Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Niwas Etc., Fir60/2011 1 Of 9 on 24 October, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No.67/2012
FIR No.60/2011
PS Aman Vihar
State
Vs.
1. Ram Niwas,
S/o Sh. Durdeshi Prasad,
R/o H.No.110,
Guru Yogiraj Puram Colony,
Rani Khera, Delhi.
2. Vikas,
S/o Sh. Pradeep,
R/o H.No.61,
Guru Yogiraj Puram Colony,
Rani Khera, Delhi.
3. Pradeep Singh,
S/o Sh. Gaya Singh,
R/o H.No.61,
Guru Yogiraj Puram Colony,
Rani Khera, Delhi.
State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 1 of 9
2
4. Indu Devi,
W/o Sh. Pradeep,
R/o H.No.61,
Guru Yogiraj Puram Colony,
Rani Khera, Delhi.
5. Sudha Devi,
W/o Sh. Ram Niwas,
R/o H.No.110,
Guru Yogiraj Puram Colony,
Rani Khera, Delhi.
6. Mahender Pradhan @ Mahender Nath,
R/o H.No.66,
Guru Yogiraj Puram Colony,
Rani Khera, Delhi.
Date of institution :06.10.2012
Date when arguments concluded:24.10.2013
Date when Judgment pronounced:24.10.2013
Appearances: Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. S.K. Vashisht, counsel for all accused.
JUDGMENT
1. All six accused have been forwarded by police to face trial u/s 363/366/34 IPC.
2. FIR was registered on the statement of Ravinder State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 2 of 9 3 Sharma dated 07.03.2011 made by him before ASI in P.P. He stated to the police that he had seven children - six daughters and a son. He stated the age of victim girl (name suppressed in order to conceal the identity) as 14 years. After the death of his wife, he was taking care of all the children. He had already married off his two daughters, namely, Sheela, Sulekha and Rekha and remaining children were residing with him in Delhi in a rented house. Accused Vikas was also residing in the neighbourhood and Vikas proposed complainant to marry his daughter with him but he refused saying that his daughter was minor. When he returned home on 06.03.2011 at 6.00 A.M., he did not find his daughter and on inquiry, a neighbourer told that the girl had married with Vikas. Complainant tried to talk to his daughter but she did not talk to him. He made further inquiry on 07.03.2011 and came to know that his daughter was induced by accused Ram Niwas, his wife, by the Pradhan, Vikas and his parents and thereafter, she was got married with Vikas in a temple at Village Rani Khera. IO collected the date of birth certificate of the victim girl from M.C. Primary School, Village Rani Khera and as per that certificate, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 20.04.1998. Victim girl underwent ossification State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 3 of 9 4 test on 22.02.2011 and doctors opined that on that day, she was between 14 and 16 years.
3. Charge u/s 363/366/34 IPC was framed against all accused on 30.11.2012 to which they claimed trial.
4. PW1 Mr. Ram Niwas Mishra deposed that 23 days prior to sixth day of March, 2011, prosecutrix's father and a lady from his side, accused's father and mother came to him to engage him as a Pandit to perform the marriage ceremonies of Vikas and victim girl. He further deposed that complainant Ravinder Sharma,victim girl and parents of accused Vikas came to him on 06.03.2011 and asked him to come to Shiv temple, Village Rani Khera when he reached that temple, he found them all present there. After half an hour, complainant left the temple and did not return thereafter. He was waited for two hours but he did not return and on the request of accused Ram Niwas, the phera ceremonies were performed. In cross examination, PW1 deposed that victim girl had told him her age as 19 years at the time of marriage ceremonies. Her father had also told the same age. He further deposed that marriage was solemnized with the consent of girl, her father, accused Vikas and his parents. PW2 Roshan Kumar State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 4 of 9 5 is the son of PW1. He deposed that he was called to Shiv temple by accused Vikas on 06.03.2011 with camera. He reached there and clicked the photographs of the marriage ceremonies of accused Vikas and victim girl. He further deposed that at the time of marriage, accused Mahender was not present. In cross examination, he deposed that he handed over the chip of the camera to the IO. That chip never came on the file. So, all marriage photographs from Ex.PW2/A1 to A20 have gone unproved. PW3 SI Krishan Lal received the investigation of the case on 24.12.2011. He collected the file from MHCM. He produced the victim girl in DDU hospital, Hari Nagar from Nari Niketan for bone age determination. He collected the bony age report in which doctors had opined the age of the prosecutrix between 1416 years. He further deposed that he had received summons of the prosecutrix and her complainant father Ravinder Sharma. He came to know that Ravinder Sharma's other daughter, namely Rekha was residing in Delhi and so, he visited her house who told him that her father had expired in Bihar. Rekha further told to PW3 that prosecutrix had gone away from home with her father when Ravinder Sharma left Delhi permanently for Bihar. He State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 5 of 9 6 further stated that Rekha was not found aware of the whereabouts of her own prosecutrix sister. Thereafter, he sent Ct. Anil to Bihar to trace complainant Ravinder Sharma and prosecutrix. He recorded statements of two Panchyat members to the effect that Ravinder Sharma had died. PW4 lady Ct. Neelam deposed that she visited P.P. Prem Nagar in the night intervening 7th & 8th March, 2011 as she was called there by ASI Karan Singh on phone. She further deposed that she along with Ct. Dinesh, complainant Ravinder Sharma and ASI Karan Singh went to house No.61, Guru Yogiraj Puram Colony, Rani Khera, Delhi where they found the prosecutrix and accused Vikas. Vikas was arrested. Prosecutrix was taken to SGM hospital for medical examination, and thereafter, custody of the girl was handed over to the IO. PW5 lady Ct. Rajesh Kumari is witness to the arrest of accused Sudha Devi and Indu Devi vide documents from Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A4. PW6 Ct. Dinesh deposed that he along with ASI Karan Singh was present in P.P. Prem Nagar on 07.03.2011 when statement of complainant was recorded by ASI Karan Singh. He took the rukka to PS and after registration of FIR, he returned to P.P. and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Karan State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 6 of 9 7 Singh. Thereafter, he deposed about arrest of accused Vikas and recovery of victim girl from his possession.
On 03.10.2013, all accused and their counsel made separate statements to the effect that they were not disputing the preparation of rukka, endorsement on the rukka by D.O., registration of FIR, arrest memos of Ram Niwas, Hardeep, Mahender Pradhan and their personal search memos. They further stated that they were not disputing the recording of statement of victim girl to u/s 164 Cr.PC. Lastly, they stated that they did not want to cross examine the witnesses who prepared those documents and that they had no objection if the statement of those witnesses be read into evidence. Accordingly, rukka was exhibited as Ex.D1, endorsement on rukka as Ex.D2, FIR as Ex.D3, arrest and personal search memos of accused Ram Niwas, Pradeep and Mahender from Ex.D4 to Ex.D9 respectively, application moved by police for recording statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.PC as Ex.D 10, statement of girl u/s 164 Cr.PC as Ex.D11 and application moved by the police to obtain copy of that statement as Ex.D12.
5. PW1 is the only material witness examined by the police. He is proving the marriage between accused Vikas and State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 7 of 9 8 victim girl in the presence of all accused. He is claiming that he was engaged by complainant himself on one side and parents of accused Vikas on the other side on 3rd or 4th March, 2011. These persons visited his house even on 06.03.2011 to invite him to come to Shiv temple, Village Rani Khera. He visited that temple and solemnised the marriage between accused Vikas and victim girl. He nowhere deposed that the girl was kidnapped by any of the accused or the marriage was being performed under the pressure. It was the girl herself who told her age to PW1 as 19 years. So, PW1 is leading the Court to nowhere. PW2 had appeared just to prove photographs. He handed over chip of the camera to the IO. IO did not place on record the said chip and all twenty one photographs have remained unproved. Ex.D11 is the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of the victim girl. That statement has not been disputed by any of the accused. In that statement, she stated to the Magistrate that she was in love with accused Vikas. He was her neighbourer. Both wanted to marry. Initially, her father had consented to that marriage but eventually, he refused. So, she went to a temple on 06.03.2011 and married with accused Vikas. Thereafter, she accompanied Vikas to his house. She further stated State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 8 of 9 9 that she had gone with Vikas with her sweet will and that she wanted to live with him. She expressed a strong desire that she did not want to go to her father's house. That statement cannot be read into evidence as the victim girl has not been examined by the prosecution. Even if it is taken into account, she nowhere stated to the Magistrate that accused Vikas induced her to temple. She accompanied him to his house only after marriage. It is known to all that natural guardian of the wife, after marriage, is her husband and not her father.
6. In view of above discussion, prosecution has utterly failed to prove a single ingredient against any of the accused u/d 363 or 366 IPC. Hence, they all are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties discharged.
Announced in the Open Court on 24th day of October, 2013.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North: Rohini Courts: Delhi
State vs. Ram Niwas etc., FIR60/2011 9 of 9