IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.305 of 2009 Between: The State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND P. Vasantha Kumari and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal seeks enhancement of sentences imposed on the accused 1 and 3 in S.C.No.68 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, by the judgment dated 21- 08-2007, by which the 1st accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a ﬁne of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of one year imprisonment for the oﬀence punishable under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code, Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a ﬁne of Rs.2,000/- for the oﬀence punishable under Section 3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Rigorous imprisonment for two years for the oﬀence punishable under Section 4 of the Immoral Traﬃc (Prevention) Act, 1956, Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a ﬁne of Rs.10,000/- for the oﬀence punishable under Section 5(1) (ii) of the Immoral Traﬃc (Prevention) Act, 1956 with a default sentence of one year and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the oﬀence punishable under Section 6 of the Immoral Traﬃc (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the 3 rd accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of one year for the oﬀence punishable under Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years for the oﬀence punishable under Section 4 of the Immoral Traﬃc (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a ﬁne of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of one year for the oﬀence punishable under Section 5(1)(ii) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The accused 1 and 3 along with others were prosecuted in Crime No.83 of 2005 of West Police Station, Tirupathi (Urban), who ﬁled the charge sheet claiming that the 1st accused was working as Professor in the department of Adult Education, S.V. University, Tirupathi and the 2nd accused, a resident of Rajahmundry, is a close associate of the 3rd accused. The accused 2 and 4 to 13 are close associates. About one month 20 days prior to 02-08-2005, the 2nd accused was claimed to have approached P. Chandrakala and A. Ganga Bhavani @ Swetha at Rajahmundry persuading them to accompany her to Tirupathi for easy earning and handed over them to the 3rd accused at Renigunta bus stop. The 3rd accused was claimed to have shifted them to a rented house at Yerramreddypalem and to have compelled them to submit to prostitution. A. Ganga Bhavani was claimed to have been subjected to threats and beating and about one month thereafter, the 3rd accused was claimed to have shifted Chandrakala and Ganga Bhavani to the house of the 1st accused, who induced them to indulge in prostitution along with P. Madhavi, Y. Naga Kavya and P. Vijayalakshmi @ Bujji. When Chandrakala fell sick after 20 days, she was sent to Eluru and when Ramanamma informed the parents of Ganga Bhavani about all the incidents that took place at Renigunta and Tirupathi, they came to Tirupathi in search of A. Ganga Bhavani. As the search was in vain, they reported to the police, who registered the crime and took up investigation. In the course of search of the house of the 1st accused, P. Madhavi and Y. Naga Kavya were found at her house and a rough sketch of the scene was prepared and the accused were thereafter arrested at diﬀerent times before mediators. A. Ganga Bhavani was stated to have appeared before the police on 13-08-2005 and her statement was claimed to have been recorded after which she was sent for medical examination. The statements of P. Chandrakala and others were claimed to have been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi and it was claimed that the 1st accused was the owner of the brothel house and carrying on prostitution with minor girls with the help of accused 2 to 16. The III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, took cognizance of the oﬀences in PRC.No.7 of 2006 and committed the case to the Court of Session after serving copies of the documents to the accused. The Court of Session made over the case to the trial Court and the trial Court framed diﬀerent charges on the accused 1 to 16 for which the accused pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22 and marked Exs.P.1 to 20, M.Os.1 to 10 and D.1 to D.18. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment, ﬁrstly referring to the background for the prosecution and the contentions of both parties and noted the evidence of the diﬀerent witnesses before the trial Court. After analyzing the evidence of various witnesses, the trial Court noted that the mother of Ganga Bhavani gave a report to the police at Rajahmundry III Town police station on 23-06-2005, which was registered as Crime No.227 of 2005 in which she suspected the involvement of P. Chandrakala @ Chandra when her daughter was found missing. The trial Court found on an analysis of the evidence against each accused that except the 1st and 3rd accused, the other accused are entitled to the beneﬁt of doubt because of various discrepancies and inconsistencies and other circumstances. Coming to the 1st and 3rd accused, the trial Court had noted that PWs.1, 3, 4, 9 and 18 were attempted to be discarded as accomplices. The trial Court found no reason for the witnesses to speak falsehood against the accused 1 and 3. The trial Court also found no reason to discredit the evidence of PW.9. Accepting the evidence of PWs.9 and 18 against the 1st accused, the trial Court found her to be guilty, while the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 was accepted to believe in the proof of guilt of the 3rd accused. The investigation was found not to suﬀer from any technical defects as attempted to be projected by the defence counsel, and any delay in lodging the First Information Report or any defects in the conduct of Mahazar or recording of confessions etc., were considered to have not been established to be fatal to the prosecution story. The trial Court felt that the 1st accused, a lady professor, who should have led the society to a noble path, herself ran a brothel den for which she procured minor girls for conducting prostitution and the guilt of the 1st and 3rd accused was, hence considered to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. After examination of the 1st and 3rd accused on the question of sentence, the 1st and 3rd accused were held to be not entitled to any lenient view after having indulged in such heinous crimes in the temple town of Tirupathi. Accordingly, the trial Court imposed the sentences, which are now requested to be enhanced, further directing the remand period undergone by the accused 1 and 3 to be set off from their respective sentences. The State was aggrieved by the quantum of sentences imposed on the 1st and 3rd accused and preferred the present appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor contending that when all the ingredients to constitute the alleged oﬀences have been made out, such a lenient view could not have been taken against the 1st and 3rd accused for the heinous oﬀences and hence, the maximum sentences prescribed for the oﬀences are requested to be imposed on them. Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri N. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The point for consideration is whether the sentences imposed on the 1st and 3rd accused are liable to be enhanced on the facts and circumstances of the case? An oﬀence punishable under Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code can be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also ﬁne. Similarly, an oﬀence punishable under Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code is also punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also ﬁne. The sentences imposed by the impugned judgment on the 1st and 3rd accused are imprisonment for 7 years and a ﬁne of Rs.10,000/- for the oﬀence punishable under Section 373 and 372 of the Indian Penal Code respectively on the 1st and 3rd accused with default sentences of one year in case of non-payment of ﬁne. The sentences which can be imposed for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 3 to 6 of the Immoral Traﬃc (Prevention) Act, 1956, are not higher than the sentences which can be imposed under Sections 372 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial Court directing all the sentences to run concurrently is and cannot be found fault with as any incorrect exercise of judicial discretion vested in the Court in this regard. The trial Court had taken into account that the 1st accused is professor in Adult Education Department of Sri S.V. University, Tirupathi, and is a house wife with two children one of whom is a daughter. It also took a serious view of the involvement of such a woman in a heinous crime like procuring minor girls for prostitution and earning money therefrom. Similarly, it also took into account the behaviour of the 3rd accused in indulging in such crimes at the temple town of Tirupathi only for the sake of earning money and thus violating the time honoured values of our society. Therefore, the accused were held to be not entitled to any lenient view and having the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses examined before it, examining the oral and documentary evidence in detail and also considering the manner in which the accused conducted themselves during trial, the trial Court formed its opinion on the adequacy of the sentences imposed towards various oﬀences, which have been proved against the 1st and 3rd accused and it requires very strong grounds to interfere with the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial Court in exercise of its judicial discretion. The sentences ranging up to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the oﬀences proved cannot be considered to be lenient in any manner though they did not touch the maximum sentences that can be imposed in respect of the oﬀences and it is signiﬁcant to note that no minimum sentences have been prescribed for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 373 and 372 of the Indian Penal Code unlike some other oﬀences for which legislative wisdom has resulted in prescription of imposition of minimum sentences. In the absence of any special circumstances requiring interference with the exercise of judicial discretion by the trial Court and in view of the apparent adequacy of the serious sentences imposed on the accused 1 and 3 with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal does not appear to deserve any consideration for enhancement of the sentences imposed. Sri N. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants brought to notice that Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007 at the instance of the 1st accused is pending on the ﬁle of V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi and pending the appeal the sentences of imprisonment imposed on her were also suspended in Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2007 in Crl.A.No.148 of 2007 dated 29- 08-2007 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi. The learned counsel submitted that the 3rd accused did not appear to have preferred any appeal against the conviction and sentences. It is needless to clarify that any observation made in this judgment cannot operate to the prejudice of either party in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007 pending on the ﬁle of V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi or any similar appeal by the 3rd accused. Therefore, while clarifying that this judgment shall have no bearing on the determination of Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007 on its own merits in accordance with law, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-11-2011 Ksn