Delhi District Court
State vs . Sudesh on 3 December, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI : DELHI
Session Case No.582/06 FIR No.34/03
PS Jahangir Puri
U/S 365/328/34 IPC
State
Vs.
Sudesh @ Swadesh Rani Date of Institution:27.11.04
W/o Ashok Kumar Saini @ Date on which the
Shashi Kumar, case was reserved
R/o HU/1816, Jahangir Puri, for order :12.11.07
Delhi. Date of Decision : 03.12.07
JUDGMENT
The charges u/s 365/328/34 IPC were framed by this Court against the accused Sudesh @ Swadesh Saini with the allegations that on 02.01.2003 at some unknown time within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri , the accused Sudesh in furtherance of her common intention with other accused Priya (juvenile), Rakesh (not arrested) and Surender Singh administered or gave some stupefying intoxicating or unwholesome drug in tea to victim Neetu with intend to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence of kidnapping or abduction and kidnapped or abducted the said Neetu with intend to secretly and wrongfully confine her. STATE VS. SUDESH 2
2. I have heard Ld. Counsel Sh. Suresh Tomar for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State. I have also perused the record.
3. Brief facts are that initially an FIR was registered at PS Jahangir Puri by the informant Sh. Surender Singh who was the father of the victim stating therein that her daughter, namely, Neetu aged around 14 years was missing. The said Surender Singh suspected the present accused alongwith other accused behind the kidnapping of his daughter. A case u/s 363/34 IPC was registered at his complaint. The said FIR was got proved as Ex.PW3/A through the PW3 HC Sayara Bano. The investigation was stated to be assigned to SI Dinesh Pal. Later on, the investigation was handed over to SI Kanwar Lal.
4. The PW8, SI Kanwar Lal while deposing on oath before this Court stated that the case file was assigned to him on 29.01.2003. On 03.02.2003, the complainant Surender Singh, the father of the kidnapped girl Neetu came at police station and told STATE VS. SUDESH 3 him that his daughter was under control and custody of NGO known as "Saathi" at Bombay and it was further informed to him by the officials of NGO "Prayas" at Jahangir Puri, Delhi. The entire facts were disclosed to SHO of the area by PW8 SI Kanwar Lal. The PW8 SI Kanwar Lal made inquiries from PW4 Ms. Gargi Shaha, the official of NGO at Jahangir Puri, Delhi. On 04.03.2003, SI Kanwar Lal accompanied HC Sayara Bano alongwith Ct. Rajesh and complainant Surender Singh proceeded to NGO "Saathi"at Bombay after getting permission from senior officials. The PW8 and police team reached at Bombay on 06.02.2003. On 07.02.2003, the PW8, SI Kanwar Lal met the prosecutrix Neetu and made inquiries from her in the presence of co-ordinator PW14 Sophia Alphanso. At that time, the prosecutrix was not giving any answers to the questions of PW8, SI Kanwar Lal. The PW8, SI Kanwar Lal felt that she was not sound mentally and he could not record the statement of the prosecutrix Kumari Neetu. However, he recorded the statement of prosecutrix at waiting hall of Central Railway Station and handed her over to NGO "Saathi" The custody of the prosecutrix Neetu after identification by complainant was taken by PW8 and the memo was proved as Ex.PW1/A. The prosecutrix alongwith police team STATE VS. SUDESH 4 including PW8 came to Delhi on 09.02.2003 and the recovered girl was sent for medical examination with the custody of lady Ct. Neena. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The statement of HC Sayara Bano and Ct. Rajesh including the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded.
5. The PW8, SI Kanwar Lal further stated that there was evidence against accused Sudesh on file before his proceeding to Bombay but PW8, SI Kanwar Lal went to the house of the accused only after the recovery of the girl. After recovery of the girl, PW8, SI Kanwar Lal went to the house of accused Sudesh but PW8, SI Kanwar Lal came back from the said house because the victim did not tell anything against accused Sudesh. At that time she was not mentally sound. The PW8, SI Kanwar Lal came back to police station and the custody of victim was handed over to HC Sumitra. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded through Ld. Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC. Finally, the accused was arrested on 10.06.2003 by the initial IO- SI Dinesh Pal. The statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC were also recorded. STATE VS. SUDESH 5
6. The prosecutrix was produced as PW2. She stated that on 01.01.2003, she had visited the house of her friend, namely, Priya for extending her New Year Greetings. The mother of the said Priya, namely, Sudesh, the present accused was also present in the house. The present accused Sudesh offered her a tea. Thereafter, the prosecutrix alongwith Priya visited the STD booth where she made a call and then both came back. The accused Sudesh gave the prosecutrix a cup of tea to take and after taking the same, the prosecutrix PW2 felt giddiness. The accused Sudesh was informed that PW2 was feeling giddiness to which the accused Sudesh asked her to lie down on bed. She laid down on bed and lost her senses. Thereafter, when she regained senses, she found herself in another house where a man and woman told her that she was their daughter. The PW2 was not able to recollect as to whether she was their daughter or not. The PW2 remained with hem for so many days and a Sadhu also used to visit their house. One day, that lady told PW2 that her brother was staying at Bombay and she showed prosecutrix his snap. Thereafter, the PW2 was made to sit in a train and the prosecutrix was directed by that lady to get down at Railway Station at Bombay. The PW2 searched for her brother at Bombay Railway STATE VS. SUDESH 6 Station but nobody turned up. Finally, a police inspector took her to police station and called the NGO and a lady from NGO arrived at police station. Thereafter, she was taken back to Delhi by her father and Delhi police.
7. The PW14 Sophia Alphaso was working as social worker in NGO "Saathi" at Bombay. She stated that the prosecutrix introduced herself as Simran. But, later on, her name was revealed as Neetu. She was got admitted in organization "Saathi" by one Janvi Perurekar on 15.01.2003. The said girl, namely, Neetu disclosed that she was resident of Jahangir Puri. The organization "Saathi" had sent a photograph of the girl Neetu to the organization "Prayas" with request to inquire from the police station. The organization "Prayas" confirmed that missing report was lodged at PS Jahangir Puri regarding the girl Neetu. Thereafter, on 07.02.2003, the police alongwith parents of the girl came to the organization "Saathi" and the organization "Saathi" handed over the girl to them. SI Kanwar Lal prepared the recovery memo of the girl Ex.PW1/A. STATE VS. SUDESH 7
8. The PW4 was Gargi Shaha who was the social worker at "Prayas", Jahangir Puri, Delhi. She stated that in January, 2003, a member of the team of PW4 received a telephonic message from "Saathi" at Bombay that they had been given custody of a female child, namely, Simran aged 16 years and that the said girl belonged to a family living in Jahangir Puri. The member of the team was able to locate the address of the girl whose name was revealed as Neetu. The said information was sent to "Saathi" at Bombay. The father of the prosecutrix gave complete particulars to the officials of "Prayas" and went to "Saathi" at Bombay with old photograph of Neetu but the prosecutrix Neetu did not identify her father at all on account of lost of her memory and only for that reason, the custody of the prosecutrix Neetu was not handed over to her father. Thereafter, the organization "Prayas" took the help of PS Jahangir Puri and sent one official with the father of the prosecutrix and prosecutrix was brought back to Delhi.
9. The PW1 was father of the prosecutrix who verified this fact that when he went to Bombay to take the custody of the girl from organization "Saathi" where the prosecutrix failed to identify STATE VS. SUDESH 8 him, and hence, he came back. Thereafter, he again went to Bombay alongwith police and took back the prosecutrix to Delhi. The prosecutrix was got medically examined at Shahdara Mental hospital.
10. Having gone through the material on record, the first question which repeatedly came in the mind of the Court was about the recovery of the prosecutrix. It is very strange that when a FIR u/s 363/34 IPC is already on record in a particular police station and when an information about the recovery of the girl was given by the officials of social organization "Saathi" to a social organization, namely, "Prayas" at Delhi, why the officials of Delhi police or Bombay police were not involved. The evidence has come on record from the testimony of PW1 and PW4 that after the information regarding the recovery of girl by organization "Saathi" at Bombay, the father of the prosecutrix went to Bombay but the prosecutrix failed to identify him. The father of the prosecutrix immediately came back to Delhi and local police help was taken. It is only when the local police reached at Bombay that the prosecutrix was brought back. This Court is further not been able to understand as to why STATE VS. SUDESH 9 the local police of Bombay was not involved by Delhi police in the entire episode even when officials of Delhi police reached at Bombay. Though witness from organization "Saathi" PW14 Sophia Alphanso stated that one Janvi Perurekar had got admitted the said girl in organization "Saathi", the said Janvi Perurekar had not been made a witness. Further, though PW4 have stated in her statement that she was informed by "Saathi" organization from Bombay that a female child, namely, Simran @ Neetu was got admitted with "Saathi" organization by Bombay police, neither the organization "Saathi" took the help of Bombay police nor the Delhi police thought it proper to associate themselves with Bombay police in the investigation of this case. Had the prosecutrix been medically examined at Bombay immediately after the arrest, the things would have been on a better line. It is settled law that whenever a person is recovered or arrested within the jurisdiction of another police station, the local police is required to take assistance of the police officials of that very jurisdiction. Neither any daily diary nor any other document has been filed to show that in fact Delhi police went to Bombay to get the girl recovered. Initially, when the father of the girl had proceeded to Bombay after information given to him by STATE VS. SUDESH 10 official of "Prayas", the police help was not taken. This itself creates doubt in the mind of the Court for the entire prosecution story. When the recovery of the girl itself becomes doubtful from Bombay, the ancillary factors also becomes open to suspicion. This is a great lapse on the part of the prosecution. The social organization cannot investigate the matter directly and it is the duty of the social organization to immediately inform the police as and when the recovery of some victim is effected. The recovery memo of the girl Ex.PW1/A was also prepared at Bombay but recovery memo does not bear the signature of any local police official from Bombay. Only signature of the PW4 Sophia Alphanso, the official of "Saathi" organization has been taken besides the other Delhi Police officials. In these circumstances, the recovery of the girl from Bombay could not be proved by the prosecution at all.
11. Now coming to the statement of the prosecutrix and her father. The prosecutrix though have levelled serious allegations but the said allegations are not supported by any documentary evidence. The prosecutrix stated that she was given a tea by the accused Sudesh. In order to attract the provisions of Section 328 IPC, the prosecution STATE VS. SUDESH 11 has not been able to show that what material/stupefying intoxicating substance was administered to the prosecutrix by the accused. In such type of cases, the ocular testimony is not enough. The entire story though detailed down by the prosecutrix, but is not even clear. She has not named as to when she was found herself in another house, who was the couple who told her that she was their daughter. She has not even mentioned the place. Even the statement of the prosecutrix appears to be manipulated/concocted by the prosecutrix herself. This is because after the alleged recovery of the said prosecutrix, when SI Kanwar Lal went to the house of accused Sudesh, the said SI had to returned back from the said house because the prosecutrix did not tell anything against the accused Sudesh. It was stated by the SI Kanwar Lal that she was not mentally sound at that time. Even if the statement of SI Kanwar Lal is presumed to be correct, this Court still feels very surprised as to why the girl was taken to the house of accused when she was not mentally sound. Simplicitor when the girl refuses to disclose anything against the accused Sudesh, the statement has been made by the IO that the girl was not mentally sound. The prosecution had to further suffer a jolt when the PW7 Naveen who was the STATE VS. SUDESH 12 neighbourer of the accused Sudesh stated that he had not seen Kumari Neetu at the house of accused on 01.01.2003 and he was not aware about the wrongful confinement of the prosecutrix Neetu at the house of accused Sudesh. Despite cross examination by the Ld. APP, the PW7 termed it to be incorrect to suggest that on 01.01.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., he was standing in front of his house in gali or that he had seen the prosecutrix going inside the house of accused Sudesh or that she was confined by accused Sudesh.
12. From the overall circumstances and in view of the above noted discussion, it is categorically clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused Sudesh is hereby acquitted of the charges u/s 365/328/34 IPC. Bail bond of accused Sudesh stands forfeited. Surety discharged. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the Open Court on 03rd day of December, 2007.
(SANJAY KUMAR GGARWAL) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS, DELHI STATE VS. SUDESH 13 STATE VS. SUDESH