1. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 28.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.168 of 2012, arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.44 of 2012 (G.R. No.346 of 2012), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) and in default of fine, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the written application of the informant namely, Raghu Singh, stating therein that Mamta Kumari @ Bajoiya had come to the house of Pradeep Singh two and half years prior to the incident. Pradeep is her brother-in-law in relation. When Mamta Kumari had come to the house of Pradeep Singh, at that time, Pradeep was not at home. She lived for 3-4 days in the house of Pradeep Singh. She had taken away Nilam Kumari, aged about 12 years, Basanti Kumari, aged about 16 years and his daughter, Manita Kumari, aged about 14 years to her own house by persuading them but she took away the girls directly to Delhi instead of taking away them to her own house while the guardians of the girls were not at home. On reaching home, he came to know that Mamta Kumari @ Bajoiya had taken away these girls with her. He along with other guardians of the girls went to the house of Mamta Kumari. Mamta Kumari told that she has sent these girls to Delhi. She also told that she will bring the girls as she had taken away to Delhi. All the parents of the girls waited for returning of these girls, but they did not come back. They had in faith for one year of returning these girls but later on, he narrated about the occurrence to the villagers. After consideration of the matter, he along with other villagers met to Bhola Prasad, the Secretary of Gramin Development Committee, Manika who informed about the incident to the Member of the Jharkhand Women Commission.

                  On the basis of above information of the informant, Manika P.S Case No.44 of 2012 dated 11.06.2012 has been registered under Sections 366(A)/ 370/ 371/ 372 IPC against the accused-appellant and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed the charge on 11.08.2017 under Sections 366(A)/ 370/ 372 IPC against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 05 witnesses and their depositions, in brief, are as follows:-

5. P.W.-1, Raghu Singh, is the informant of the case and has proved the prosecution story. He has proved Ext.-1, the written statement.

                  In cross-examination, he has admitted that all the girls had gone outside with their own will. He had not seen who has taken away his daughter and and later he came to know that the accused had taken them. He has also deposed that since his daughter has returned, he has no complaint against the accused.

6. P.W.-2, Basmati Devi, is the mother of one of the victim. She has supported the prosecution story.

                  In cross-examination, she had admitted that she has not seen the incident of taking away of the girls. She had admitted that her daughter had gone outside at her own will.

7. P.W.-3, Karan Singh, is the father of one of the victim girl. He has also supported the prosecution story.

                  In cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the accused taking away the victim girls.

8. P.W.-4, Ramuni Singh, is a hearsay witness.

9. P.W.-5, Binod Singh had deposed in his chief examination that the accused has taken away the victim girls to Delhi and later on engaged them on work.

                  In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the incident and he has heard about the same from others.

10. The question has been put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, which reads as under :-

                  “IMAGE”

11. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 370 IPC and sentenced her, as stated above.

12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim girls had gone outside by themselves and none of the witnesses have seen the appellant taking away the girls and as such the ingredients for the offence under Section 370 IPC is not made out. It has further been submitted that the investigating officer and the victim girls have not been examined in this case.

                  On the above basis, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that the F.I.R is of dated 11.06.2012 and as such, unamended Section 370 IPC will apply in the present case, which reads as under :-

                  “Section 370 Trafficking of persons -

                  Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, ( c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by—

                  First - using threats, or

                  Secondly - using force, or any other form of coercion, or

                  Thirdly - by abduction, or

                  Fourthly - by practising fraud, or deception, or

                  Fifthly - by abuse of power, or

                  Sixthly - by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.”

                  The entire section relates to involvement of two persons, one who procures and another who receives, and that must be against the will of the victim.

16. It further appears to this Court that :-

                  (a) neither the victim girls have been examined nor any evidence has been brought on record suggesting that they have been employed and have been forced to work against their will before any certain persons or in certain places.

                  (b) even, the investigating officer has not been examined in this case.

                  (c) virtually, there is no evidence regarding taking the girls to Delhi to any named persons or named places where they have worked against their will or they have been forced to work. Even the period has not been clarified. Thus, it is a case of no evidence.

17. Since it is a case of no evidence, the Judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 28.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.168 of 2012, arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.44 of 2012 (G.R. No.346 of 2012) is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

18. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.

19. The appellant is on bail, hence, she is discharged from the liability of bail bond.

20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.