Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 373 IPC for Obtaining Possession of Minor Girls for Prostitution Despite Absence of Female Officer

Mrs. Rupa Govind Nepali & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra | Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction | 29 August 2026

The Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal revision application filed by two women convicted under Section 373 IPC for buying/obtaining possession of minor girls for prostitution, while noting they had earlier been acquitted under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PITA Act. The Court held that minor discrepancies in panch witness testimony do not vitiate the prosecution case in brothel-raid cases where independent witnesses are rarely available. It further held that absence of a female police officer during the 2003 raid was not fatal since the statutory requirement under the proviso to Section 46 CrPC was introduced only in 2009, and the Supreme Court's guidelines on the point were only directory. Relying on ossification-test evidence establishing one victim's age as 13-15 years, the Court confirmed the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts and rejected the revision, granting the applicants four weeks to surrender.

Background

1. The prosecution's case was that on 12.12.2003 a brothel was raided at Budhwar Peth, Pune, following information that minor girls were being used for prostitution.
2. The raiding party found Applicant No. 1 in one room and Applicant No. 2 in another, with wooden compartments arranged as beds; several girls, including minors, were recovered.
3. The trial court convicted the applicants under Section 373 IPC (sentencing them to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500 fine each) while acquitting them under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PITA Act.
4. The Sessions Court's appellate order dismissing their appeal was confirmed, following which the applicants filed the present criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC before the Bombay High Court.
5. The applicants challenged the reliability of the panch witness (who turned hostile), alleged discrepancies in prosecution testimony, absence of photographs during the raid, and absence of a female police officer during arrest.

Court's Observations

1. The Court held that its revisional jurisdiction is limited and it cannot re-appreciate evidence to reach a contrary conclusion on concurrent findings of fact.
2. Medical evidence from the Medico-Legal Expert (PW-7), though he was not a radiologist, was held reliable since he had conducted both clinical and radiological examination and confirmed one victim's age as 13-15 years.
3. Minor contradictions between panch witnesses regarding presence of a lady panch were held not fatal, given that independent witnesses rarely remain present during brothel raids.
4. The absence of a female police officer during the December 2003 raid was not a statutory violation since the proviso to Section 46 CrPC took effect only from 31.12.2009, and Supreme Court guidelines on the subject were merely directory.
5. Objections regarding absence of a female officer and non-photographing of the raid, raised for the first time in revision, were held insufficient to disturb concurrent findings.
6. The Court noted that the sentence of 3 years (against a maximum of 10 years under Section 373 IPC) already reflected a lenient view, warranting no further interference.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 373, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Sections 3, 4 and 5, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. Sections 397 and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Proviso to Section 46, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (inserted w.e.f. 31.12.2009).
5. State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India, (2003) 8 SCC 546.
6. Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC 210.
7. State v. Manimaran, (2019) 13 SCC 670.

Case Details :

Court Name: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Case Number: Revision Application No. 482 of 2004

Case / Party Name: Mrs. Rupa Govind Nepali & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra

Court: Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Coram / Judges: M.M. Sathaye, J.

Date of Decision: 29 August 2026

Letters Patent / Appeals (if any): None; Criminal Revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401, CrPC

Single-Judge revisional order applying settled law to specific facts; limited precedential value beyond the parties.