It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Veer is not liable under Section 5 and 8

of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as the act deals with prostitution, but in the
present case there is no involvement of prostitution at any stage. It is just a false story made
by the prosecution side and is totally baseless, none of the instance supports the contention
that the victim was induced or seduced to be in a prostitution.

Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 does not apply in the present
case

It is humbly submitted that Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 deals with
the procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution, but in the present case
the victim was the wife of the accused, they both get married with their full consent, and
there was no inducement at all. In Dubai, the victim was confined by the Sheikh and for that
the accused in not liable at all. There are no facts which supports the contention of the
prosecution that the victim was induced or taken or procured or seduced for the sake of
prostitution, thus this is just a false allegation which is totally baseless.

Arguendo, even if it is proved that the accused sold the victim to the Sheikh, still there is no
fact that supports this contention of the prosecution that the victim was sold with the aim of
indulging her into the prostitution. Section 2(f) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
defines the term prostitution and states that “prostitution means the sexual exploitation or
abuse of persons for commercial purposes or for consideration in money or in any other
kind.”

This thing was also held in the case of Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 1 in which it was said
that the activity will amount to “prostitution” within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 only if exploitation or abuse of a person is done for a
commercial purpose.

There is no instance in the present matter that supports the contention that the victim was
sexually exploited or abused for commercial purposes or for consideration in money. This
thing cannot be proved neither through facts, nor through the action of the accused.
Moreover, the general facts about human trafficking shows that the trading of humans are
done for various purposes like forced labour, slavery, strip dancing, etc. Prostitution is just

1
Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2008 (2) KLT 521
one of the, and there is no facts which shows that in the present matter the victim was
trafficked for the purpose of engaging her into prostitution.

The Counsel agrees to the fact that there have been various cases in which the accused was
held liable under this provision, but it is also an interesting thing to note that in all these
cases, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was indulged in the act of
prostitution, but in the present case the situation is totally different, the victim is not found
yet. It is not proved yet that whether she got indulge in any kind of prostitution act, and if
even it got proved, then also the accused will not be held liable as there was no inducement
on his part. The accused, Veer was deeply in love with the victim, she was her wife, they both
were deeply in love with each and the photographs of the accused and the victim found in
Veer’s phone confirms the same. Moreover, this fact was also confirmed by the hotel staff
that had seen the couple together were examined and they testified that Rohini and Veer
looked like a couple very much in love.2 This thing surely casts some doubt that when the
ultimate aim of the accused was to sell the victim, then why would he behave in this manner,
even when half of his work was already completed (they both flew to Dubai). Apart from
this, there are many other better ways to commit such sort of crimes, why would the accused
choose this way which is the most dangerous one. Additionally, the Court of Dubai also
admitted this fact that the role of Sheikh Abdul seems dubious in the present matter, and thus,
thus it directed the police department to investigate his role. The Court also admitted that he
has enough money and power to bribe witnesses and hotel staff to further his ends.3 This fact
also casts a reasonable doubt that the accused is innocent in the present matter and it was the
Sheikh who has confined the victim.
The fact that the first wife of the accused was also disappeared during their honeymoon is of
no use in the present matter, as the investigation in that case yielded no result, it was not
found that whether there was any involvement of human trafficking or prostitution or not. In
that case also, the accused was acquitted as there was no proof which admitted his
culpability. Similarly, in the present case the accused should be acquitted based on the lack of
any solid proof.

3
Burden of proof

Apart from this, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution in criminal cases to prove that
the accused is one who has committed the offence 4 and it is also a settled principle that one
has to prove title by one's own evidences and not by the weakness of evidences given by the
defendant.5 In one such case where the prosecution was not able to prove that the accused
was the one who destroyed the film, the accused was given the benefit of doubt. 6 Moreover,
in the case of Paramjeet Singh v State of Uttarakhand7 it was held that “More serious the
crime, more strict proof would be requisite”. In order to prove the charge of abduction and
human trafficking, the prosecution needs to provide a strong proof which is not available in
the present case.

Accused unless proved guilty is innocent

The principle that "the accused person is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved
beyond a reasonable doubt"8, is of cardinal importance in the present case where the
evidences showed by the prosecution side are not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused.
In the case of Kali Ram v. State of H.P.9, the apex Court of India stated that “The burden
of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of
that burden, the Courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. Every criminal
trial begins with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and the provisions

4
Tukaram v State of Maharashtra, (1979) 1 SCR 810; Jarnail Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 755;
Mahender Singh Dhayia v State (CBI), 2003 Cr LJ 1908 (Del); SD Soni v State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 917;
State of UP v Krishna Gopal, 1989 Cr LJ 288; TS Kotagi v Tahsildar, AIR 1985 Kan5; Avadesh Kumar v
SheoShanker, AIR 1985 All 104; Ram KunwarBai v Rani Bahu, AIR 1985 MP 73; Madhusudan Das v
NarayaniBai, AIR 1983 SC 114; Shantilal v Mohan Lal, AIR 1986 J&K 61; NB Rao v Principal, Osmania
Medical College, AIR 1986 AP 196.
5
Lalita James v Ajit Kumar, AIR 1991 MP 15; State of Bihar v Radha Krishna Singh, AIR 1983 SC 684;
Special Development Area v Pooranlal, 1997 Cr LJ 3484 (MP)
6
State (Delhi Admn.) v VC. Shukla, AIR 1980 SC 1382
7
Paramjeet Singh v State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200
8
(Eiincumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat) Woolmington v. Dpp, (1935) UKHL 1; Babu Singh v. State of
Punjab, (1964) 1 Cri Lj 566; K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605; Rangammal v.
Kuppuswami, AIR 2011 SC 234; Data Ram v. State of UP, (2018) 3 SCC 22
9
Kali Ram v. State of H.P (1973) 2 SCC 808
of the Code are so framed that a criminal trial should begin with and be throughout
governed by this essential presumption.”10

In the present case the accused cannot be punished as the evidences found during the
investigation are not so strong to prove his guilt, moreover the judiciary of Dubai which
deals with much more harsher laws in respect of kidnapping and human trafficking also
discharged him from the said offences, thus this Court should also discharge him under S.
227 of the CrPC11.

In the case of Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan12 it was held that “this provision (S. 227 of
the CrPC) helps in saving the accused from prolonged harassment which is a necessary
concomitant of a protracted trial.”

Reasonable doubt

In light of all the aforementioned arguments, it is humbly submitted that there exists
reasonable doubt in the present case and hence the accused should be acquitted of the alleged
crime. A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a
fair doubt based upon reason and common sense arising out of the evidence of the case13.

The prosecution's arguments are leaning towards the fact that the crime 'may have been
committed by the accused', however, they have failed to make the link between 'may have
committed the crime' and 'must have committed the crime' and that gap must be filled by the
prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before a conviction can be
sustained.14 Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’bleCourt that the accused
should be acquitted in the present matter.

10
Haji Hussain v. Madbukar Purshottam Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376; Shivaji Sababrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793
11
If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
12
KewalKrishan v. SurajBhan, 1980 Supp SCC 499; Union of India v. Prafidla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4
13
RamakantRai v. MadanRai Cr LJ 2004 Sc 36.
14
IV. Nelson R. A. , Indian Penal Code, p. 2905 , (10th Ed. 2008)