Delhi District Court
State vs Md. Abdul Haider on 23 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. VIPUL SANDWAR
STATE Vs. MOHD. HAIDER ALI
FIR No. : 266/2012
U/s 374 IPC, 23/26 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act 2000, Section 9/10/11/14 Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 16 Bonded
Labour System (Abolition Act), 1976
PS : New Usmanpur
1.FIR No. 266/2012
2.Unique Case no. 464771/2015
3.Title State Vs. Mohd. Haider Ali
3(A).Name of complainant Sh. R. C. Rahi, SDM,
Seelampur, Delhi
3(B).Name of accused Mohd. Haider Ali S/o Abdul
Khalid, R/o R-149, Gali no.20,
Brahampuri, Delhi-53
4. Representation on behalf of Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld. APP
State
4(A).Date of institution of challan 08.03.2013
5.Date of Reserving judgment 04.05.2024
6.Date of pronouncement 23.07.2024
7.Date of commission of offence 09.10.2012
8.Offence complained of U/s 23/26 Juvenile Justice (Care
FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 1 of 19
and Protection of Children) Act
2000, Section 374 IPC, Section
9/10/11/14 Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986 and Section 16
Bonded Labour System
(Abolition Act), 1976
9.Offence charged with U/s 23/26 Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act
2000, Section 374 IPC, Section
9/10/11/14 Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986 and Section 16
Bonded Labour System
(Abolition Act), 1976
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
11.Final order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The present prosecution case was put into action with the registration of FIR on the directions of the then SDM Sh. R. C. Rahi vide order dated 09.10.2012. It was stated that a child labour rescue operation was conducted on 09.10.2012 at about 12:30 pm in the premises of the accused in collaboration with labour department and police including government agencies with assistance by NGO. During the rescue operation two children were rescued and handed over to SHO, PS New Usmanpur with directions to get them medically examined and produced them before child welfare committee. The employer was stated to have violated provision of Bonded Labour System (Abolition Act 1976), Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 2 of 192. On the basis of above complaint, the present FIR was registered and the investigation was handed over to SI Sanjay. After completing the investigation he filed the chargesheet before this Court.
3. On 08.03.2013, cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Thereafter, charge for the offence punishable U/s 23/26 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, Section 374 IPC, Section 9/10/11/14 Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 16 Bonded Labour System (Abolition Act), 1976 was framed against the accused on 16.05.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution had named total 08 witnesses in the charge sheet. PW IO/SI Sanjay Kumar did not appear before this Court despite being served through DCP. Accordingly, he was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 25.11.2023. Only 08 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. There deposition in brief as follows:
(i) PW1 Ramesh Chand was the SDM/complainant in the present matter. On 09.10.2012 a child rescue operation was conducted at 12:30 pm in collaboration with labour department, police team and NGO Bachpan Bachao at the premises of Mohd. Haider Ali at R-113, Gali no.20, Brahampuri and two child labourers were rescued and handed over to SHO PS New Usmanpur who was directed to lodge an FIR. The premise was sealed as the accused defaulted to pay the fine amount of ₹20,000/- as per Bonded Labour Act. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 3 of 19 he has stated that the information regarding the incident was given by NGO i.e. Bachpan Bachao Andolan and same was given to him in writing. He had not verified the complaint. The raid was secret and he had not given any information to the higher police official. The members of the raiding party were from police, labour department and under their supervision the raid was conducted. From the labour department Asstt. Labour Commissioner and Inspector were present. From the police station New Usmanpur one Inspector Rank person and one other police official were present. they had parked their vehicle outside gali no.20 and the spot was 500 mtrs away. He did not make any inquiry personally from any neighbour person or the nearby Mahila Vikas Kender. They reached the spot at about 12:30 pm and it took them 1-1½ hours for conducting the entire proceedings. He denied the suggestion that the sealing order or the order directing registration of FIR was passed in mechanical manner. He denied the suggestion that no child was rescued from there.
(ii) PW2 Sanover has turned completely hostile and did not depose anything before the Court. Ld. APP for State put questions in the nature of cross examination after seeking permission of the court. He conceded that his uncle called him to Delhi from Bihar in the year 2012. He also conceded that after come to Delhi he started working in the factory of Mr. Haider Ali and do the work of pasting and fixing clips on the jewellery box.
He was employed for the wage of ₹1,200/- per month. He was made to work from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm. He denied the suggestion that he was paid wages by Mr. Haider Ali. He could not specify the age of Abid. In his cross examination by Ld. FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 4 of 19 counsel for accused he has stated that at the time of incident he was aged 16 years, however, he had told his age as 14 years at the instance of police who assured him that he would get amount if he told his less age.
(iii) PW3 Abid Hussain turned completely hostile and did not support the case of prosecution at all. He deposed that he was not working anywhere and had come to Delhi for vacation. Ld. APP for State put questions in the nature of cross examination to him. He denied the suggestion that he used to work at the factory of Haider Ali on a monthly salary of ₹800/-. He conceded that in the factory of Haider Ali jewellery box were made and pasting work was done, however, he never worked in that factory. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as the accused is his brother. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused despite being given an opportunity.
(iv) PW4 Mohd. Asif is the owner of property C-81/3A, Gali no.11/7, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi. He has deposed that the accused used to make jewellery box and used to reside on rent at the above mentioned address. The said house was sealed by the SDM. One boy whose name he did not know had come to the rented place of Haider Ali. As the witness was not stating the correct facts, Ld. APP for State put questions in the nature of cross examination after seeking permission of Court. He denied the suggestion that the factory of accused was sealed as he had employed two children below the age of 14 years in the said factory. He denied the suggestion that two children were released from the custody of accused by the SDM after the raid. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused despite being given an opportunity.
FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 5 of 19(v) PW5 Sh. R. M. Parthsarthi was the Inspecting Officer from Labour Department, Shahdara. In the month September 2012 he joined the raid for child rescue operation with the SDM. Police officials and NGO and went to Gali no.20, New Usmanpur. The raid was conducted on 09.10.2012 at R-114, Gali no.20, Brahampuri, Delhi and two children were rescued from the manufacturing of jewellery box factory of accused Haider Ali. The names of the rescued children were Sanover and Abid Hussain. The rescued children were taken to the SDM office where there medical examined was conducted. They were produced before the members of CWC. The witness was not cross examined by accused despite being given an opportunity.
(vi) PW6 ASI Satnan Kumar on 09.10.2012 he was the duty officer at PS New Usmanpur. At about 07:45 pm, SHO handed over a rukka to him of the present case. He made endorsement on the rukka on the basis of which present FIR was registered. After registration of FIR he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Sanjay to whom further investigation was assigned. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused despite being given an opportunity.
(vii) PW7 Ct. Mukesh on 09.10.2012 he went to R-114/113, Gali no.20 alongwith SI Sanjay and SI Amit where at the instance of SI Amit, SI Sanjay prepared site plan. Owner of the factory came on the spot. IO arrested him and conducted his personal search. IO also recorded his disclosure statement. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused he has stated that he reached the spot at about 07:00 pm on his motorcycle. Public persons had gathered at the spot. IO made inquiries from public persons but did not record statement of any public persons. He FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 6 of 19 could not tell the surrounding house number/its measurements or the number of floors of the spot. The rescued children were present at the spot, however, he could not tell the names. IO had not recorded the statement of any child labour or had made any inquiry. He remained at the spot till 08:30 pm. No other officer of any department came at the spot till they remained there. IO had recorded my statement but it was not recorded in my presence. Again said, IO had recorded my statement in my presence at the spot. No child labour was brought to PS in his presence. When they reached the spot accused was not present at the spot and came back to the spot after about 15 minutes. He could not tell the name of the owner. No rent agreement was seized from the owner of the house. No attendance register of the labourers was seized from the spot in his presence. No work is going on when they had visited the spot. No document with regard to the name of children, their parentage or residential address was produced by the children or any of their guardian. He denied the suggestion that no raid was conducted or any child was recovered.
(viii) PW8 SI Amit on 09.10.2012 he joined the raiding party alongwith SDM Seelampur, child line NGO, labour department, North-East for child rescue operation and went behind H. No. R- 113, Gali no.20, Brahampuri, Delhi where two children Sanovar and Abid Hussain were pasting jewellery box in the premises of accused Haider Ali. The two children were rescued and taken to SDM Seelampur. On his directions they were medically examined and produced before CWC. CWC ordered the keeping the children at Mukti Ashram, Bachpan Bachao Andolan, Keshav Nagar, Delhi. He took the children to the Mukti Ashram. IO FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 7 of 19 prepared site plan at his instance. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for accused he has stated that they reached the spot at about 12:30 pm. There were two floors in the building. The accused was not present at the premises at that time. The SDM had not called any public persons to joined the proceedings. He remained at the spot for about one hour. He did not know who was the owner of the premises. No ID proof of children was recovered from the premises. He had not made inquiry from any one and was there to assist the SDM. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation.
5. PE was closed on 25.11.2023 and on 15.03.2024 statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein they denied the allegations in toto. He stated that he do not wish to lead DE and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. Final arguments were addressed by Ld APP for the state and by Ld. counsel on behalf of accused.
7. The accused persons have been charged for offence punishable under section 374 IPC. Before deciding the charge under section 374 IPC it is necessary to go through the said section.
"374. Unlawful compulsory labour.-- Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 8 of 19
8. For proving the charge under section 374 IPC, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused unlawfully compelled the children against their will to perform labour. It is the case of the prosecution that in the raid conducted by SDM Seelampur, labour department, NGO and police officials on 09.10.2012 two child labourers Mohd. Sanovar and Abid Hussain were recovered who were compelled unlawfully labour in jewellery box work against their will. Mohd. Sanovar has been examined in this Court as PW2. He did not support the case of prosecution and turned completely hostile. Though, Ld. APP for State put questions in the nature of cross examination and he conceded that he was working in the factory of accused and was doing pasting and fixing clips on jewellery box at a wage of ₹1,200/- per month from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm but he denied the suggestion that he was paid wages by the accused. The said witness was unsettled in cross examination and has stated that at the time of the incident he was 16 years of age but told his age as 14 years at the instance of police.
9. PW3 Abid Hussain was the another child rescued from the place. He also completely turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Even when questions in the nature of cross examination were put to him by Ld. APP for State. He denied the suggestion that he used to work at the factory of the accused.
10. For proving the offence under section 374 IPC, the prime witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW2 and PW3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The common FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 9 of 19 law principle "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" though not applicable in India still the part deposition of PW2, brought out in cross examination by Ld. APP for State is not sufficient to discharge the burden.
11. The accused has also been charged for offences punishable under section 23/26 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. They read as follows:
"23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.
26. Exploitation of juvenile or child employee Whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
12. To prove the above mentioned offences under section 23/26 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the victims were juvenile and were under the control and possession of accused or were employed in hazardous industry deliberately.
13. The present FIR was registered on the complainant of SDM Seelampur wherein he stated that on 09.10.2012 at the raid conducted at the house of accused situated at R-113, Gali no.20, FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 10 of 19 Brahampuri, Delhi, two children were rescued and hand over to SHO, PS New Usmanpur who were engaged in the jewellery box making factory of the accused. PW2 one of the rescued children has stated that he had told his age as 14 years at the instance of police as he was assured that he would get some amount if he told his less age. PW3, another rescued child has not stated anywhere that he was working.
14. The age of the rescued minor children has not been established by the prosecution by any of the documents or through the deposition of any other witnesses. The prosecution has not been able to established that the accused persons ever had charged of the victims, assaulted/exposed/abandoned or willfully neglected them in such a manner to caused them mental and physical suffering. As per section 26 J. J. Act, the nature of the work has to be hazardous and the victims have to be kept under bondage or their salary has to be withheld / used for own purpose. The prosecution has failed to fulfill the ingredients or the fact that the child were minor or were procured for hazardous employment. Though reference has been made by PW1 that the children were rescued from the factory of jewellery box making, nothing has been proved. No nature of machinery used in the above factory has been proved. Nothing has been brought out by the prosecution as to any material recovered / seized during the raid which can established the nature of factory as hazardous. Most importantly none of the rescued children have supported the case of the prosecution. There is no statement under section 164 Cr. PC of the rescued children. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 23/26 of FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 11 of 19 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
15. The accused has been charged for violating section 4 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and thereby having committed offence under section 16 of the said act.
"4. Abolition of bonded labour system (1)On the commencement of this Act, the bonded labour system shall stand abolished and every bonded labourer shall, on such commencement, stand freed and discharged from any obligation to render any bonded labour.(2)After the commencement of this Act, no person shall(a)make any advance under, or in pursuance of, the bonded labour system, or(b)compel any person to render any bonded labour or other form of forced labour."
16. Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour Whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
16. For proving the charges of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the rescued children are the star witnesses. None of the rescued witnesses i.e. PW2 Sanovar and PW3 Abid Hussain have supported the version of the prosecution. They had denied working in any factory/for the accused. They have completely departed from their statement given to the police under section 161 Cr. PC. Their statement under section 164 Cr. PC has not been recorded. The owner of premises i.e. PW4 has deposed that the accused was on the rent and used to make jewellery box. One boy had come to the rented place of the FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 12 of 19 accused. He denied the suggestion that two children below the age of 14 years were rescued from the factory of accused. There is nothing on record to link the accused with the rescued children working for him. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of section 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
17. The accused has also been charged for offence punishable under section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 for violating sections 9/10/11 of the above said act. Section 14 provides as penalties and reads as follows:
"14. Penalties.--
(1) Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both.
(2) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under section 3, commits a like offence afterwards, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years.
(3) Whoever--(a) fails to give notice as required by section 9; or
(b) fails to maintain a register as required by section 11 or makes any false entry in any such register; or
(c) fails to display a notice containing an abstract of section 3 and this section as required by section 12; or
(d) fails to comply with or contravenes any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both."FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 13 of 19
I shall deal with the sections stated to be violated by the accused persons one by one:
18. Section 3 in The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
3. Prohibition of employment of children in certain occupations and processes.--
No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any of the occupations set forth in Part A of the Schedule or in any workshop wherein any of the processes set forth in Part B of the Schedule is carried on: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any workshop wherein any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to any school established by, or receiving assistance or recognition from, Government.
19. In the present case the accused has been alleged to have employed and permitted minor children to work in the occupation of jewellery box making which is in contravention of section 3. It is indispensable for the prosecution to prove that the work done by the accused was covered by prohibited occupation under schedule A and B. No such evidence has been led.
20. Section 9 in The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 "9. Notice to Inspector.--
(1) Every occupier in relation to an establishment in which a child was employed or permitted to work immediately before the date of commencement of this Act in relation to such establishment shall, within a period of thirty days from such commencement, send to the Inspector within whose local limits the establishment is situated, a written notice containing the following particulars, namely:--
(a) the name and situation of the establishment;
(b) the name of the person in actual management FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 14 of 19 of the establishment;
(c) the address to which communications relating to the establishment should be sent; and
(d) the nature of the occupation or process carried on in the establishment.
(2) Every occupier, in relation to an establishment, who employs, or permits to work, any child after the date of commencement of this Act in relation to such establishment, shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of such employment, send to the Inspector within whose local limits the establishment is situated, a written notice containing the particulars as are mentioned in sub-
section (1).
Explanation .--For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), "date of commencement of this Act, in relation to an establishment" means the date of bringing into force of this Act in relation to such establishment.
(3) Nothing in sections 7, 8 and 9 shall apply to any establishment wherein any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to any school established by, or receiving assistance or recognition from, Government."
21. The prosecution in the present case, has not been able to establish that the accused was running an establishment employing children. Also, no witness has been examined in this regard whether any notice as per S. 9 has been given to the Inspector or not. No document to this effect has been brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no violation of S. 9.
22. Section 10 in The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 "10. Disputes as to age.--
If any question arises between an Inspector and an occupier as to the age of any child who is employed or is permitted to work by him in an establishment, the question shall, in the absence of a certificate as to the age of such child granted by the prescribed medical authority, be referred by the Inspector for decision to the prescribed medical authority.
FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 15 of 19Yet again, the prosecution, firstly has not proved any establishment run by the accused persons employing children and secondly, nothing has been brought on record to ascertain the age of the rescued children. No family members of the rescued children were examined as prosecution witnesses. It cannot be said that there ever was a dispute regarding age of children as mentioned above."
23. Section 11 in The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 "11. Maintenance of register.--
There shall be maintained by every occupier in respect of children employed or permitted to work in any establishment, a register to be available for inspection by an Inspector at all times during working hours or when work is being carried on in any such establishment, showing--
(a) the name and date of birth of every child so employed or permitted to work;
(b) hours and periods of work of any such child and the intervals of rest to which he is entitled;
(c) the nature of work of any such child; and
(d) such other particulars as may be prescribed."
24. No photographs / equipments have been brought by the prosecution to show the nature of work being done at the factory of the accused persons. Nothing is on record to link the accused with the rescued children, let alone the rescued children working in the hazardous industry of the accused. There is nothing on record to prove the ownership/tenancy of the workshop/factory to prove the connections of accused with the premises. No salary book/books of account of the accused/minor children has been brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, violation of S. 11 has not been established.
25. Hence, as discussed above, the accused have not violated FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 16 of 19 provisions as mention in S. 9/10/11 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and are not liable for punishment under section 14 of the said Act.
26. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
27. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 17 of 19 Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
28. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says: 'It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
29. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 18 of 19 reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
30. Considering the testimonies of the star prosecution witnesses, who did not support the case of the prosecution at all coupled with infirmities and inconsistencies in the prosecution version, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove charged offences against the accused. Benefit of doubt must go in favour of accused. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In view of material inconsistencies in the prosecution version/non support of the prosecution witnesses as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Haider Ali is acquitted for the offence under U/s 23/26 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, Section 374 IPC, Section 14 Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 16 Bonded Labour System (Abolishing Act), 1976. His bail bond stands cancelled and surety stands discharged.
Digitally signed by VIPUL SANDWAR VIPUL Date:
SANDWAR 2024.07.23
16:15:35
+0530
Announced in the open (VIPUL SANDWAR)
Court on 23rd July 2024 MM-02/NE/KKD COURTS
FIR No.266/12 PS New Usmanpur Page 19 of 19