1 - Gaurav Saha @ Guddu Kumar S/o Jokhu Saha Aged About 36 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.23 10:51:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:26401 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 201 of 2016 1 - Gaurav Saha @ Guddu Kumar S/o Jokhu Saha Aged About 36 Years R/o Saha Bhavan, M 185, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, 34, Police Station Subhash Palace, District North West, Delhi., Delhi --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with CRA No. 342 of 2016 1 - Sushil Verma @ Karodpati S/o Atmaram Sainik Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Vijay Nagar, P.S. Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Santoshi Navrange W/o Sushil Verma @ Karodpati Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Vijay Nagar, P.S. Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant (s) 2 Versus CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant in CRA 201/2016
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Appellants in CRA 342/2016 : Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate on behalf of Mr. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Ashish Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 20/06/2025 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arising out of same Sessions Trial No. 41/2015, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 2. Both these criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/01/2016 passed in Special Trial No. 41/2015 by the learned Fifth Additional Session Judge, District Raigarh, (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 370/ 34 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment (twice) for for 10 years with fine (twice) of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3 CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the Victim lodged the report at District Raigarh, C.G. on 13.11.2014, stating therein that she and her husband hailed from Village Talgaon, Distt. Raigarh, C.G. It is stated that two inhabitants of her village namely Sunil Verma @ Karodpati and his wife Santoshi had taken them with the false promise that good job would be provided to them at Delhi. She and her husband had been gone to Delhi alongwith Sushil. She rendered service as Domestic Helper in many places whereas her husband has been sent to Haryana. Another co- accused Gaurav made them separated from each other while promise was made that they both would get job at same place. They had no means to communicate to each other over there. Though they worked wherever they were employed, but were not getting any kind of wages and they were exploited by the accused. Santoshi and Sushil of the Village Vijaynagar induced them by making false promise of work and hailed them at the office of Gaurav at Delhi and sell them to him and left them over there to work for him. Gaurav forced them to work without their will and without paying them any wages and for four days when they were in Delhi were kept locked in his office. They had been subjected to the trafficking unlawfully by the accused. The accused were habitual in dealing slaves thus they were pushed in slave by the accused. Anyhow, firstly her husband returned to village and then she returned to her village and lodged the complaint against all the accused. 4. During investigation, the statement of the witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was 4 CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. submitted before the Court. 5. After framing the charges against the accused/appellants, the charges were read out and explained to the appellants, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 7. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, these appeals. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel would submit that in the evidence of the witnesses, it can be seen that there are material contradiction and omissions. Learned counsel would further submit that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, no offence is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel also contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence of trafficking under Section 370/34 of IPC. Thus the appeals may be allowed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the 5 CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, these appeals deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 11. It is an admitted fact that the victim and her husband went to Delhi for earning their livelihood, however, owing to some of their difficulty they returned to their hometown and lodged report. 12. Victim has been examined as PW/3. She stated that accused Sushil @ Karodpati asked them if they are interested to work in Delhi, he will arrange the same for which the victim and her husband agreed. Thereafter, the accused Sushil and his wife sent the victim and her husband to Delhi. Where they worked at several places and when there is difficulty arises for food and daily needs, she made a complaint to the owner who bring her at his place and provided proper food etc. Again when she went for work, there is also no proper care and food was provided her, therefore, she returned where her owner gave her Rs.800/- for train fare and she returned to her hometown. This witness has been declared hostile. Even in cross-examination this witness stated that she went to Delhi on her own will. She further stated that when she failed to discharge her duties properly at Delhi then the accused Gaurav gave some amount towards train fare and sent to her hometown. She categorically stated that she has no complaint against the accused 6 CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. Gaurav even today also. 13. The husband of the victim has been examined as PW/4. He in his cross- examination stated that since he knows that there is high salary/ wages offered in Delhi, therefore, they went to work there on their own freewill. He also stated that since they are not satisfied with the work, they returned to their hometown. At para 4 of cross-examination, this witness categorically stated that only to get the salary/ wages, they made the report against the accused persons. He also stated that accused Santoshi is his niece (daughter of his elder brother) and Sushil is the husband of Santoshi. 14. As far as the charge imposed upon the appellants for which they have been convicted is concerned, the Section 370(1) IPC defines the offence of trafficking, which reads as under:- "370(1):- Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by- First.- using threats, or Secondly- using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly- by abduction, or Fourthly- by practising fraud, or deception, or Fifthly- by abuse of power, or Sixthly- by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, 7 CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking. Explanation 1.- The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs. Explanation 2.- The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking. 15. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that there should be an element of exploitation. The word 'Exploitation' has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition, as under:- "Exploitation.- Act or process of exploiting, making use of, or working up. Utilization by application of industry, argument, or other means of turning to account, as the exploitation of a mine or a forest. State Finance Co. v. Hamacher, 171 Wash. 15, 17 P.2d 610, 613. Taking unjust advantage of another for one's own advantage or benefit (e.g. paying low wages to illegal aliens)." 16. Similarly, the word "exploitation" has been defined in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Edition as under:- "exploitation (1) a situation in which you treat someone unfairly by asking them to do things for you, but give them very little in return used to show disapproval: [+of] The film industry thrives on the sexual exploitation of women. (2) the development and use of minerals, forests, oil etc for business or industry: [+of] the controlled exploitation of resources | commercial/economic exploitation 3 the full and effective use of something: [+of] greater exploitation of these data 8 CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. (4) an attempt to get as much as you can out of a situation, sometimes unfairly: [+of] the exploitation of religion for political ends." 17. In order to convict a person for offence under Section 370 of the IPC i.e. trafficking a person, it is sine qua non that offence must have been committed for the purpose of exploitation. A person must have been transported, recruited, harboured or received for the purpose of exploitation. Explanation 1 also provides that the expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs. 18. In the instant case, there is no allegation of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the forced removal of organs, if any, of the two victims. The victim and her husband categorically stated that they on their own agreed to go to Delhi for earning their livelihood. Both the witnesses also stated that since they were not get the work as per their choice they returned to their hometown. The husband of the victim stated that the report has been lodged only for the reason that they will get their remaining/ outstanding wages. 19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the provisions of Section 370 of the IPC, I am of the considered view that the appellants cannot be convicted for the said offence as there was no allegation of physical exploitation or they have been subjected to slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or 9 CRA No. 201 of 2016 & Anr. forced to removal of organs. The trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants under Section 370 of IPC. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 20.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charge leveled against them. 21. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 22. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 23. Ordered accordingly. $ Bhilwar /`Gowri Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge