http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  459 of 2002 Appeal (crl.)  460 of 2002 Appeal (crl.)  461-62 of 2002 Appeal (crl.)  463-469 of 2002

PETITIONER: Moijullah @ Puttan                                               

RESPONDENT: State of Rajasthan                                               

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/12/2003

BENCH: N. SANTOSH HEGDE & B.P. SINGH

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

Ishrat Ali               Shamshuddin  @ Meradona & another        State of Rajasthan               Vs. State of Rajasthan       State of Rajasthan       Harish Tolani and others         

B.P.SINGH, J.

These appeals arise out a common judgment and order of the  High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated  July 20, 2001.

Criminal Appeal Nos.459, 460, 461 and 462 of 2002 have been  preferred by appellants who were convicted by the trial court and  whose convictions and sentences have been affirmed by the High  Court in appeals preferred by them.  Criminal Appeal Nos. 463-469 of  2002 have been preferred by the State against that part of the  judgment and order of the High Court whereby four of the appellants  before the High Court (respondents in the appeals preferred by the  State) were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

There were 11 accused persons against whom charge sheet was  submitted by the police.  Out of them Naseem absconded after he was  released on bail and therefore could not be tried alongwith the  remaining accused.  One Purshottam died only a few days after he  was released on bail.  Farukh Chisty was found to be mentally  unbalanced and, therefore, the trial against him was suspended.  The  remaining eight accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer in  Sessions Case No. 110 of 1992.  The learned Sessions Judge by his  judgment and order of May 18, 1998 found all the accused guilty of  the offence under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced them to rigorous  imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- , in default  to suffer further 2 years rigorous imprisonment.  He also found all the  accused guilty of the offence under Section 376/120-B and sentenced  them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.  He also  convicted and sentenced all the accused under Section 292/120-B IPC  and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of  Rs.500/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for  three months.  Two of the appellants, namely Moijullah @ Puttan and  Ishrat Ali were also found guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC  and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

Rs.1,000/- .

The High Court by its impugned judgment and order, while  upholding the conviction of the appellants before us only under  Section 376 IPC against Puttan  and  Ishrat and under Section  376/120-B IPC against Anwar and Shamshuddin @ Meradona,  acquitted Parvez Ansari, Mahesh Ludhani, Kailash Soni and Harish  Tolani of all the charges levelled against them.  The State has  preferred appeals against their acquittal.

The case of the prosecution is that several reports appeared in  the newspapers regarding a sex scandal in the city of Ajmer to the  effect that young school and college girls were lured by a gang which  misled them and took them to places for parties etc. whereafter they  were forcibly subjected to sexual exploitation by them.  The girls were  photographed in obscene poses and thereafter black-mailed by  threatening their exposure and adopting other means.  When this fact  came to the notice of the administration one Hari Prasad Sharma (PW- 9) who was then Deputy Superintendent of Police (North), Ajmer was  entrusted with the task of conducting a secret enquiry into the whole  affair and submit a report.  After making an enquiry, PW-9 submitted  his report dated May 30, 1992 (Ext. P-6) to the Superintendent of  Police.  After considering the report the same was lodged at the Police  Station Ganj, Ajmer on the basis of which a formal First Information  Report No. 107/1992 was registered.  After investigation the accused  were put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Ajmer variously  charged under Section 120-B, 292, 292/120-B, 507/120-B, 376 and  376/120-B IPC.

As many as 148 prosecution witnesses were examined by the  prosecution in support of its case, apart from 20 material objects and  175 documents.  Amongst the accused only Sayed Anwar Chisti  examined four witnesses in defence.

Several girls who were allegedly subjected to sexual  exploitation and black mailing were examined as prosecution  witnesses, and not surprisingly many of them turned hostile.  Yet  some of them deposed at the trial and gave a vivid account of the  manner in which they were first enticed and then exploited.

Two of the accused namely Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani  were primarily concerned with developing and printing photographs  with a view to aid the other conspirators in black mailing the victims  with a view to continuing their sexual exploitation.       

We shall first consider the evidence of the victim girls who  have deposed in favour of the prosecution and who have withstood  lengthy cross-examination and whose evidence persuaded the learned  Sessions Judge as well as the High Court to uphold the conviction of  some of the appellants, who were directly concerned with the alleged  activities of the gang.

Sangita (PW-1) was studying in the 12th Class in the year 1990  in Savitri School at Ajmer.  It appears from her evidence that she  entertained an ambition to join politics.  She had talked about her  ambitions with some of her family friends.  She was introduced to one  Deepak Chaudhary with a view to getting some assignment in the  Congress Party.  He had assured her that since he knew some  important people he would introduce her to them.  One day when she  alongwith her younger sister and Deepak Chaudhary and another  friend Rajesh was proceeding  towards  the bus stand from her house,  a white Maruti car came from the opposite direction which had 2 or 3  occupants who seemed to know Deepak Chaudhary.  They stopped  the vehicle and offered lift to Deepak Chaudhary who accepted the  offer.  All of them sat in the car and she identified two of them,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

namely Nafees and Farukh.  She was introduced to those two persons  by Deepak Chaudhary and ultimately Nafees offered to get her an  assignment in the Congress Party so that she could begin her political  career.  In fact a few days later one Anwar Chisti came in a car and  introduced himself as a friend of Nafees.  He gave her some forms to  be filled up which were required by the Congress Party and also  requested her to give her passport size photograph.  She later gave her  photograph to Nafees directly.  Some days later Farukh and Nafees  met her near the Collectorate while she was on her way to school.   They had come in a Maruti van.  One day when she was going to  school Nafees told her that he would drop her at the school and since  she was getting late she accepted the offer.  Farukh was also in the  car.  Instead of dropping her at the school they took her to the farm  house where Anwar and Ishrat were also present.  She went with  Nafees to another room to discuss about her joining the Congress  Party while Farukh and Anwar waited outside.  Nafees hugged and  kissed her despite her opposition to which she protested and came out  of the room.  Some moments later Nafees also came out of the room.   Thereafter when she went inside the room to bring her dupatta Nafees  pushed her inside the room and bolted the door.  He asked her to take  off her clothes otherwise she would be killed.  He felled her on the cot  and attempted to tear off her clothes.  Thereafter he raped her and told  her that she should not talk about it to anyone.  She was thereafter  taken in the car and dropped at her house.  Seven days later she again  met Nafees near the Collectorate and he had warned her that if she  mentioned about the earlier incident to anyone anything could happen.   

She further deposed that she knew one Madhu Bala who was  also studying in the Savitri School.  One day when they were going  together Nafees met them on the way.  Farukh and Anwar were also  with him.  They stopped them and started talking to them.  They  enquired about  Madhu and she introduced Madhu to them.  Some  days later Madhu came to her house and started weeping.  She told her  that Nafees etc. had raped her and that they had also photographed  her.  They had told her that if she brought her (Sangita) then they  would return the photographs.  With a view to help Madhu she had  accompanied her to get the photographs returned.  In these  circumstances she and Madhu had told one Rajendra Singh Rajawat a  police constable who introduced them to one Shri Soni working in the  Special Branch of the Police.  They had promised that they will carry  the matter to the higher level and deal with the situation.  They  disclosed everything to Soni but thereafter large number of phone  calls were made by different persons including ladies who were  unknown to her.  They used to question as to why she had reported the  matter to the police.  Rajendra Singh Rajawat had once asked them to  accompany him to recover the photographs and therefore she  alongwith Madhu had gone to Dargah area.  While Rajendra Singh  Rajawat was at some distance from them one person came and told  Madhu that the game which they were playing was a game they had  played long back.  Later Madhu informed her that the said person was  Puttan Allahabadi.  Sangita then deposed that she had visited the farm  house on 2 \026 3 occasions but she was raped only once.  Thereafter she  did not visit the farm house.  She knew Monika, Nirmala, Archana  and Poonam who studied with her in the same school, though in junior  classes.  She had once seen Monika and Nirmala in the company of  Farukh and Anwar at the Fie Sagar farm house.               

       PW-15 further deposed that she knew Bharosa Colour Lab as  she had been there several times to meet Mahesh.  She herself did not  work in Bharosa Colour Lab but she used to help her friend Madhu  Didi in her work in an informal way and used to sit there with her.  No  incident took place there.  She had never gone for a stroll with  Mahesh (since acquitted).  She never had any talk with anyone there  in connection with any photograph.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

       When called upon to identify Farukh this witness correctly  identified him but said that she could not identify him.  She could not  identify Puttan or Anwar.  She failed to identify Ishrat and wrongly  identified Harish Tolani (since acquitted) in his place.  She also stated  that she could not identify the driver who drove the vehicle.  He was  not present.  She stated that several years had passed by and,  therefore, she had difficulty in identifying the accused.  She correctly  pointed out Mahesh Ludhani, but stated she could not identify him.

       PW-17, Madhu Bala was another victim who was sexually  exploited by the accused.  She was earlier a student of Savitri School  and later of Savitri College.  She knew Sangita (PW-15) very well as  they used to study in the same school.  They used to go to their  respective school and college together in January 1991.  Sangita had  introduced her to Nafees, Anwar, Salim, Farukh and Ishrat.  While  introducing them she had praised them and said that they were like her  five brothers.  It was represented to her by Sangita that they were sons  of her father’s friend.  On 15th January, 1991 she was told by Sangita  that there was a function at Hatundi which will be attended by her  family members as well as those five persons i.e. Nafees etc.  She  asked Sangita to persuade her mother to permit her to attend the  function and Sangita obliged her.  It was decided that she would pick  her up at 8.00 a.m.  Sangita came to her house alongwith Anwar and  Salim.  Since she was not ready she was asked to get ready and they  went away to bring another girl.  The Maruti van was being driven by  Meradona (accused).  When they came to her again she found that  another girl Chhavi Daka was also in the Maruti van.  They all went to  poultry farm of Salim in Hatundi.  She was surprised to find that other  family members were not present and when she questioned Sangita  about it she did not get a proper reply.  Nafees, Ishrat and Farukh  came there.  They all sat in the lawn and Ishrat took her around and  showed her the farm.  Thereafter they sat under a tree.   Ishrat  (accused) became emotional and started narrating couplets and his  love story.  Thereafter they were joined by others.  They all had food  at the farm and left at about 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. for their respective  homes.  She did not then get an impression that these persons were not  proper persons.  2 \026 4 days later Sangita again requested her to go  with her and then she again went to that place.  Ishrat (accused) again  took her for a stroll.  After they had moved about in the farm they  came to the room where others were sitting but they found no one  there.  Thereafter Ishrat forcibly removed her clothes and she started  crying.  She was forcibly thrown on the bed in that room and was  raped by Ishrat who warned her not to talk to anyone about the  incident as that would only result in her loss of reputation.  Out of fear  she did not narrate the incident to anyone.  They all returned in the  same vehicle.  Despite Ishrat’s persuasion on several occasions she  did not agree to accompany him thereafter.  He started loitering near  her house and threatened that he will disclose everything to others.   Under the circumstances she was compelled to go with him.  He took  her to the bungalow of Farukh at Fie Sagar Road.  Nafees was also  present there.  She was raped by Nafees in the bungalow who  threatened her saying that her sister will also be kidnapped and they  would do the same thing to her.  Out of fear she had to go with them.   In the process she was also raped by Farukh and one Babli who had  come from America.  Nafees had told him that Babli was his boss and  that she should please him.  She was compelled to do whatever they  told her to do.  She stated that despite her resistance on some  occasions she was raped by 2 \026 3 persons on the same day.  Once she  was also raped by one Zameer.  They had threatened her and told her  that whenever they called her through anyone she must come.  One  day Sohail Gani and Puttan (accused) met her in the market and told  her that Ishrat had called her.  She was compelled to go with them  who took her to the ruins near Dargah.  When she enquired about  Ishrat they closed the door and Puttan as well as Sohail Gani raped  her.  Puttan also photographed her while she was being raped by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

Sohail Gani.  She had tried to get back those photographs from them  but they made her run from pillar to post but the photographs were  never given to her.  She had told Sangita about the photographs and  she had assured her that she would recover the photographs and in that  connection they had talked to Rajendra Singh Rajawat.  Sohail had  told her that she could get back the photographs only if she came with  Sangita because photographs of Sangita have also to be taken in that  very posture.  She had told Sangita about it.  Sohail avoided giving the  photographs on the pretext that they were with Ishrat and Nafees.  On  the other hand Ishrat and Nafees denied having those photographs.   After her college examination she went away to Jaipur in August,  1991 and her connection with accused ended there.  In this manner  PW-17 alleged that she had been raped by Ishrat, Nafees, Zameer,  Farukh, Babli, Sohail and Puttan.  She identified Farukh, Ishrat,  Anwar, Meradona and Puttan in the dock.  Five photographs were  shown to the victim and she identified photograph No.1 as her  photograph and that was the photograph which was taken by Puttan  but she could not identify the person who was with her in that  photograph.  In the course of her cross-examination this witness  mentioned that she knew Renu Tank, PW-16, who was also friendly  with the accused and that she had introduced her to them.  She also  confirmed that on 15th January, 1991 she had gone to the poultry farm  at Hatundi with Chhavi Daka PW-53.   

       The defence has not been able to elicit anything from this  witness in her lengthy cross-examination apart from some minor  inconsistencies which do not touch the core of the matter.

       Archana Chaudhary (PW-34) deposed that in the year 1991 she  had been invited by Sangita  (PW-15) for her birthday party at the  farm.  She alongwith Monika, Farukh and Naseem went to the poultry  farm of Farukh in a Maruti van at about 10.00 a.m.  Anwar and Ishrat  (accused) had also come there.  They talked for sometime and  thereafter they were served food.  After taking food while they were  talking, Monika went with Anwar while Farukh took her to a room.   He tried to kiss her and pressed her breasts.  She was made to lie and  he tried to take off her clothes, whereupon she started weeping.  She  started insisting that she must go home immediately.  In these  circumstances nothing more happened and she was thereafter dropped  at her house.  This witness has only mentioned about this solitary  incident which took place at the farm house.  That was the first day  when she had been to the farm house and thereafter she never went to  the farm house.   

       Monika Jain (PW-43) deposed that in the year 1990 she was  studying in XI class in Savitri School, Ajmer.  She was known to  Sangita Sharma (PW-15).  In or about the year 1990-1991 Sangita had  invited her to a family party where some other friends were also  invited.  She attended that party where Archana and Poonam were  also present.  The house where the party was held was the house of  Farukh (accused) as told by Sangita.  Three boys came to that party  who were introduced by Sangita as Anwar, Farukh and Nafees.   Sangita also introduced her to Archana and Poonam.  There was one  other boy with dark complexion and curly hair.  Sangita told her that  he was Shamshu @ Meradona.  While Meradona was strolling outside  the house the four girls alongwith Anwar, Farukh and Nafees sat in  the house and were chatting with them.  Another person came there  whose name was Ishrat as told by Sangita.  Food was called for which  was brought by Meradona.  Since the food was non-vegetarian she did  not eat anything.  They had gone to that house at about 10.00 a.m. and  returned by 4.00 p.m.  They were dropped by Meradona who was  driving the Maruti van.  2 \026 3 days thereafter she was again requested  by Sangita to accompany her.  A white Maruti van was standing  outside the school driven by Meradona.  They went to the same house  where they had gone earlier.  The time then was about 9.30 \026 10.30

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

a.m.  After they had reached that house Farukh, Anwar, Ishrat and  Nafees came there.  They talked for sometime and thereafter food was  brought by Meradona but she ate the food which she had carried with  her to the school.  After taking food Anwar asked her as to whether  she would like to be his friend and to this request she answered in the  affirmative.  Thereafter at about 3.45 p.m. they were all taken in the  Maruti van and dropped outside the school.  10-15 days thereafter  Sangita again requested her to accompany her to poultry farm near  Hatundi.  She alongwith Sangita,  Archana and Poonam went to the  farm in a white Maruti van standing outside the school driven by  Meradona.  She was told by Sangita that the farm belonged to the boy  named Salim, who was also present there.  They all sat in a room and  talked for a while.  Thereafter Ishrat and Poonam went out of the  room.  Farukh requested Archana to accompany him for a stroll  whereafter Archana went with Farukh.  Sangita and Nafees went out  and sat in the verandah and only she remained in the room with  Anwar.  Anwar told her that in case she wanted to contact him she  could ring up on the phone number given by him and the message will  be conveyed.  While talking with her Anwar caught hold of her hand  and tried to kiss her and also started touching her clothes.  She got  perplexed and insisted that she must go home.  She came outside and  told Archana and Poonam to leave for home.  Thereafter they all sat in  the Maruti van and were dropped outside the school.  The Maruti van  was again driven by Meradona.  She confessed that she did not  mention that incident to anyone for fear of getting a bad reputation.   This witness correctly identified Ishrat, Meradona, Farukh and Anwar  in the dock.  In the course of her cross-examination she stated that she  did not mention to Sangita about the behaviour of Anwar.  She had  realised  that those persons were not good persons.  Therefore, when  Sangita again requested her to accompany her 2 - 3 days later she  refused to accompany Sangita and in fact stopped talking to Sangita.   To a question put by the Court she clarified that by touching her  clothes she meant that accused Anwar had touched her clothes as also  touched the organs of her body simultaneously but only the clothes  were between his hand and the organs of her body.   She did not  approve of Anwar touching her as it appeared to be improper.   

       Chhavi Daka (PW-53) was also a friend of Sangita (PW-15).   She had gone in a Maruti van to a farm house near Hatundi.  They  were both students of Class XI and had gone in a Maruti van which  was standing in front of the school.  Apart from the driver there was  another person in the van whose name was Anwar.  One other girl  also joined them in the van whose name she did not know.  She did  not know the name of the driver and admitted that she may not be able  to identify him.  However, she identified accused Anwar in the dock.         After reaching the farm house she was taken to a room by  Sangita where she sat alone.  All other persons were outside the room.   After sitting for a considerable period in the room she came out and  met Anwar who sought her friendship.  She refused his proposal and  requested Sangita to leave immediately.  She stated that Sangita had  taken her to the farm on the pretext of her birthday party but after  going to the farm she found that there was no birthday party.   

       We may at this stage point out that several other girls who were  examined by the prosecution were declared hostile which included  PWs. 23 ; 25 ; 34 ; 36 ; 37 ; 40 and 44.

       Before adverting to the other part of the prosecution case which  relates to the involvement of Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani, we  propose to deal with the cases of the four appellants, namely, Puttan,  Ishrat Ali, Sayed Anwar Chisti and Shamsuddin @ Meradona who  have been convicted by the trial court as well as the High Court as  also the cases of Parvez Ansari and Kailash Soni, who though  convicted by the trial court, have been acquitted by the High Court.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

       We may only notice at this stage that though the trial court had  convicted the appellants above named of the offences under Sections  120-B and 292/120-B IPC also, the High Court did not find sufficient  evidence to support the charges under these two sections and acquitted  them of those charges but affirmed their conviction and sentence  under Sections 376/120-B IPC.  In the case of Puttan and Ishrat they  were convicted under Section 376 IPC as well.   

       We may first consider the cases of Parvez Ansari and Kailash  Soni.  It was alleged that they had raped one Pushpa Sindhi, PW.23  However, Pushpa Sindi, apart from denying the photographs produced  by PW-9, Hari Prasad Sharma stated in clear terms that Parvez Ansari  and Kailash Soni had never raped her and nothing had been recovered  at their instance.  She had never been photographed with them.   However, the trial court placed reliance on articles 1, 2 and 4, which  were said to be the obscene photographs of Pushpa Sindhi, Kailash  Soni and Parvez Ansari and, therefore, found them guilty of the  offences under Section 120-B, 376/120-B and 292/120-B IPC.  The  High Court, in our view, rightly set aside the convictions and  sentences of these two accused.  We find that there is no mention  about these two names in the deposition of some of the victim girls  whose evidence we have noticed earlier.  That apart, Pushpa Sindhi  (PW-23) did not support the case of the prosecution that she was ever  raped by either of these two persons or that she was ever  photographed with them.  Even if one was to assume that some of  these photographs are of Pushpa Sindhi (PW-23) and the aforesaid  accused, that would not in any manner connect them with the  conspiracy to commit the alleged offences in concert with Puttan,  Ishrat and others.  There is nothing on record to show that they were  ever seen at the house of Farukh or in the company of the co- conspirators at the farm house.  Moreover when Pushpa Sindhi herself  denied that she was ever raped by them, there is no other evidence to  support the conviction of these accused, who are respondents in the  State appeals.   

We, therefore, affirm the acquittal of Parvez Ansari and Kailash  Soni and dismiss the State appeals against them.

So far as the remaining 4 convicted accused are concerned,  namely, Puttan, Ishrat Ali, Sayed Anwar Chisti and Shamsuddin @  Meradona, we find that the trial court as well as the High Court after  having considered the evidence on record have rightly found them  guilty.   

Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of  Puttan and Ishrat took us to the evidence of PW-15 Sangita and PW- 17 Madhu Bala and submitted that these witnesses were wholly  unreliable.  So far as these appellants are concerned, they have been  directly implicated by Madhu Bala (PW-17).  He further submitted  that there is no reference to Puttan in the evidence of Archana (PW- 34), Monika Jain (PW-43) and Chhavi Daka (PW-53).  It was faintly  submitted that even from the evidence of Madhu Bala (PW-17) it is  quite clear that she was a consenting party and had accompanied these  two appellants of her own.  He further submitted that the secret  investigation by PW-9 Hari Prasad Sharma was hardly of any  consequence in the absence of reliable evidence on record to prove the  involvement of these two accused persons.   He further submitted that  there is no evidence to show that there was any conspiracy to commit  the offence alleged by the prosecution.

Shri J.S. Sodhi, Advocate for Shamsuddin @ Meradona and  Anwar submitted that the charge under Section 376/120-B IPC was  not made out.  No overt act of rape was alleged against either of them  and only some allegations of a minor nature were levelled by Archana  Chaudhary (PW-34) against Anwar.  So far as Shamsuddin @

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

Meradona is concerned he was only the driver of the vehicle and  carried out the orders of his master.  There was nothing to suggest that  he ever misbehaved with any girl or did anything of that sort.  He  further submitted that the investigation was biased and a lot of  prejudice was created on account of the publicity given to the episode  by the press.  The photographs, articles 1 \026 5 produced by the  prosecution were not produced from the custody of any of the accused  and it was not even known from where those photographs were  recovered.  In any event those photographs have not been proved in  accordance with law.  There is no legal evidence in that regard.  He  also submitted that this is not a usual case of rape.  Even if the  prosecution case is accepted, the evidence disclosed that the girls went  with them voluntarily and were consenting parties.  They used to carry  clothes which they changed after reaching the farm and sat with the  appellants for hours together.  In the circumstances it was quite  possible that a friendship had developed and some advances may have  been made by the appellants.  In any event these facts, he submitted,  are relevant while considering the question of sentence even if they  are found guilty.

Shri P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the State in these  appeals supported the conviction of the aforesaid appellants and  submitted that this Court has to be very careful in weighing the  evidence of the witnesses in a case of this nature.  The appellants had  prepared a well thought out plan of enticing young girls from schools  and colleges.  Initially their behaviour was courteous,  cordial and  friendly but thereafter when the girls were in their clutches they put  them under threat and used force to sexually exploit them and  continued the exploitation under threat and pressure.  The girls were  photographed in compromising positions and those photographs were  used as a tool to keep them quiet.  Under these circumstances there is  no question of their being free consenting parties.  Moreover he  submitted, there is no justification in the argument that on account of  friendship such liberty may have been taken by the appellants.  He  submitted that one cannot make a general assumption that every friend  who happens to be a girl must also be presumed to be a consenting  party for sexual activities.  He referred to the evidence on record and  submitted that the evidence discloses that the appellants first tried to  impress the girls that they were decent and affluent people and that is  why on some occasions, apart from taking a meal together, nothing  more happened.  This was a clever design to earn their confidence and  friendship.  But after a certain stage they forcibly raped those girls and  continued their sexual exploitation under threats and black mailing  tactics.   It appears from the evidence of Sangita that not only she was  being sexually exploited, she was also compelled to bring other girls  for the same purpose.  Once the girls were in their clutches, they were  left with no option but to abide by their dictates and submit to sexual  exploitation for the pleasure of the appellants as well as others.  He  further submitted that in a case of this nature a victim girl would be  very hesitant to depose before the Court.  Very often they would  attempt to save their own honour by denying the entire prosecution  case, as if nothing had happened, or admit only a part of the  prosecution case which may not seriously affect their reputation and  honour.  Despite the reluctance expected of such victims in such  circumstances, some of the witnesses have very candidly admitted that  they were subjected to sexual exploitation and have given vivid details  in the course of their deposition.  He submitted that the courts below  were justified in convicting the aforesaid appellants in view of the  clear evidence on record implicating them.         

The trial court as well as the High Court have carefully  considered the evidence on record and have concurrently found  aforesaid appellants guilty of the offence under Section 376 read with  Section 120-B IPC.  Puttan and Ishrat have been found guilty of the  offence under Section 376 IPC.  We have found no good reason which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

may persuade us to set aside the findings recorded by the courts  below.  The evidence on record discloses that the aforesaid appellants  acted according to a very well organized plan to lure innocent and  unsuspecting girls by show of their affluence and pretensions of  friendship.  The victims were not mature enough to see through their  game, and some of them fell victim to their evil designs.  Some of  them fortunately realized immediately that their intentions were  dubious and after some experience they were quick to dis-associate  themselves from them.  So far as Ishrat and Puttan accused are  concerned there is clear evidence of PW-17 Madhu Bala that she had  been raped by these two accused apart from others.  Unfortunately  many of the victim girls who appeared as witnesses turned hostile and  one can easily appreciate the reason why they did not want to depose  against the appellants as that would have exposed them as well, and  would have adversely affected their future life.  Much was sought to  be made of the fact that the photographs, material objects 1 to 5, were  collected by Shri Hari Prasad Sharma (PW-9) in the course of his  secret investigation and it is not known as to the source from which he  procured those photographs.  In any event those photographs were not  procured from the appellants.  We do not wish to place much reliance  upon those photographs in view of the clear oral evidence of the  victim girls.  The appellants had devised an ingenious plan to attract  the victim girls on pretensions of friendship, and their affluence made  the proposal even more attractive.  Once they were in their clutches  they even used force to rape them and to sexually exploit them.  It is  also obvious from the evidence of PW-17 that she was made to please  two other persons, one Babli from USA and another Zameer.  

These four accused have been named by several witnesses  examined on behalf of the prosecution.  They were always found  present at the farm house or at the house of Farukh.  It would be too  much of a co-incidence that they were accidentally present at the  relevant time at those places.    

It was sought to be argued that so far as Anwar and Meradona  are concerned it is not alleged that they had committed the offence of  rape.  It was therefore, contended that they cannot be held to be  members of the conspiracy.  This submission must be rejected.  So far  as Anwar is concerned he is not as innocent as he pretends to be.  In  fact he also made overtures to Monika Jain (PW-43) but she was able  to extricate herself from the situation.  This only shows that Anwar  accused was not a silent spectator or a casual visitor to the farm or to  the house of Farukh where these nefarious activities were carried on.

So far as Meradona is concerned it is no doubt true that there is  no allegation of his having raped any girl or having misbehaved with  any one of them.  What, however, is apparent from the evidence on  record is that he used to transport the girls to the farm house and the  house of Farukh from their respective residences or the school.  The  evidence also discloses that he was responsible for arranging food etc.  for them.  It is not necessary that in order to be a co-conspirator each  one of the conspirators should act in an identical manner.  What is  essential is that they must agree to do or cause to be done an illegal  act.  Different members of the conspiracy may be assigned different  roles with the object of committing the agreed illegal act.  Meradona  was certainly aiding the others to commit the illegal act which was the  object of their conspiracy.  Having regard to his conduct and the  evidence on record it is quite obvious to us that he was aware of what  was happening and the role played by him establishes the fact that he  was also a member of the conspiracy in which he was assigned the  role of transporting victims.  He was, therefore, clearly guilty of the  offence of conspiracy.

We are, therefore, satisfied that the evidence on record clearly  establishes the offence under Section 376 IPC as against Puttan and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

Ishrat and the offence under Section 376/120-B IPC against Anwar  and Meradona.  As noticed earlier they have been acquitted of the  other charges levelled against them and therefore it is not necessary  for us to go into those aspects of the prosecution case.

We shall now consider the cases against Mahesh Ludhani and  Harish Tolani.  Both of them have been acquitted by the High Court  of all the charges levelled against them.  On facts as well, we find that  their cases stand on a different footing.  They were more concerned  with the developing of films and printing of photographs taken while  the victims were in a compromising position.  It was the case of the  prosecution that that with the help of such photographs the victim  girls were sought to be blackmailed.  The High Court has acquitted  the other accused also of the charge under Section 292/120-B IPC.   Shri P.S. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the  photographs, articles 1 to 5 clearly establish that the victim girls were  photographed in a compromising position.  It is true that the evidence  does not disclose from where those photographs were procured but  according to him that did not affect the admissibility of the  photographs as a piece of evidence.  It is not necessary for us to go  into the question as to whether the photographs, articles 1 to 5, are  admissible as a piece of evidence.  What is significant is the fact that  the prosecution had led no evidence to show that these photographs  were recovered from either Mahesh Ludhani or Harish Tolani.   Mahesh Ludhani was concerned with the Bharosa Colour Lab while  Harish Tolani was concerned with Ajmer Colour Lab.  The  prosecution sought to implicate Harish Tolani on the basis of the  evidence of Janardhan Sharma, PW-143 who had searched the  premises of Ajmer Colour Lab.  Admittedly no obscene photograph  was recovered from the aforesaid premises.  Yet the prosecution  sought to rely upon the so-called disclosure statement made by Harish  Tolani to the effect that he had shown to them the place where the  photographs were allegedly burnt.  Shri Mishra submitted that the  principle enshrined in Section 27 of the Evidence Act will apply if a  fact is discovered pursuant to a disclosure statement which gives some  material which may be an incriminating fact.  After some argument he  did not press the point further.  

Admittedly in the instant case nothing was recovered from the  place pointed out by Harish Tolani as the place where photographs  were burnt.  Moroever none of the victims has deposed that either  Mahesh Ludhani or Harish Tolani had ever photographed them.  In  fact their names have not been mentioned at all by the victims.  Shri  N.C. Kochhar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of these two  respondents submitted that PW-9 in his secret enquiry had found that  Purshottam (since deceased) had made extra copies of the  photographs.  But a case was sought to be made at the trial that  Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani had made copies of such  photographs.  He submitted that there was really no basis on which  Janardan Sharma (PW-143) went about searching so many photo labs  in the city of Ajmer.  At the trial some evidence was led to show that  it was Puttan who had photographed PW-17 Madhu Bala when she  was in a compromising position with Sohail.  In any event no  incriminating article was found pursuant to the so called disclosure  statements made by these respondents.   Shri P.S. Misra then referred to the evidence of Shail Bala  Tayal (PW-41) and her husband Manoj Tayal (PW-42).  According to  the evidence of PW-41 she had given a film for developing and  printing to the Bharosa Colour Lab which contained her nude  photographs taken by her husband.  According to her the photographs  after developing and printing were handed over to her by Mahesh  Ludhani.  She stated that she is a resident of Beawar \026 50 Kms. away  and that she had come to collect the photographs not with her husband  but with her sister.  Shri Kochar appearing for him submitted that the  evidence of PW-41 and PW-42 deserves outright rejection.  In any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

event their evidence does not connect Mahesh Ludhani with the  conspiracy of which Puttan, Ishrat etc. were members.  It appears  highly unnatural for PW-41 to come from Beawar \026 50 Kms. away to  give the film for developing and printing at Ajmer.  It is also not  known how the police was able to contact her in the course of  investigation.  In any event, there was nothing incriminating about the  conduct of Mahesh Ludhani.  A customer such as PW-41 gave a film  for developing and printing which he did.  The fact that the film  contained nude photographs of PW-41 cannot implicate him because  the film was handed over for developing and printing by the same  person whose photographs it contained.  All that he did was to  develop the film and print the photographs and thereafter hand them  over to the customer.  

We are satisfied that the evidence of Shail Bala Tayal (PW-41)  does not establish the case of the prosecution against Mahesh Ludhani  that he was also a member of the conspiracy and that the films were  developed and photographs printed by him with a view to aid the co- conspirators to sexually exploit the victim girls.

The High Court has given weighty reasons while recording the  acquittal of these two respondents.  It found that there was no  evidence on record to suggest that respondents Mahesh Ludhani and  Harish Tolani ever participated in the parties at the farm house or at  the house of Farukh where PW-15 and PW-17 were allegedly raped.   There was also no evidence to establish that the photographs, articles  1 to  5 were printed and developed either at the Ajmer Colour Lab or  the Bharosa Colour Lab.  Moreover no obscene photograph was  recovered by the Investigating Officer at the instance of these two  respondents.  The solitary incident of  Shail Bala Tayal (PW-41), who  was not one of the victims, did not prove anything against them  because she did not even remotely suggest that with the help of those  photographs Mahesh Ludhani attempted to blackmail her.  The  searches carried on by Hari Prasad Sharma and Janardhan Sharma did  not reveal anything and there was nothing to suggest that they had  conspired with the co-accused to sexually exploit the girls after  photographing them in a compromising position and to facilitate their  continued exploitation.

We find the reasons recorded by the High Court to be supported  by the evidence on record.  The findings are reasonable and possible  on the basis of the evidence on record.  No evidence has been brought  to our notice which may persuade us to set aside the findings recorded  by the High Court.  We, therefore, find no justification for  interference in these appeals against acquittal.  We, therefore, uphold  the acquittal of these respondents, namely Mahesh Ludhani and  Harish Tolani by the High Court.

It was lastly submitted before us that in any event the sentence  of life imprisonment under Section 376 or under Section  376/120-B  IPC is too harsh.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the  case we are of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the  sentence is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment from life  imprisonment.  Accordingly we reduce the sentence imposed by the  courts below against the appellants to ten years rigorous  imprisonment.  

Subject to the modification of sentence the appeals preferred by  the accused/appellants as well as by the State are dismissed.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12