Delhi District Court
State vs : Ram Babu on 1 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
STATE Vs : Ram Babu
Case No. : 431/2017
U/S : 366/342/34 IPC
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
Particulars of the case
a) Date of Offence : 27.05.2015
b) Offence complained of : 366/342/34 IPC
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Shambhu Nath
d) Name of the accused : Ram Babu
Parentage Sh. Boya Lal
R/o H. No. B-304, Indira
Kalyan Vihar, Okhla
Phase-I
Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not
guilty.
Final order : Accused Ram Babu is
acquitted of all offences.
Date of Institution : 06.11.2017
Date of Judgment reserved for orders : 01.06.2023
Date of Judgment : 01.06.2023
SC No. 431/2017
U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 1 of 11
JUDGMENT
1. The present case was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed u/s 200 CrPC. The Ld. Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant and her daughter and summoned the accused for the offence u/s 366/406/34 IPC. After appearance of the accused, the provision of Section 208 CrPC was complied with and matter was committed to Sessions Court as offence u/s 366 IPC is exclusively triable by Sessions Court.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of complaint and the examination of the complainant and his daughter, charge u/s 366/342/34 IPC was framed against accused Ram Babu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the complaint.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 2 witnesses as follows:-
I) PW - 1 Sh. Shambhu Nath /Complainant
SC No. 431/2017
U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 2 of 11
II) PW - 2 Ms. Soni/ daughter of the complainant
3.2 PW - 1 Sh. Shambhu Nath has deposed that on 27.05.2015, he
was present in Gurgaon. His son namely Vikas @ Sonu made a phone call to PW1 to Gurgaon and told him that, "Didi (Soni Kumari) Nahi Hai Ghar Par". Upon this PW1 asked him (his Son) that she might have gone around and he shall search for her. PW1's son Vikas @ Sonu searched PW1's daughter Soni Kumari but she could not be traced. PW1 also asked his son Vikas to search for her at the place where she was studying. PW1's son Vikas also went to the place where his daughter used to study but she was not found there also. Thereafter, PW1's son Vikas again made a call to him and told him that his daughter was not found there also. PW1 then asked his son to search the phone number of teacher of PW1's daughter Soni where she used to go for study. PW1's son Vikas traced out the number of said teacher from the notebook of Soni and made a call at about 05:27 PM to Jagannath ie. teacher of his daughter Soni and asked him the whereabouts of PW1's daughter Soni to which said Jagannath told that, "mere paas nahi hai".
PW1 has further deposed that on earlier occasion ie., on 23.04.2015, there was marriage of his eldest daughter namely Neha Kumari in the village and PW1 had already made train reservation for the same for 10.04.2015. On 10.04.2015 while they had to leave for their village for said marriage then his daughter Soni Kumari told PW1 that her Adhaar Card, Marksheets of 10th and 12th standard, voter ID card were asked by SC No. 431/2017 U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 3 of 11 Jagannath for getting her admission for Graduation. On this, his daughter Soni Kumari handed-over all the above-said documents to Jagannath for the said purpose. On 27.05.2015, after he came to know from his son Vikas that his daughter Soni Kumari was not traceable from anywhere, he left Gurgaon for his above-mentioned residence in Delhi. PW1 came by Metro and after reaching his house at Indira Kalyan Vihar, he alongwith his wife and his other children started searching for his daughter Soni Kumari in the nearby area by searching in the neighbourhood houses etc. but she was not traceable. PW1's Bhabhi namely Karuna Devi went to the house of the teacher of his daughter Soni Kumari namely Jagannath who was son of Ram Babu. Then accused Ram Babu told PW1's Bhabhi that Soni was not at his house. PW1 came back to his own house and he alongwith his other relatives and family members were getting ready for going to police station for making complaint regarding missing of his daughter. It was about 08:00/08:15 PM, when after writing a complaint, they were just about to leave their house for police station, then accused Ram Babu, Jagannath, Shanti sister of Jagannath alongwith 2-3 persons came to PW1's house. PW1 cannot identify other 2-3 persons who came alongwith accused Ram Babu at that time as he was perplexed. It was about 08:30 PM when they all came to PW1's house. At that time accused Ram Babu alongwith Jagannath, accused's daughter and other persons also brought PW1's daughter Soni Kumari with them.
PW1 further deposed that when his daughter namely Soni Kumari was brought by accused Ram Babu at his house she started crying.
SC No. 431/2017U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 4 of 11 Then PW1 asked her as to why she was crying and what had happened to her. Then PW1 asked accused Ram Babu as to why PW1's daughter was crying. It was already 08:30 PM. PW1 asked that till upto this time where was his daughter. Then Ram Babu replied that his daughter Soni had gone to market for purchasing some medicine. PW1 then asked accused Ram Babu that he should have informed them as it was late evening time. Then PW1 again asked his daughter Soni and she told PW1 that, "Papaji Jagannath mere ko shadi karne ke liye bol raha tha, maine mana kia, main rone lagi". Thereafter, his daughter further told that thereafter Jagannath made call to his father namely Ram Babu ie. accused. PW1's daughter further told that on this accused Ram Babu gave money to Jagannath by saying that, "Isko (Soni Kumari) Bihar le jaao aur shadi kar lo" . Thereafter, his daughter further told that she started shouting and crying and Ram Babu extended threats to her that they would kill her father. PW1's daughter further told that thereafter accused Ram Babu took her to second floor of their house. Then PW1's daughter started shouting and crying and on this Ram Babu and Jagannath offered water to her and she drank the water and she was perplexed. She further told that when she gained her consciousness she found herself at Okhla Railway Station. On this she again started shouting and crying. When Jagannath tried to take her to Bihar forcibly from Okhla Railway Station then his daughter resisted by saying that, "main nahi jaungi, gaadi se kud jaungi main" . On this, Jagannath got frightened and brought back PW1's daughter to his house. Thereafter, they all brought his daughter Soni Kumari with them to PW1's house at about SC No. 431/2017 U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 5 of 11 08:30 PM.
On hearing all this from his daughter, PW1 scolded Ram Babu and told him how dare he took his daughter to Railway Station for getting her married and some hot talks took place between them. Ram Babu also extended threats to PW1. Thereafter, PW1 made call at 100 number. Police reached there. Police took PW1's son Vikas, nephew Rajiv Lal and Ram Babu to the police station. PW1 was also asked by the police official that he should also visit the police station alongwith his daughter Soni Kumari. Thereafter, PW1 alongwith his daughter proceeded to police station and when they were on the way to the police station, they came to know that Jagannath had met with an accident. In the said accident Jagannath expired. Thereafter, PW1 alongwith his daughter returned to their home from the way itself and did not go to the police station.
PW1 further deposed that he made a complaint u/s 200 CrPC Ex.PW1/A. The affidavit in support of his said complaint alongwith list of witnesses is Ex.PW1/B. After making call at 100 number, he made complaint to the police and thereafter police took PW1 to the police station and thereafter he was sent to Jail by the police officials. After one day he was released from the Jail. On 04.06.2015, he went to the police station to lodge the FIR but the police officials did not receive his complaint. Thereafter, he made call at 100 number and he handed-over his complaint to the officials of PCR van. During his testimony PW1 identified the accused Ram Babu in the Court.
PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel.
SC No. 431/2017U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 6 of 11 3.3 PW - 2 Soni Kumari deposed that in her 12th class she had taken tuition from Mr. Jagannath for economics. On 08.04.2015, she was asked by Jagannath to hand-over her documents relating to class 10 th and 12th examination in order to get admission in college. PW2 handed-over her original Adhaar Card, Voter ID card, photographs to him.
PW2 further deposed that on 27.03.2015 (27.05.2015), at about 01:30 PM, she went to the house of Jagannath for taking back her original documents at Indira Colony in her locality but the house of the Jagannath was a bit far from her house. Jagannath insisted her to get married with him. She refused and he took PW2 to the 2nd floor. He continuously insisted and pressurized her to get married with him. He further told her that he will take her to his native place at Bihar. He also took her to the Railway Station from his house but later on, he again got her back to his house.
PW2 further deposed that she cried a lot and she refused to his proposal so Jagannath took PW2 to drop at her uncle Bholanath's house near the house of Jagannath. Her family members were already present at her uncle's house and her father called the police on 100 number when he met them. Thereafter, police arrived and took away Jagannath alongwith them. PW2 was informed that Jagannath expired in a road accident while he was taken to police station.
As PW2 resiled from her earlier statement given before Ld. Magistrate she was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP. In her cross- examination she deposed that she had given her statement in the Court on SC No. 431/2017 U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 7 of 11 17.01.2017 and it also bears her signatures and she signed the said statement after reading it. However, she denied the role of accused Ram Babu in the incident. During her testimony, she identified accused Ram Babu in the Court.
PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused Ram Babu was examined u/s 313 CrPC wherein he denied all the allegations. He stated that at the time of incident he was on duty. He stated that Jagannath was his son but Karuna Devi did not meet him at his house for search of Soni Kumari on the day of incident as he was on duty at 227, Okhla Phase- I, DIDC Complex and was working there in a carton factory. He stated that when he returned from his duty he got to know about the whole matter and then he started looking for his son but could not found him. Karuna and Shambhu Nath took his son to police chowki. He further stated that no altercation took place between him and Shambu Nath. He stated that he did not give money to Jagannath for taking PW1's daughter to Bihar for marriage. He claimed that he did not have any knowledge whether his son was taking Soni Kumari for getting married. He stated that he was being taken to police station when he came to know about the accident of his son and he does not know what happened thereafter. He stated that he and PW1 Shambhu Nath lived in the same locality and therefore PW1 identified him in the court during his testimony. He further stated that he do not know if SC No. 431/2017 U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 8 of 11 Soni Kumari gave her documents to his son for any admission in any college but he admitted that his son Jagannath gave tuitions to many.
However, accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
5. DECISION OF THE CASE AND REASONS THEREOF 5.1 It may be noted that most of the complainant evidence is hearsay ie., fact stated by his son Vikas, his bhabhi Karuna Devi and his daughter Soni. Complainant has not cited his son or his bhabhi as a witness. As far as the testimony of his daughter is concerned, she has not stated anything incriminating against accused Ram Babu and has only deposed about the role of his son Jagannath. She was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP but she denied the role of Ram Babu in her cross- examination. She has denied that accused Ram Babu had asked his son to take her to their village at Bihar and to get married to him at Bihar. She denied that Jagannath and his father had taken her to Okhla Railway Station in an auto and then she raised her voice and they brought her back to their house. She denied that accused had instructed her to return to her house and tell her parents that she got late as she had gone to Safdarjung Hospital. Rather, in her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel she has given a clean chit to accused Ram Babu by stating "It is correct that there is no role of accused Ram Babu in the present case. It is correct Ram Babu never asked or pressurized me for marrying his son. It is correct that Ram SC No. 431/2017 U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 9 of 11 Babu has never threatened me in any manner. It is correct that Ihave not given any documents of education to Ram Babu. It is correct that on the date of incident Ram Babu was not present". Accordingly, nothing has come in the examination of the main victim/ eyewitness of the case. The only fact in her evidence that was brought out by the prosecution is that she had signed her statement recorded in the Court (committing Magistrate) on 17.01.2017 after reading the same. In the said statement, PW2 Soni has mentioned the role of accused Ram Babu but said statement itself is not sufficient proof of the facts mentioned therein for two reasons. Firstly, said statement is not evidence per se as the witness was not subjected to cross- examination. Secondly, it is mentioned in the said statement that on death of Jagannath PW2's father and brothers were implicated in a false case. In his cross-examination PW1 has admitted that an FIR was registered against him regarding the incident and he was arrested in FIR No. 410/2015 PS Okhla u/s 323/342/394/506/34 IPC. Therefore, it appears that said statement may have given by PW2 as a counter blast to the case registered against her family members.
5.2 Besides the hearsay facts, PW1 has deposed only about the return of his daughter with accused Ram Babu alongwith his other family members. However, during his cross-examination he has deposed that he was not present at his house when his daughter returned. Rather, he deposed that his daughter returned at the house of his brother and not at his house. He even deposed that he is not sure whether Ram Babu brought his daughter to his brother's house. He deposed that he came to know that SC No. 431/2017 U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 10 of 11 Jagannath and Shanti brought her there. Thus, he has himself deposed at variation in his examination in chief. Rather, in the last part of his cross- examination he had admitted that Ram Babu did not take away his daughter. Since the present case is a complaint case, there is no independent evidence to conclude safely that version stated by PW1 in his examination in chief is the correct version. Thus, no incriminating evidence has come against the accused regarding any of the offences charged against him.
6. CONCLUSION 6.1 In view of above said discussion, accused Ram Babu is acquitted of all the offences charged against him.
(Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN
on 1 st June 2023) SANGWAN
SANGWAN
Date: 2023.06.01
18:02:15 +0530
(SACHIN SANGWAN)
Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01,
South-East District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi/01.06.2023
SC No. 431/2017
U/s 366/342/34 IPC State v. Ram Babu Page no. 11 of 11