Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajiv @ Raju on 19 January, 2016
FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 264/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0363452014 State Vs. Rajiv @ Raju S/o Sh. Ram Kumar R/o Jhuggi No. 69, Outram Lines, Kingway Camp, Delhi. FIR No. : 913/14 Police Station : Mukherjee Nagar Under Sections : 370 IPC & 23 J.J. Act. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 28.11.2014 Date on which judgment was reserved: 19.01.2016 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 19.01.2016 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The accused had been facing trial in respect of offence punishable U/s 370 IPC on the allegation that on 28.08.2014 at Jhuggi No. 96, Outram Lane, Kingsway Camp Delhi, he transported or transferred six minor girls/victims namely 'R', 'PJ', 'PI', 'K', 'B' and 'G' (identity of all the victims are being withheld) for the purpose of their exploitation by causing inducement including giving or receiving of payments or benefits in order to receive consent of their lawful guardians. He was also charged with offence punishable U/s 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 Children) Act, 2000 on the allegation that he willfully neglected the said minor girls/victims in the manner likely to cause them unnecessary mental or physical sufferings.
2. The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is as under:
i) That on 28.08.2014, complainant Sh. Javed Ali (PW5) who was working as Project Manager in Child Line Prayas, visited PS Mukherjee Nagar and gave written complaint dated 28.08.2014 (Ex.PW5/A) claiming therein that some children had been kept in some jhuggi situated near Outram Lane, Mukherjee Nagar after being trafficked by some persons and they should be immediately rescued. The said complaint was lodged vide DD no. 21A (Ex.PW1/A) and same was entrusted to SI Vinod Kumar (PW23) for appropriate action. SI Manzoor Alam (PW24) was also telephonically informed about the contents of said complaint for appropriate action;
ii) It is further case of prosecution that raiding party consisting of L/Ct. Sunita (PW3), L/Ct. Saroj, Ct. Om Parkash, Ct. Baney Singh (PW6), SI Vinod Kumar, Ms. Seema Parveen (PW7) of Child Line Prayas and complainant Sh. Javed Ali was constituted and they all went to jhuggi no. 69, Outram Lane and got recovered aforesaid minor girls/victims from inside the said jhuggi. Thereafter, said minor girls/victims were produced State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 before Child Welfare Committee, where said girls/victims were counseled. In the meantime, SI Manzoor Alam also reached there and further proceedings were conducted by him;
iii) It is further case of prosecution that SI Manzoor Alam recorded statement (Ex.PW5/B) of complainant Sh. Javed Ali. The gist of said statement was that as per information received by complainant from Help Line No. 1098 on 28.08.2014, some persons had illegally trafficked some minor girls by transporting them and after inducing lawful guardians of the said children on the pretext of getting those children gainfully employed at some place(s). On the basis of said statement, FIR in question was got registered for the offence punishable U/s 370 IPC and investigation was entrusted to SI Manzoor Alam.
iv) It is further case of prosecution that all the rescued six minor girls/victims were got medically examined and their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by IO. Thereafter, said girls were kept at Kilkari Home for Girls, Kashmere Gate;
v) It is further case of prosecution that IO SI Manzoor Alam arrested accused and got recorded statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the victims before Link MM and also collected relevant documents concerning their age proofs. Not only this, statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of victims were again got recorded by IO on the direction issued by CWC. IO also recorded statements State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the lawful guardians/parents of the victims. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court. CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge,this Court framed charge for the offences punishable U/s 370 IPC and under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against accused Rajiv @ Raju vide order dated 22.12.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined 24 witnesses namely PW1 HC Yog Raj, PW2 Dr. Gopal Krishna, PW3 Lady Ct. Sunita, PW4 Ct. Bane Singh (again examined as PW6), PW5 Sh. Javed Ali, PW7 Ms. Seema Praveen, PW8 Ms. Shilpi Jain, PW9 Ct. Om Prakash, PW10 Sh. Virender Singh, PW11 Sh. Shree Ram, PW12 Smt. Hans Rani, PW13 Smt. Vimla Paul, PW14 Kumari Pinki @ Rita, PW15 Sh. Raghubir, PW16 Kumari Kiran, PW17 Sh. Laxmi Narayan, PW18 Ms. Gyanwati, PW19 Reema, PW20 Ms. Pooja, PW21 Sh. Jagdish, PW22 Sh. Mool Chand, PW23 SI Vinod Kumar, PW24 SI Manzoor Alam and PW25 Kumari Babli, during trial.
5. It may be noted here that Ld. Additional PP dropped PW Dr. Shefali Tyagi from the list of witnesses on 16.03.2015 as statement of said witness was not relevant for the case of prosecution. Ld. Additional PP State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 also dropped PWs namely Sh. F.C. Khandelwal, Ms. Rita Singh, Mr. Edward Danial, Ms. Poonam Upadhyay, Ms. Supreet Kaur and Ms. Jaspreet from the list of witnesses on 21.09.2015 on the ground that they were the witnesses of repetitive facts in respect of which other witness namely PW13 Ms. Vimla Paul had already been examined in this case.
6. Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Rajiv @ Raju was recorded during which all the incriminating evidence were put to him. However, he denied the same and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He claimed that all the six minor girls are his relatives and they all had come to Delhi for attending family function at his house. He also claimed that Shree Ram (PW11) was one of the accused in NDPS case and he had made false complaint to the office of Child Line Prayas at Mumbai. However, the accused opted not to lead evidence towards his defence.
7. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. Amicus Curiae Sh. Anuj Arya, Adv. on behalf of accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 PUBLIC WITNESSES:
9. PW5 Sh. Javed Ali: He is the complainant of this case. This witness was working as Project Manager with Child Line Prayas, Jahangir Puri Delhi. He deposed on the lines of prosecution story as mentioned in the charge sheet by testifying that on receipt of telephone call from their Call Center at Mumbai on 28.08.2014 at about 11.00 am whereby he was told regarding receipt of information about trafficking of minor girls by one person having kept them in some jhuggi situated near Outram Lane Gurudwara, Mukherjee Nagar, he alongwith his other team members visited the said place and found contents of said information to be correct. Thereafter, they visited PS Mukherjee Nagar, where he handed over complaint Ex.PW5/A before concerned SHO, who marked the same to SI Vinod Kumar for appropriate action. Accordingly, raiding party consisting of several police officials besides him and Ms. Seema Parveen of Child Line Prayas was constituted and raid was conducted at jhuggi no. 69, Outram Lane, Delhi at about 12.40 pm and aforesaid six minor girls/victims were rescued from inside the said jhuggi. Thereafter, said minor girls were produced before Child Welfare Committee, where officials of said committee made counseling of those girls. In the meantime, SI Manzoor Alam also reached there and recorded his statement Ex.PW5/B. CWC passed order for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR was got registered and medical examination of recovered minor girls was got conducted from BJRM hospital and thereafter, the said State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 girls were taken to Kilkari Home for Girls at Kashmere Gate.
In his cross examination, he could not disclose the name of official of Child Line Prayas Mumbai who had informed him about the information. He could not tell if there was any function organized in the house/jhuggi of accused and as to whether victims had visited Delhi to attend said function or not. He further deposed that counseling of the victims was not done in his presence. However, he denied the other relevant suggestions put to him during cross examination made on behalf of accused.
10. PW7 Ms. Seema Praveen: This witness was also working as Team Manager with Child Line Prayas, Jahangir Puri. She also deposed on identical lines as deposed by PW5 Sh Javed Ali whose testimony has already been discussed in the preceding paras.
In her cross examination, she also could not disclose the name of official of Mumbai office of Child Line Prayas who had telephonically conveyed the information to Delhi office. She could not say if victims had come to Delhi for a trip but denied the suggestion that there was any function organized in the jhuggi of accused and victims had come to Delhi for attending the said function.
11. PW11 Sh. Shree Ram: As per the case of prosecution, this witness is the informant who had made call at Help Line of Child Line Prayas at Mumbai. He deposed that accused used to bring and keep minor girls for few days in his jhuggi and thereafter, said minor girls used to State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 disappear. On enquiry, he was told that accused used to supply said minor girls at different houses for employment purposes. In the month of August 2014, accused alongwith his wife had brought 56 minor girls in their jhuggi. Maternal uncle of one of those girls had visited Delhi and complained accused as to why he had brought his niece to Delhi, on which, accused had replied that he had brought those girls for employment purposes in Delhi and thereafter, quarrel had taken place between accused and the said person, on which call was made by him to Child Help Line Prayas.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he is an accused in NDPS case and said case was still pending trial. He did not lodge any complaint against accused either before police or to Child Help Line or before any other forum prior to registration of FIR in this case. He admitted not to have stated to the police in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that maternal uncle of one of those minor girls had visited Delhi and had complained accused as to why he had brought his niece to Delhi. However, he denied the relevant suggestions that he had got the accused falsely implicated in this case as he had suspicion over accused to be the person who had informed the police on the basis of which he was arrested in NDPS case.
12. PW12 Smt. Hans Rani, PW15 Sh. Raghubir, PW17 Sh. Laxmi Narayan, PW21 Sh. Jagdish and PW22 Sh. Mool Chand: All these five witnesses are the lawful guardians/natural parents of recovered State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 minor girls/victims. However, none of them has supported the case of prosecution on any material point. All of them deposed on identical lines to the effect that accused was their distant relative and in the year 2014, accused had visited their house and requested them for sending their respective children to Delhi for attending function at his house. Accordingly, they allowed the request of accused and their respective children accompanied accused to Delhi with their prior permission. Subsequently, they came to know that accused had been arrested in this case.
All the aforesaid witnesses were subjected to detailed cross examination by Ld. Additional PP as they were not supporting the case of prosecution. During said cross examination, all the relevant suggestions on the lines of prosecution story were put to them but same were denied by them. All of them denied to have made statements Mark PW12/A, Mark PW15/A, Mark PW17/A, Mark PW21/A and Mark PW22/A before the police. All these witnesses have not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
CHILD WITNESSES:
13. PW14 Kumari Pinki @ Rita, PW16 Kumari Kiran, PW18 Gyanwati, PW19 Reema, PW20 Kumari Pooja and PW25 Kumari Babli: All these six child witnesses are victims themselves who, as per the case of prosecution, were allegedly trafficked/transported by State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 accused out of their lawful guardianship on the false pretext of getting them employed somewhere in Delhi. Unfortunately, all these six victims have also not supported the case of prosecution at all. All of them have turned hostile and did not depose anything against the accused. Rather, all of them deposed contrary to the case of prosecution by testifying that in the month of August, 2014, they had accompanied accused to Delhi with prior permission of their respective lawful guardians/parents as accused was their relative. They further deposed that they had come to Delhi for a trip as they wanted to see various places at Delhi. On the fateful day, police conducted raid at the rented house of accused and took them before some Child Committee where on enquiry, they had disclosed similar facts as stated by them before the Court.
All six of them also deposed to have given statements on two occasions before Magistrate on two different dates. They identified their signatures appearing on said statements dated 29.08.2014 and 09.09.2014. All those statements have been exhibited as Ex.PW8/G and Ex.PW10/G, Ex.PW8/F and Ex.PW10/F, Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW10/C respectively.
All the aforesaid six witnesses were subjected to cross examination as they were not supporting the case of prosecution. During said cross examination, they denied to have made any statement before CWC. They volunteered that members of Child Committee had only made State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 enquiries from them. All of them denied to have made statement Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/E before CWC. They also denied to have been influenced by accused not to disclose the actual facts to anybody. Not only this, all these witnesses also denied to have made statements Mark PW14/1, Mark PW16/1, Mark PW18/1, Mark PW19/1, Mark PW20/1 and Mark PW25/1 before the police. All these witnesses have not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity. POLICE WITNESSES:
14. PW1 HC Yog Raj: He is the Duty Officer. He deposed that on 28.08.2014 at about 12.35 pm, one complainant namely Javel Ali had visited police station Mukherjee Nagar and gave written complaint regarding trafficking of children and on the instructions of concerned SHO, he had handed over said written complaint to SI Vinod for appropriate action. He had also telephonically informed SI Manzoor Alam for appropriate action. He made DD no. 21 in Roznamcha in this regard. He proved the said DD as Ex.PW1/A. He also proved factum regarding recording of FIR No. 913/14 in PS Mukherjee Nagar by exhibiting copy of said FIR as Ex.PW1/B and his endorsement as Ex.PW1/C made on the rukka. He deposed that thereafter, he made kayami DD entry no.24A regarding registration of FIR and proved copy of said DD as Ex.PW1/D. He also proved Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding registration of FIR as Ex.PW1/E. State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 Nothing material has come on record during cross examination of this witness.
15. PW3 WCt. Sunita: This witness was part of the raiding party constituted by SI Vinod on 28.08.2014 for conducting raid at the place of information provided by complainant Javed Ali. She deposed that all the members of raiding party alongwith complainant Javed Ali and Ms. Seema Parveen of Child Line Prayas went to jhuggi no. 69, Outram Lane, where they recovered six minor girls from the custody of accused and thereafter, produced them before CWC. The officials of CWC made counseling of said minor girls. SI Manzoor Alam also reached there. Thereafter, SI Vinod left the office of CWC. All six minor girls were got medically examined from BJRM Hospital. SI Manzoor Alam also recorded statement of complainant Javed Ali and got the FIR in question registered through Ct. Bane Singh. The minor girls were kept in Kilkari Home for Girls at Kashmere Gate.
In her cross examination, she deposed that SI Vinod had requested nearby residents of Jhuggi No. 69 for joining the raiding party but none agreed. However, no action was taken against them in that regard. She denied the suggestion that there was function at the jhuggi of accused or that minor girls had come to attend the said function.
16. PW6 Ct. Bane Singh, PW9 Ct. Om Prakash and PW23 SI Vinod: These three witnesses were also part of the raiding party. They also deposed on identical lines as deposed by PW3 W/Ct. Sunita whose State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 testimony has already been discussed hereinabove. PW6 also deposed that he had got the FIR registered in this case.
In their respective cross examination, PW6 and PW9 deposed that statements of victims were recorded inside the room of CWC, while they were standing outside the said room. The victims and accused were not taken out from inside Jhuggi No. 69, Outram Lane in their presence and they were already present inside the jhuggi when they reached there.
In his cross examination, PW23 deposed that he himself did not record statement of any of the victims. However, he denied the suggestion that victims were relatives of accused and had visited Delhi to attend function. He also denied that victims had told the said facts to him even at the time of raid conducted by them at the instance of Child Line Prayas.
It may be mentioned here that PW6 Ct. Baney Singh had previously entered into witness box and his part examination in chief was recorded as PW4 on 17.11.2015. However, when he was again summoned in this case, he was inadvertently examined as PW6 on next date.
17. PW24 SI Manzoor Alam: He is the IO of this case. He has deposed about the entire investigation carried out by him till the filing of chargesheet. He deposed to have prepared rukka Ex.PW24/A on the basis of statement made by complainant Javed Ali. He also deposed on identical lines as deposed by PW3 Ct. W/Ct. Sunita, PW6 Ct. Bane Singh and PW9 Ct. Om Prakash whose testimonies have already been discussed in the State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 preceding paras.
He further deposed that after the victims were kept at Kilkari Home for Girls at Kashmere Gate after their medical examination, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.PW24/C at the instance of complainant Javed Ali. He also arrested accused vide memo Ex.PW9/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW9/B. Said accused also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide memo Ex.PW24/D. He also deposed to have recorded statements of relevant witnesses. He also deposed that he had got statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of victims recorded from Magistrate on two different occasions i.e. on 29.08.2014 and 09.09.2014. He had also collected age proofs of the victims and had prepared chargesheet of this case.
In his cross examination, he admitted that none of the rescued girls stated anything incriminating against accused in their respective statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C. However, he denied the suggestion that he had not recorded statements of parents of those minor girls/ victims or that he had recorded their statements on his own at the instance of complainant of this case. He also denied the suggestions that rescued girls were relatives of accused or that they had visited Delhi to attend some function. OFFICIAL WITNESSES:
18. PW8 Ms. Shilpi Jain: This witness had recorded statements U/s 164 Cr.PC of all the six girls/victims on 29.08.2014 on the basis of State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 application Ex.PW8/A moved by IO of this case. She exhibited the said statements as Ex.PW8/B to Ex.PW8/G and deposed that after concluding said proceedings, same were kept in envelope sealed with the seal of SJ. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
19. PW10 Sh. Virender Singh: This witness had again recorded statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of all the six girls/victims on 09.09.2014 on the basis of application Ex.PW10/A moved by IO of this case. He exhibited the said statement as Ex.PW10/B to Ex.PW10/G and deposed that after concluding said proceedings, same were kept in envelope sealed with the seal of VS. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
20. PW13 Smt. Vimla Paul: This witness was posted as Chairman Member of CWC on 05.09.2014 when rescued minor girls/victims were produced before them by the police officials of PS Mukherjee Nagar and the officials of Child Line Prayas. She deposed that all the members of CWC including herself, had recorded statements Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/E of the victims and had also issued directions for getting their statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before Magistrate.
In her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that members of CWC had recorded the statements of victims at the instance of IO or that victims were never produced before them by the police. State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
21. PW2 Dr. Gopal Krishan: He deposed that on 28.08.2014, he was on duty as CMO in BJRM Hospital. On that day, victims namely Pinky, Gyanwati, Renu, Babli, Pooja and Kiran were medically examined by Dr. Akash Sharma, Junior Resident under his supervision. He proved the MLCs of Pinky, Gyanwati, Renu, Babli, Pooja and Kiran as Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F respectively.
He further deposed that upon medical examination, no external injury was found present on the person of any of the said victims. He identified the signatures of Dr. Akash Sharma on all the MLCs of said victims. He further deposed that all the aforesaid victims were referred to S.R. (Gynae). This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
22. After referring to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial, Ld. Additional PP argued that accused could not show that there was any function organized by him at his house or at any other place and since all the rescued girls/ victims were minor, it stand proved that accused had transported/ trafficked those girls for illegal purposes. He also submitted that even if the parents of minor girls may not have supported the case of prosecution, statements (Ex.PW13 to State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 16 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 Ex.PW13/E) made by victims before CWC, may be treated as sufficient to establish the guilt of accused for the offences charged against him. He therefore, urged that accused should be convicted in this case.
23. On the other hand, Ld. Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused argued that none of the star witnesses of the prosecution examined during trial, has supported its case on any material point and thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. In support of said contention, ld. defence counsel heavily relied upon the statements of PW12 and PW14 to PW22 and also that of PW25 as available on record. He also referred to statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim girls recorded before Magistrates during the course of investigation, in order to bring home his point that none of the rescued girls has stated anything against the accused even in their said statements. He, therefore, contended that accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case.
24. As already discussed above, the accused has been charged with offences punishable U/s 370 IPC as also for offence punishable U/s 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. It goes without saying that in order to prove the offence punishable U/s 370 IPC, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond pales of reasonable doubt that accused got aforesaid minor girls/victims transported/trafficked out from their lawful guardianship by inducement including giving or receiving of payments or benefits in order to secure consent of their lawful guardians / parents, for the purpose of their exploitation transportation, State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 17 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 etc. Likewise, prosecution was also required to establish beyond doubt that accused had willfully neglected the aforesaid minor girls/victims in a manner likely to cause them unnecessary mental or physical suffering so as to prove the offence U/s 23 of J.J. Act.
25. Now coming back to the facts of the present case. Although the prosecution produced and examined all the rescued minor girls/victims as also their respective wrongful guardians / parents during trial, but unfortunately, none of them supported its case on any material aspect. Instead, they have demolished the prosecution story by deposing contrary to the case of prosecution during trial as all of them claimed that accused was their distant relative and on his request that there was some function at his house at Delhi, said girls/ victims were sent alongwith accused to Delhi for attending the said function as well as for having sight scene of Delhi during their course of short stay over there. There is no iota of evidence available on record to show that this accused made any kind of inducement to lawful guardians/ parents of any of the victims or that accused had intended to exploit them or detained them for any illegal purpose whatsoever. The prosecution has also failed to lead any evidence showing that accused had caused any mental or physical suffering to any of said minor girls or had willfully neglected any of them in any manner. There is also no piece of evidence available on record showing that any of the aforesaid minor girls was actually asked to be employed at any place. Rather, it is the case of prosecution itself that all those minor girls were State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 18 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 recovered from inside the jhuggi of accused. In this backdrop, the defence raised by accused that since he was relative of said minor girls, he had brought them to Delhi with prior consent of their lawful guardians/parents in order to attend function at his house, do inspire confidence.
26. All the six key witnesses i.e. PW14 Kumari Pinki @ Rita, PW16 Kumari Kiran, PW18 Gyanwati, PW19 Reema, PW20 Kumari Pooja and PW25 Kumari Babli have failed to support the case of prosecution on every material point, the entire case of prosecution has fallen down like a pack of cards as all of them alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story during trial. However, none of them deposed on the lines of prosecution case as mentioned in the chargesheet.
27. Although, Ld. Additional PP placed heavy reliance upon statements Ex. PW13/A to Ex PW13/E of victims purportedly recorded by CWC but the authenticity of said statements could not be proved beyond doubt during trial as all the six minor girls/victims categorically deposed during trial that they had not made any such statements before CWC. Rather, they went on to depose that only enquiries were made from them by members of Child Committee and they had narrated similar facts before Members of Committee as deposed by them before the Court. In this backdrop, it is not safe to rely upon the aforesaid statements, in order to arrive at the conclusion of guilt of accused as it is the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the entire burden to prove its case State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 19 of 20 FIR No. 913/14; U/s 370 IPC & Section 23 J.J. Act; P.S. Mukherjee Nagar DOD: 19.01.2016 is upon the prosecution and the burden is more stricter in case of heinous offences entailing graver punishment under the law.
28. The other prosecution witnesses and the documents relied by prosecution, could have been of corroborative value if something would have come on the surface in the deposition of aforesaid witnesses, but all of them turned hostile to the case of prosecution and nothing could be elicited in their cross examination on behalf of State connecting the accused with the offences charged against him.
29. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused in respect of offence charged against him beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, accused namely Rajiv @ Raju is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in open Court today
On 19.01.2016 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s. Rajiv @ Raju ("Acquitted") Page 20 of 20