Jahanuddin Sk @ Ali Jiban @ Raju Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 14 July, 2026

July 15, 2026

Gauhati High Court

Jahanuddin Sk @ Ali Jiban @ Raju Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 14 July, 2026

1. Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant Jahanuddin Sk. @Ali Jiban @ Raju Das
in Crl. A. (J) 22/2023 and Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant Salma Begum in Crl. A.
331/2022. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. PP appears for the State respondent, while Ms. S. Sharma,
learned Amicus Curiae appears for the respondent No.2 in both the appeals.

SPONSORED

2. The two appellants have made a challenge to their conviction vide the impugned Judgment
dated 04/11/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar in Case No. Special
29/2020, arising out of Serfanguri P.S. Case No.49/2020, for having trafficked the victim girl into a
brothel for prostitution, run by the appellant Salma Begum and for having abetted aggravated
penetrative sexual assault on the victim by the customers who visited the brothel.

3. The appellant, Jahanuddin Sk has been convicted and sentenced under Section 6/17 of the
POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 370/370(A)/372/366/419 IPC and under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention Act), 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the IT (P) Act’]. The other appellant, Salma Begum
has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section
370/370(A)/372 IPC. The appellant Salma Begum has also been convicted and sentenced under
Sections 3/4/6 of the IT(P) Act.

4. Section 17 of the POCSO Act relates to abetment of an offence, while Section 6 is the
punishment to be inflicted for having committed the offence under Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act.
Section 370 IPC relates to trafficking of persons, while Section 370(A) IPC relates to exploitation of a
trafficked person. Section 372 IPC provides for punishment for selling minors for the purpose of
prostitution and Section 366 IPC provides the punishment for kidnapping, abducting or inducing any
woman with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to
Page No.# 4/20

marry any person against her will or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
Section 419 IPC provides for punishment for cheating. Section 3 of the IT(P) Act provides for
punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the IT (P)
Act provides for punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution, while Section 5 provides for
punishment for procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 provides
the punishment for detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is being carried out.

5. The learned counsels for the appellants submits-

a) That the Prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was sold for the purpose of
prostitution.

b) That the Prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant Salma Begum was operating a
brothel.

c) That the Prosecution has failed to prove that any seizures were made from the house of the
appellant Salma Begum, because they obtained the signatures of the seizure witnesses on a
blank piece of paper.

d) That the victim was not kidnapped by the appellant Jahanuddin Sk, inasmuch as, they had
been in a relationship for 6 years and that the victim had eloped with him. As such, it cannot
be said that the appellant Jahanuddin Sk had induced the victim to go to the house of the
appellant Salma Begum for the purpose of prostitution.

e) That the victim was only kept in the house of the appellant Salma Begum for some time.

f) That the victim was not a sterling witness and she had developing her story in her Section
164 Cr.PC statement and ultimately in her testimony before the learned Trial Court.

g) That the evidence of the victim was full of contradictions and she was not a credible witness,
as her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C did not make a mention of she being subjected to
sexual intercourse by customers in the brothel.

Page No.# 5/20

h) That the age of the victim has not been proved, inasmuch as, the author of the birth
certificate did not adduce evidence in the Court, to prove the contents of the original birth
certificate of the victim issued in terms of Section 12 of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the “1969 Act”).

i) Further, the Doctor’s evidence showed that as per the radiological examination done upon
the victim, she was 18 to 20 years old.

j) That there was no injury mark on the body of the victim.

k) That there was no evidence showing that any sexual intercourse had occurred between the
appellant Jahanuddin Sk and the victim.

l) That there was nothing in the evidence to show that any of the offence under Section 3 of
the POCSO Act, 2012 has been committed by the appellant against the victim.

m) That the birth certificate which has been issued under the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 was not a birth certificate that could be considered as substantive
evidence, inasmuch as, the same was not reflected as a document that could be used for
determining the age of the victim as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein after referred to as “JJ Act‘).

6. As such, the counsels for the appellants submit that the appellants could not have been
convicted under Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act and accordingly, the impugned judgment should be set
aside. In support of their submissions, the learned counsels for the appellants have relied upon the
following judgments- i) Tomaso Bruno & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in
(2015) 7 SCC 178 [Para 21-26, 42 & 43; ii) Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 [Para 22]; iii) Narender Kumar Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 [Para 20-22, 28-31]; iv) Alamelu &
Another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 385
Page No.# 6/20

[Para 40-43, 44-47]; v) P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of
Police, reported in (2024) 17 SCC 684 [Para 8-19]; vi) Rajak Mohammad Vs. The
State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 1124.

7. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the birth certificate of the victim was admitted
as an exhibit after comparing it with the original and the contents of the same were never put to
challenge by the appellants. Further, the birth certificate of the victim having been issued in terms of
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the same was substantive evidence, to prove the age of
the victim in terms of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.126/2023, Saiful Islam Vs. State of Assam and Anr., which had been made in terms of the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, reported in 1998 Supp
SCC 604; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 584 and
Harpal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 560.

8. The learned Addl. PP submits that there is no reason for the victim to have foisted a false case
on the appellants and neither have the appellants given any reason as to why the victim should fabricate
a false case against them. The learned Addl. PP further submits that there are two statements made by
the victim under section 161 Cr.PC. The first 161 Cr.PC statement made by the victim was on the date
she was recovered from the house of the appellant Salma Begum, i.e, on 04/08/2020. In the first section
161 Cr.PC statement which was made in Bengali language, the victim did not make a mention that she
had been forced to undergo sexual intercourse with customers in the house of the appellant Salma
Begum. However, in the second section 161 Cr.PC statement made by the victim in the Assamese
language on 05/08/2020, the victim narrated the fact that she had been subjected to forceful sexual
intercourse by customers in the house of the appellant Salma Begum, besides having sexual intercourse
with Jahanuddin. He also submits that the Section 164 Cr.PC statement made by the victim
corroborates the testimony of the victim, that she had been made to have sexual intercourse with
customers in the brothel of the appellant Salma Begum, which was located in a red light area in
Siliguri. He submits that the date of birth of victim was 05/02/2004, while the incident occurred on
30/07/2020. He also submits that the fact that the victim had been induced to go to the brothel by deceit
having been proved, there was no infirmity with the decision of the learned Trial Court in convicting
the appellants.

Page No.# 7/20

9. Ms. S. Sharma, the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2 (victim) submits that the
seizure list made with regard to the article seized in the brothel shows that 5 condoms were seized.
Further, the victim had identified the appellant Salma Begum and had seen her giving Jahanuddin Sk
Rs.500 for expenses for tea. Thereafter, the appellant Jahanuddin Sk left, telling the victim that he
would return by night. However, he did not return. Instead, the victim was subjected to sexual
intercourse by unknown persons.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 (victim) submits that the evidence of PW-15, who
is the Sub-Inspector of Police at Siliguri P.S. and the evidence of PW-16, who is a lady Constable at
Siliguri P.S, is to the effect that they had recovered the victim from the house of the appellant Salma
Begum, which was in a red light area at Khalpara. She also submits that the medical report and the
evidence of the Doctor have proved that the hymen of the victim was ruptured, which corroborated the
fact that the victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse by customers in the brothel. She also
submits that if the appellants were not guilty of having committed any offence against the victim, they
should have adduced evidence and brought in defence witnesses from around the area, to prove that the
brothel run by the appellant Salma Begum was not a brothel. However, the same was not done. The
counsel for the respondent No.2 thus prays that the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.

11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

12. The brief facts of the case is that the victim, who was working in the house of
the informant (PW-3) as a maid servant, on the pretext of going to a pharmacy to buy
medicines met the appellant Jahanuddin SK and eloped with him. The appellant
Jahanuddin SK however sold her in a brothel located at Khalpara, Siliguri, run by the
other appellant Salma Begum. The victim was thereafter rescued by the police, after
staying for 3 days in the brothel. On the basis of the FIR lodged by PW-3 on
31/07/2020 before the in-charge Patgaon Police Outpost, Patgaon, which was sent to
the Officer-in-Charge of the Serfanguri Police Station, Serfanguri Police Station case
no. 49/2020 under section 366 IPC was registered. After the investigation of the case
was completed by PW-22 and PW-23, a charge sheet was submitted against both the
appellants under section 120(B)/109/366(A)/ 369/376(D)/370(4)/372/373/419 IPC
Page No.# 8/20

read with section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act.

13. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges against the appellant
Jahanuddin Sk under section 366/370/370(A)/372/419 IPC read with section 6/17 of
the POCSO Act and section 5 of the IT(P) Act. In respect of the other appellant Salma
Begum, charge under section 3/4/6 of the IT(P) Act, section 370/370(A)/372 IPC and
section 6/17 of the POCSO Act was framed against her. Both the appellants pleaded
not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried.

14. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 23 Prosecution Witnesses and after examining the
appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C., it came to a finding that the appellant Jahanuddin Sk was guilty of
the offence under section 366/419/370/370(A)/372 IPC, section 6/17 of POCSO Act, read with section
5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The learned Trial Court also found the other appellant Salma
Begum to be guilty under section 370/370(A)/372 IPC read with section 3/4/6 of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act and section 6/17 of POCSO Act.

15. The appellants were accordingly convicted of the charges mentioned in the preceding paragraphs
and they were sentenced by the learned Trial Court as follows :-

“A. Accordingly, accused Jahanuddin Sk @ Ali Jiban @ Raju Das and accused Salma Begum are
sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 20(twenty) years each and to pay fine of Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees
Twenty thousand) only each. In default they shall suffer another Rigorous Imprisonment for 2(two) years
each under section-6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

B. Both the accused are sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 7(seven) years each and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five thousand) only each. In default another Simple Imprisonment for 1(one) year
each under section-370 of IPC.

C. Both the accused are sentenced for Rigorous Imprisonment for 7(seven) years each and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five thousand) only each. In default another Simple Imprisonment for 1(one) year
each under section-370(A) of IPC.

Page No.# 9/20

D. Both the accused are sentenced for Simple Imprisonment for 10(ten) years each and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five thousand) only each. In default another Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) years
each under section-372 of IPC.

E. Accused Jahanuddin Sk is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five thousand) only. In default another Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) years
under section-366 of IPC.

F. Accused Jahanuddin Sk is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 3(three) years under section-419 of
IPC.

G. Accused Jahanuddin Sk is further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay
fine of Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two thousand) only. In default another Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one)
year under section-5 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956.

H. Moreover, accused Salma Begum is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3(three) years and to
pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees One thousand) only. In default another Rigorous Imprisonment for
5(five) months under section-3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

I. Accused Salma Begum is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 1(one) year under section-4 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

J. Accused Salma Begum is further sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay fine
of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five thousand) only. In default another Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) years
under section-6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.”

16. The evidence of PW-1, who is the mother of the victim is to the effect that the victim was raised
in the residence of her maternal uncle (PW-3). About 4 months back, the wife of PW-3 had called her
and asked her whether the victim had come to her residence, to which she replied in the negative.
Thereafter, PW-1 went to the residence of PW-3 and started searching for the victim. As the victim was
not found, PW-3 lodged an FIR. PW-1 also stated that Police recovered her daughter about 4-5 days
later. On enquiring from her daughter as to the reason for her going missing, her daughter replied that
the appellant Jahanuddin, who identified himself as Raju Das, took her to Siliguri where she was sold
to Salma Begum. Further, she was raped by some unknown persons. PW-1 also stated that her daughter
Page No.# 10/20

(victim) was then aged about 17 years.

17. The evidence of PW-2, who is the victim, is to the effect that about 10-11 months back, the
appellant Jahanuddin came into contact with her, as he was working as a Painter in their village. He
identified himself as Raju Das and used to talk to her over phone. PW-2 also stated that she fell in love
with the appellant Jahauddin Sk. One day, Jahanuddin called her on her mobile and asked her to bring
her documents for a Court marriage. Accordingly, she took her birth certificate, caste certificate and
other school documents and went to Kokrajhar High School alone. Jahanuddin was waiting there. Then
they boarded a Tempo and thereafter changed to a bus. While on the bus, Jahanuddin gave her water,
due to which she became partly unconscious. When she regained her senses, she found herself in the
residence of a lady, whom Jahanuddin identified as his sister. They stayed there for the night and on the
following day, the victim was taken by Jahanuddin to the residence of the other appellant Salma
Begum. Jahanuddin then identified Salma Begum as his sister. PW-2 further stated that she saw
Jahanuddin taking Rs. 500/- from Salma Begum for expenses for tea. Thereafter, Jahanuddin left PW-2,
telling her that he would return by night. Jahanuddin however did not return. Salma Begum then gave
her some short dresses, which PW-2 refused to wear. The infuriated Salma Begum then beat PW-2 with
a stick and told PW-2 that Jahanuddin had sold her to Salma Begum. That night, PW-2 was forced to
have sexual intercourse with 3 unknown persons. When she refused to have sexual intercourse the next
day, Salma Begum again beat her. On the following day, two more persons had sexual intercourse with

PW-2. On the 4th day, the Police recovered PW-2 and she was taken to the Police Station at Siliguri.
Thereafter, she was brought to the Patgaon Police Outpost. She was also taken to Kokrajhar Civil
Hospital for medical examination. She was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording
her statement. PW-2 further stated that Salma Begum had informed her that Jahanuddin was not Raju
Das, a Hindu boy as claimed by him. PW-2 also stated that she had given her school documents, caste
certificate and other documents to Jahanuddin Sk.

18. In her cross examination, PW-2 stated that she told the Police that she had informed Raju Das
that if he did not marry PW-2, PW-2 would be married to one Budhu Nath, with whom her parents had
arranged her marriage. She also denied the suggestion that she did not tell the police that she was
forced to have sexual intercourse with three unknown persons or that Salma Begum had
beaten her up when she refused to subject herself to having sexual intercourse. She also
denied the suggestion that she did not tell the Police that two more persons had committed
Page No.# 11/20

sexual intercourse with her. She also denied the suggestion that she did not inform the
Police that it was Salma Begum who informed her that Jahanuddin was not a Hindu boy as
claimed by him. PW-2 also stated that her statement was recorded by the Police on 2/3
occasions. She also stated that she was allowed to talk to her mother from Siliguri.

19. The evidence of PW-3 (informant) is to the effect that he did not know the appellants. He
stated that the victim used to stay in his residence since her childhood. He also stated that the
parents of the victim had also stayed in their house prior to shifting to a different place. On
30/07/2020, while he was in his grocery shop, his wife asked him as to where the victim was.
When he went back to his house during lunch break, he called the victim on her mobile
number, which was not answered. Later the mobile was found to be switched off. Thereafter,
his wife and the victim’s mother started looking for the victim, but could not find her. The
mother of the victim then received a call on her mobile and the person on the other side of the
mobile, informed the victim’s mother that the victim was with him and she was safe. PW-3
stated that he lodged the FIR on the next day and after six days, the victim was recovered and
brought to the Patgaon Police Outpost. On going to the Patgaon Police Outpost and enquiring
about the reason for the victim going missing, he came to learn that the victim was recovered
from the red light area of Siliguri.

20. The evidence of PW-4 (wife of PW-3) is to the effect that she did not know the appellant
but she knew the victim, who stayed in their residence. One day she noticed that the victim was
not at home and on enquiry from her mother-in-law, she was told that the victim had gone to
purchase medicine. As the victim did not return for some time, PW-4 called the mother of the
victim, who told her that the victim had not come to their residence. Thereafter, the victim’s
mother came to the residence of PW-4 and they started looking for the victim. PW-4 stated that
the mother of the victim informed her that in the evening, the victim’s mother had received a
call from a boy stating that the victim was with him and she was safe. On the following day, her
husband lodged an FIR at the Patgaon Police Outpost. After the victim had been recovered by
the Police, PW-4 was informed by the victim that she had been taken to Siluguri where she was
beaten up and raped by some persons.

Page No.# 12/20

21. The evidence of PW-5, 6, 7 & 8 is to the effect that they came to learn that the victim,
who had gone missing, had been taken to Siliguri and sold to a brothel.

22. The evidence of PW-9 is to the effect that she heard that the victim had eloped and later
came to know from the mother of the victim that she had been recovered from Siluguri.

23. The evidence of PW-10 is to effect that he heard the victim had been taken to Siluguri
and sold to a brothel. Further, he had signed the seizure list as a seizure witness, which showed
that the birth certificate of the victim had been seized by the Police. The seizure list was
exhibited as Ext-4, while the birth certificate was exhibited as Material Ext.-2 and Material
Ext-3 was the HSLC mark sheet. Material Ext. 2 showed the date of birth of the victim to be
05/02/2004.

24. The evidence of PW-11 and PW-12 are to effect that they came to know that the victim
was missing and that she had been recovered from Siluguri.

25. The evidence of PW-13 is to effect that some Police officials had come to his residence
and asked him to show them the residence of Jahanuddin, who was his nephew. On taking the
Police to the residence of Jahanuddin, Jahanuddin was arrested from his house and his mobile
was seized by the Police. PW-13 signed on the seizure list and the mobile phone was exhibited
as Material Ext-4.

26. The evidence of PW-14, who is the wife of PW-13, is to the effect that her husband had
taken the Police team to the residence of Jahanuddin and came to learn that Jahanuddin had
been arrested.

27. The evidence of PW-15, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police at Siliguri Police Station, is to
the effect that on 04/08/2020, he was posted at Khalpara Police Outpost. A Police team from
Assam sought their assistance to recover a girl trafficked in the red light area at Khalpara. PW-
15 accompanied the Police team from Assam and recovered the victim from the residence of
Page No.# 13/20

Salma Begum, who was arrested from her house.

28. The evidence of PW-16, who is a lady Constable in the Siliguri Police Station, is to the
effect that on 04/08/2020, she was posted at Siliguri Police Station. PW-16 stated that she and
another lady constable accompanied the Police team and recovered the victim from the
residence of the appellant Salma Begum, which was in a red light area.

29. The evidence of PW-17 is to the effect that the police had arrested Salma Begum from
the red light area and when asked whether she knew Salma Begum, she stated that she knew
the appellant Salma Begum. PW-17 also stated that she was the seizure witness to the
seizure list which was exhibited as Ext.6.

30. The evidence of PW-18 is to the effect that she worked as a maid in the house of
Salma Begum. As PW-18 stated that she did not know anything about the case, the learned
Special P.P. sought leave of the Court to cross-examine PW-18, which was allowed. PW-18
stated that Salma Begum’s residence was in the red light area. She also denied the
suggestion that she told the police that she knew Salma Begum dealt in prostitution. PW-18
further stated that she gave a thumb impression on a blank paper and nothing was seized in
her presence by the police.

31. The evidence of PW-19 and PW-20 are to the effect that they worked in the Darbar
Mahila Samiti, which works for the welfare of sex workers. On being asked whether they
knew the accused, they said yes.

32. The evidence of PW-21 who was posted as Senior Medical and Health Officer at
RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar on 06/08/2020, is to the effect that on examining the victim,
she found the hymen of the victim was ruptured and that the vaginal canal easily admitted
two fingers. Her final opinion on the victim was as follows:-

“Final opinion:- After all clinical examination ossification test and spermatozoa test the following
Page No.# 14/20

points are noted:

1. The age of the girl is 18 to 20 years.

2. No injury mark found on her body and private parts.

3. She has been exposed to sexual intercourse multiple times before 36 hours.

Exhibit-P7/PW21 is the Medical report and Exhibit-P7(1)/PW21 is my signature. 3″

33. The evidence of PW-22, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, is to the effect that on
31/07/2020, he was posted at Patgaon Outpost as in-charge. On that day, PW-3 lodged an
FIR stating that his maid servant had gone missing since 31/07/2020 and did not return till
evening. Accordingly, PW-22 made GD Entry No.461 dated 31/07/2020 and forwarded the
case to the O/C Serfanguri P.S, who registered Serfanguri P.S case No. 49/2020 under
Section 366 IPC. PW-22 then conducted the investigation, wherein he seized one Birth
Certificate, one Registration Card, one Original Admit Card, one OBC Caste Certificate,
one Samsung mobile handset and 4G Airtel SIM of the victim. He also seized the mobile
handset with SIM belonging to the appellant Salma Begum. He also seized 5 packets of
Nirod condom from the room of Salma Begum. He also seized Nokia 105 mobile handset
from the appellant Jahanuddin. PW-22 stated that except for filing the charge-sheet, he
conducted the entire investigation. He also stated that he recorded statement of the victim at
Khalpara TOP on 04/08/2020 and on 06/08/2020.

34. The evidence of PW-23 is to the effect that the Case Diary of Serfanguri P.S. Case No. 49/2020
was handed over to him and after collecting the certificate under Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence
Act from the Cyber Cell of the S.P Office, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants.

35. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is as follows:

“My name is xxxxxxxx and I am aged 17. I have known Jahanuddin for 6 years. He works as a
painter. He told me that his name is Raju Das. I fell in love with Jahanuddin as I knew him as Raju Das.
I thought that he was a Hindu. He told me that he would marry me. Since I was minor, he took my birth
Page No.# 15/20

certificate, caste certificate, admit card and registration certificate of Matric Examination from me in
order to get the marriage registered. On 31/07/2020, on being asked by Raju @Jahanuddin, I went
Patgaon market taking the certificates along. A tempo (auto rickshaw) arrived there. A woman wearing
‘Burqa’ came in that tempo (auto rickshaw). She asked me whether I would go by that tempo (auto
rickshaw). I went to Halang Bazar by that tempo (auto rickshaw). Raju @ Jahanuddin came there. The
woman alighted from the vehicle. Raju gave me some water to drink and I fell asleep after drinking the
water. I did not know what happened thereafter. When I could open my eyes a little, I found myself in a
line bus. Raju @ Jahanuddin was also with me. He took me by a bus and kept me in a hotel. We stayed
in separate rooms in the hotel that night. On the following day, we were hanging out and I was not able
to utter any word. He took me to the house of his sister Salma Begum and keeping me inside the house,
they locked the door from the outside. Salma gave me some short dress to wear but as I denied, Salma
assaulted me. Customers visited at night. Since I refused to engage myself in such bad act, I was
assaulted. Salma runs a brothel in her house. Four persons committed sexual intercourse with me. When
the said persons arrived I came to know that I was in Siliguri. I stayed in the house of Salma for three
days. I was forced to commit bad act with four persons in the first two days.

Raju snatched my mobile phone and kept it with him. After leaving me in the house of Salma, he
went back. When I was in the house of Salma, Raju allowed me to talk with my family through
conference call. When my mother asked me whether I was in Siliguri, I replied in the affirmative. Then
Raju assaulted me. Three days later, the police rescued me. Now, I will go with my parents.”

36. The examination of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C shows that they have made a
blanket denial of the evidence adduced and have taken the stand that the entire evidence adduced
against them was false.

37. In the case of P. Yubaprakash (supra), the Supreme Court had held that wherever a dispute with
respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the POCSO Act,
the Courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “JJ Act“).

38. The first issue to be decided is as to whether the Birth Certificate of the of the victim which has
been issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (herein after referred to as the 1969
Act) could be relied upon for proving the age of the victim, as Section 94 of the JJ Act, does not make a
mention of such a certificate being a valid document for proving the age of victim or a child in conflict
Page No.# 16/20

with law. In the first instance, it is noticed that the learned Trial Court at page 56 of the impugned
judgment, has held that the learned Defence Counsel did not raise any objection regarding the age of
the victim. Further, the Birth Certificate of the victim issued under the 1969 Act had been compared
with the original and had been exhibited by the Prosecution. Though Section 94 of the J.J Act does not
provide for proving the birth of a victim or a child in conflict with law, by relying upon a Birth
Certificate issued under Section 12 of the 1969 Act, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
Saiful Islam vs. The State of Assam & Another, (Criminal Appeal No.126/2023) has held that the date
of birth recorded in the Birth Certificate issued under 1969 Act, has to be presumed to be correct, in
terms of Section 79 of the Evidence Act. The Coordinate Bench held that this presumption has to be
made in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 584 and in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand
Purohit, reported in 1998 Supp SCC 604.

39. Paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Saiful
Islam (Supra), is reproduced herein below as follows :-

“26. Chapter IV with heading, ‘Maintenance of Records and Statistics’, has provided in Section 16 for
every Registrar to keep in the prescribed form a registrar of births for the registration area or any part
thereof in relation to which he exercises jurisdiction. Subject to the rules framed by the State
Government, any person, as per Section 17[1], may inter alia [a] cause a search to be made by the
Registrar for any entry in a register of births; and [b] obtain a certificate of birth from such Registrar
and issue in such form and manner as may be prescribed. As per subsection [2] of Section 17, all
certificates given under Section 17 shall be certified by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by
the State Government to give such certificates as provided in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 [‘the Evidence Act‘, for short], and shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the
birth to which the entry relates. As per Rule 8 of the Assam Registration of Births and Deaths Rules,
1999, framed under the 1969 Act, the extracts of particular from the register relating to births to be
given under Section 12 of the 1969 Act shall be in Form no. 5 and Rule 13 has prescribed for the fees
payable under Section 17 with certification in the manner provided for in Section 78 of the Evidence
Act.

27. Section 35 of the Evidence Act has laid down that an entry in any public or other official book,
Page No.# 17/20

register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by public
servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially
enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or record or an electronic record is kept,
is itself a relevant fact. What documents are public documents are mentioned in Section 74 of the
Evidence Act. Section 76 of the Evidence Act has provided for giving of certified copies of public
documents with certification along with the date, subscribed by the public officer with his name and his
official title and if such certificates are sealed by the public officer authorized by law to make use of a
seal then they are called certified copies. Section 77 has laid down that such certified copies may be
produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they
purport to be copies.

28. On the presumption as to genuineness of certified copies, Section 79 of the Evidence Act has inter
alia laid down that the Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate,
certified copy, or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as any evidence of any
particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any authorized officer, provided that such
document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that
behalf. The court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed
or certified held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.”

40. In view of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Saiful Islam (supra), we hold
that for determining the age of a victim under Section 94 of the JJ Act, the date of birth recorded in the
certificate issued under 1969 Act can also be used for determining the age of the victim. As there was
no objection to the contents of the victim’s birth certificate issued under the 1969 Act, the Prosecution
has been able to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age, at the time she was raped.

41. In the case of Alamelu (Supra), the Supreme Court referred to other judgments of the Supreme
Court and held that mere production and marking of a document as an Exhibit by a Court cannot be
held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by the
evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in it. However, in the facts of
this case and keeping in view the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Saiful Islam (Supra), we hold
that the contents of the victim’s Birth Certificate can be held to be proof of her date of birth.

42. It is also settled law that that a conviction in a rape case can be recorded on the sole,
Page No.# 18/20

uncorroborated testimony of a victim, provided it does not suffer from any basic infirmities or
improbabilities which render it unworthy of credence.

43. In the case of Tomaso Bruno (supra), the Supreme Court held that the principle underlying
Section 106 of the Evidence Act is that the burden to establish those facts which are within his personal
knowledge is cast on the person concerned, and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, inference
may be drawn against him. The Supreme Court further held that where the evidence has not been
properly appreciated and findings are perverse, the findings can be interfered with.

44. In the case of Narendra Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that if the statement of the
prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court as such, conviction can be based only on
the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not
be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The Supreme Court also held that
the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the
weakness of the case of defence. There must be proper legal evidence and material on record to record
the conviction of the accused. It further held that the Court must act with sensitivity and appreciate the
evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation.

45. In the case of Rai Sandeep (supra), the Supreme Court held that the ‘sterling witness’ should be
of a very high quality and calibre, whose version should therefore be unassailable. The Court,
considering the version of such witness, should be in a position to accept it for its face value without
any hesitation. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and
ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the
accused.

46. The evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court goes to show that the victim was in love with
Jahanuddin and that they had eloped. However, Jahanuddin had sold the victim to a brothel owner, the
appellant Salma Begum, thereby showing that there was no love for the victim on the part of the
appellant Jahanuddin. Further, the fact that the appellant Jahanuddin had by a false promise of love and
Page No.# 19/20

affection induced the victim to elope with him, by telling the victim that his name was Raju Das, a
Hindu boy. This deception by Jahanuddin on the victim girl clearly shows the illegal intention of the
appellant Jahanuddin, to lure a minor girl into the prostitution, by falsely promising marriage on the
ground of being in love with the minor victim.

47. The evidence of the Siliguri police personnel, such as PW-15 and 16 shows that the victim had
been recovered from the brothel of the appellant Salma Begum, which was in a red light area. The fact
that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse has also been proved by the evidence of PW-21
(doctor), who had testified that the victim had been exposed to sexual intercourse multiple times before
36 hours. It may be stated here that the victim had been rescued on 04.08.2020, while the medical
report had been made on 06.08.2020. As the victim had been missing for a few days prior to the
recovery and as she was rescued from the brothel on 04.08.2020, it is clear that the victim had been
subjected to sexual intercourse during her stay in the brothel.

48. Though, the victim in her first statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C, has not clearly stated
that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse in the brothel, the statement states that a boy used to
keep vigil and that there were old and the new customers. Further, whenever the victim cried, the
appellant Salma Begum threatened her, saying that she would send the victim to an even worse place.
The above implies that the victim was subjected to sexual assault in a brothel. The second statement of
the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C clearly records that she had been sold to customers to engage in
illegal acts. The statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C is to the effect that she had sexual
intercourse with customers in the brothel. Thus, there is no contradiction in the statements made by the
victim under section 161/164 Cr.P.C and her testimony before the court. In any event, the appellants
never confronted the testimony of the victim with the statements made by her under section 161 Cr.P.C,
at the time of cross examination of the victim. Thus, in view of the above reasons, we do not find any
reason to doubt the truthfulness of the testimony of the victim and in fact, her testimony inspires the
confidence of the court.

49. On going through the evidence and the impugned judgment, we find that the learned trial court
has properly appreciated the evidence and that the appellants have failed to establish that the
prosecution case is a fabricated case. We would also like to add that it is settled law that absence of
injury marks on the body of the victim, does not mean that the victim had not been raped.

Page No.# 20/20

50. The above being said, we find that there is no evidence to prove that the victim and the
appellant Jahannuddin had sexual intercourse. In any event, Jahanuddin has not been convicted
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but has rightly been convicted under Section 6/17 of the
POCSO Act, as he was the person who sold the victim to the brothel owner for prostitution.

51. As such, we find that the prosecution has proved that the victim was sold for the purpose
of prostitution by the appellant Jahanuddin in the brothel run by the appellant Salma Begum.
As, the victim had been induced by the appellant Jahanuddin with a false promise of marriage
and had sold her to the brothel owner, the deceitful means by which the victim has been sold to
the brothel, for compelling her to undergo illicit intercourse with customers, also attracts
Section 366 IPC.

52. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment. The appeals stand dismissed. Send back the TCR.

53. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae for the
respondent No. 2, her fees should be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee.

                                                    JUDGE                             JUDGE



Comparing Assistant

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Jahanuddin Sk @ Ali Jiban @ Raju Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 14 July, 2026

Gauhati High Court