In Brief
The appellant, Parminder Kaur, was convicted of procuring minor girls (Section 366A, IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506, IPC). She appealed, claiming she never had a male tenant and that the complaint was motivated revenge for filing a rape complaint against the complainant's acquaintance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial Court failed to fairly consider her defence version. Once a plausible alternate version is raised, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction for criminal intimidation—a derivative charge—rested solely on disputed testimony lacking independent corroboration and without recorded findings on the essential element of intention. The Court found the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.