’ house of wife and thereafter Rajesh took her along with him after assuring him that they will return back after two hours. Thereafter 16 the appellant Rajesh took his wife to Gorakhpur and when he tried to call her in her mobile phone, it was found switched off. When she did not return after 4-5 days, he lodged a report. From Agra, his sister in law received a telephonic call of his wife informing that she has been sold at Agra. Thereafter he along with 4-5 police personnel went to Agra. In all that time, they had a telephonic call with accused Anit and with the help of Agra police, they caught the appellant Anit and thereafter recovered the victim from his house. Kailash was also taken into custody from whom photographs of other girls were recovered. Thereafter they took the victim back to Pendra and thereafter to their house. At that time, appellant Parvati was admitted at Pasan Hospital and when they had gone to village of Parvati, she was found near society at village Kotmarra and she too have been arrested. They also inquired about Rajesh and ultimately he was also arrested. The appellant Rajesh disclosed the police that he left the victim for one week and after one week he returned to take her back. His wife was recovered from Agra and recovery Panchnama Ex.P/3 was prepared by the police. Seizure of photographs from Kailash was also made vide Ex.P/5. The mobile and purse from appellant Rajesh was seized vise seizure memo Ex.P/6. He also signed the seizure memos Ex.P/8, P/4, P/9 and P/10 by which certain articles were seized from the accused persons. After declaring him hostile on the articles seized from the accused persons, he admits that the articles have been seized from accused persons in his presence and he disclosed before the police that his wife was being sold at Agra for consideration of Rs.30,000/- and she was being kept in the house of appellant Anit. 17 In cross examination, he states that when his wife did not return back, he went to police station for lodging report and he did not disclose before the police that his sister in law received a telephonic call on 07.03.2016. His sister in law informed him about telephonic call of his wife. His wife was having mobile phone with her. On the next day, when he made a telephonic call to his wife, she replied that she did not know as to where she is. He also had a talk with the appellant Rajesh, but he did not disclose about the place. His wife has not disclosed him that she had gone to Maihar along with two ladies. He did not know the appellant Kailash and Anit prior to date of incident. His wife did not disclose him that Anit and his associates were trying to sell her to anyone. She could not identify the person to whom she was being sold. In his further cross examination, he admits that appellant Kamlesh and Keshwar had not gone with his wife up to Agra. His wife had gone on her own will for her treatment. When she was taken to Agra, she was having mobile phone and he had a talk with her once. She was also having mobile number of others and on her call the appellant Kamlesh and Keshwar came to his house. Rajesh came subsequently. He has given money to the appellant Kamlesh for the medicine which he has purchased. He admits that when he had gone to Agra, the appellant Kamlesh, Keshwar, Rajesh and Nisha were not there at Agra. The bronze utensils, clothes, herbal medicine and mobile have not been seized in his presence. He also did not know from whom the mobile phone was seized. The police persons have taken his signature as also his sister in law, but he did not know what were written it those papers. She also did not recognize appellant Parvati Bai. His wife informed him that Shambhu taken her to Agra and 18 he received Rs.30,000/- for said transaction. He could not remember for how much amount his wife was being sold. 15. PW-4, Dhansai Manjhwar, is witness to the effect that victim called Kamlesh and Keshwar for exorcism and they cooked meat and eat. 16. PW-5, Bhukhli Bai, is also witness to the effect that victim had called appellant Rajesh for exorcism and on his instance the husband of victim took a he-goat from her house. Subsequently, she came to know that someone has taken the victim to Agra and thereafter she was recovered from there. 17. PW-7, Jai Sigh Paikra, have stated in his evidence that he did not know any of the accused persons. The appellant Shambhu is resident of Bihar. Since appellant Shambhu has taken a girl from the village, the police has taken him to Morga Police Station. He conducted TIP of appellant Shambhu Prasad and prepared the identification memo Ex.P/1 and who identified him, he could not remember. In cross examination, he admits that the police persons have informed about the appellant Shambhu and get him identified. On the instance of police, he has signed the document. 18. PW-8, Mela Ram Kathotiya, investigating officer of the case, have stated that on 08.03.2016 he recorded a missing report in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/19. During investigation, it reveals that on 07.03.2016 the sister of victim received a telephonic call from her and she informed her that she is at Agra. She also informed that the accused persons are attempting to get her married with another person and they sold her. He also heard the telephonic conversation between victim and her sister and recorded statement of her sister vide Ex.P/20. Thereafter, they proceeded along with police party, husband and sister of the 19 victim towards Agra. They led a trap through sister of victim and called the accused Anit to railway station, Agra and then they caught hold him and took him to police Station Agra. They recovered the victim from the house of Anit and prepared Recovery Panchnama Ex.P/3. From the appellant Kailash photographs of 4 girls have also been seized along with his mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. The victim informed him that the accused Rajesh who was playing exorcism has kidnapped her by alluring. When they were in search of accused Rajesh, the accused Rajesh and Keshwar were found at village Kotmarra and they have also been arrested. From the house of accused Rajesh bronze utensils, towel, half-shirt, herbal medicines vermilion and mobile phone etc. were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/6. Nisha Bai was also arrested at village Pasan from whom a mobile phone was seized vide Ex.P/9. The motorcycle and one mobile phone was seized from appellant Keshwar vide seizure memo Ex.P/10. The statement of victim has been recorded vide Ex.P/25 and FIR Ex.P/26 was registered by him. He also recorded memorandum statement of appellant Shambhu vide Ex.P/17 and on the basis of his memorandum statement one mobile phone has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/18. The appellant Shambhu was put to TIP. In cross examination, he has stated that on 07.03.2016 there was no report at police station Morga. In Rojnamcha it has not been mentioned that on 08.03.2016 the victim made a telephonic call to her sister which was also heard by them. He has not obtained any information from Cyber Cell Korba with respect to mobile No.9669614281. As per report of Cyber Cell, up to 03.03.216 the mobile phone of victim was onn and she had a talk to her sister. He 20 further states that the victim had not disclosed that the had gone Maihar and Rajasthan. When they had gone to the house of Anit Kumar at Agra, the victim and wife of accused Anit had gone to visit places and they waited for half hour there. He further admits in his cross examination that accused Anit Kumar made a telephonic call to sister of the victim. He admits that there is no evidence in the case with regard to conversation made between the appellant Anit and sister of victim. 19. PW-9, Ramesh Sharma, is the witness of memorandum Ex.P/17 and seizure of mobile Ex.P/18 seized from the appellant Shambhu. In cross examination nothing could be extracted from the evidence of this witness that mobile of Shambhu has not been seized in his presence. 20. PW-10, Afsar Khan, is a Head Constable at PS, Morga who registered missing report Ex.P/19 on 08.03.2016 at Rojnamcha of the police station. 21. PW-11, Durgesh Rathore is also a Head Constable working at Cyber Cell Korba. He obtained call details of mobile numbers 7078760269, 9669614281 & 9984525374 and send it to the police station Morga. Mobile Number 7078760269 is registered in the name of Anit Kumar. Mobile Number 9984525374 is registered in the name of Rakesh Kumar Gupta. The location of mobile Number 7078760269 was at Manas Nagar, Agra. Along with call detail record, the customer application form was also attached and his report is Ex.P/31. The customer application forms are Articles A,B & C. 22. PW-12, Vijay Thakur, is an Inspector of Police, who conducted part of investigation and recorded statement of some of the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. 23. The allegation against the appellant Kamlesh and Keshwar are that, 21 when the victim had gone to her maternal aunt’s house she found the appellant Kamlesh playing exorcism upon her maternal aunt. She too shown her interest in exorcism as she was suffering from giddiness and weakness and at that time the appellant Kamlesh asked her that he will pay exorcism in her own house. After a few days, Kamlesh was being called by the victim and her husband. Kamlesh played exorcism in her house and obtained money from them. After about a week the appellant Kamlesh again came to her house along with appellant Keshwar and again they played exorcism and asked for a He-goat as his remuneration. The victim and her husband managed chicken, he- goat and liquor. After playing exorcism in her house, they have taken the said items and have eaten along with other people of village. They again came to her house and demanded Rs.1200/- which they gave to appellant Kamlesh and Keshwar. When the husband of victim could not recover from his ailment, the appellant Kamlesh asked them to manage Rs.500/- as he will call his Guru to pay further exorcism. Thereafter, he introduced the appellant Rajesh as his Guru and then Rajesh started playing exorcism with victim and her Husband. 24. It transpires from the record of the case that the accused Kamlesh Kumar Goswami had filed appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence vide Criminal Appeal No.1890 of 2019 which
Decision
has been disposed of vide order dated 20.06.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court as he has already undergone the entire jail sentence and has been released from jail thereafter. Therefore, there is no consideration against the accused Kamlesh Kumar Goswami in the present appeal. So far as the accused Keshwar is concerned, his 22 act and participation in the offence would fall only under the definition of cheating and he deceived the victim and her husband to deliver money to them and in furtherance thereof, the victim and her husband paid certain amount, chicken, he-goat and liquor. There is no sufficient evidence against the appellant Keshwar in human trafficking or any inducement for the same. His role was restricted only up to play exorcism in the house of victim and obtained money from them. In view of the evidence on record, the appellant Keshwar is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC for cheating with the victim. Accordingly, appellant Keshwar is acquitted from the offence of Sections 366, 368 and 370 IPC. 25. So far as appellants Anit Kumar Gupta, Kailash Kumar, Rajesh Goswami and Shambhu Prasad Agrahari are concerned, their specific role have been disclosed by the victim PW-1. From her evidence it is quite vivid that the appellant Rajesh performed exorcism in the house of victim and induced her to go with him for further process of exorcism and he assured her and her husband that two other ladies will also go with her and they are not required to be worried. He also asked her to keep her Adhar Card and Identity Card. When she proceeded from her house along with Rajesh, he took her to Pendra. At Pendra Bus stand, other two ladies Parvati Bai and Nisha Bai met her, they took meals for her and all oft them boarded in the Train. She reached Allahabad along with Rajesh, Parvati and Nisha. At Allahabad railway station, the appellant Shambhu met them. Appellant Rajesh disclosed that he is not taking her for exorcism, but is taking to perform her marriage with someone else and he has cheated her. He asked her not to disclose that she is already married. He also instructed 23 Parvati and Nisha for not disclosing about her marriage. They took her from Allahabad to Maihar. From Maihar, the appellants Rajesh, Parvati, Shambhu and Nisha took her to Rajasthan. At Rajasthan, the appellants Rajesh, Parvati, Shambhu and Nisha were talking with a old aged person about her marriage and they shown her to a body. They produced her as the bride before the said boy, but the boy refused to marry with her. On the next day, Rajesh, Parvati, Shambhu and Nisha made a telephonic call to someone and took her to Agra in the house of appellant Anit. From the house of Anit, the appellants Rajesh, Parvati, Shambhu and Nisha left her company one after one and she alone was there in the house of Anit. Anit took her photographs and forwarded it to various place through internet. After 2-3 days another boy came to the house of Anit and Anit assured her that he will perform her marriage with a good body. When she suspected that they will do something wrong with her, she asked Anit to call her sister for her marriage also. Thereafter, she made a telephonic call to her her sister and informed about the incident. Thereafter, the police along with her sister came there and took them to police station. She further states that when she was in the house of Anit, the accused Kailash took the photographs of four other girls and they were talking about her sale, which she heard. She further states that Rajesh did not left her alone during her travel. When she went to the house of Anit, Kailash was also present there. Anit gave some money to Shambhu. 26. From the evidence of PW-1, the victim, the involvement of all these appellants Anit, Kailash, Rajesh and Shambhu Prasad has duly been proved that they actively engaged in trafficking the victim and took her 24 to Allahabad and thereafter to Agra. The act of these appellants clearly comes under the definition of abduction as provided under Section 361 IPC and it thus covers Clause-III of Section 370 (1) IPC. 27. The allegation raised by the victim PW-1, is supported by her sister PW-2 to whom the incident was disclosed by PW-1. She went to Agra along with police persons and recovered the victim from the house of appellant Anit. She also disclosed the manner in which the victim was being taken to Agra. The incident and involvement of appellants Rajesh, Anit and Kailash also stands supported by PW-3, the husband of victim. PW-3 have also stated about Rajesh that he induced him to send his wife along with him and threatened that if he does not permit his wife for exorcism, she will not be cured. Rajesh took his wife towards Gorakhpur and thereafter she was being sold at Agra. When his wife made a telephonic call from Agra, he along with his sister in law and police persons went to Agra and recovered his wife/victim. 28. From the evidence available on record, the guilt of appellants Anit, Kailash, Rajesh and Shambhu Prasad have duly been established by the prosecution that they abducted the victim, took her to Agra and engaged in her trafficking. After considering the entire evidence led by the prosecution, I am also of the opinion that the appellants Anit Kumar Gupta and Kailash Kumar have rightly been convicted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 368 and 370 IPC, appellants Rajesh and Shambhu Prasad for the offence under Section 366, 368 and 370 IPC and thereby their conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed. 29. So for as appellants Parvati Bai and Nisha Bai are concerned, the victim PW-1 have stated in her evidence that at Pendra Bus stand, she 25 met with Parvati and Nisha. They took meals for her, but she denied to eat. Rajesh got boarded them in the train and they accompanied her up to Allahabad and Agra. Although these two ladies accused persons accompanied the victim up to Allahabad and Agra, but it has not come in the evidence of victim that the two ladies accused persons have allured or induced her to go to Allahabad along with Rajesh. It comes on record that at Rajasthan when the boy refused to marry with victim and the accused Rajesh was taking her to some other house and she refused to go with him due to night time, appellants Parvati and Nisha Bai also stopped her to go with Rajesh at that time and on the next day they took her to Agra where Parvati and Nisha made a comment upon her that after her marriage they will come to her house to meet her, from where they left her alone and came back to their village. In her cross examination, she has specifically stated that she does not know the accused Parvati Bai; Parvati Bai has not travelled with her up to Morga and Parvati Bai has no relation with her trafficking. Likewise, there is no sufficient evidence against the accused Nisha that she also engaged in trafficking of the victim except the fact that she along with Parvati accompanied her up to Agra. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence against them that they actively involved in human trafficking. Therefore, no offence under Section 370 IPC is made out against the appellants Nisha Bai and Parvati Bai and they are acquitted from the offence of Section 370 IPC. 30. From the evidence of victim, her husband and her sister, it does not disclose any inducement on the part of these two ladies accused that they in any manner compels or by any deceitful means induces the victim to go to Agra. Although, these persons accompanied the victim 26 up to Agra, but from the evidence no inducement is imputed to go from any place or compel her to go to Agra. There is lack of clinching evidence that they abducted the victim and wrongfully concealed her and kept her in illegal confinement at Agra. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence to prove the offence of abduction and wrongfully concealing the kidnapped person, these two ladies accused Nisha Bai and Parvati Bai are entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, by giving the benefit of doubt, they are also acquitted from the offence of Section 366 and 368 IPC. 31. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants Anit Kumar Gupta & Kailash Kumar (CRA No.455 of 2018), Rajesh Goswami (CRA No.984 of 2018) and Shambhu Prasad (CRA No.346 of 2018) are hereby dismissed. They shall undergo the entire sentence as awarded by the trial court. They are directed to surrender/taken into custody forthwith for serving out remaining part of sentence. 32. The appeal filed by the appellants Nisha Bai and Parvati Bai (CRA No.611 of 2018) is allowed. 33. The appeal filed by the appellant Keshwar Goswami (CRA No.1085 of 2018) is partly allowed. He is acquitted from the offence under Sections 363, 368 and 370 IPC and convicted only for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced for the period already undergone by them as the appellant Keshwar Goswami remained in jail from 13.03.2016 to 03.08.2016 during the trial and thereafter from the date of judgment i.e. 22.02.2018 to 30.04.2019. The appellant Keshwar Goswami is entitled for set off of his undergone period 27 during trial as well during pendency of appeal. All the sentences awarded to appellants are directed to run concurrently. 34. The records of the case along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder