Thrilling Story of crime:
The Secret Operation of A1 and A2
The heart of this criminal enterprise was a flat in Permeshawar Park Society, Ahmedabad, where Accused No. 1 (A1) and Accused No. 2 (A2) resided between 1988 and 1992. A1 and A2, a husband and wife, ran a clandestine operation involving sexual exploitation, pornography, and international financial fraud. Their primary goal was to obtain a huge amount of money by producing and selling obscene materials to foreign countries. A1 and A2 were the central perpetrators, actively aided and abetted by A3 and A4.
Their crimes were multifaceted. They indulged in illicit intercourse with victims like Nitaben Devising, taking nude photographs with the specific intent of selling them abroad. A1 and A4 also allegedly committed rape against another victim named Archana, similarly obtaining nude photographs for foreign sale. Shockingly, A1 even obtained nude photographs of his wife, A2, while indulging in intercourse with her. A3 was also allegedly involved in an act of intercourse with A1, demonstrating the intertwined and exploitative nature of their relationships.
The Financial Web of Deceit
To manage the illicit profits, A1 established a fraudulent financial scheme. He received funds, often in foreign currency, from abroad and deposited them into a bank account opened in the name of “Ketkiben K. Desai” at the United Bank of India, Asarwa Branch. A1 was fully aware that this “Ketkiben K. Desai” was not Accused No. 3 (A3), yet he colluded with A3 to forge signatures and operate the account. The prosecution alleged A1 committed offenses including forgery and conspiracy, while A2 and A3 were charged with aiding the commission of these offenses and the misappropriation of funds.
Details of the Police Complaint
The chilling saga was brought to light not by a victim, but by a law enforcement officer. The formal investigation began when Mr. P.V. Raol, a Police Inspector with the CID Crime, Ahmedabad, filed a complaint on 23 November 1992. Based on this complaint, an offense was registered against the accused at the Naranpura Police Station under Case I-C.R. No. 838 of 1992. This official document initiated the criminal process against the four individuals for their various crimes, leading to the forwarding of a report under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Charge Officer.
The Investigation and Recovery of Evidence
The police launched a meticulous and systematic investigation. The Investigating Officer visited the flat, the scene of the crimes, and immediately began the process of recovering evidence. Key steps in the investigation included:
- Scene Visit and Documentation: The officer visited the flat and prepared a panchnama, which means a record of findings created in the presence of civilian witnesses, documenting the incriminating documents and nude photographs recovered.
- Recovery of Tools: The camera used in the commission of the offenses was recovered from A1 and seized under a panchnama.
- Physical and Mailing Evidence: Other items seized included the clothes worn by A1 during illicit intercourse, stationery used to send the photographs abroad, and a thread and box utilized in obtaining the nude photographs. Crucially, a panchnama was prepared regarding the recovery of articles from a postbox linked to A1 and A2.
- Financial and Documentary Evidence: A diary and materials used to obtain the nude photographs were seized. The forged signatures of Ketki Desai on bank documents were investigated and documented via a panchnama.
- Medical and Forensic Analysis: Victims were sent to the Civil Hospital for medical examinations to obtain certificates, and the recovered articles (muddamal) were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for complete analysis.
- Witness Statements: Statements of witnesses, including those from the neighborhood, were recorded.
The Evidence, Victims, and Statements
The prosecution built its case through a harrowing lineup of evidence and witnesses, proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial saw the examination of 41 witnesses and the production of 42 documents as evidence. The evidence was presented in three parts, focusing on A1 and A2, then A4, and finally A3.
Testimonies of the Young Victims and Families
- Archana (PW5) and Hitesha: Archana testified that A1 and A2, whom she identified as “doctor uncle and aunty,” had taken nude photographs of her and her sister Hitesha. At the time, Archana was 8 years old and Hitesha was 6. She identified both the photographs and A1 and A2 in them.
- Navinchandra (PW4): Archana and Hitesha’s father, who corroborated the children’s tender ages.
- Devisinh S. Padiyar (PW7): He identified the nude photographs taken of his daughter, Nitaben, also of tender age, and identified A1 and A2 present in them.
- Jagdishbhai R. Gohil (PW8): He identified nude photographs of his daughter, Shila (alias Shilpa), with another young boy, Sandeep.
- Sandeep (PW9) and Benigopal M. Mandora (PW10): Sandeep supported the prosecution’s case that A1 and A2 took nude photographs of him and Shila. Sandeep’s father supported his son’s statement, confirming the inducement given by A1 and A2.
Testimonies of Adult Victims
- Nitaben (PW14): She stated that when she was 15 to 16 years old, she went to A1 and A2, and nude photographs were taken. She identified A1, A2, and the photographs, further identifying her photographs with the presence of other accused, which proved A4’s involvement in the unnatural offense activity.
- Prajal Bhatt (PW15): She identified the nude photographs taken by A1 with A2’s help, detailing the various modes and manners in which the photographs were captured. She also identified the camera possessed by A1.
- Shila Jagdish Gohil (PW41): She stated that A1 and A2 were taking “dirty photographs” of her and identified her photographs, as well as the presence of A1 and A2.
Expert Evidence
- Vasudev B. Barwad (PW23): The handwriting expert testified that the specimen signature in the bank record for the account of “Ketki @ Kanku” was similar to the signature of A2, not A3, indicating A2 opened the account fraudulently.
Ultimately, the compelling victim testimonies, corroborated by photographic evidence and expert forensic analysis, allowed the prosecution to establish the guilt of A1, A2, and A4 for the severe charges of unnatural offenses and obscenity.
Do you think than these punishments were sufficient for the heinous crimes done against minors? Comment your opinion and start a discussion.
Share this article. Add this site to bookmarks. Visit daily to boost your legal knowledge.