This petition was filed before High Court of Calcutta against conviction of 2 accused (husband and wife) in Sessions Trial. The first accused, Foyam Sk., was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for eight (8) years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for further two (2) months) on two counts under Sections 363A and 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The second accused, Samina Bibi although found guilty, was let off on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In order to countenance the situation arising out of the post-conviction stage the appellants preferred the appeal on several grounds.
The facts of the case are that M, the child victim, was sent by her mother (who had been divorced by her husband) to work as a domestic help in the house of the accused. Under pretension of getting the victim married, the accused took her for a tour to Saudi Arabia, where she was forced to beg for alms and was put through forced prostitution. The victim retrieved herself somehow and surrendered to the Saudi Arabian Police from where she was deported to India and subsequently was placed in a children’s home.
After legally analyzing the entire case on the basis of available facts and evidence, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the first accused, Foyam Sk. Regarding the second accused Samina Bibi, the High Court set-aside the order of probation of the trial court. The court held that in view of the depraved nature of the crime it was wholly unjustified to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to such an accused. Thus, the portion of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court enlarging the accused Samina Bibi on probation was forthwith set aside.
Samina Bibi was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight (8) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- as awarded by the learned Trial Court originally in respect of the appellant, Foyam Sk. for both the charges under the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court also ordered that the fine imposed on the accused, if realised, would be paid to the victim.
印度
沙特阿拉伯印度沙特阿拉伯1st Instance:
Additional Sessions Judge, Kandi/ Murshidabad/ State of West Bengal, September 2001
2nd Instance:
High Court of Calcutta, Calcutta / State of West Bengal, 2003 - 11 - 20
(1) Whoever kidnaps any minor or, not being the lawful guardian of a minor, obtains the custody of the minor, in order that such minor may be employed or used for the purposes of begging shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever maims any minor in order that such minor may be employed or used for the purposes of begging shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Where any person, not being the lawful guardian of a minor, employs or uses such minor for the purposes of begging, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he kidnapped or otherwise obtained the custody of that minor in order that the minor might be employed or used for the purposes of begging.
(4) In this section,
(a) "begging" means
(i) soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether under the pretence of singing, dancing, fortunetelling, performing tricks or selling articles or otherwise;
(ii) entering on any private premises for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms;
(iii) exposing or exhibiting, with the object of obtaining or extorting alms, any sore, wound, injury, deformity or disease, whether of himself or of any other person or of an animal;
(iv) using a minor as an exhibit for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms;
(b) "minor" means-
(i) in the case of a male, a person under sixteen years of age; and
(ii) in the case of a female, a person under eighteen years of age.
Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
After legally analyzing the entire case on the basis of available facts and evidence, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the first accused, Foyam Sk.
See above, Defendant 1, Charge 1
See above, Defendant 1, Charge 2
The High Court set-aside the order of probation of the trial court. The court held that in view of the depraved nature of the crime it was wholly unjustified to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to such an accused. Thus, the portion of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court enlarging the accused Samina Bibi on probation was forthwith set aside.
Samina Bibi was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight (8) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- as awarded by the learned Trial Court originally in respect of the appellant, Foyam Sk. for both the charges under the Indian Penal Code.
High Court of Calcutta
2004 (1) CHN 198
