Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Verma on 21 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS SHILPI SINGH, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-02 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI
Date of Judgment: 04.10.2024
FIR No. 287/13
U/s 23 Juvenile Justice Act & 374 IPC
PS: Malviya Nagar
Complainant Sh RS Chaurasia, BBA, represented
through State of NCT of Delhi
Represented by Sh. Anand Kumar Goyal, Ld. APP for
State
Accused 1. Ravi verma s/o Sh. KR Verma.
2. Sushant Dass s/o Sh. PK Dass.
Represented by 1. Sh. Narender Sharma for accused
no.1.
2. Sh. DK Yati for accused no.2
Date of Offence 2013
Date of FIR 19.06.2013
Date of Chargesheet 25.07.2015
Date of Framing of Charges 25,05,2018
Date of commencement of evidence 13.07.2018
Date on which judgment is reserved 23.07.2024
Date of the Judgment 21.10.2024
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any Accused no.1 acquitted and Accused
no.2 convicted u/s 23 JJ act and 374
IPC.
FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 1 of 30
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.10.21
18:22:25
+0530
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that somewhere in the year 2010, the victim S came from her village in Assam along with some girls in search for a job and she came in contact with Prince Placement Agency which was allegedly owned by Sushant Dass (hereinafter called accused no.2) and his wife and they promised to get her placed as a house help at Rs. 4,000/- per month. As per the victim, she worked for years but her salary was never paid to her and the accused no.2 used to receive the payment and when she would ask for her salary, accused no.2 would tell her that he would pay the entire amount in lump sum when she would go home. She further alleged that when she asked the accused no.2 to let her go home, he did not permit her and since he had illegally kept her salary which she earned over the years, she could not have gone home without taking the money. She further alleged that accused no.2 got her placed at the house of Ravi Verma (hereinafter called accused no.1) who did not pay her salary. On her complaint to Bachpan Bachao Andolan (hereinafter called BBA), the complaint was forwarded to the SHO and FIR was registered and the victim was recovered. During investigation, it was found that the agency through which the victim was placed was owned by accused no.2 and his wife and as per accused no.2, he got separated from his wife who then shifted to Nepal and he wasn't aware of her whereabouts. He also told the IO that the agency was functioning under the name Khushi Enterprises at top floor, cabin no.4, Millenium Business Centre 34, Corner market, Malviya Nagar (hereinafter called the agency).
2. On 25.07.2015 chargesheet was filed u/s23/26 JJ Act and 25.05.2018, Notice was issued to accused no. 1 u/s 23 JJ Act and Notice u/s 23 JJ act along with charge u/s 374 IPC was framed against accused no.2 and they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 2 of 30
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.10.21
18:22:33
+0530
THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
3. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. The details of the witnesses examined are:
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
PW-1 Ms. Jyoti Eye Witness
PW-2 Ms. Sunita Victim
PW3 HC Sheela Kumari Police Witness
PW4 Sh Manish Sharma Eye Witness/ Manage BBA
PW5 Sh. Narender Pratap Caretaker of building where
accused no.2 resided
PW6 HC Rajender Kumar Police Witness
PW7 Sh Rajender Prasad Owner of the building where
agency was working
PW8 SI Prem Singh IO
PW9 Dr Abhishek Yadav Member of Medical board to
prove age of victim
PW10 Dr Amita Malik Member of Medical board to
prove age of victim
PW11 Sh SK Gupta SDM Hauz Khas
PW12 Inspector DV Singh 2nd IO
PW13 Dr Anurag jain Member of Medical board to
prove age of victim
PW14 Dr renuka Sharma Member of Medical board to
prove age of victim
PW15 Inspector Ashok 3rd IO
Kumar
PW16 Kamini Dangra MLT Safdarjung Hospital to
prove age of victim
4. PW-1 is alleged to be the eye witness who said that victim S is from her village and she was placed by the agency in the year 2010 to work at different houses, FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 3 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:22:40 +0530 however she was not permitted to go home and she did not receive any holiday in two years. She further alleged that Victim had informed her that she was not even paid her wages by the agency and PW-1 then informed BBA and told the victim that they would come to rescue her. She said that later, she along with two of the employees of BBA i.e PW-4 and Surender and police officials of PS: Malviya Nagar went to G-5/1, Malviya Nagar (hereinafter called the house of accused no.1) the house where victim was working and rescued her from there.
5. During her cross examination by accused no.1, PW-1 said that victim was 16 years old when she came to Delhi in the year 2010 and she had known her since her child hood as they both belonged to the same village. She further explained that she was regularly in touch with the victim from the year 2010 to 2013 and the victim never alleged that she was assaulted by any of her employer during this period. As per PW-1, the only complaint of the victim was that she was not paid her wages and the agency used to take her salary. It was also extracted in her cross examination that apart victim S, she had rescued 6 other girls and all these girls were brought by her to Delhi to be employed at houses but these girls were not permitted to go home. She also said that apart the victim, all other girls were about 19 years old and she gave a complaint for the remaining girls as well but she wasn't aware if FIR was registered in those case as well. She also said that before rescuing the victim, she went to the office of accused no.2 and asked him to hand over the custody of victim but he said that since she was employed and under the contract, he cannot handover the custody. She said that when she had rescued the other 6 girls, at that time also she took assistance of BBA. She couldn't give a clear answer as to whether she gave the complaint for victim in the police station or if she informed BBA and they gave the complaint. She couldn't remember the details of the events on date of rescue of victim and she said that since the rescue took place years before her evidence, she couldn't jog her memory, however, as she said that when victim was being rescued, she did not go inside the house of accused no.1 and was waiting outside. She admitted FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 4 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:22:46 +0530 the complaint date 14.06.2013 and said that may be it was given by BBA before the date of registration of FIR. The document was exhibited as Ex PW-1/D1 but she did not know if the victim had signed it. She further said that except PW-4 and Surender, no other official of BBA joined the investigation and clarified that even she was rescued by BBA in the year 2008. As per PW-1, neither her's nor PW-4's or Surender's signature were taken on any document at the place of recovery of victim and her statement was not recorded after the victim was rescued. She denied the suggestion that due to dispute with the agency, she and victim got a false FIR registered and falsely implicated accused no.1. She denied the remaining suggestions as well.
6. As far accused no.2 is concerned, PW-1 said that the victim came with her to Delhi in the year 2010 and accused no.2 brought her to Delhi. She also admitted that she was working as agent to place girls as household help and accused no.2 promised to pay her commission on assisting with placement but he never paid any money to her and as per her, victim was 16 years of age when she was placed by accused no.2. She also said that she was made to sign on agreements by the agency but she could not say what agreements she signed upon as she is illiterate.
7. PW-2 is the victim who said that she studied upto class 7th and came to Delhi with accused no.2 who made her stay at his office and got her employed as house help at a House in Chhatarpur for one and later at another house for 7 months and thereafter, at the house of accused no.1. As per PW-2, she was made to sign an agreement by accused no.2 but she did not know what that document was and could only read that Rs. 5,000/- was written on it. She also said that at all these house, she used to work for 24 hours and her salary was paid by all the owners including accused no.1 directly to accused no.2 who did not further pay to her. PW-2 said that accused no.1 was to pay her Rs. 5,000/- per month and she was supposed to cook, clean and do the moping and since her wages were given to accused no.2, she gave a complaint to the police i.e Ex PW-1/D1 with her FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 5 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:22:53 +0530 signature at point A. She also identified her signature on the site plan and statement u/s 164 CrPC and the documents were exhibited as Ex PW-2/B and Ex PW-2/C. She alleged that accused no.2 and his wife did not permit her to go home despite her request.
8. During her cross examination by accused no.1, PW-2 was confronted with Ex PW-1/D1 and she could not read it. When she was questioned why she signed it, she could not remember who made her sign it and later she denied giving the complaint to BBA and said that she verbally informed PW-1 about her grievance. PW-2 said that she could read and write in Assamese but she could sign in English. She could not remember if she read the content of Ex PW-1/D1 and if someone read it out to her or if she was made to sign on blank papers by the police or officials from BBA. She admitted knowing PW-1 and her husband and that she was from her village but she denied that she was in contact with PW-1 or she ever received any call from her. She explained that PW-1 was from another village of her hometown and she was known to her mother but PW-1 never came to her house in Assam. She also said that during three years that she worked in Delhi, she met PW-1 only once and it was when she first came to Delhi. At the office of accused no.2. She could not remember how she met accused no.2. She was not aware if BBA was sent by PW-1 but she said that there was no dispute between PW-1 and accused no.2 over salary. PW-2 said that she called PW-1 from the phone of a random female whom she saw outside the house of accused no.1 and informed her that she wanted to go home but she could not remember during her deposition the number of PW-1. She admitted that PW-1 knew the officials of BBA and she came with three officials of BBA on the date of her rescue to the house of accused no.1 but she could not remember if the police accompanied them. As per her, when BBA came to rescue her, she was inside the house of accused no.1 but she could not remember if they came inside the house or signaled her to come outside. She also said that no document was prepared by the officials of BBA at the house of accused no.1 and she couldn't remember if FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 6 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:00 +0530 the police made her sign any document in the police station but she said that after she was taken by BBA from the house of accused no.1, she never went back there and neither the police asked her to accompany them there nor did they visit the house before the date on which she was rescued. She was the confronted with PW-2/B but this time she said that the document was not prepared in her presence. She also said that she was not in touch with her family since 2010 and her family was not aware that PW-1 brought her to Delhi but she said that even PW-1 wasn't aware that she was 13 years old at that time. The witness admitted that after the orders of CWC Lajpat Nagar, she was paid a sum of Rs. 15,444/- but she wasn't aware if the said amount was paid by accused no.1 to her. She was confronted with photocopy of DD bearing number 000644 dated 09.02.2013 for a sum of Rs. 15,444/- and she said that she does not know about this document. The said document was Marked as PW-2/D1. She was also confronted with photocopy of a resume with a picture on it and she admitted that the picture is hers and signature at point B and B1 were hers. The document was exhibited as Ex PW-2/DX. Photocopy of domestic servant employee verification form was also put to her and she admitted that photograph on the said form and fingerprint of right and left hand were her's along with the signature at point X. The document was exhibited as Ex PW-2/DX1. As far the agreement between accused no.1 and Agency is concerned, she said that she was present when receipt no. 004 dated 07.04.2013 laying out the terms and condition and her salary to be paid by accused no.1 along with service charge, was executed. She was also confronted with copy of salary slip issued to accused no.1 by the agency against the salary of PW-2 paid to the agency and she said that she isn't aware of the document. The document was Marked as Mar PW-2/D2. She was questioned about her statement u/s 164 CrPC and if she gave any other statement apart this to which she replied that the statement u/s 164 CrPC was given out of her free will and she also gave a statement before CWC but she did not give any other statement. She was then confronted with one statement allegedly given by her before the SDM and the same was read out to her and she denied giving this statement. She was also FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 7 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:08 +0530 questioned about her age when she went to CWC and she said she was 16 years old. She was then confronted with her statement given to CWC by her informing her age where it said that her age was 17 years and the certified copy of finding of CWC in case no. 992/13 where her age was reflected as 17 years. She had no explanation to offer and the documents were exhibited as Ex PW-2/DX2 and Ex PW-2/DX3 respectively. She admitted that she worked at the house of accused no.1 for two months but she denied the suggestion that she informed accused no.1 that her age is 19 years at the time when she was employed there or that her salary for these two months was paid by accused no.1 to the agency in her presence. She could not admit/deny if PW-1 along with her husband used to get girls to Delhi on pretext of providing job. She also admitted that accused no.1 and his family kept her well during the time she was working there and gave her the same food that they used to eat and the atmosphere in the house was healthy and neither accused no.1 nor his family assaulted or mistreated her. She could not remember if she informed accused no.1 before leaving the house with BBA and if BBA officials spoke to accused no.1 but she denied the suggestion that in conspiracy with PW-1 she filed this case to extort money from accused no.1.
9. In her cross examination by accused no.2, she said that accused no.2 brought her to Delhi in the year 2010 with five other persons and PW-1 was one of them but during the suggestion that PW-1 was the one who brought her, she explained that both PW-1 and accused no.2 brought her to Delhi. She explained that when she reached Delhi, she rested at the office of accused no.2 for a week and then she was employed at a house in Chhatarpur and later at another house for 7 months and then at the house of accused no.1. PW-2 said that the environment at all these houses including the office of accused no.2 was very healthy and after obtaining her consent, she was employed by accused no.2 at all these houses. She said that she did not inform her family when she left for Delhi and while she was working with accused no.1, one day she called PW-1 from the phone of a maid who used to work outside the house of accused no.1 and expressed her desire to go home FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 8 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:15 +0530 but she wasn't aware if PW-1 informed the police though she admitted that she did not call the police. She alleged that her salary was not paid to her and she wasn't aware who used to collect her salary but she denied the suggestions put to her.
10. Ex PW-2/C is the statement u/s 164 CrPC which is admitted by PW-2 wherein she alleged that she came to Delhi along with few of her friends and met accused no.2 and one Kalpana and the agency helped them secure employment. She said that she worked at a house in Chhatarpur and later at the house of accused no.1 and she used to do all the household chores but accused no.2 used to collect her salary and when she would ask him for money, he would ignore the conversation. She alleged that she was working as bonded labour.
11. PW-3 is the female police witness who accompanied the IO and PW-1, PW-4 and Surender from BBA to the house of accused no.1. She said that on 18.06.2013 at about 11:20 am, they met the victim/PW-2 and came back with her to the police station for which an arrival entry was made and the victim was sent for her medical and later to CWC.
12. During her cross examination by accused no.1, PW-3 said that they remained at the place of recovery of victim for half an hour but she could not remember if any document was prepared by the IO there and her statement was recorded on 20.06.2013. She explained that the bell of the house was rung and one woman and one man was in the house but she could not say if they were the owners. She also said that the custody of the Victim was given to her when she was recovered therefore, she could not see the investigation conducted by the IO, As per PW-3, statement of the people from BBA was not recorded in her presence and she denied the suggestions given to her. For accused no.2, PW-2 said in the cross examination that she was a part of recovery team and when PW-2 was recovered, she was hale and hearty and was only complaining of non payment of salary but FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 9 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:23 +0530 she said that due to passage of time, she cannot identify the victim. No other material fact was extracted.
13. PW-4 is one of the member of BBA who went to recover the victim. He said that on 18.06.2013, chairperson of BBA RS chaurasia, informed him about the victim and he along with one Advocate Virender, one other member Surender and activist of BBA, PW2 went to PS: Malviya Nagar and gave the information to SHO who then constituted a raiding team with PW-3, 6 and 8 and they all went to the house of accused no.1 and met him and the victim. He said that the victim was recovered and interrogated by the IO and she informed him of her plight and then she was taken to the police station, sent for her medical and thereafter to CWC.
14. During his cross examination by accused no.1, PW-4 said that he got to know about Ex PW-1/D1 through the chairperson. He also said that PW-1 was working with BBA for sometime but he wasn't aware if she was getting paid. He was not even aware how many complaints were given by PW-1 and who gave Ex PW-1/D1 to the chairperson. He also said that the statement of PW-2 was recorded by the IO on the place of recovery but he could not remember if any public witness was present there or if any witness signed on this statement. As per PW-4, they were at the place of recovery for 10 minutes and he couldn't remember if statement of any other witness was recorded at the spot or if site plan was prepared at the spot. He said that his statement was recorded on 21.06.2013 and thereafter he did not join the investigation. He denied the suggestions put to him. For accused no.2, PW-4 explained that he recovered about 100 children while working with BBA and in the present case, he joined the investigation with the police from the moment the rescue operation begin till the medical of the victim. PW-4 said that the victim was fine when she was recovered.
15. PW-5 was the caretaker/guard of 161, Savitri nagar, Malviya Nagar (hereinafter FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 10 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:29 +0530 called house of accused no.2) and he said that accused no.2 used to reside at flat no.2 of the building as a tenant and he vacated the flat 6 months before his statement was recorded. He correctly identified the accused and the tenant verification form of accused no.2 was exhibited as ex PW-5/A and Ex PW-5/B. He was not cross examined by accused no.1 but during his cross examination by accused no.2, he said that accused no.2 came to stay there in the year 2013 and he was informed by accused no.2 that he runs a placement agency, however, the flat was used only for residential purpose. As per PW-5, accused no.2 never brought any maid to the said house and used to stay with his family.
16. PW-6 is also a police witness who joined the recovery proceedings and investigation with the IO. He said that on 18.06.2013, he was on beat duty and he received call from the IO and he along with PW-3, IO and the members of BBA went to the house of accused no.1 and rescued victim/PW-2 who informed them that she was 16 years old. He said that the IO interrogated her and then the victim was taken to the police station and after her medical, she was taken to CWC.
17. During his cross examination by accused no.1, he couldn't remember if the IO recorded the statement of any witness at the house of accused no.1 or if any public person was present there. He said that he was at the spot for one house and he denied the suggestions put to him. He was not cross examined by accused no.1.
18. PW-7 was the owner of the building from where the agency was functioning. He said that House no. 67/2 Jamrodhpur, New Delhi-48 was owned by him and he gave it on rent to accused no.2 and Kalpana. He identified accused no.2 but he said that he did not know accused no.1. The witness was not cross examined.
19. PW-8 is the IO who submitted during his deposition that on 18.06.2013, the complaint was marked to him by the SHO and at that time, PW-1, PW-4, FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 11 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:36 +0530 Surender Singh and advocate Virender Verma were also present at the police station and he along with these 4 persons and PW-3 and PW-6 went to the house of accused no.1 for which DD no. 38B was registered i.e Ex PW-8/E and they saw the victim working in the kitchen on accused no.1 and they all rescued her from there. He said that the victim was brought to the police station for which DD no. 45B i.e Ex PW-8/B was registered and later, PW-3 and PW-6 took her to the hospital and then to CWC where it was directed that her bone ossification test is to be conducted and her statement before the SDM is to be recorded, which was eventually done on 24.06.2013. Further, PW-8 explained that on 19.06.2013, the rukka was prepared i.e Ex PW-8/A on the basis of second complaint which was given by the victim to BBA, FIR was registered and on 20.06.2013, he along with PW-3 went to the shelter home and took the victim to the house for accused no.1 i.e place of her recovery and site plan i.e Ex PW-2/B was prepared at her instance and later, her statement u/s 164 CrPC was recorded by Ld. MM. PW-8 also recorded the statement of PW-3 and PW-6 on 21.06.2013 and supplementary statement of PW-2 was recorded. PW-8 also visited BBA and met PW-4, Surender and PW-1 and recorded their statement at the office of BBA. He also said that he formally arrested accused no.1 vide arrest memo i.e Ex PW-8/C and the complaint annexed with Ex PW-1/D1 was exhibited as Ex PW-8/D.
20. During his cross examination by accused no.1, PW-8 said that the complaint given to rescue the victim was typed and he also verified the contents of complaint from the victim when she was rescued. He further explained that he tried to meet the complainant who gave Ex PW-1/D1 i.e RS Chauraisa but he never met him and therefore he did not record his statement. As far PW-1, PW-4, Surender and Advocate Virender are concerned, he said that they produced their I card to show their association with the NGO, BBA but the copies were not placed on record. For the investigation conducted at the place of recovery, he said that the statement of PW-2 was taken at the house of accused no.1 and there was no public witness and he did not ask anyone from neighborhood to join but did not FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 12 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:42 +0530 record the statement of members of BBA at that time. He admitted that FIR was registered after the medical of victim and that Ex PW-2/B i.e the site plan was prepared on 20.06.2013 at about 12-1 pm in the presence of PW-3. He denied the suggestions put to him. Accused no.2 on the other hand questioned him over the agency. PW-8 couldn't remember the name of agency through which victim was employed at the house of accused no.1 but he admitted that he did not verify if the agency was run by accused no.2 and his wife and accused no.1 informed him of this fact.
21. PW-9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 were called to prove the document which established the age of the victim. PW-16 had placed on record authority letter i.e Ex PW-16/A, issued by Safdarjung Hospital in her favor in order to attend the case and produce the attested copy of age estimation report of Victim/PW-2 dated 24.06.2013, the original of which is already on record as PW-9/A. As far role of PW-9, 10, 13 and 14 is concerned, they were member of medical board who examined PW-2 to ascertain her age. PW-9 was the Chairman, PW-10 was the Sr Specialist Radiologist, PW-13 was the dental surgeon and PW-16 was professor Physiology. The all said that on 24.06.2013, IO/PW-8 brought PW-2 before the medical board and after her examination by Physiologist, Radiologist and dental Surgeon, the board was of the unanimous opinion that on 24.06.2013, she was above 18 years and below 20 years. The report was exhibited as Ex PW-9/A and the report on X ray conducted by PW-10 was exhibited as Ex PW-10/A During their cross examination, they said that age may vary 6 months on the either side. No other material fact was extracted in their cross examination.
22. PW-11 was the then SDM who said that on 24.06.2013, PW-2/Victim was produced infront of him and he recorded her statement i.e Ex PW-11/A bearing his signature at point A. he also said that on 12.07.2013, he signed the release certificate of the Victim i.e Ex PW-11/B. During his cross examination, he said that the statement was not in his handwriting.
FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 13 of 30
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.10.21
18:23:48
+0530
23. PW-12 is the 3rd IO who merely filed the chargesheet. He said that investigation was conducted by 1st and 2nd IO and not by him. He was not cross examined.
24. PW-15 is the second IO who said that during investigation, he tried to search for the owner of the agency but he couldn't find anyone on the address available on record as the agency had already vacated the premises. He said that he got to know that accused no.2 was the owner. He was not cross examined.
25. Accused persons admitted the factum of recording of statement of victim u/s 164 CrPC by the concerned MM, without admitting allegation and content and the statement was exhibited as Ex P1 and the witness was dropped. PE was closed and statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 CrPC on 05.09.2023 and 02.11.2023. Accused no.1 denied the allegations made against him and said that the victim was placed at her house by the agency and she worked at his house for two months and her salary was sent to the agency as per the agreement. He also denied the allegation that she was a minor and said that in the agreement, she represented herself to be 19 years old and she was never denied to go to her house and neither her salary was withheld nor was she subjected to any neglect. He also said that only people from BBA came to his house, as informed by them and they threatened him and then took the victim with them and did not record any statement or conduct any proceeding there and the victim never said at the time of alleged recovery that she is 16 years old. He also said that no one informed him if any of the member of this team was from police and since they took the victim with them, he also gave a police complaint. He said that the placement agency employed the victim at his house and it was represented that she is major. Accused no.2 said that he was also falsely implicated and the agency was run by Kalpana and he used to work there and his job was to collect wages. He further said that PW-1 was also working there along with her husband as agent and PW-2 came with WP-1 and on instructions of the owner, he used to FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 14 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:54 +0530 get her employed at various houses. He further said that he used to reside at House no. 161, Savitri Nagar with all the other employees of the agency and the owner Kalpana kept them there. He also explained that the address 67/2 Zamrudpur was of owner Kalpana and he used to go meet her there and later, he was sent to Savitri Nagar. As per accused no.2, he had given a loan to the husband of PW-1 and when he was not returning the same, he even went to his village and since he had good terms with the owner, PW1 falsely implicated him only to take revenge. Accused no.2 did not lead DE but accused no.1 entered as a witness himself to prove his case.
26. DW-1 alleged that in the year 2013, he saw advertisement of the agency on pamphlets affixed by them in local market and he approached the agency to hire a house help. He said that he met the owner of the agency i.e accused no.2 at their office who entertained him and made him meet the victim and informed that she is 19 years old and her documents are verified. He said that he saw her resume provided by accused no.2 and he was also shown the registration certificate of the agency issued by accused no.2 which was issued by Department of Labor. He said that he was made to sign an agreement dated 07.04.2013 to hire the victim as house help and he paid Rs. 23,000/- as service charge and Rs. 5,000/- advance salary to the agency. The agreement was exhibited as Ex DW-1/A (OSR) and the receipt was executed as Ex DW-1/B. He further said that for the purpose of verification, accused no.2 gave his passport as ID i.e Ex DW-1/C along with Ex PW-2/DX and PW-2/DX1 and on the same day, victim joined as house help. He said that he arrange for an accommodation and food for the victim at his house and she was kept like a family member and during her second month under service, he paid her salary to the agency. The receipt issued for the same by the agency was exhibited Ex DW-1/D. He said that on 18.06.2013, few people who informed them to be members of NGO and from police came to his house and took the victim and he asked for their i cards but they did not produce it. He said he gave a complaint for the same in the police station bearing DD no. 60B and he FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 15 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:23:59 +0530 was also called by BBA and he went their on multiple occasions and they eventually asked him to pay Rs. 15,444/- as compensation to the victim, which he paid through DD bearing no. 000644 made in the name of victim. As per DW-1, he was falsely implicated under a conspiracy. During his cross examination, he said that he did not see any document of the victim at the agency to ascertain if she is major as accused no.2 promised to provide the same in due course. He also said that he did not get the police verification conducted as the same was already done by the agency and he did not pay salary to the victim directly. He denied the suggestions put to him.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
27. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of the State and the accused. As per the Ld. APP, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt as the identification of accused persons and the fact that victim was employed as a worker even while she was a minor, is proved. He further said that the victim was recovered from the house of accused no.1 while she was found working and she has throughout said that she was not paid and accused no.1 also admitted that salary was paid to the agency which would show that she was working as a bonded labor since as per her version, she was never given her salary nor permitted to go home. He also said that the victim was a minor when she was brought to Delhi by accused no.2 and forced to labor, which would further prove charge u/s 374 IPC and the defence of the accused persons was never proved by them and thus, the case stands proved. Per contra, The Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 said that the complaint on the basis of which FIR is registered is a motivated complaint which is proved by the version of PW-2. He drew the attention towards the fact that Ex PW-1/D1 is a typed complaint and PW-2 said that she was illiterate and uneducated and not aware of this complaint and the complainant i.e RS Chaurasia neither joined investigation or appeared before the Court and thus, the facts alleged on this complaint cannot be said to be proved. He also said that statement FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 16 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:24:06 +0530 of PW-1 would show that she herself admitted that she brought PW-2 from her village to get her employed and there is no allegation by her against accused no.1 for non payment or ill treatment and thus, accused no.1 should be given benefit of doubt. Similarly, the Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 said that FIR was never registered on the complaint of victim but on the complaint of PW-1 and that, the victim never made any allegation against him in her statement u/s 164 CrPC. He said that accused no.2 was an employee with the agency and his job was collect salary and give it to the owner and get commission. He also said that as per the bone ossification test, the age of victim was 18 years and the same fact was also averred by her during her police verification and also considering the contradiction in the version of PW-2 as to who brought her to Delhi, PW-1 or accused no.2, the accused should be given benefit of doubt.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
28. The record has been thoroughly perused and respective submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused have been considered. The following points shall be discussed in order to appreciate the facts of this case:
29. Deposition of PW-1 vis-a vis-PW-2 and involvement of accused no.2 with the agency:
A. The allegation of the prosecution is that accused no.2 brought the victim to Delhi and compelled her to labor against her will, knowing that she is a minor. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution has relied upon the version of PW-1 and PW-2. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have admitted that they were known to each other as they both belonged to the same village but there's contradiction in their version as to how PW-2/Victim came to Delhi. Both PW-1 and PW-2 said that they came to Delhi together and accused no.2 FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 17 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:24:12 +0530 brought them but PW-1 said in her cross examination that she started coming to Delhi since 2008. Further, PW-1 said that she and PW-2 came to Delhi in search for work and PW-2 herself said that even at her hometown, she was working as a maid but while coming to Delhi, she did not inform her family. While PW-1 said that she was in constant touch with PW-2, PW-2 said that she only spoke to PW-1 while they were at the agency together but after that, she never met her or spoke to her and eventually called her from the phone of one maid who was working outside the house of accused no.1 informing her plight. The said submission of PW-2 does not explain how she was aware of the number of PW-1 and had it memorized when as per her version, she was not even in touch with her for three years and why she chose to call PW-1 to tell her plight instead of calling the police. It seems that intentionally, certain facts qua PW-1 have not been disclosed by PW-2. DW-1 relied upon Ex PW-2/DX1 and the interesting fact about this documents is the name of agent who introduced PW-2 to the agency. The name mentioned is Ajay. If the statement of PW-1 is seen, she has mentioned that she is wife of Ajay and when she was questioned about the role of her husband in her cross examination, she said that her husband was not involved. Questions were raised about the role of her husband even during the cross examination of PW-2 and she said that the husband of PW-1, Ajay, was from her village but she could not remember if Ajay accompanied her and PW-1 to Delhi in the year 2010 when they came looking for job. Though PW-2 said that PW-1 accompanied her when allegedly, accused no.2 brought them to Delhi for work but she couldn't remember if Ajay also accompanied them or if PW-1 or her husband were involved in getting people from her village on the pretext of securing a job. In any case, the name of Ajay as the agent of PW-2 on PW-2/DX1 shows that PW-2 knew him and the version of PW-1 where she said that she was working with the agency as an agent and was promised commission by accused no.2, shows that both PW-1 and her husband were involved in getting persons employed with the agency. The FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 18 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:24:19 +0530 fact that PW-2 chose not to say anything against them and evade the answers by either not admitting or denying the suggestion or not being able to remember the answer indicates that intentionally, material facts have been concealed by the victim. Now if these facts are kept in mind including the fact that PW-2 knew PW-1 and had certain amount of trust and, husband of PW-1 was also involved with her and he signed as the agent of PW-2 in her police verification form and the failure on part of PW-2 to give any explanation as to why she signed and put her fingerprint impression on Ex PW-2/DX and Ex PW-2/DX1 and gave her photo to be affixed on these forms which would further give the impression that she is above 18 years. PW-2 has nowhere said that she informed the accused no.1 that she was a minor when he came to the agency or she was compelled to sign on these documents. In fact, as per her version, she came to Delhi looking for a job and thus, the only logical conclusion seems to be that she signed on these papers to get a job while projecting that she is an adult and PW-1 and her husband were actively involved in it.
B. Moreover, during the deposition of DW-1, he placed on record certain documents i.e copy of registration certificate of the agency issued by department of Labor, GNCTD. The said document is not relied upon but if the document is seen, it shows that the agency was registered in the name of one Simran w/o Sushant. Accused no.2 said that he was working as an employee for Ms. Kalpana who was actually the owner but this certificate indicates that the owner was his wife. Further, PW-5 and PW-7 said in their deposition that accused no.2 was the tenant of flat no.2, H.No. 161, Savitri Nagar and he used to visit co- accused Kalpana at her Zamrudpur address but he wasn't staying with her. In any case, the deposition of these two witnesses do not prove that the address from which the agency was functioning was registered in the name of accused no.2 but, the allegation of PW-1 and PW-2 still remains that accused no.2 was the one who got them to Delhi and FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 19 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH Date:
SINGH 2024.10.21
18:24:25
+0530
employed PW-2 as house help. Even accused no.1 said that he spoke to accused no.2 who represented as the one running the agency, but Ex PW-2/DX and PW-2/DX1 shows that the employer's signature is of one Rahul. Who this Rahul was and how he was associated with the agency has nowhere been explained. Also, PW-2 has throughout said that accused no.2 got her employed and she was asking him to give her salary to her and let her go to her hometown, which shows that accused no.2 was the one actually running the agency and employing people but cleverly, the documents were not signed by him. He even gave the copy of his passport, i.e Ex DW-1/C to accused no.1 which further shows that his job was much more than collecting wages for the employer and he was actively running the agency. As far the admissibility of these documents are concerned, it was explained by the ld. Counsel for accused no.1 that the original are in the possession of the agency and since they were never seized by the IO, under section 65 of evidence act, their copies are admissible.
30. Manner of investigation and role of BBA and PW-1 as an activist:
A. If the manner of investigation is seen in this case, multiple questions have arisen which have been left unanswered by the prosecution. For instance, at the time of recovery of PW-2 from the house of accused no.1, PW-1 said that she was outside when the members of BBA and the police went inside therefore she did not know how many persons were inside the house of accused no.1. She could not remember the exact place from where PW-2 was rescued; the approximate time for which she was at the said place and how many police officials accompanied her. Further, according to PW-1, neither she, nor PW-2 or any official of BBA signed on any document at the place of rescue. When PW-2 was questioned on these facts, she could not say if she signed on the site plan, though she identified her signature on the document but she denied that the document was made in her presence. She couldn't FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 20 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2024.10.21 18:24:32 +0530 even remember about the way in which she was rescued by the police and who were the members of BBA present there and if PW-1 was also there. Even PW-3 could not remember about the proceedings held at the house of the accused or the documents prepared by him and she also said that the statement of PW-2 was not recorded in her presence. PW-3 was the only female official among the police officials and members of BBA, yet, for unexplained reasons, she was not made a part of investigation when statement of PW-2 was recorded or Ex PW-1/D1 was prepared. PW-8 also did not furnish any explanation and contradictory to the version of PW-3 and PW-2, he said that he verified from PW-2 if she gave Ex PW-1/D1 to BBA and she admitted to the same. For the time spent at the place of recovery, PW-3 said that they remained there for half an hour but PW-4 said that they stayed there for ten minutes. All these statements indicate only one thing that none of the prosecution witnesses was aware of the investigation conducted in this case. The prosecution has also not explained how the officials of BBA and the IO reached the conclusion that PW-1 was forced to labor against her will at the house of accused no.1. Though, one of the strategy of BBA, as envisaged in their agenda, is to restrain and eliminate the practices of child labour and trafficking and recover fines from employers and traffickers owed to those whose labour has been used. Also, the purpose of an investigating agency is to conduct free and fair investigation and collect all the essential evidence in a case, be it inculpatory or exculpatory, however, the strangest thing in this case has been that though an organization like BBA was involved in the rescue of the victim, yet, the witness who appeared on their behalf has not explained what investigation was conducted and how it was ascertained that PW-2 was forced to labor by accused no.1 and with held there against her will. The entire proceedings initiated out of Ex PW-1/D1 which was signed by PW-2 and addressed to the chairman of BBA but the said witness intentionally did not join the investigation and Trial, due to which it could not be established if the content of Ex PW-1/D1 was the FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 21 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2024.10.21 18:24:39 +0530 version of PW-2 or it was written at her direction. As per PW-8, he received Ex PW-1/D1 i.e the complaint from BBA on 18.06.2013 and he along with PW-1, PW-4 and other members of BBA went to the house of accused no.1 and rescued PW-2 who informed them that she was 16 years old and when she could not provide any proof of her age, her ossification test was conducted and at the directions of CWC, FIR was registered. These facts are mentioned by the IO in his deposition as well as Ex PW-8/A. Ex PW-8/A was made on the basis of Ex PW-1/D1, i.e the complaint of PW-2 which was sent to BBA on 14.06.2013 and forwarded to PS: Malviya Nagar by chairperson of BBA on 18.06.2013. When PW-2 was confronted with her complaint i.e Ex PW-1/D1 she said that she couldn't read the contents and she could only read and write in Assamese language but sign in English language. She could not remember who wrote Ex PW-1/D1 and who made her sign it or who read it over to her before she signed it. She also gave a misleading reply in her examination in chief that Ex PW-1/D1 was given by her to the IO when actually, the said complaint was forwarded by BBA to the IO. Further, as per her version, she was not in touch with PW-1 while she was employed as maid at different houses and she never received any call from her, whereas, as per PW-1, she was in constant touch with PW-2. When PW-1 was questioned about Ex PW-1/D1, she initially said that she gave the complaint at the police station and then changed her version and said that she informed about it to BBA and the same was typed by senior officials of BBA but she couldn't say if it was signed by PW-2. The chairperson of BBA never appeared before the Court despite issuance of summons and even PW-8 said that he never joined the investigation. PW-4 on the other hand wasn't aware who gave Ex PW-1/D1 to the chairperson and explained that he got to know about it through the chairperson. To sum up, none of the prosecution witnesses were aware of the complaint on which everyone acted upon to rescue PW-2 and the chairperson of BBA was the only witness who could have proved how the complaint reached his office and whether it was signed FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 22 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
SINGH SINGH 18:24:46 2024.10.21 +0530 by PW-2, but, for the reason best known to him, he neither joined the investigation nor appeared as a witness.
B. Next if the deposition of PW-11 is seen, he said that the statement of PW-2 was recorded in his presence by one of his staff member but PW-2 denied giving this statement to PW-11. In the said statement also it is alleged that she came to Delhi with one of her friend and accused no.2 got her employed at various houses. The deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 would show that this friend of PW-2 is PW-1. When PW-1 was questioned about her role on this aspect, she said that she got 6 girls rescued till date and she was herself rescued by BBA in the year 2008. She also admitted that PW-2 came with her in the year 2010 and accused no.2 brought them and she knew PW-2 since childhood and as per her, the age of PW-2 was 16 years when she came to Delhi. She further said that she was working as an agent of the agency and she was promised commission by accused no.2. All these admissions made by PW-1 clearly indicate that PW-1 is one of the main co-conspirator in trafficking PW-2 and getting her employed with the agency in exchange for remuneration promised by accused no.2. She herself said that she was rescued by BBA in the year 2008, yet, she used her acquaintance with PW-2 to get her to Delhi and employ her as a house maid knowing that she is a minor. PW-2 also admitted that PW-1 was known to her and they did not inform the family of PW-2 before leaving, even though PW-1 was well known to the mother of PW-2. Also, the admission made by PW-1 that she rescued 6 other girls would show that she was actively involved with BBA and was aware that child labor was prohibited, yet, she mislead PW-2 and got her to the agency and conspired to get her employed at the houses. Moreover, as explained above, PW-2 admitted her signature, thumb and finger impression and photo on Ex PW-2/Dx1 and Ex PW-2/DX2, where the name of agent is mentioned as Ajay, i.e the husband of PW-1. As stated earlier, PW-1 has herself admitted that she was to be paid commission by FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 23 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:24:52 +0530 accused no.2, yet, the IO failed to investigate on this aspect and no inquiry was conducted by BBA and rather, they chose to make a conspirator, who is involved in trafficking minor girls in hope for employment to such agencies where, they are eventually made to work and their salary is taken by the agency by making a term in the agency agreement that the salary is to be paid to them directly. The evidence of PW-1 qua the argument with accused no.2 over the payment of commission would show that even though she was in touch with PW-2 throughout and it was in her knowledge that her salary was given to the agency, she chose to help PW-2 through BBA only after her commission was not paid.
C. PW-4 was also questioned about these facts and he admitted that PW-1 was an activist with BBA but he did not know since when she was working with BBA and how many complaints were given by her or if she was getting any remuneration for her work. Again, the said fact could have been proved by the chairperson of BBA, never appeared. The discussion made above raises serious questions over the so called activists joined with BBA and the way in which the rescue of child labor is projected by BBA. The evidence put forth in this case clearly shows that accused no.1 was made to believe that the salary of PW-2 was to be paid to the agency by specifically adding a term in the agency agreement. Further, the evidence of PW-1 would show that despite being rescued like this previously by BBA, she willingly got PW-2 employed with the agency knowing well that her salary wouldn't be paid to her and the said fact was also in the knowledge of PW-2 as before being employed with accused no1, she was also employed at other houses where also she alleged that she wasn't paid her salary directly, still it has been alleged by these witnesses that accused no.1 intentionally with held the salary of PW-2 and gave it to the agency. The husband of PW-1 acted as an agent of PW-2 and PW-1 was in conspiracy with accused no.2, yet she has projected that she was trying to help rescue PW-2. Without verifying what FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 24 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:25:50 +0530 PW-1 was actually upto, BBA and the police took her as an activist to the rescue of PW-2, when in fact she was one of the main perpetrator to get PW-2 employed through the agency only to get commission from accused no.2. How BBA made this person its activist also raises serious questions on its functioning and and the figures projected by them for recovery of children under servitude.
31. Whether the Victim S was exposed or neglected by accused no.1 and accused no.2:
A. The accused persons are charged with section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and accused no.2 is also charged with section 374 IPC. Section 23 JJ act and 374 IPC are defined as:
i. 23 JJ act: 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.
ii. Section 374 IPC: 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.
B. In order to prove that offence is committed under section 23 JJ Act, it has to be first proved that the victim is a juvenile and that he/she is assaulted or abandoned or exposed or wilfully neglected in a manner causing unnecessary FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 25 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2024.10.21 18:25:55 +0530 mental or physical suffering. To prove the first part of this section, the prosecution was required to prove the age of the victim/ PW-2 and for this purpose, the prosecution has relied upon the oral testimony of PW-1, 2, 8 and expert evidence of PW-9, 10, 13, 14 and 16. If the investigation by IO is seen, the prosecution has not explained why no effort was made by PW-8 to get the birth certificate of PW-2 or her documents from school in order to ascertain her actual age when PW-2 said that she studied upto class 7th. Coming to the evidence of PW-1 on this point, she said under oath that PW-2 was 16 years old in the year 2010 when she came to Delhi but she couldn't admit or deny if she was above 18 years when she was employed. On the other hand, even though PW-2 also said that she came in the year 2010 with PW-1 but she said that she was 13 years old at that time and PW-1 was not aware of this. Further, in Ex PW-11/A and Ex P1, both of which are recorded in the year 2013, PW-2 has claimed that her age was 13 years in the year 2010. The expert evidence of PW-9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 would show that on the basis of ossification test, the age of PW-2 was found to be above 18 years and less than 20 years. The age estimation report is dated 24.06.2013. PW-2 said that she was worked at the house of accused no.1 for two months. The victim was rescued in June 2013 and that would mean that she worked at the house of accused no.1 from April 2013 to June 2013 and she was 18 years old at that time as per Ex PW-9/A. PW-9 said that the estimated age varies at 6 months on either side. The said aspect was recently considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court on its Own motion vs State of NCT of Delhi, Crl reference number 2/2024, delivered on 02.07.2024. In the said case, the Hon'ble court decided what age should be considered in Pocso cases of the victim, if done through bone ossification. The Hon'ble court considered the ratio laid down in the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jarnail Singh vs State of Haryana, 2013 SCC Online, SC 507 and held that upper age given in reference range has to be considered for the victim. Applying the same principle to the victims under JJ act, the age of the FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 26 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:26:01 +0530 victim in this case would then be around 20 years. Now if the evidence of victim is seen on this aspect, she appeared before CWC, SDM and the Ld. MM during her statement u/s 164 CrPC and but her stand qua her age has not been certain. Before the SDM and Ld. MM, she said she was 16 years old but before CWC, in Ex PW-2/DX2 and Ex PW-2/DX3, her age is recorded as 17 years and the documents are dated 08.11.2013 and 03.01.2014. The statement u/s 164 CrPC was recorded on 20.06.2013. All of this would indicate that PW-2 was aware of her exact date of birth as the only possibility of her turning 17 years during the pendency of investigation from June 2013 to January 2014 was that her birthday fell between these months. Further, if for sake of argument, it is considered for once that the victim was minor while she was working with accused no1, the prosecution is yet to establish that she was assaulted or abandoned or exposed or wilfully neglected in a manner causing unnecessary mental or physical suffering and the accused persons had the knowledge that she is a minor yet subjected her to mental or physical suffering. PW-2 herself said that she was kept properly and the environment at the house of accused no.1 was healthy and she was never assaulted by him or his family and they were all very polite to her, which in turn shows that she was not assaulted or abandoned or exposed or wilfully neglected by accused no.1, while she was under his actual charge or control. Even PW-1 did not raise this allegation against accused no.1 nor PW-4 or the police officials did and the only allegation against him has been that he paid her salary to the agency directly. Ex DW-1/A is the original agreement executed between accused no.1 and the agency and at point 14 of terms and condition, it is mentioned that before making payment, agency has to be contacted. Accused no.1 had explained that he was asked to pay the salary directly to the agency and Ex DW-1/B and Ex DW-1/D proves that the salary was paid to the agency. PW-2 also said during her deposition that before working with accused no.1, she was employed at two different houses by accused no.2 and there also her salary was not paid and was given to the FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 27 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:26:07 +0530 agency. The said fact would show that PW-2 was aware even when she was employed at the house of accused no.1 that the salary would be paid to the agency as per the terms of the agreement. She has nowhere said that she raised this concern with accused no.1 or informed him when she gave her resume to him or while she was with him at his house for two months. All she said was that her salary was not given to her. Furthermore, even PW-1 was aware of it as she said that accused no.2 promised to pay her commission as an agent of the agency but later failed, due to which she also had an argument with him. As mentioned above, PW-2 came with PW-1 and made her husband Ajay as her agent, which shows that PW-2 was in the knowledge that her salary would be paid by the agency only. Not even a single allegation can be seen on record where PW-2 asked accused no.1 to give her salary directly to her and he refused or she asked him to let her go to her hometown and he refused. Thus, even if the benefit of age is given to PW-2 for the sake of argument, yet it cannot be said that any evidence put forth against accused no.1 is sufficient to prove that he assaulted or abandoned or exposed or wilfully neglected PW-2 in a manner causing unnecessary mental or physical suffering and thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution could prove the charge u/s 23 JJ act against accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused Ravi Verma s/o KR Verma stands acquitted from this case.
C. On the other hand, if the role of accused no.2 is seen, PW-1 and PW-2 have said that they came to Delhi with accused no.2 and PW-1's deposition would show that the agency was run by accused no.2. PW-2 further said that she was kept at the office of accused no.2 and he employed her at different houses and would not give her salary directly or permit her to go to her hometown, when she would request. Accused no.1 had also placed on record Ex DW-1/C i.e the copy of first page of passport, given to him when he entered into an agreement with the agency. The original was not seized by FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 28 of 30 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:26:13 +0530 the IO and would be in control of accused no2, and thus secondary evidence on this aspect is also permissible. The defence of accused no.2 is that he was also an employee of the agency and he used to collect the wages of house helps employed by the agency. It is also a fact that the documents which would prove that the agency was run by accused no.2 were never seized during investigation and the alleged accused Kalpana was not found but, the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 and DW-1 would show that accused no.2 was projecting himself to be the person who is running the agency and he would communicate with the people who were looking for house helps and would himself introduce the house helps to the prospective employers and would show their resume and verification form. He was also involved in getting these girls from their hometown without informing their families. All these factors prove that accused no.2 was actively running the agency and despite the demand of PW-2 to permit her to go to her house and give her salary, he would compel her to continue working. The fact that PW-2 was looking for permission from accused no.2 would show that she was under the control and charge of accused no.2. Further, the deposition of PW-1 that she had an agreement with accused no.2 to pay her commission for the girls employed would show that the job of accused no.2 was much more than merely collecting salaries. In any case, if the defence of accused no.2 is considered for once, he should have found gainful employment somewhere else rather than resorting to compelling people to labor and misleading the prospective employers about the age of these girls. All these factors indicate that PW-2/victim was in control and under the charge of accused no.2 who illegally got her to Delhi and employed her at the previous houses by projecting her wrong age and despite her request, he did not give her salary or permit her to go to her hometown, thereby causing mental suffering to her and accordingly, the charge u/s 23 JJ act and 374 IPC stands proved against accused Sushant dass s/o PK Dass and he stands convicted for both these offences.FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 29 of 30
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21 18:26:20 +0530 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.10.21
18:26:26
+0530
Announced in the Court (SHILPI SINGH)
on 21.10.2024 JMFC-02(SD)21.10.2024
Cer tified that this judgment contains 30 pages and each page bear s my signatur e. Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2024.10.21 18:26:33 +0530 (SHILPI SINGH) JMFC-02(SD)/21.10.2024 FIR No. 287/2013 Stae vs Ravi Verma & Ors Page 30 of 30