New Delhi, March 24 The Delhi High Court on Tuesday overturned the conviction and 24-year prison sentence of Geeta Arora, also known as Sonu Punjaban, in a case involving the alleged trafficking of a 12-year-old girl, and acquitted her of all charges.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha also granted relief to co-accused Sandeep Bedwal, who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison in the case investigated by the Delhi Police.
The court, in its judgment based on appeals by the two accused, said that the victim's testimony suffered from "material contradictions, inconsistencies, and ambiguities," and her conduct cast a "serious shadow" on her reliability.
The court held that there were "several gaps in the prosecution's story," and in the absence of any independent corroboration, it was unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellants based solely on the victim's testimony.
"In these circumstances, it can only be held that the evidence on record is insufficient to find the appellants, A1 and A2, guilty of the offenses charged against them. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the trial court erred in relying on such unsatisfactory evidence to find the appellants guilty," the court stated.
"As a result, the appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and the order on sentence are set aside. The appellants, namely A1, are acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for the charges under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 370, 372, 376, and 120B. A2 is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the CrPC for the charges under Sections 366A, 370, 372, 373, 328, 342, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. They are released on bail, and their respective bail bonds are cancelled," the court concluded.
According to the prosecution, the victim, who was approximately 12 years old, was kidnapped in 2009. It was alleged that Bedwal had lured her under the pretext of marriage, raped her, and then sold her to several individuals who forced her into prostitution and sexually exploited her.
During this trafficking, the victim was ultimately sold to Sonu Punjaban, who used her for prostitution before further selling her to other individuals, it was claimed.
In its judgment, the court opined that the investigation in this case suffered from serious deficiencies, as the individuals allegedly involved in the chain of trafficking were neither properly identified nor apprehended.
The court observed that the prosecution had not established any "definite or consistent timeline" of when the victim was in Sonu Punjaban's custody.
Having failed to establish a clear and cogent timeline linking Sonu Punjaban to the alleged acts, the benefit of such doubt must necessarily accrue to the appellants, the court stated.
Regarding the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, the court said that the discrepancy regarding the year of the incident was not a minor inconsistency, as it went to the very core of the prosecution's case.
It also said that the allegation of rape against Bedwal also underwent substantial changes from the stage of inquiry/investigation to the trial of the case.
"These inconsistencies are not minor embellishments, but they introduce entirely new facets to the prosecution's story. It is true that when a young girl/woman is subjected to repeated sexual assault by different people at different places after being administered drinks laced with intoxicants, it may not be possible to recall the entire facts in the correct sequence or recollect the exact dates, months, or years."
"In this case, PW1 has no such case that she is unable to recall the details because of the traumatic experience," the court observed.
The court also noted that the victim lodged multiple FIRs during the relevant period alleging similar acts of kidnapping, intoxication, and sexual assault against different individuals, and even retracted from the allegations in one such case.
Sonu Punjaban was represented by senior advocate Vikas Pahwa.
In July 2020, the trial court had sentenced Sonu Punjaban to jail terms of 14 years under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and 10 years under the Indian Penal Code, including for selling and buying a minor girl for prostitution and criminal conspiracy. It had directed that the sentences would run separately.