Citing undisputed evidence, Gauhati High Court upholds 20 years’ jail for woman who pushed 13-year-old girl into prostitution

FIR lodged in 2022

• A social worker attached to the District Child Protection Unit in Aizawl, Mizoram, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on March 17, 2022, after receiving information that a minor girl had been induced into prostitution by the appellant and her husband.
• It was alleged in the FIR that the minor girl was ‘sold’ to several males.
• Following an investigation by the police, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant, her husband, and other accused persons.
• During trial, the prosecution examined 17 of the listed chargesheeted witnesses, including the minor girl.
• In February 2025, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years.
• Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court, the appellant approached the high court.

Arguments

• The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was highly prejudiced, as she was unaware about the accusation of abetment against her during the entire trial.
• It was further submitted that the appellant was taken by surprise when she was convicted of an offence for which no charges were framed against her, and the same were never explained to her by the trial court.
• It was argued that Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1976, empowers the court to alter or add charges at any time before the judgment is pronounced. However, without taking recourse to the said provision, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant.
• On the other hand, the additional public prosecutor appearing for the state submitted that the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant after properly considering the evidence on record.

What the court ruled

• It appears that though there is omission on the part of the trial court to specifically mention in the memorandum, charge Section 109 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 17 (punishment for abetment of sexual offences) of the POCSO Act, 2012, the accusations against the appellant were described in very clear terms therein.
• The particulars of the offence with which the appellant was charged and which were read over and explained to her by the trial court, clearly makes out the offence of abetment of rape, and it also makes out offence of abetting aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the survivor girl.
• The particulars of the offence which were read over and explained to her by the trial court gives sufficient notice to her that she is being tried for offence of abetment of offences under the Pocso Act and Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
• Mere omission to mention IPC Section 109 and Section 17 of the Pocso Act in the memorandum of charges may be considered as an irregularity without affecting the merit of the case. More so, when the appellant has failed to demonstrate any palpable prejudice caused to her.
• The minority of the survivor has not been challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
• The undisputed evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that the minor girl was procured by the appellant and her husband in the name of looking after her as their own child and thereafter, they induced her into prostitution.
• The finding of guilt of the appellant by the trial court as well as the sentence imposed on the appellant for the said offences does not require any interference.