Non-Presence of Lady Police Officer During Raid Not Fatal to Case: Bombay HC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Refusing to disturb the concurrent conviction of two brothel managers, the Bombay High Court has affirmed that minor evidentiary discrepancies and the non-presence of a lady police officer during a raid do not vitiate a trial under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye heard the criminal revision application challenging the judgment of the Appellate Sessions Court which confirmed the conviction of the applicants for obtaining possession of a minor girl for prostitution.
Key Takeaways
- Limited Revisional Jurisdiction: High Courts cannot re-appreciate factual evidence in revision unless perversity is demonstrated in lower court judgments.
- Medical Age Determination: Bone ossification test opinions issued by medico-legal experts remain reliable evidence even if given by non-radiologists.
- Directory Nature of Guidelines: Absence of a female police officer during arrest is not fatal when statutory provisions at the time did not mandate it.
- Impact on Brothel Raids: Hostility of panch witnesses does not automatically invalidate raids if police officer testimonies are consistent and proved.
Medical Evidence and Absence of Lady Constables
Addressing the evidentiary value of the ossification test conducted on the minor victim, the High Court observed that the testimony of the expert doctor was reliable. Applying the legal principles laid down in Vinod Katara Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2023) 15 SCC 210": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 448), the Court evaluated the margins of age determination and held that the minor status of the victim was duly established.
Regarding the defense's argument that no lady constable was present during the raid and arrest, the Court distinguished the mandate under Section 46 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure. Relying on State of Maharashtra Vs. Christian Community Welfare Council of India and Anr. ( "(2003) 8 SCC 546": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 884), which dealt with similar procedural directives originally raised in Christian Community Welfare Council of India and Anr. Vs. Government of Maharashtra and Anr. ( "1994 Mh.L.J. 1769": 1994 CaseBase(BOM) 549), the Bench held that such directions are directory rather than mandatory. The Court also cited State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Iiiath Jathavedan Namboodiri and State Vs. Manimaran while defining the restricted scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In offences, where prostitution is involved and brothels are raided, often the victims who are rescued are not in a position to give clear statements. For obvious reasons they are not willing to give statements to police, much less stand in the Court for that. Therefore, much depends on the prosecution witnesses such as police officers and panchas. Therefore, minor contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be held as fatal to the prosecution case."
Ratio
In proceedings involving brothel raids and offences under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, minor contradictions in police testimony and the turning hostile of independent panch witnesses will not vitiate conviction if police officer testimonies remain consistent and reliable. Furthermore, procedural guidelines for female police presence during arrests are directory, and their non-observance does not render a trial void in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.
Background
The case originated from a police raid conducted on December 12, 2003, at Budhwar Peth, Pune, following information that minor girls were being forced into prostitution. The applicants were charged under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the applicants under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 but convicted them under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The Appellate Sessions Court subsequently dismissed their appeal, prompting the revision application before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision, upheld the sentence, and directed the applicants to surrender.
Case Details:
Case No.: REVN-482-2004
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:35606
Case Title: Mrs. Rupa Govind Nepali and Anr. v. The State Of Maharashtra
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anay Joshi a/w Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare i/b K.S. Patil
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP
Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 4701
Similar Articles
Breaking News
