CASE COMMENTARY
CITATION: Criminal appeal no. 135/2010
DATE OF THE CASE: February 28, 2022
APPELLANT: Budhadev Karmaskar
RESPONDENT: State of West Bengal
BENCH/JUDGES: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and A.S Bopanna
LEGAL PROVISIONS: Article 21 of The Constitution of India, 1949, Section 164 of CrPC, 1973
FACTS:
- On the terrible night of September 17, 1999, at around 9:15 pm, the horrible murder of a sex worker, Shrimati Chayay Rani Pal, 45 years old, occurred in the red light district of Jogen Dutta Lane, shocking the general public.
- Budhadev, the appellant, kicked her with his fists and knees, and she collapsed on the floor. The appellant then grabbed her by the hair and repeatedly slammed her head against the floor and the wall, causing the victim to bleed from her ear, nose, and skull. Four people witnessed the incident: PW2-Abida, PW4-Maya, PW7-Asha, and PW8-Parvati.
- PW2-Abida testified that she witnessed the appellant-accused grabbing the victim by the hair and slamming her head against the wall, the sufferer was bleeding severely from her nose and mouth. When Abida saw this, she began to yell, and the accused pushed her, knocked her down, and left the place. PW8-Parvati witnessed the accused-appellant viciously beating the victim, and PW7-Asha witnessed the same. During the post mortem, as many as 11 injuries on the victim’s body were discovered, eight of which were on various regions of the face and forehead
- Once people started protesting, the accused ran off, pushing and showing people and leaving the area. Five hours later, the suspect was caught by police in the jogen dutta lane at around 2:15 in the morning. The victim had been rushed to the hospital, but she had passed away.
ISSUES RAISED:
- The prevention of trafficking in human beings.
- Rehabilitation of sex workers who wish to leave sex work.
- Create a safe and decent environment for sex workers in accordance with Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
CONTENTION:
Arguments from the Petitioner’s side:
The learned advocate representing the appellant strenuously denied all the allegations made by the prosecutor.
The learned advocate claimed that the oral evidence of the eye-witness, Aisha Khatun, in the context of a preliminary examination, could not be admissible pursuant to section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as she had failed to appear in the cross-examination.
In order to prove this, the learned advocate referred to the judgment of the court of first instance of the Allahabad High Court in a case in which the case was referred back to the General Court of Allahabad for a preliminary ruling. In that case, the judgment in the main proceedings was delivered in the name of the person represented by the party in the main proceedings. The main proceedings in that case were the following:
Raghuvir Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
It was also said that none of the people living near where the crime has happened were called as witnesses, so the lawyer wanted to throw some doubt on the prosecution’s story
Arguments from the Respondent’s side:
The prosecution argued that the relationship between the defendant and the deceased was strained and they would fight on and off.
The prosecution submitted a qualified doctor’s report to the court which confirmed that the defendant had physically attacked the deceased with punches and kicks.
The report further indicated that the deceased sustained a total of eleven facial and forehead injuries, which ultimately contributed to her death.
According to the prosecution, eight of the eleven injuries were severe enough to have caused death under normal circumstances.
RATIONALE:
Budhadev Karmaskar is a case in which a man hurt a lady named Chayay Rani Pal, also known as Buri. The lady was doing work as a sex worker and the man Budhadev(appellant) beat her so badly that she could not survive. The first court found him guilty then the higher court found him not guilty. The man then moved to the Supreme Court to seek a review of the first court’s decision. The panel has come up with a plan to help sex workers by giving them Rs. 10 lakhs from the central government, 5 lakhs from the state government, and 2 lakhs from the Union Territories to help them learn vocational and technical skills so they can make a living and move forward in society with dignity.
JUDGMENT:
On February 14, 2011, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case. The judgment stated that the man had hurt Chayay Rani and that he was guilty. However, the judgment also stated that all people, irrespective of the kind of work they do or the person they are, have the right to respect and live a decent life. The rule is laid down in India’s main law, which is called the Constitution of India, and it is laid down in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court gave a direct order to several law enforcement agencies to follow the directions given by it in its order of May 19th, 2022. This order was based on Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, which gives the court the power to do whatever it takes to ensure complete justice for sex workers, even if the law isn’t in place yet.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
The Tamil Nadu Police Additional DIG, Ms. Archana Ramesundaram, has declared that the task of dealing with rescued victims of sexual trafficking is a difficult one due to the fact that the managers and traffickers of the trafficking rings are informed of the rescue mission beforehand, thus making them wary of the visit. Furthermore, it is reported that these girls are subject to coercion and forced entry into the sexual industry, and are often recruited into different gangs, largely by their relatives through the collusion of traffickers and pimps.
There’s a big discrepancy in the law between the Supreme Court’s recent judgments and certain sections of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956. For instance, Section 3 makes it a crime to have a brothel and it’s also against the law to keep one. Section 4 makes it a crime for an adult to earn money by prostitution and Section 8 makes seducing someone in a public area for prostitution a crime. These sections stop the recent judgment from saying that sex work is one of the jobs.
INFERENCE:
Even though Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal was the main reason for the rise of sex workers in India, it’s important to remember that social stigma will always prevent them from making it to the mainstream of society. Most of the sex workers can’t vote because they can’t get a Voter ID card, and they’re still humiliated in places like government offices, banks, and workplaces. Plus, most of the illegal gangs that surround this profession are still there, which means they won’t be seen as one of the many professions that won’t be looked down upon. That’s why the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act of 1956 needs to be made stricter to stop these kinds of gangs. Ultimately, this will help keep this side of society and its people on the bright side.
- Budhadev Karmaskar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors, 2(5) & 28 of 2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 146.
- Raghuvir Singh & Ors v. State of Uttranchal and Another. Application (C-482) No. 2324 Of 2019.
- Budhadev karmaskar v. The State of West Bengal, 2022, Criminal Appeal No. 135/2010.
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Section 3, 4, and 8.
DEV LAKSHAYA
CPJ COLLEGE OF HIGHER STUDIES AND SCHOOL OF LAW, NARELA