Concurrent conviction under Section 373 IPC warrants no revisional interference absent perversity.

On 12 December 2003, acting on information that a brothel was being operated in Building No. 994, Budhwar Peth, Pune, the police conducted a raid and found Applicant No. 1 in Room No. 14-B and Applicant No. 2 in Room No. 11-B, where several girls were present and wooden compartments with beds had been arranged.

Some girls were medically assessed as minors, and the prosecution alleged that the Applicants compelled them to engage in prostitution, collected money from customers, and paid part of it to the girls.

The Applicants were charged under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 373 of the IPC.

The Trial Court acquitted them under the PITA provisions but convicted them under Section 373 IPC and sentenced each to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Applicants thereafter invoked the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 373 IPC was sustainable despite the hostile panch witness and alleged discrepancies concerning the raid and preparation of the panchnama.

Whether the prosecution had proved that at least one victim was below eighteen years of age on the basis of clinical and radiological examination.

Whether the absence of a female police officer during the raid or arrest vitiated the prosecution case.

Whether the absence of photographs of the raid constituted a ground for interference in revision.

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction and the sentence warranted interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court applied Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, reiterating that revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not ordinarily permit re-appreciation of evidence or interference with concurrent factual findings absent perversity, relying on State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri and State v. Manimaran, (2019) 13 SCC 670.

Section 373 IPC criminalises buying, hiring or otherwise obtaining possession of a person under eighteen years with the intent that such person be employed or used for prostitution, illicit intercourse, or an unlawful and immoral purpose.

The Court relied on Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC 210, for the principle that ossification testing is relevant but not conclusive and must be assessed with the medical evidence as a whole.

On the presence of a female police officer, the Court applied State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India, (2003) 8 SCC 546, holding that the direction to make all efforts to keep a woman constable present was directory, not an inflexible statutory requirement, particularly where circumstances make such presence unavailable or impracticable.

The Court found that the evidence of the three victim witnesses consistently established that the Applicants compelled the girls to engage in prostitution, threatened or assaulted them upon refusal, collected money from customers, and retained or distributed part of it.

The evidence of PW-7, a medico-legal expert, supported the conclusion that one victim was aged between thirteen and fifteen years on clinical and radiological examination; even allowing a two-year margin of error, she remained a minor.

This satisfied the minority and intent requirements of Section 373 IPC.

The hostile panch witness did not render the prosecution case unreliable because PW-10, who prepared and signed the panchnama, proved it, while the police witnesses consistently testified regarding the raid, the rooms, the compartments and beds, and the presence of the Applicants and victims; the discrepancies concerning a female panch were minor and immaterial.

The objections regarding the absence of a female police officer and photographs were either directory matters or contentions raised for the first time in revision, and therefore did not justify interference.

As no perversity was demonstrated in the concurrent findings, the revisional court declined to reassess the evidence.

The hostile panch witness, alleged discrepancies, absence of a female police officer, and non-photographing of the raid were insufficient to invalidate the conviction.

Finding no perversity or legal infirmity and considering the sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment to be lenient in light of the maximum punishment of ten years, the Court rejected the revision application and upheld the conviction and sentence.

The Applicants’ bail bonds were cancelled, and they were granted four weeks to surrender before the concerned police station.