Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Puran Singh S/O Sh. Raghubir Singh, on 21 August, 2007

                                          ­1­

IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS      
          JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :

Sessions Case No. 279/06
Date of Institution :­ 07.10.05
Date on which reserved for order :­ 08.08.07
Date of Delivery of Judgement :­ 17.08.07

State          Vs.            Puran Singh s/o Sh. Raghubir Singh,
                              R/o Village Chobari, PS Cantt. Distt. Bareilly,
                              U.P.

               FIR No. 138/05
               PS Khajuri Khas
               U/S 363/376 IPC.

J U D G E M E N T :

­ Najira @ Hajira fell in love with Puran Singh, who was working at water pump, Khanjuri Khas, Delhi. She was a young girl of tender age. On account of immaturity, she was unable to understand her well being. She was seduced by Puran Singh and on 03.04.05 she was taken away to Bareilly by the accused. Wazid, a boy aged about 9 years, was present with Najira @ Hajira, when she was taken away to Bareilly. Wazid could not adjust there at Bareilly and started weeping. Puran Singh made him to board a bus and Wazid reached Delhi. He informed Mustaqeem about kidnapping of Najira @ Hajira by the accused.

­2­

2. Mustaqeem approached police station, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, and lodged a report, which became bedrock of the case. Mohd. Saleem SI took up the investigation. On 07.04.05, Najira @ Hajira was spotted at railway station, Shahdara. She was taken in police custody. She was sent to hospital for medical examination. Her statement was got recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code).

3. On 16.08.05, Puran Singh surrendered before the ld. Magistrate. He was formally arrested, after seeking permission from the ld. Magistrate. He was also sent to hospital for medical examination. Investigation culminated into a charge­sheet against the accused.

4. Charge for offences punishable under sections 363 and 376 of the Penal Code was framed against the accused by my ld. Predecessor, to which charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined Najira @ Hajira (PW1), Mustaqeem (PW2), Sattara Begum (PW3), Mohd. Arif (PW4), Geeta, Lady Constable (PW5), Rajesh Singh (PW6), Kesav Dev, Head Constable (PW7), Wazid (PW8), Anand Prakash, Head Constable (PW9), Somesh Kumar, Sub­Registrar (PW10), Mohd.

­3­ Saleem SI (PW11), Dr. Banarasi (PW12), Ombir Singh, Head Constable (PW13) and Netra Pal, Constable (PW14) in the case.

6. Geeta, Constable, took Najira @ Hajira to GTB Hospital on 07.04.05 for her medical examination. She details that after medical examination of the girl, her MLC and vaginal smear slides were brought by her to police station. It were taken into possession by investigating officer, vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Kesav Dev, Head Constable, was working as duty officer, who recorded formal FIR. He proved carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/A. Anand Prakash, Head Constable, was working as Moharrer Malkhana and proved link evidence in the case. Ombir Singh, Head Constable, had also testified facts to this effect that case property was deposited in malkhana by Mohd. Saleem SI on 08.04.05 as well as on 16.08.05. Netra Pal, Constable, remained associated with Mohd. Saleem SI on 16.08.05. He detailed that accused Puran Singh was formally arrested, after permission of the ld. Magistrate. He was taken to hospital and got medically examined there, deposes the witness. Mohd. Saleem SI had conducted investigation of the case and detailed investigative steps taken by him. He projects that Najira @ Hajira was recovered from railway station, Shahdara, on 07.04.05.

­4­ Accused Puran Singh was arrested on 16.08.05, when he surrendered before the ld. Magistrate, deposes the witness.

7. Somesh Kumar, Sub­Registrar, had proved date of birth of Najira @ Hajira as 25.03.90. Photocopy of record of MCD has been proved by him as Ex.PW10/A. Dr. Banarasi had entered the witness box to prove MLC of accused Puran Singh, prepared by Dr. Gillay Bhutia. He proved his MLC as Ex.PW12/A. Rajesh Singh, brother­in­law (Jija) of the accused, entered the witness box and testified that about two years ago, accused brought a girl along with a boy, at his house. He stayed in his house with that girl for one night. He made the accused to run away from his house next day. Wazid details that about two years ago, accused took him along with Jahanara to Bareilly, U.P. He stayed there in a house for one night. Next day, he was made to board a bus by the accused and he reached Delhi. Mustaqueem and Sattara Begum are parents of the victim, who detailed that Najira @ Hajira went missing from their rd house on 3 of April, about two years ago. Wazid returned next day and informed them that Najira @ Hajira was taken away to Bareilly by the accused. Mohd. Arif also narrates those very facts in his testimony. Najira @ Hajira, star witness of the prosecution, detailed ­5­ that she was taken away to Bareilly by the accused. She levels allegations against the accused to the effect that she was raped by the accused.

8. MLC of Najira @ Hajira and report of Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer­cum­Chemical Examiner to government of NCT of Delhi, were not disputed by the accused. Hence, MLC and the report were exhibited as Ex.PA and Ex.PX respectively.

9. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against him, accused was examined under section 313 of the Code. He denied all allegations against him. However, he admits that Najira @ Hajira had gone to Bareilly along with him of her own. She stayed there for one night. He denied that he had performed coitus with the girl. She came to Delhi on the next day. He moved an application before Sh. Shahbuddin, MM, and surrendered before him on 16.08.05. He presents that thereafter he was framed in the case.

10. Arguments were heard at the bar. Sh. R.K. Pandey, ld. Prosecutor, had presented facts on behalf of the State. Sh. Dinesh Garg, Advocate, had advanced arguments on behalf of the defence. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced ­6­ at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows :­

11. Najira @ Hajira unfolds that accused Puran Singh was known to her, since he was working as watchman at water pump, near Khajuri Khas, Delhi. On 03.04.05, accused took her to Bareilly on the pretext of getting good clothes for her, besides good food. She was kept in a village near Bareilly for about four days. He kept her at the house of his brother­in­law (Jija) for that period. Accused had raped her against her will and consent. She unfolds that when she was taken to Bareilly, her nephew Wazid was with her. On 07.04.05, accused brought her to Delhi and from railway station, Shahdara, she was recovered by the police. She was taken to hospital for medical examination and her statement was recorded by a Magistrate. Statement Ex.PW1/A is the same, which was made by her before the ld. Magistrate. It bears her thumb impression at point X.

12. Sh. Garg argued that testimony of Najira @ Hajira is unworthy of credit. He projects that there are inherent infirmities in facts unfolded by the girl, which infirmities made her testimony highly unreliable. According to the ld. defence counsel, testimony of Najira ­7­ @ Hajira cannot be accepted on its face value. To substantiate his point of view, he highlights that the girl admits in her testimony that neither she raised an alarm nor made a complaint before brother­in­ law (Jija) of the accused regarding her sexual defilement by the accused. He agitates that these facts bring it over the recod that Najira @ Hajira was a consenting party to the entire episode.

13. When testimony of Najira @ Hajira was assessed on standards of ordinary human behaviour, it came to light that facts unfolded by her are true and reliable. The girl details that accused was known to her since he was working as a watchmen at water pump, near Khajuri Khas, Delhi, where she used to go to fetch grass for her pets. She paints a picture that in process of fetching grass from a place near water pump, she became acquainted with the accused. These instances were re­affirmed by her in her statement Ex.PW1/A. Consequently, facts highlighted by Najira @ Hajira bring it over the record that the girl became friendly with accused and fell in love with him. That fact gave an opportunity to accused to use his influence on her. He took her to Bareilly on 03.04.05, saying that he would get good clothes for her, besides good food. These facts makes it clear that inducement or allurement was given to her ­8­ exciting a hope or desire for good clothes and food. Allurement given to the girl conditioned her mind and she believed that she would get good clothes to wear and good food to eat, in case she accompanies the accused. Therefore, it is evident that she was induced by the accused and taken out of keeping of her parents.

rd

14. Mustaqueem projects that on 3 of April, about two years ago, Najira @ Hajira went missing. His grand son, namely, Wazid also went missing along with Najira @ Hajira. They thought, she had gone to house of some relation. After two days, Wazid returned and told them that Najira @ Hajira was with accused Puran Singh. From these facts, it is evident that Mustaqueem, father of the girl, had not consented for her taking away out of his lawful guardianship. Sattara Begum, mother of the girl, also highlights events in the same vein. Consequently, it is clear that Najira @ Hajira was taken out of keeping of her parents, without their consent. She was taken to Bareilly, where she was kept for four days.

15. Mustaqueem deposed that Najira @ Hajira was born about 14­ 15 years ago. Midwife got her name registered with MCD authorities at the time of her birth. Sattara Begum also deposed that Najira @ Hajira was aged about 15 years. Mohd. Arif deposed ­9­ that his sister Najira @ Hajira was aged about 14 years. Somesh Kumar, Sub­Registrar, had proved photocopy of entry recorded at serial no. 741 of the MCD Register as Ex.PW10/A. Said entry was recorded on 29.03.90 and as per record, Najira @ Hajira was born to Sattar Begum, wife of Mustaqueem, on 25.03.90.

16. Question for consideration comes as to whether facts testified by Somesh Kumar can be given credence. This witness had testified that entry as to birth of Najira @ Hajira was recorded on 29.03.90, wherein it has been shown that Najira @ Hajira was born to Sattara Begum on 25.03.90. This entry was recorded in the office of Sub­Registrar Death and Birth, in discharge of official duties. It has not been shown that official functions were not performed by MCD authorities honestly. Therefore every presumption lies in favour of the fact that MCD authorities recorded aforesaid entry genuinely in discharge of their official duties. Facts testified by Somesh Kumar were not at all rebutted by the defence. Therefore, it is concluded that Najira @ Hajira was born on 25.03.90. Testimony of Mustaqueem Ahmed, Sattara Begum and Mohd. Arif also substantiate that fact. Najira @ Hajira was taken out of lawful guardianship of her father on 03.04.05. She was 15 years and 9 ­10­ days old on the date, when she was taken out of keeping of her lawful guardianship. Consequently, offence of kidnapping stands established against the accused. Testimony of Wazid and Rajesh Singh also confirms findings to this effect.

17. Najira @ Hajira testified that she was raped by the accused there at Bareilly. Defence tried to pour scorn on her testimony, saying that she had not resisted advances of accused nor raised an alarm for help. These facts nowhere espouse cause of defence. Facts projected by Najira @ Hajira are substantiated from circumstances recorded in MLC Ex.PA. Her hymen was found ruptured, when she was medically examined on 08.04.05. These circumstances go to establish that she was sexually defiled.

18. Najira @ Hajira narrates facts before the Court, which conduct is in consonance with ordinary human behaviour. Lucid account has been made of the incident. Picture painted by the girl details horrid episode. Without being over­awed by the Court atmosphere and piercing cross­examination, she details the incident clearly, which is likely to reflect on her chastity. In detailing the incident, she braved the whole world, being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down upon by her near and dear ­11­ ones, including her relatives, friends and neighbours. It was in her mind that she would face risk of losing love and respect of her own parents and near relatives. A girl would feel extremely embarrassed in narrating the incident to others, overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of her upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo. Over powering all situations and emotions, she narrated facts, which give guarantee for her veracity. Substratum of her story is consistent with other evidence, which appears to be flawless and free from suspicion. Since perfection in this imperfect world is seldom found, evidence of a witness is sometimes fringed with embellishment and exaggerations, however true in main, the Court may accept it, without seeking corroboration from any other source. Law to this effect was laid in Rafiq (1980 (4) S.C.C. 262), Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai (1983 (3) S.C.C. 217), Chander Prakash Kewalchand Jain (1990 (1) SCC 350), Raghbir Singh (1993 (2) SCC 622), Gurmeet Singh (1996 (2) SCC 384) and Padam Lal Pradhan (2000 (10) SCC 112). Hence, in view of the law laid by the Apex Court, it is concluded that evidence of Najira @ Hajira is worthy of credence, since it satisfies standards of veracity and human probabilities. Relying her testimony, it is concluded that ­12­ Najira @ Hajira was raped by the accused. Since she was below the age of consent, submissions of defence are of no avail.

19. MLC Ex.PW12/A bring circumstances over the record to the effect that Puran Singh was capable to perform sexual intercourse. That fact gives strength to the events unfolded by Najira @ Hajira. He absconded till 16.08.05, which fact also proves circumstances against him. Keeping in view all these facts, it is concluded that accused has not been able to raise any doubt in prosecution's version. Prosecution has established crime of abduction and rape against the accused to the hilt. Consequently, he is held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under sections 363 and 376 of the Penal Code.

Announced in the Open Court                              (Dr. R.K. Yadav)
          th

On this 17 day of August, 2007. Additional Sessions Judge :

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

­13­ IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI : Sessions Case No. 279/06

State Vs. Puran Singh s/o Sh. Raghubir Singh, R/o Village Chobari, PS Cantt. Distt. Bareilly, U.P. FIR No. 138/05 PS Khajuri Khas U/S 363/376 IPC.

ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE :­ Leniency in punishment has been claimed on behalf of the convict, pleading that he is a young man, aged about 21 years. Sh. Dinesh Garg, Advocate, argued that convict is the man with clean antecedents. According to him, he is the only earning hand to support his family.

2. On 03.04.05, Najira @ Hajira went missing. She was taken to a village near Bareilly by the convict, where she lived with him for a period of four days. She was raped there by the convict. On 07.04.05, she was recovered from railway station, Shahdara.

Taking into account all these facts, convict is hereby sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ for an offence of kidnapping, punishable under section 363 of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for ­14­ two months. He is also sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for two months.

3. Substantiative sentences awarded to the convict shall run concurrently. He shall get benefit of period already undergone in detention during investigation and trial of the case. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied free of cost to the convict.

Announced in the Open Court                                (Dr. R.K. Yadav)
          st

On this 21 day of August, 2007. Additional Sessions Judge:

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi