High Court of Kerala in revision discharged the accused from offences under IPC Sections 370, 370A due to lack of allegations regarding coercion, but affirmed charges under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Accused discharged from offences under Sections 370 and 370A of IPC, but proceeded against under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.R.P NO. 478 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 478 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1232/2019 IN SC 900/2017 OF
PRINCIPAL ASST.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOSEPH,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, PUTHUPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., EDAPPALLY-682 024
BY ADVS.
JAISON JOSEPH
SRI.M.N.SANJITH
SRI.SATHIAN A.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 0312 INSPECTOR OF POLICE INFOPARK POLICE STATION, KOCHI-682 030BY SRI.P.G.MANU-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P NO. 478 OF 2020
2
O R D E R
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Court, North Paravur (for short, 'the court below') dismissing an application for discharge filed by the accused No.2 invoking Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
CRL.R.P NO. 478 OF 2020
3
court below seeking discharge invoking Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The court below after hearing both sides dismissed the petition as per the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this criminal revision petition.
of Section 370 of IPC makes it clear that whoever, for the purpose of
CRL.R.P NO. 478 OF 2020
4
exploitation, recruits, transports, harbours, transfers or receives, any girl or woman for the purpose of exploitation, by using threat, or any other form of coercion, or by abduction or by practising fraud, or deception, or by abuse of power, or by inducement, such person is guilty of the offence of trafficking of person. The expression “exploitation” includes any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs. A reading of the 164 statement of the victim as well as the final report would show that there are no allegation that the petitioner has resorted to threat, force, or any other form of coercion or inducement on the victim. There is absolutely no case for the prosecution in the final report that the petitioner recruited, transported, harboured, transferred, or received the victim either by using threat or by using force or coercion or by abduction or by practising fraud, or deception, or by abuse of power or by inducement. On the other hand, in the statement given by the victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she categorically stated that she voluntarily came to Kerala from Delhi. She also specifically stated that
CRL.R.P NO. 478 OF 2020
5
nobody compelled her. Hence, the basic ingredients of Section 370 of IPC are not attracted. The proof of trafficking of a person is a prerequisite to attract Section 370A of IPC. So in the absence of trafficking, Section 370A of IPC also will not be attracted. However, on a perusal of the entire records, I am of the view that the ingredients of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Trafic (Prevention) Act are prima facie attracted.
Thus, upon entire consideration of the records of the case and
after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the prosecution, I am of the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 370 and 370A of IPC. Hence, the accused is discharged from the said offences.
Crl.Revision Petition is allowed in part to that extent.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ab
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the basic ingredients Section 370 and Section 370A of IPC are attracted when there are no allegations of coercion against the victim?
Whether the petitioner should be discharged from the offences of trafficking and exploitation due to absence of evidence regarding use of threat or force?
Whether the prosecution materials are sufficient to frame charges under Sections 370, 370A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
JOSEPH
STATE OF KERALA
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Parties & counsel