Delhi District Court
State vs . Durga Nath Raina & Anr. on 16 July, 2016
SC No. 239/16
State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:
Unique ID of the case : 02405R0111382013
SC No. : 239/16
FIR No. : 152/12
Police Station : Dwarka South
Under Section : (i) 323/340/374/34 IPC ;
(ii) 23/26 Juvenile Justice Act;
(iii)16 Bonded Labour System
Act; and
(iv)14(3) Child Labour Act.
Date of Institution : 01.05.2013
Case received on assignment, : 07.05.2016
after committal, by the Court of
undersigned on
Arguments on Charge heard on : 16.07.2016
Orders announced on : 16.07.2016
State Vs. (1) Durga Nath Raina
S/o Shri Prem Nath Raina
R/o Flat No. 203A, Vasundhara
Apartment, Plot no.16, Sector6,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
(2) Manumati @ Manju Sinha
S/o Shri Gautam Sinha
R/o L2/B41, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Page No. 1/10 16.07.2016
SC No. 239/16
State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
Present: Shri Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State.
Both accused Durga Nath Raina and Manumati @ Manju
Sinha on bail.
Sh. U.S. Yadav and Sh. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Ld.
Counsels for accused Durga Nath Raina.
Shri Sandeep Vyas, Ld. Counsel for accused Manumati
@ Manju Sinha.
I.O./Insp. B.S. Gulia in person.
Arguments on charge heard.
I have perused the entire record carefully.
:ORDER ON CHARGE:
1.The FIR of present case was registered on the complaint of Ms. Basanti against the accused persons for the offences under Section 323/370/374/34 IPC, Section 16 Bonded Labour Systems Abolition Act, Section 14 r/w Section 3 of Child Labour Act and Section 23/26 of Juvenile Justice Act.
2. Accusation against the accused persons, as per the case of prosecution, are that on 27.07.2012 on receipt of DD No. 18PP regarding confinement of a girl aged about 12 years, I.O./SI Bahadur Singh Gulia alongwith HC Hariman reached at Vasundhara Apartments, Plot No.16, Sector6, Dwarka where one girl namely Salomi, aged about 12 years was rescued from the abovesaid house. On the instance of said Salomi, Flat no.203A, in the same premises, was also raided where one Shri Durga Nath Raina (accused no.1) was found Page No. 2/10 16.07.2016 SC No. 239/16 State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
residing and one girl namely Basanti (complainant), aged about 14 years was found in their house as domestic worker. Ms. Basanti stated that she was being kept there as a bonded labour and was put there on work by one placement agency. Thereafter, Ms. Sarita Sharma of NGO, Child Helpline and officer from Labour Department, GNCT of Delhi also reached at the spot and medical examination of Ms. Basanti was got conducted at DDU hospital vide MLC but no external injury was found. Thereafter, Basanti was produced in front of Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, who passed direction vide Form no. 27(18) after inquiry, to take necessary action against the employer of Basanti and also take Basanti to the SDM for statement. Accordingly, statement of Basanti was got recorded before the SDM, Najafgarh.
In her statement made to the SDM, complainant Basanti stated that she was taken to Delhi by her maternal uncle namely Albir for looking after the baby of one Annu who is the friend of Albir's wife. Albir dropped Basanti with Annu and left from there. In the month of February, said Annu took Basanti to one Manju, who runs Placement Agency in Delhi. Said Manju arranged job for Basanti in Dwarka from where she was rescued on 27.07.2012. Basanti stated that she was working there since 13th of February and initially when she had joined there, she used to be threatened and beaten up. She stated that Aunty used to beat her up. Basanti used to clean the house. She would wake up at 6:00 a.m. and sleep at 11:00 p.m. Basanti further stated that Anu had told her that she was going to Jharkhand for month and would Page No. 3/10 16.07.2016 SC No. 239/16 State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
return in two months and take her back. She further stated that occasionally they used to scold her and it's been five months since she is working there but she was not paid for the work she was doing. She was not told about her remuneration that how much she would get. She had not contacted her home during this period. Basanti further stated that around 1½ months ago, Annu visited her and stated that she would get another girl after 810 days and then she would drop her to her aunt's place.
On the basis of abovesaid statement of Basanti, SDM Najafgarh directed the SHO to register a case under relevant Provisions of Child Labour Act (Prohibition & Regulation) 1986 and other relevant acts and accordingly present case, under Section 23/26 J.J. Act, 16 Bonded Labour System (abolition) Act 1976, 14/3 Child Act 1986 323/370/374/34 IPC was got registered and investigation was initiated.
During investigation statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all the public witnesses, who were present at the time of rescue, were recorded, documents regarding employment of Ms. Basanti were seized from employer Durga Nath Raina which shows that Basanti was employed through Om Man Power Solution Point at L2/D82, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and Rs.25,000/ were paid by Shri Durga Nath Raina vide receipt no. 155 issued by the placement agency on 13.03.2012. As per the recovery, statement of Ms. Basanti, Page No. 4/10 16.07.2016 SC No. 239/16 State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
agreement papers of placement agency and perusal of MLC, sufficient evidence was found against the accused Durga Nath Raina and he was arrested for commission of offences under Section 23/26 JJ. Act, 16 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, 14/3 Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act 1986, 323/370/374/34 IPC.
During investigation, age of Ms. Basanti was also verified from her school which revealed her date of birth as 21.04.1997. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Durga Nath Raina, Mrs. Manumati @ Manju Sinha owner of Om Manpower Solution Point, who provided girl Basanti as domestic worker in lieu of Rs.25,000/, was also interrogated and arrested in this case. The book from which the receipt no. 155 was issued, was also recovered from her possession in which duplicate receipt was found intact. Accused Manumati @ Manju Sinha told that she was running the establishment without any registration.
During further investigation, efforts were made to trace Annu @ Tannu who had brought Basanti to Delhi but no clue was found. Ms. Basanti, in her statement, had alleged about beating by Mrs. Anita Raina, wife of accused Durga Nath Raina but on enquiry she was found bed ridden for the past two years and under treatment since long, so the allegations did not sustain against her, hence she was not charge sheeted and was kept in column no.12.
On conclusion of necessary investigation, chargesheet for the Page No. 5/10 16.07.2016 SC No. 239/16 State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
offences under Section 323/370/374/34 IPC, 23/26 J.J. Act, 16 Bonded Labour System Act & 14(3) Child Labour Act was filed against accused Durga Nath Raina and Mrs. Manumati @ Manju Sinha in the Court of Ld. Area Magistrate/Ld. M.M.
3. It is submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that from the evidence available on record, court only has to see whether prima facie material is there on record to charge the accused persons. It is submitted in the present case that there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 323/370/374/34 IPC, 23/26 J.J. Act, 16 Bonded Labour System Act & 14(3) Child Labour Act.
4. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Durga Nath Raina that complainant was kept at house for cleaning as his wife Smt. Anita Raina is seriously ill and bed ridden and due wages were being paid to the complainant and she was always well treated by accused no.1 and his wife. It is further submitted on behalf of accused no.1 that despite the fact that nothing was due on account of wages to complainant, complainant was also paid a sum of Rs.37,188/ before the Child Welfare Committee as total wages.
Ld. Counsel for accused Durga Nath Raina has argued that complainant is more than 15 years of age, hence, provision under Child Labour Act does not apply here. It is further argued by him that in the Page No. 6/10 16.07.2016 SC No. 239/16 State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
statement of complainant Basanti, it is mentioned that Aunty used to beat her and in this case only accused Durga Nath Raina has been summoned for trial and there is no whisper of any such assault or torture by the accused no.1 in her statement. Hence, no offence against accused no.1 is made out and he is liable to be discharged.
5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Manumati @ Manju Sinha also submits that there no material on record, which is sufficient, to frame charge against this accused, hence this accused is also liable to be discharged.
6. From the material collected during investigation, it reflects that complainant was employed as domestic servant by accused no.1 in the month of February, 2012 through placement agency run by co accused Manumati @ Manju. She was doing the job of cleaning. I.O. verified the age of complainant and found her date of birth as 21.04.1997. Hence, it is clear that on the alleged date of her employment with accused no.1, complainant's age was more than 14 years. Complainant's allegation of beating by wife of accused no.1 were found to be false during investigation.
7. The offence under Section 26 of Juvenile Justice Act applies in cases where child is procured for the purpose of hazardous employment. As mentioned earlier, the complainant in this case was employed as a domestic servant which is not a hazardous employment, Page No. 7/10 16.07.2016 SC No. 239/16 State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
hence, this offence is also not made out against the accused persons. Admittedly, as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1, complainant has not levied any kind of allegations regarding any torture or assault being done by any accused. Hence, Provision of Section 323 IPC and Section 23 & 26 of J.J. Act are not attracted and both the accused persons are discharged from these offences.
8. Section 16 of Bonded Labour Act provides for punishment for enforcement of bonded labour. Bonded Labour has been defined under Section 3 Bonded Labour Act as any labour or service rendered under Bonded System Labour Act. Bonded Labour System has been defined under Section 3(g) of the said Act. On perusal of this definition, I am of the opinion that the employment of complainant, in the present matter does not amount to creation of Bonded Labour System as there is no relationship of debtor and creditor exists. Hence, offence under this Section is not made out against the accused persons in the present case.
9. Offence under Section 14 of Child Labour Act provides for punishment where a child is employed in contravention of Section 3 of the Act and Section 3 of the Act provides that no child shall be employed in any occupation as mentioned in Part A and Part B of the schedule of the Act. In the present case, complainant was admittedly above the age of 14 years and hence, she was not a child labour at the time of her employment. Hence, provision of Section 14 of Child Labour Act is not attracted against any of the accused persons. Hence, Page No. 8/10 16.07.2016 SC No. 239/16 State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
they are discharged from this offence.
10. Section 370 IPC applies in the case of a slave or in other circumstances as mentioned in this Section. In the present case, complainant was employed by accused no.1 through a placement agency. She was not purchased by the accused persons as a slave. Complainant has herself stated that she was being provided enough food in the house of accused no.1. It appears that complainant was provided for employment to placement agency or to accused no. l for earning money by her maternal uncle. Police has failed to record statement of her maternal uncle. There is no any complaint of parents of complainant to the effect that the complainant was sent to Delhi against their will. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the complainant was procured by any of the accused for the purpose of her physical exploitation or sexual exploitation or slavery. Mere alleged non payment of wages/salary, does not constitute offence of human trafficking as prescribed under Section 370 IPC. Further more amount of Rs.37,188/ has been paid by accused no.1 against wages of entire period of complainant's employment before Child Welfare Committee. Further I find nothing to suggest that complainant worked at the house of accused no.1 against her will. In these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient material to make out a case even under Section 370 or 374 IPC against any of the accused persons and hence, they are discharged under Section 370/374 IPC also.
Page No. 9/10 16.07.2016 SC No. 239/16 State Vs. Durga Nath Raina & Anr.
11. In view of above observation and finding, no case is made out against the accused persons. Both the accused i.e. Durga Nath Raina and Mrs. Manumati @ Manju Sinha are discharged from all the offences as alleged in the chargesheet.
12. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on the 16th Day of July 2016 (Anil Kumar) ASJ03/ Dwarka Courts Delhi/16.07.2016 Page No. 10/10 16.07.2016