Delhi District Court
State vs . Bimal Sahu on 27 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE11
(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
FIR No. 155/11
U/s. 23/26 Juvenile Justice Act and
Section 3/14 Child Labour Act
PS Fatehpur Beri
State Vs. Bimal Sahu
Case ID: 02406R0123582012
JUDGMENT:
a The Sl. No. of the case : 6/3/12
b The date of commission : 01.04.2011 to 23.05.2011
c The name of complainant : CWC, Lajpat Nagar
d The name of accused : Bimal Sahu
S/o Sh. Surender Nath Sahu
R/o Village Chotta Belly,
PS Mohanpur,
District Midanapur,
West Bengal.
e The offence complained of : 23/26 Juvenile Justice Act &
Section 3/14 Child Labour Act
f The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g The final order : Acquitted
h The date of such order : 27.11.2012
i The date of institution
of the case : 10.10.2011
j Date of hearing final arguments
and adjourning the matter
for orders : 27.11.2012
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Accused has been sent to face trial for the offences punishable u/s 23/26 Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3/14 Child Labour Act. The present FIR was registered in compliance of an Order of CWC Lajpat Nagar with the allegations that the accused FIR No. 155/11 : PS F.P. Beri State vs Bimal Sahu Page 1 of 5 had employed a child namely Master Sanju, aged 6 to 9 years, at an egg shop being run by him at the Dera More, New Delhi. He further caused physical and mental sufferings to the child by assaulting him and by not paying him wages and thereby keeping him in bondage.
2. Story of the prosecution is that on 23.05.2011 Master Sanju was found roaming alone at Chandan Holla Village, near the house of Shahid and Govt. School. Information was sent to the PS in this regard which was recorded vide DD no.8A and investigation of the case was assigned to SI Mohan Lal who went to the spot and tried to inquire about the particulars and family details of the child. As the child was not able to reveal anything, he was taken to the AIIMS Hospital for medical examination and thereafter was admitted in NGO Butterfly, situated at U4, Green Park Extension, Delhi.
3. NGO Butterfly took up the case of the child along with the IO before CWC, Lajpat Nagar where the boy revealed about his parentage and also stated that he was made to work in an egg shop. One of the workers of the NGO was taken to the shop of the accused by the boy where he pointed out towards the accused and stated that he used to work in the said shop. In the meantime, mother of the child approached CWC for his custody which was granted to her. Statement of the child was recorded by the SDM U/s 164 Cr.PC.
4. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court on 10.10.2011 and the accused was summoned. Copy of the challan was supplied to him. A FIR No. 155/11 : PS F.P. Beri State vs Bimal Sahu Page 2 of 5 prima facie case for the offences punishable U/s. 23/26 Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3/14 Child Labour Act was made out against the accused. Charge was accordingly framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Total six witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. PW1 Dan Singh was first examined on 15.03.2012 and thereafter reexamined as PW5 on 07.08.2012. He had prepared the work visit report and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A. PW4 Smt. Juhi Tripathi had brought the entire record pertaining to the proceedings that took place before CWC, Lajpat Nagar with respect to the custody of Master Sanju.
6. PW3 Ct. Dinesh accompanied the IO SI Jaiveer Singh i.e. PW7 to the spot on 23.07.2011. It is deposed by PW3 that the IO had prepared a site plan in his presence at the instance of PW1 Daan Singh. PW3 further proved the arrest memo of the accused i.e. Ex.PW3/A and his personal search memo i.e. Ex.PW3/B. He deposed that the IO carried out all the proceedings in his presence.
7. PW6 SI Jaiveer Singh is the IO of the case and he has prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A and site plan Ex.PW6/B. He also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused. PW7 ASI Mohan Lal is the first IO of the case, who had investigated the matter on 23.05.2011 on receipt of DD No. 8A. He deposed that he found an abandoned boy near Government School Chandanhola Village and he had produced him before CWC at Lajpat Nagar. He also got the bone Xray of the victim FIR No. 155/11 : PS F.P. Beri State vs Bimal Sahu Page 3 of 5 conducted.
8. PW2 Smt. Rukmani and CW1 Master Sanju are the most material witnesses to the case of the prosecution. Both these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that the victim Master Sanju was never employed with the accused and that he was never physically or mentally tortured by him.
9. Entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused on 20.11.2012 which has been denied by him in toto. Accused further took a defence that the child was left at his residence by his mother as she used to go for a job during the day time. However, while playing outside the child went missing after which he was falsely implicated in this case. However, accused did not dispute the genuinity of FIR, report of radiologist Dr. Mukul Sinha with respect to the age of Master Sanju, DD No. 8A and residence certificate of Kanta Prasad. Accordingly, formal witnesses, mentioned in the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution, to prove the aforesaid documents were dropped from the list of witnesses and a separate statement of the accused in this regard was recorded on 26.09.2012.
10. This story of the accused was supported by PW2 who denied that she had left her son for a job with the accused. She denied that the present case was registered at her instance. CW1 also supported PW2, by deposing that his mother never got him employed with the accused.
11. PW1, however, deposed that the victim had told him about the conduct of FIR No. 155/11 : PS F.P. Beri State vs Bimal Sahu Page 4 of 5 the accused who used to make him work on the egg shop and also used to beat him. He further deposed that the victim had identified and pointed towards the accused in his presence. This testimony of PW1 is not supported by the victim himself and hence, the becomes a mere hearsay and same cannot be relied upon by the court.
12. Testimony of the police officials is formal in nature and is not sufficient to convict the accused. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence, accused is acquitted of the offences U/s. 23/26 Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3/14 Child Labour Act.
Pronounced in open court (Jyoti Kler)
on 27th November, 2012 M.M11(South)/Saket
New Delhi
FIR No. 155/11 : PS F.P. Beri State vs Bimal Sahu Page 5 of 5