Delhi District Court
State vs . Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju on 25 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 35/2012
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0109482012
State Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju
S/o Late Ram Chander
R/o Village Bibi Tola,
PO&PS Bariya,
Distt. Balia, Uttar Pradesh
FIR No.: 276/11
Police Station: Aman Vihar
Under Sections: 363/366/376 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to session Court: 30.4.2012
Date on which orders were reserved: 3.10.2012
Date on which judgment announced: 12.10.2012
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations of the prosecution on 9.9.2012 at about 12:30 PM at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Nithari Village, Delhi the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju kidnapped the prosecutrix 'S' (name of the prosecutrix is withheld as this is a case under Section 376 Indian Penal Code) a minor girl aged about 13 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 1 will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It is also alleged that between 9.9.2011 and 19.3.2012 the accused Raju Verma committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'S' at different places.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 9.9.2011 Smt. Anita W/o Ishwar Sahai came to the police station and gave her statement wherein she alleged that she is having seven daughters and her 4th child namely 'S' aged about 13 years had left the house in the morning at about 6:30 AM for her school but thereafter did not return. She further alleged that her daughter 'S' had been allured by somebody. On the basis of the said statement of Smt. Anita the present case was registered under Section 363 Indian Penal Code.
(3) Pursuant to the same efforts were made to trace out the prosecutrix 'S' but she could not be found. SI Kuldeep Singh thereafter went to the house of Smt. Anita when she expressed her suspicion over Raju Verma who was a Raj Mistri residing opposite to her house, as he was also missing. Thereafter efforts were made to search the accused Raju Verma but he also could not be traced. On 19.3.2012 SI Subh Ram along with HC Rama Shanker, Inspector Anil Kumar and father of the prosecutrix Ishwar Sahi reached at Banaras during the search of the victim and while they were sitting on the railway station at the instance of Ishwar Sahi, they apprehended the accused Raju Verma along with St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 2 the prosecutrix 'S'. The accused Raju Verma was thereafter arrested in the present case. Both the accused Raju Verma and the prosecutrix were brought back to Delhi where the medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Ld. MM. In her statement to the Ld. MM the prosecutrix alleged that the accused Raju Verma had forcibly taken her away and had committed rape upon her during this period of her stay with him at various places. Thereafter provisions of Section 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code were added and after completion of investigations charge sheet was filed before the Court.
CHARGE:
(4) Charges under Section 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Thirteen Witnesses as under:
Public witnesses/ victim:
(6) PW4 Smt. Anita Devi is the complainant being the mother of the prosecutrix. She has deposed that she was residing at C823, Gali No.6, Agar Nagar, Near Rugna Chowk, Kirari Village for the last about St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 3 1213 years alongwith her family comprising of her husband and seven daughters. According to the witness, her husband is doing the job of courier and she is a housewife. She has deposed that the prosecutrix 'S' is her fourth child who at the time of incident, she was aged about 12 years. According to her, on 09.09.11 her daughter 'S' had left the house at about 6:30 AM for going to the school and at that time, she was wearing a school dress i.e. Check shirt and white salvar and black shoes.
The witness has testified that when the prosecutrix left the house, she was carrying her school bag and normally the prosecutrix returned home by 1:00 PM but on that day, she did not return home after which at about 1:10 PM, she started searching for her daughter. According to her, she also went to the house of the friends of prosecutrix and went to her school where she came to know that she had gone to the school and was there till 1:00 PM but thereafter did not return home. She has also deposed that her husband had gone to the village and hence she took help from my neighbours and continued to search for her daughter and when the prosecutrix 'S' did not return, she went to the Police Station at night. The witness has testified that by that time it was almost midnight when she made her complaint to the police. She has proved that police recorded her complaint in the intervening night of 09/10.12.2011 which complaint is Ex.PW4/A wherein she expressed her suspicion that somebody had allured her daughter.
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 4 (7) The witness has also deposed that on the next day, she came to know from the neighbourhood that Raju Verma, who was working as a mistri in the house in front of their house was also missing. According to her, previously she observed this Raju sitting on the roof of the house which was under construction staring at the roof of her house and on that day, she saw that the said house was locked and Raju was missing and therefore, she had her suspicion on him because she felt that he had an eye on her daughter. She has further deposed that she went to the Police Station and informed the Investigating Officer about her suspicion and also requested them for action against Raju. The witness has also deposed that after her husband returned, the house of Sher Singh was opened and searched during which some letters were recovered in her presence which were seized by the Investigating Officer which seizure memo is Ex.PW4/B. She has correctly identified the accused Raju in the Court.
(8) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that Raju had come to the area about one or two months prior to the incident and was not previously residing in the area and his parents were also not residing in the area. According to her, they later came to know that he was a native of Balia, U.P. and when she noticed Raju frequently staring at her roof, she had warned her girls not to move out or stare in that direction. However, she did not make any complaint to the owner of the house which was under construction and St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 5 has voluntarily added that he was residing somewhere at Gol Market and was not available in the area and there was no occasion for her to meet him. The witness has also deposed that she did not inform her husband about the acts of the accused and has voluntarily added that her husband was away to the native village in connection with festivals/ rituals of her eldest daughter who was newly married and it was later on that she came to know that the accused was previously involved in another case in U.P. where he had similarly allured a minor, kidnapped her and sexually exploited her which fact was told to her by the landlord much later. She has deposed that she did not inform the police about what the landlord had told her regarding the previous involvement of the accused and has voluntarily explained that she came to know of it later on. (9) According to the witness Anita she is married for the last 21 years and her eldest daughter was married about one year back. She has deposed that her second daughter is studying in class 12th and her third daughter was in class 11th. The witness has further deposed that the prosecutrix 'S' was her 4th daughter and was in class 8th at that time. According to PW4, her 5th daughter is in class 6th and younger to her was in class 1st and youngest was in class Nursery. She has also deposed that the prosecutrix 'S' was born at home in Delhi and she (witness) did not get her registration of date of birth with the MCD and has voluntarily added that he had the vaccination card of the prosecutrix showing her date of birth but in the said card, her name has been mentioned as Sarita. St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 6 According to her, she did not give this vaccination card to the Investigating Officer. She has denied the suggestion that she did not give this card to the Investigating Officer because it did not pertain to her daughter 'S' or that the name of 'S' was not Sarita and hence she concealed this document from the Investigating Officer. The witness has also denied the suggestion that her daughter is more that 16 years of age and had voluntarily gone away with the accused or that they were against the alliance of her daughter with the accused and therefore, they have falsely implicated the accused in the present case. (10) PW5 Sher Singh is an independent witness being the owner of the house where the accused Raju Kumar was residing. He has deposed that he was residing at Quarter No.13, Brahmpuri Building, near Gol Market, Delhi for the last about 2425 years and is doing the job of sale of vegetables at Gol Market area. According to the witness, he is the owner of 40 sq. feet plot in the Agar Nagar area and he had told Sunil who was also selling vegetables with him that he wanted to construct two rooms on his plot. The witness has testified that Sunil told him that he could get a mistri and it was Sunil who brought the present accused Raju (correctly identified by the witness). He has further deposed that it was the accused Raju who got constructed two rooms in the plot and after completion of the construction the accused Raju also got work elsewhere and hence requested him (witness) to permit him (accused) to stay in the constructed rooms on rent. According to the St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 7 witness on one or two occasions, he noticed Raju staring at the girls in the neighbourhood on which he scolded him for his behaviour. The witness has testified that he told him if this was how he behaved, he (witness) would not permit him (accused) to stay in his house. He has also deposed that it was later, on 10.09.11 that he received a notice from SI Kuldeep Singh when he informed him that Raju was staying on rent in his house whereas he himself was residing at Gol Market. The witness has deposed that it was then that he came to know that Raju had eloped with a minor girl from the neighbourhood and his statement statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (11) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, the witness has deposed that there was no written agreement between him and Raju when he rented the premises to him. According to the witness, he did not inform the Investigating Officer that he had warned Raju to desist from his behaviour towards girls residing in the neighbourhood. He has denied the suggestion that he did not notice Raju staring at girls or that he had never warned him and it is for this reason that he did not tell the Investigating Officer about the same. (12) PW6 Sunil Kumar Verma is also an independent witness who has deposed that he was residing at Staff Quarter No.13, B.D. Marg, Gol Market, Delhi for the last 4 years along with Sher Singh. According to the witness, he is a vegetable vendor in the area and the accused Raju (correctly identified by the witness in the Court) who is a St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 8 Raj Mistri (mason) by profession, belongs to his native village Bibitola, Police Station Behria Distt.Balia, Uttar Pradesh. The witness has deposed that Sher Singh wanted to construct two rooms on his plot at Agar Nagar and had informed him about the same and it was then that he called accused Raju from the village and asked him to construct the house of Sher Singh. According to the witness, after the accused Raju constructed the house, he got more work in the same area and requested Sher Singh to permit him to stay in the said rooms constructed by him on rent. The witness has also deposed that Sher Singh permitted him to stay on rent. He has testified that he had come to know from the village that previously Raju had got married to a girl in a village but she had expired in suspicious circumstances on which a police case was registered. According to the witness, it was in this background that he had specifically warned Raju regarding his behaviour with the neighbours and persons living around him. He has also testified that since he and Sher Singh were residing at Gol Market, they did not come to know that what had happened and it was only on 11.09.11 that they came to know from the Investigating Officer that he had kidnapped and taken a minor girl from the neighbourhood. The witness has deposed that it was on 12.09.11 that he informed the police about the address and whereabouts of Raju of the native village which was known to him. He has testified that he was aware of two telephone numbers of Raju, one of U.P. and one of Delhi, which he informed the police but he does not St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 9 recollect the same. According to him, they tried to contact Raju but both his numbers were coming switched off.
(13) With the permission of the Court, Ld. Addl. PP for the State put leading questions to the witness on the aspect of telephone numbers of the accused Raju on which the witness has admitted that mobile phone numbers of Raju which he had given to the police are 9013207796 and 9984529078.
(14) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae the witness has deposed that he had told the police officer regarding the previous criminal record of Raju but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/DX1 the aspect of criminal case against the accused was not found so recorded.
(15) PW7 Iswariya Prasad Sahi is the father of the prosecutrix who has deposed that he has been residing at C823, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar III, Delhi110086 for the last nine to ten years and earlier he was residing in the same area in the neighbourhood on rent. According to the witness, his family comprises of himself, his wife and seven daughters including the prosecutrix 'S' who is his 4th child and at the time of the incident, she was around 13 years and was studying in class 8th. He has testified that the accused Raju Kumar Verma (correctly identified) is a Raj Mistri and was constructing the house of Sher Singh which is in front of their house. According to the accused, he noticed that the accused had an evil eye on his (witness's) daughters and he St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 10 warned him of the same. He has testified that on 09.09.2011 he had gone to his native village to attend the rituals connected with his eldest daughter who had been newly married. The witness has further deposed that his wife called him up and informed that the prosecutrix 'S' who had left for school in the morning, did not return and that she had searched for 'S' in the neighborhood and at the house of friends but could not find her. He has testified that his wife also told him that she was going to Police Station to lodge a complaint and on coming to know of incident, he immediately return on 13.09.2011 and came to know that the mistri Raju was also missing from the same day. The witness has further deposed that he had his suspicious on Raju because of his previous behaviour and conduct as he had seen him having an eye on his daughters. He has also deposed that he had informed the police about his suspicion and thereafter, he along with the police officials went to the room of Raju where on searching they found some letters in the handwriting of his daughter 'S' which she had written to some Rajiv Kumar Verma whose actual name is Raju, which he handed over to SI Kuldeep Singh pursuant to which the Investigating Officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW4/B. The witness has proved the said letters which are collectively Ex.PW7/A running into 8 pages (including the blank page). He has testified that Police also interrogated Sunil and came to know that Raju was his relative of Distt. Balia and after coming to know of the address of Raju, he alongwith police and Sunil went to St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 11 native village of Raju but could not find the accused Raju or the prosecutrix. PW7 has further deposed that thereafter, they went to the house of Raju on number of occasions but could not trace his daughter. According to him, he had gone with SI Shubh Ram to various places i.e. Balia, Haldipur and many other places but it was only when after six months they went to Banaras railway station platform that he find his daughter on the platform when she was present along with the accused. He has proved that on his pointing out, the prosecutrix was recovered and a recovery memo was prepared which is Ex.PW7/B after which the accused Raju was arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/C and his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW7/D. According to the witness, thereafter, they returned to Delhi and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(16) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused the witness has deposed that the accused was not previously residing in the area and had come to the area about two months prior to the incident. According to the witness, he was residing in the area alone and they were not known to his parents. He has testified that he did did not inform the police or any other neighbour regarding the objectionable conduct of the accused nor he told the same about the landlord because he was residing somewhere at Gol Market. The witness has further deposed that there is no date of birth certificate of his daughter 'S' from the MCD and has voluntarily explained that her vaccination card was St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 12 prepared at the time of her birth wherein her name has been mentioned as Sarita. He has testified that he did not hand over the vaccination card to the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that he is not in possession of any authentic birth proof of his daughter and it is for this reason, that he did not hand over any such document to the Investigating Officer and has voluntarily added that he had informed the Investigating Officer about the date of birth mentioned in the school record. He has denied the suggestion that he had mentioned the wrong date of birth in the school record of his daughter only for giving her the benefit of the same or that his daughter is the major and had gone with the accused voluntarily as she was in love with him. He has admitted that he identified the handwriting of his daughter written by her to the accused but has voluntarily explained and he remained busy in his work and did not come to know what was going on in his absence. The witness has denied the suggestion that his daughter had of her own gone with the accused and has voluntarily stated that she had been induced and allured.
(17) PW9 is the Prosecutrix 'M' who has deposed that accused Raju whose real name is Raj Kumar (correctly identified in the Court) used to work as Raj Mistri in front of her house and was constructing the house of Sher Singh. According to the witness, he had come to the area about 11½ months prior to the incident and used to write letters to her claiming his love for her. She has deposed that she got carried away and St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 13 induced by his proclamations of love and she also wrote letters to him. She has further deposed that one day on 09.09.2011, while she was going to the school in the morning, Raju met her on the way and asked her to accompany him but she refused. The witness has also deposed that there were large number of other girls also going to the school, who were on the road and she got mixed up with him in a group and managed to go the school but after school hours, when she came out of school building, Raju was waiting for her outside the school in an auto. She has testified that as soon as she came out, the accused pulled her inside the auto of taking her out for sight seeing but instead took her to the railway station and from New Delhi Railway Station, he took her to Distt. Balia. According to the prosecutrix, when they reached Balia Railway Station, Raju called one of his friend namely Ram Narayan and asked him to get a saree and other articles. The prosecutrix 'S' has also deposed that after sometime Ram Narayan came to the railway station and gave one saree to Raju which Raju gave to her and asked her to wear the same. According to her, the accused also gave her Sindur and asked her to put the same on her forehead. She has testified that she wore the Saree at Railway Station and put Sindur on her forehead after which Raju took her to a room at Balia which he had taken on rent where he had kept her for about 15 days. The witness has further deposed that from there the accused took her to another house at Mitha where they stayed for about twothree months in a rented accommodation. According to her, at St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 14 Mitha people came to know that he had brought her from Delhi after kidnapping her (Bhagakar lekar aya tha) and hence Raju was compelled to vacate the said room. She has testified that thereafter, Raju again brought her to Balia and took her in a room of rent which was adjoining the room which he had earlier taken on rent and they again stayed there for about two months. According to her, at Balia one person who used to make quilts (Rajai) near their house came to know that Raju had brought her from Delhi, which fact he informed the police but the accused Raju came to know about the information given by the said person to the police and called up Ram Narayan asking for his help. She has testified that in the the meanwhile, SHO Police Station Suraiya came to know of the fact that Raju had brought her from Delhi and was in touch with Ram Narayan on which the said SHO detained Ram Narayan. She has further deposed that thereafter, accused Raju was apprehended by the SHO and she was recovered by the police. The witness has further deposed that they were kept in Police Station Suraiya and thereafter, handed over to the police of Bansdi who thereafter brought them to Varanasi and handed them to police at Banaras/Varanasi. According to her, while they were in police station of Banaras/Varanasi, the Delhi Police came alongwith her father and she was identified after which she was brought back to Delhi. The prosecutrix has also deposed that during this period she tried to contact to her mother on threefour occasions from the mobile phone of the accused and also informed her St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 15 that she was at Bhagalpur and informed her about the various places where the accused was kept her but Raju used to keep shifting. She has testified that one one occasion, when she made a contact with her mother and told her that she was at Bhagalpur, the accused Raju came to know from the log details in the mobile that she was making the calls to her mother on which the accused broke the SIM. The witness has also deposed that after Raju came to know that she was in contact with her mother, on the occasion he himself dialed the number of her mother and compelled her to talk her mother and asked her to tell that she was happy with him.
(18) The prosecutrix 'S' (PW9) has further alleged that Raju had also kept poison in the house and had been threatening her that in case if she told anything to her parents, he would give poison to her. She has testified that during the said period, Raju repeatedly made physical relations with her and she had also conceived from him. According to the prosecutrix when she was recovered, she was pregnant by two months and after she was brought to Delhi, the police recorded her statement. She has deposed that thereafter, she was taken to the hospital but out of fear, she did not give consent for her internal examination and also pleaded to her mother not to give consent for the same. The witness has testified that she had informed the doctor that she had been taken by Raju who was a Mistri, about six months back and he had forcibly made sexual relations with her. She has proved her MLC which is Ex.PW9/A St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 16 wherein she had mentioned to the doctor that the name of the person who had taken me was Raju but the name mentioned by the doctor was Ravi. On this the Court put a specific question to the witness if she had told the doctor that the name of the person who had taken her was Ravi to which the prosecutrix has replied in negative and states that she had given the name as Raju and even her mother was aware of the said name which she told the doctor. According to the witness, she had also told the doctors that she was forcibly taken by Raju.
(19) She has also deposed that she was produced in the court where she made a statement to the Ld. M.M. which statement is Ex.PW9/B. This Court further put a specific question to the prosecutrix whether she informed the police about her abortion since she was pregnant by two months, to which the witness has replied that the child had been aborted because she did not want the child and earlier in the hospital, she was not asked whether she wanted the child or not. Further, a Court Question was put to the witness, whether any official from NGO was associated with her during the investigation, to which the witness answered in negative and informed that she was never counselled nor any NGO was got associated. Another Court Question was put to the witness as to why she did not get her internal examination conducted in the hospital, to which she replied that one old lady sitting in the hospital advised her mother not to get her internal examination conducted stating that it would affect her prospects of marriage an St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 17 become difficult for her to get married thereafter (Usne mammi ko samjhaya ki Shaadi karne mein mushkil ho jayegi).
(20) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, the prosecutrix 'S' has deposed that she knew Raju for the last 11½ months prior to the incident and has voluntarily explained that he had come to the area at that time. According to her, she had never gone to the room of Raju which is in front of her house. She has deposed that she never met Raju alone prior to this incident dated 09.09.2011 and Raju had never tried to make any physical relations with her prior to this incident. She has denied the suggestion that Raju had not been staring at her and did not make any contact with her prior to the incident and has voluntarily added that the accused frequently used to stare at her from the roof. The witness has testified that she did not make any complaint to her parents regarding the same. She has deposed that the letters which Raju had written to her are no longer in her possession and has voluntarily explained that she had torn them. She has denied the suggestion that Raju did not write any letter to her or that she was having one sided love with him and used to write letter to him. According to her, only the letters which were present on record have been written by her and has voluntarily deposed that she had not written other letters. (21) The witness has testified that she did not raise any alarm when Raju took her in an auto and she also did not raise any alarm in the railway station. According to her, she did not alert any people of Balia St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 18 when Raju had taken her there forcibly and was staying there. She has testified that she used to do all work at home i.e. cooking, washing of clothes etc. She has denied the suggestion that she was free to roam around and used to go to the market and other places and there was no restrain. According to her, she had only two sets of clothes and has voluntarily added that one saree was given to her by Ram Narayan and other Saree given by accused which she used to wear. The witness has also denied the suggestion that her date of birth given in school record as 23.12.1997 is incorrect or that her father has given wrong date of birth. She has denied the suggestion that she was born much prior to 1997. According to PW9, she had never failed in any class and at the time of incident, she was studying in class 8th.
(22) During the crossexamination of the witness, it was observed by this Court that the prosecutrix by her physical appearance appeared to be a minor below 16 years of age.
(23) She has denied the suggestion that she had gone with Raju voluntarily with her own consent and has voluntarily deposed that she was allured and induced by him on the pretext of going for site seeing and therefore, he forcibly detained her under threats and pressure. She has admitted that the accused had never assaulted her physically but has denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated the accused or that it was on account of her love affair with him, she had gone out with him and that she has deposed falsely at the instance of her parents. St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 19 Medical witness:
(24) PW13 Dr. Poonam Joon has proved the MLC of the prosecutrix 'S' which is Ex.PW13/A according to which on 20.03.2012 the prosecutrix 'S' D/o Ishwar Prashad Sahi, female 13 years was brought at the casualty of the hospital by L/Ct. Sanju with alleged history of sexual assault. According to the witness, Dr. Bina medically examined the prosecutrix and prepared the MLC after which the prosecutrix was referred to Gyane department for further examination and management. She has testified that in Gyane Department Dr. Aditi medically examined the prosecutrix and gave her observations from encircled portion X to X1 bearing the signatures of Dr. Aditi at point A. The witness has proved that according to the MLC victim 'S' and her mother refused for internal examination of 'S' who as per the observations was two month pregnant, patient was also not willing for admission in the hospital, however she was advised to admit in the ward for MTP but she refused for her admission for the MTP.
The said witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused and hence her testimony has gone uncontroverted. Police/ official witnesses:
(25) PW1 HC Rajesh Kumar is a formal witness being the Duty Officer and has been examined by way of affidavit (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) which affidavit is Ex.PW1/1. He has deposed St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 20 that on 10.9.2011 at about 2;10 AM when he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar, he received a rukka/ Tehrir from SI Kuldeep Singh for registration of FIR on which he registered the same Kaymi vide DD No. 6A and thereafter he handed over the same to Ct. Om Prakash for registration of FIR No. 276/11, under Section 363 IPC on computer. The witness has proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/B. According to him, after registration of the FIR, he handed over the computerized copy of the FIR and original Tehrir to Ct. Balbir to be handed over to SI Kuldeep Singh. The said witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (26) PW2 Ct. Gurdayal is also a formal witness being the Channel Operator in CPCR and has been examined by way of affidavit (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) which affidavit is Ex.PW2/1. He has deposed that on 10.9.2011 he received a call from Duty Officer Aman Vihar with regard to the missing of girl 'S' D/o Ishwar Sahi on which he filled a missing form which is Ex.PW2/A (wrongly mentioned as Ex.PW1/B since Ex.PW1/B is the endorsement on rukka and hence it should be read as Ex.PW2/A). He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(27) PW3 Ms. Kamal Vice Principal of Govt. Girls Senior St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 21 Secondary School, Nithari, Delhi has produced the school record of the prosecutrix 'S' D/o Sh.Ishwar Sahi. According to the witness, as per the admission register the prosecutrix 'S' was admitted in the school on 20.04.2009 in class 6th on the basis of School Leaving Certificate of MCD Girls School, Nithari1, Delhi. She has deposed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix 'S' as per school record is 23.12.1997 and the prosecutrix was not attending the school since September 2011. She has placed on record the copy of the admission register which is Ex.PW3/A reflecting the date of birth of the prosecutrix at point encircled X and the copies of the pasting file which is collectively Ex.PW3/B (Application is Ex.PW3/B1; School Leaving Certificate of previous school is Ex.PW3/B2 and copy of mark sheet is Ex.PW3/B3). The witness has proved that she had issued the certificate regarding the date of birth of the child 'S' which is Ex.PW3/C bearing her signatures at point A. She had clarified that the date of birth mentioned in the said certificate as 16.08.1999 is incorrect and was inadvertently mentioned as it is the date of birth shown in the entry of Khusbhu Kumari which is just preceding the entry of the prosecutrix 'S'. According to her, this was an inadvertent clerical error which she may be permitted to correct and she stated that the date of birth of the prosecutrix 'S' as mentioned in the admission and withdrawal register is 23.12.1997. On request of the witness, the date of birth was permitted to be corrected in the certificate St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 22 as 23.12.1997.
(28) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused the witness has admitted that she did not see any authentic document issued by the Government regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix and the entry has been made in the school record on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate issued by the previous school. She is unable to tell the documents on the basis of which the entry of date of birth was made on the record of the primary school. (29) PW8 HC Rama Kant has deposed that on 14.3.2012 he was posted at police station Aman Vihar and on that day he joined the investigation of this case along with SI Subh Ram, father of prosecutrix Ishwar Singh and Insp. Anil Kumar (SHO) when they left for Baliya to the village of accused i.e. Bibi Tola Beriya, Distt. Baliya. According to the witness, on reaching the village Bibi Tola Beriya on 15.3.2012, first they went to the local police station and took the local police with them after they reached the house of accused Raju Verma but he was not found there. He has further deposed that the mother of the accused met them there who informed them that Raju Verma had not come home. According to him, thereafter since it was late in the evening therefore they stayed in the village on that night and in the morning of 16.3.2012 they went to Baliya where they stayed for two days and during this period they searched for the accused at various places including at Chander Shekhar Colony but the accused could not be found there. He St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 23 has also deposed that on 18.3.2012 they left Baliya for Haldharpur, Distt. Mau, U.P. in search of the accused but the accused was not found there also and thereafter on 19.3.2012 they reached at Banaras and at about 4:30 PM they were present at Railway Station, Banaras, where the father of the prosecutrix pointed out towards one girl and a boy saying that the said girl is his daughter 'S' and the boy was Raju Verma. He has proved that on the pointing out of Ishwar Singh, he along with SI Subh Ram apprehended the accused Raju Verma and a recovery memo of the prosecutrix was prepared which is Ex.PW7/B. He has proved the arrest memo of accused which is Ex.PW7/C and his personal search memo was conducted vide Ex.PW7/D. According to him, the prosecutrix was handed over to her father and his statement was recorded after which they returned to Delhi. He has correctly identified the accused Raju in the Court.
(30) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused the witness has deposed that he did not make any separate DD entry while leaving the police station on 14.3.2012 and has voluntarily added that he had made a combined entry. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer had made an entry at the local police station at Bibi Tola Beriya, Baliya, but not at Varanasi and has voluntarily deposed that before they could seek assistance of the local police, they found the girl at the railway station. He has testified that no public witness was joined in the investigations after the accused and the prosecutrix were St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 24 apprehended and has voluntarily explained that the Investigating Officer had requested many public persons to join the proceedings but none agreed. He has also deposed that he is not aware if the Investigating Officer had given any notice to the public person for their refusal to join the proceedings. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested from Village Suraiya Distt. Baliya or that he did not join the investigation.
(31) PW10 HC Surendra Singh is the MHC(M) posted at Police Station Aman Vihar. He has brought the Register No. 19 and the relevant entries. According to him, as per the record on 20.03.2012 HC Ami Lal was posted as MHC(M) at police station Aman Vihar and on that Investigating Officer SI Shubh Ram deposited three sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of the SGM hospital containing blood sample and underwear of accused along with sample seal vide mud No. 1357 in register No. 19, copy of which is Ex.PW10/A. The said witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (32) PW11 SI Kuldeep Singh has deposed that on 09.09.2011 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8PM to 8AM. According to him, at about 12 PM Anita, W/o Ishwar Sahai came to the police station and gave her statement that her daughter 'S' aged about 1314 years who was a student of 8th class in government school, had not returned from the school and St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 25 she had tried to search for her daughter but could not find her. The witness has proved that he recorded her statement which is Ex.PW4/A and he attested the same after which he also made endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW11/A on the basis of which the present FIR which is Ex.PW1/A was got registered. He has testified that thereafter he flashed the WT messages and submitted the missing person form in the police station which is Ex.PW11/B. On the same day he went to the house of Anita and she expressed her suspicion over the accused Raju Verma who was a Raj mistri and was residing in the house, opposite her house, as he was also missing. According to the witness, he also made inquiries in the area and came to know that the owner of the house where Raju was residing was Sher Singh who was residing at Gole market and that Raju had been kept in the house of recommendation of one Sunil who was also residing with him. The witness has also deposed that he issued notice to both Sher Singh and Sunil to join the investigations on which Sher Singh reported to him on 11.09.2011 and Sunil reported to him on 12.09.2011 on which he recorded their statements. He has testified that he came to know from Sunil the address of the accused of his native and also the two telephone numbers which he was using. According to him, he tried to make efforts to trace out the accused but he could not be traced. The witness has further deposed that he also tried to search out the accused at his native village St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 26 BB Tola, Police Station Bariya, District Balia, Uttar Pradesh but he could not find them there as well. He has testified that on 14.09.2011 father of the prosecutrix namely Ishwar Sahai handed over to him some letters written by her daughter 'S' to the accused which are Ex.PW7/A collectively and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. According to him, on 26.09.2011 he was transferred from the police station and he handed over the case file to MHC(R).
(33) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused the witness has deposed that complainant Anita came to the police station along with her neighbour at about 12 midnight and remained in the police station for about one and a half hour. He has deposed that he went to the house of the complainant Anita at about 1011 AM on 10.09.2011 and recorded the supplementary statement of complainant Anita and statement of other witnesses in his own handwriting. The witness has also deposed that he did not seized any date of birth certificate of prosecutrix during his proceedings nor did he record the statement of any neighbour of complainant. He has denied the suggestion that he intentionally had not recorded the statements of the neighbours of complainant or of accused because they told him that the prosecutrix 'S' was having an love affair with accused Raju or that he has falsely implicated the accused in the present case. (34) PW12 SI Subh Ram has deposed that on 03.10.2011 he was posted at police station Aman Vihar and on that day further St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 27 investigations of the this case was marked to him. According to the witness he flashed the WT message and also sent the information to NCRI and CBI in respect of the victim 'S'. He has testified that on 14.03.2012 he along with HC Rama Shankar, Insp. Anil Kumar and father of the prosecutrix Ishwar Sahi went to district Baliya, UP where they searched for the girl but she was not found there. According to him, on 19.03.2012 they reached at Banaras during the search of the victim and when they were sitting on the railway station, at the instance of Ishwar Sahi they apprehended the prosecutrix 'S' and accused Raju Kumar Verma. The witness has proved that he made inquiries from 'S' and recorded her statement after which he prepared the recovery memo in respect of the prosecutrix which is Ex.PW7/B. He has also proved that accused Raju Kumar was interrogated by and thereafter arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/C and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/D. According to him, thereafter they returned back to Delhi with the prosecutrix and accused Raju Kumar after which the victim was taken to the SGM Hospital along with L/Ct. Sanju and accused Raju Kumar was also taken to the SGM hospital for medical examination through a Constable whose name he does not recollect. He has testified that after medical examination of accused Raju Kumar doctor handed over two pullandas in sealed condition duly sealed with the seal of the hospital with sample seal and he seized the same vide St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 28 memo Ex.PW12/A. According to the Investigating Officer the girl and her mother refused for internal examination of 'S'. He has proved having collected the MLC of both the persons and thereafter he moved an application for recording of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PX2 and after recording of the statement he obtained the copy of the statement vide his application Ex.PX4. The witness has further deposed that after recording her statement, victim 'S' was sent to the CWC, Nirmal Chaya Delhi. He has also deposed that on the next day he produced the prosecutrix before the hon'ble Delhi High Court and thereafter she was handed over to her parents. He has proved having recorded the statements of witnesses and also collected age documents of the victim during his investigations. The witness has testified that during his investigations he prepared the site plan of the recovery of the victim at Banaras Railway Station vide Ex.PW12/B on 19.03.2012. He has proved that after completion of investigations he submitted the charge sheet against accused Raju Kumar Verma whom he has correctly identified in the Court.
(35) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused he has denied the suggestion that he found the accused Raju Kumar Verma and victim 'S' at PS Sahatwal, District Baliya or that police of Police Station Sahatwal, District Baliya gave information to them after which they reached there and took the custody of accused Raju and the prosecutrix. He has also denied the suggestion that the St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 29 victim 'S' told him that she was major and married the accused with her own consent or that he has falsely implicated the accused Raju in the present case. The witness has also denied the suggestion that he recorded the statement of 'S' at the instance of her parents or that they tutored the prosecutrix 'S' before recording her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. According to the witness, he did not inform the NGO for purpose of counseling of the prosecutrix. He has admitted that it is reflected from the MLC that the prosecutrix was pregnant for two months. He has testified that he had told the senior officers about this fact regarding the prosecutrix being pregnant by two months. He does not recollect having recorded this fact regarding mentioning to the senior officers in the case diaries. He has further deposed that he did not inform any NGO, Delhi Women's Commission or the CWC regarding the pregnancy of the prosecutrix in order to explore the future course of action. According to him, he had asked the parents of the prosecutrix what they intend to do, i.e. whether they wanted to abort the child or continue with the pregnancy of the prosecutrix but they did not give him any definite reply and told him that they would inform him later. He has testified that he did not inform the Ld. Illaka Magistrate about the physical status of the prosecutrix and regarding her pregnancy. He has denied the suggestion that he was mixed up with the parents of the prosecutrix and in connivance with them the child was got forcibly aborted despite the fact that the prosecutrix did not want an abortion as she was in love with the St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 30 accused and wanted the child. He has also denied the suggestion that the investigations conducted by him were not fair and independent and had been led by the parents of the prosecutrix.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(36) After completion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Raju was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. He has admitted that he had eloped with the girl and had married in the Court and he is also having two children who were with his mother. He has also admitted that he was involved in a police case in a case of unnatural death due to poisoning but he has been acquitted in the said case. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that the prosecutrix 'S' wanted to marry him but he refused on which she threatened to kill herself. He has further stated that she had accompanied him of her own and he has not done anything wrong with the prosecutrix.
FINDINGS:
(37) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 31
Identity of the accused:
(38) In so far as the identity of the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju is concerned, initially in the complaint and the FIR the accused has not been named. At the first instance the father of the prosecutrix had expressed his suspicion over him. He was not known to the prosecutrix and her family even prior to the incident and does not dispute his identity. Even otherwise, he has been correctly identified in the Court by the prosecutrix 'S' (PW9) but also by her mother Anita (PW4), Sher Singh (PW5), Sunil Kumar Verma (PW6) and Ishwaria Prashad Shah (PW7) who were not known to the accused previously. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused Raju Kumar Verma stands established.
Age of the prosecutrix 'S':
(39) The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix 'S' was a minor at the time of the incident which aspect has gone totally uncontroverted. The school record of the prosecutrix 'S' has been duly proved by PW3 Ms. Kamal, Vice Principal of Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Nithari, Delhi showing that the prosecutrix was admitted in the school on 20.04.2009 and her date of birth has been recorded as 23.12.1997 which entry according to PW3 had been made on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate issued by the previous school. According to the mother of the prosecutrix 'S' namely Anita St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 32 (PW4) the prosecutrix was her 4th daughter of seven daughters and was aged about 12 years at the time of the incident whereas according to the father of the prosecutrix namely Ishwaria Prashad Shah (PW7) at the time of the incident she was 13 years of age and was studying in class 8th at the time of the incident which aspect has not been controverted by the accused. Even in her MLC and her statement to the Ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has given her age as 13 years. In view of the aforesaid and on the basis of date of birth of the prosecutrix mentioned in the school record, I hereby hold that the age of the prosecutrix was around 13 years 9 months at the time of the incident (not even arrived at the age of consent).
Medical Evidence:
(40) PW13 Dr. Poonam Joon has proved the MLC of the prosecutrix which is Ex.PW9/A wherein she had given the alleged history of forcibly taken by some mason (Ravi) six months back and repeated episodes of sexual assault since then. The doctor has made a specific observation that the LMP was two months back, UTP was positive and the prosecutrix was pregnant by two months and the hymen was broken (old) and under the given background, the patient was not willing for PV Test or admission. The MLC further shows that the doctor had advised the admission of the prosecutrix in the ward for purposes of MTP but the patient was not willing for admission in the St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 33 hospital. The testimony of Dr. Poonam Joon (PW13) finds due corroboration from the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' (PW9) who has deposed that she had informed the doctor that she had been taken by Raju who was a Mistri about 6 months back and had forcibly made sexual relations with her. She has also admitted that she was pregnant by two months at that time and has deposed that the child was got aborted because she did not want the child. The prosecutrix has also explained that in the hospital she was never asked whether she wanted the child or not nor she was counselled nor any NGO was got associated.
Being a layperson the prosecutrix 'S' and her family did not understand the intricacies of legal procedures, hence under these circumstances her counselling became necessary which unfortunately did not happen. (41) It, therefore, stands established that during the period the prosecutrix stayed with the accused, he had made physical relations with her on account of which the prosecutrix had even conceived and was pregnant by two months at the time of her recovery which child was later on got aborted.
Previous background of the accused:
(42) It is alleged that the accused has a criminal record and even previously had eloped with a young girl, married her and fathered two children from her but soon thereafter the girl expired under unnatural circumstances i.e. on account of poisoning. It is further alleged that the St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 34 accused had forcibly allured the young prosecutrix and eloped with her and thereafter detained her with him and threatened her to poison her.
In this regard the testimony of the prosecutrix is succinctly clear. She has specifically deposed that Raju had kept poison in his house and had been threatening her that in case if she told anything to her parents, he would give her poison and it was under this threat that he made physical relations with her and she (minor prosecutrix) even conceived from him. The relevant portion of the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' is as under:
"........ I want to state that Raju had also kept poison in the house and had been threatening me that if in case I told anything to my parents, he would give poison to me. During the said period, Raju repeatedly made physical relations with me and I had also conceived from him.
When I was recovered, I was pregnant by two months....."
(43) Sunil Kumar (PW6) who is belonging to the same village as that of accused Raju was aware of the background of the accused Raju. It was Sunil Kumar (PW6) on whose reference Raju got a job of constructing rooms on the plot of Sher Singh (PW5). Sher Singh (PW5) has specifically deposed that on one or two occasions he noticed Raju staring at the girls in the neighbourhood on which he warned him. Sunil Kumar (PW6) has similarly deposed that he had warned Raju regarding his behaviour with the neighbours and persons living around him St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 35 because he was aware that Raju had previously got married to a girl in the village but she expired under suspicious circumstances on which a case was registered against him. The relevant portion of the testimony of Sunil Kumar (PW6) is as under:
"......I have been residing at the aforementioned address for the last 4 years alongwith Sher Singh and I am a vegetable vendor in the area. Raju, accused present in the court (correctly identified) belongs to my native village Bibitola, PS Behria Distt.Balia, U.P.. He is a Raj mistri by profession. Sher Singh wanted to make two rooms constructed on his plot at Agar Nagar and had informed me about the same. It was then that I called Raju from the village and asked him to construct the house of Sher Singh. After he constructed the house, he got more work in the same area and he requested Sher Singh to permit him to stay in the said rooms constructed by him on rent. Sher Singh permitted him to stay on rent. I had come to know from the village that previously Raju had got married to a girl in a village but she had expired in suspicious circumstances on which police case was registered. It was in this background that I had specifically warned Raju regarding his behaviour with the neighbours and persons living around him...."
(44) In his crossexamination Sunil Kumar has deposed that he had told the police officer regarding the previous criminal record of the accused Raju but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/DX1 the St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 36 said fact was not found so recorded.
(45) The accused Raju has himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that earlier he had eloped with a girl and had married to her in the Court and that he is also having two children. He has also admitted that he was involved in a police case regarding unnatural death of the said girl due to poisoning and has explained that he has been acquitted in the said case. The question no.8 of the statement of accused and its answer is relevant in this regard and is reproduced as under:
Q8: It is in evidence against you that according to PW6 Sunil Kumar Verma, he had come to know from the village that previously you had eloped and got married to a girl in a village but she had expired in suspicious circumstances on which police case was registered and in this background, he had specifically warned you Raju regarding his behaviour with the neighbours and persons living around him. What you have to say about it?
Ans: It is correct that I had eloped with the girl. We had married in the court and I am also having two children who are presently with my mother. It is also correct that I was also involved in a police case in a case of unnatural death due to poisoning but I have been acquitted in the said case.
(46) Having admitted his previous involvement with another girl of the village with him he had married who had expired under unnatural circumstances on account of poisoning, the testimony of Sunil Kumar (PW6) becomes admissible (in view of the admission of the accused St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 37 though he had earlier not mentioned this fact to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.). It is this background of the accused which becomes relevant when we evaluate the circumstances under which the minor prosecutrix 'S' was allured and allegedly sexually exploited by him.
(47) This fact of his being previously eloped with a girl, got married to her and is having two children from the said wedlock after which the said girl died under unnatural circumstances on account of poisoning which becomes all the more relevant because the prosecutrix 'S' herself in the Court has explained that Raju had been threatening her to give poison. She has also explained that Raju used to keep poison with her and had threatened her that if she told anything to her parents he would give poison to her and under this threat he made repeated physical relations with him and hence I hereby hold that her testimony is credible and trustworthy.
Allegations against the accused: (48) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Raju Kumar Verma is a Mason by profession and had come to Delhi looking for a job. He belongs to the native village of Sunil Kumar Verma (PW6) i.e. village Bibitola, PS Behria, Distt. Balia, U.P. and it was on the reference of Sunil Kumar (PW6) that the accused started construction of the house of Sher Singh (PW5). Thereafter the accused started staying the said house of Sher Singh (PW5) on rent which house is opposite the house of St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 38 the prosecutrix 'S' after which he allured the minor prosecutrix into accompanying him and forcibly took her to various places where he made physical relations with her.
(49) Before coming to the evaluation of the evidence on merits, it is necessary to briefly discuss the guiding principles of law as laid down by the various Courts as regards reliability of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. I may observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Biram Lal reported in 2005 AIR (SC) 2327 has observed that:
"........It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix. If the court is satisfied that the evidence of prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded. In appropriate cases , the Court may look for corroboration from independent sources or from the circumstances of the case before recording an order of conviction. In the instant case the allegations were that the accused during night entered the prosecutrix room and committed rape on her, the evidence of the prosecution was found worthy of credit and implicitly reliable....."
(50) In the year 2006 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha Ram reported in AIR 2006 SC 381 had St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 39 observed that:
"...... The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault and to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is settled law that corroboration is a condition for Judicial Reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix and is not a requirement of law but a guidance of Prudence under the given circumstances. Even minor contradiction or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be a ground for throwing out, an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
(51) It was further observed by the Hon'ble Court that:
"..... No girl of self respect and dignity who is conscious of her chastity having expectations of married life and livelihood would accuse falsely against any other person of rape, much less against her father, sacrificing thereby her chastity and also expose the entire family to shame and at the risk of condemnation and ostracization by the society. It is unthinkable to suggest that the mother would go to the extent of inventing a story of sexual assault of her own daughter and tutor her to narrate a story of sexual assault against a person who is no other than her husband and father of girl, at the risk of bringing down their social status and spoil their reputation in St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 40 the society as well as family circle to which they belong to....."
(52) Further, in the case of Vishnu Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2006 AIR (SC) 508 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"..... In the traditional nonpermissive bounds of society of India, no girl or woman of selfrespect and dignity would depose falsely implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardizing her future prospect of getting married with suitable match. Not only she would be sacrificing her future prospect of getting married and having family life, but also would invite the wrath of being ostracized and outcast from the society she belongs to and also from her family circle. From the statement of the prosecutrix, it was revealed that the accused induced her to a hotel by creating an impression that his wife was admitted in the hospital and that he would see her first and then drop the prosecutrix at her residence whereas, in fact, she was not admitted in the hospital. On the pretext of going to Hospital, he took her to a hotel, took her inside a room, closed the door of the room, threatened her to finish her if she shouted and then forcibly ravished her sexually. A clear case of rape, as defined under Section 375 Clause third of IPC was found established against the accused...."
(53) Also in the case of Bharwada Boginbhai Hirji Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 41 7453 (1) it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complaints of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society.
(54) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the most material witness of the prosecution in this regard is the prosecutrix 'S' who has been examined as PW9. The relevant portion of her testimony is as under:
".......Accused Raju whose real name is Raj Kumar, who is present in the court (correctly identified) used to work as Raj Mistri in front of my house and he was constructing the house of Sher Singh. He had come to the area about 11½ month prior to the incident. He used to write letters to me claiming his love for me. I got carried away and induced by his proclamations of love and also wrote letters to him. One day on 09.09.11, while I was going to the school in the morning, Raju met me on the way and asked me to accompany him but I refused. There were large number of other girls also going to the school, who were on the road and I got mixed up in a group and managed to go the school. After the school hours, when I came out of school building, Raju was waiting for me outside the school in an auto. As soon as I came out, he pulled me inside the auto of taking me St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 42 out for sight seeing but instead took me to the railway station and from New Delhi Railway Station, he took me to Distt. Balia. When we reached Balia Railway Station, Raju calling one of his friend namely Ram Narayan and asked him to get a saree and other articles. After sometime, Ram Narayan came to the railway station and gave one saree to Raju which Raju gave to me and asked me to wear the same. He also gave me Sindur and asked me to put the same on my forehead. I wore the Sari at Railway Station and put Sindur on my forehead. Thereafter, Raju took me to a room at Balia which he had taken on rent where he had kept me for about 15 days. From there, he took me to another house at Mitha where we stayed for about 23 months in a rented accommodation. At Mitha, people came to know that he had brought me from Delhi after kidnapping me (BHAGAKAR LEKAR AYA THA) and hence Raju was compelled to vacate the said room. Thereafter, Raju again brought me to Balia and took me in a room of rent which was adjoining the room which he had earlier taken on rent. There, we again stayed for about 2 months. At Balia, one person who used to make quilts (Rajai) near our house. He came to know that Raju had brought me from Delhi, which he informed the police. Raju came to know about the information given by the said person to the police and called up Ram Narayan and asked for his help. However in the the meanwhile, SHO PS Suraiya came to know of the fact that Raju had brought me from Delhi and was in touch with Ram Narayan on which the said SHO detained Ram Narayan. Thereafter, accused Raju was apprehended by the SHO and I was also recovered by St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 43 the police. We were kept in Police Station Suraiya and thereafter, handed over to the police of Bansdi. The police of Bansdi thereafter brought us to Varanasi and handed us to police at Banaras/Varanasi. While we were in police station of Banaras/Varanasi, the Delhi Police came alongwith my father and I was identified. From there, I was brought back to Delhi.
During this period, I tried to contact to my mother on 34 occasions from the mobile phone of the accused and also informed her that I was at Bhagalpur and inform her about the various places where the accused was kept me but Raju used to keep shifting.
On one occasion, when I made a contact with my mother and told her that I was at Bhagalpur, the accused Raju came to know from the log details is in the mobile that I was making the calls to my mother on which the accused broke the sim. After Raju came to know that I was in contact with my mother, on the occasion he himself dialed the number of my mother and compelled me to talk my mother and asked me to tell that I was happy with him.
I want to state that Raju had also kept poison in the house and had been threatening me that if in case I told anything to my parents, he would give poison to me. During the said period, Raju repeatedly made physical relations with me and I had also conceived from him. When I was recovered, I was pregnant by two months...."
(55) The prosecutrix 'S' in her deposition has explained that while she was being examined by the doctor in the hospital she had told the name of the accused as Raju but the doctor had incorrectly mentioned St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 44 the name as Ravi. She has also explained that even her mother was aware of the name of the accused which she told to the doctor. According to her, she had told the doctor that she was forcibly taken by Raju and it was by mistake that the name of Ravi had been mentioned in her MLC. On a specific Court Question whether she informed the police about her abortion, the prosecutrix has explained that the child had been aborted because she did not want the child and earlier in the hospital she was not asked whether she wanted the child or not. She has also explained that she was never counselled nor any NGO was got associated. Further, she informed the Court that one old lady sitting in the hospital advised her mother not to her the internal examination conducted stating that it would adversely affect her prospects of marriage and hence no internal examination was conducted. (56) In her crossexamination the prosecutrix 'S' has admitted that at no point of time she had raised any alarm or alerted the people at various places where she was staying with the accused. She has explained that she was allured and induced by the accused on the pretext of site seeing and therefore he forcibly detained her under threats and pressure. She has denied the suggestion that it was only account of her love affair with the accused that she had gone herself with the accused. (57) The testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' to the effect that the accused was staying in front of their house and was eying her finds due corroboration from the testimonies of her mother Smt. Anita (PW4), St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 45 Sher Singh (PW5), Sunil Kumar (PW6) and her father Ishwariya Prasad (PW7). Sher Singh (PW5) is an independent witness being the owner of the house where the accused Raju Verma was residing on rent. He has specifically deposed that on one or two occasions he noticed the accused Raju Verma staring at the girls in the neighbourhood and even scolded him for his behaviour and also told him that if this was his behaviour, he would not permit him to stay in his house which fact, of course, Sher Singh did not inform the Investigating Officer in his statement. Similarly, Sunil Kumar Verma (PW6) who is staying with Sher Singh has corroborated the testimony of Sher Singh to the extent that Raju is a Mason (mistri) by profession and was permitted to stay in the house situated in front of the house of prosecutrix by Sher Singh. He has explained that previously Raju had eloped and got married to a girl who expired under suspicious circumstances on account of which a police case was registered. According to Sunil Kumar (PW6) it was in this background that he had specifically warned Raju regarding his behaviour with the neighbourers and persons living around him. (58) Coming now to the statement of the accused Raju under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused Raju Verma admits the aspect of earlier elopement and the fact that he had earlier married in the Court and also having two children who were residing with his mother. He has also admitted that he was also involved in a police case connected with unnatural death of this girl (wife) due to St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 46 poisoning but he has been acquitted in the said case. In so far as his elopement with the prosecutrix 'S' is concerned, he does not deny the same and has explained that in fact it is the prosecutrix who herself wanted to marry him but he refused on which she threatened to kill herself and thereafter accompanied him of her own. It is this admission made by the accused Raju Verma in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure which clinches the issue. The prosecutrix 'S' had not even attained the age of majority and was a minor aged about 13 years 9 months at the time of the incident (not even attained the age of consent). Therefore, the consent of the prosecutrix 'S' or her accompanying the accused of her own becomes immaterial. In view of the admission of the accused that the prosecutrix 'S' remained with him and they were staying together coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix 'S' was a minor below the age of consent (about 1314 years) at the time of incident, I hereby hold the accused Raju guilty of the offence under Sections 363,366,376 Indian Penal Code. FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(59) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 47
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(60) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, medical and other circumstantial evidence on record, the following aspects stand established:
➢ That the prosecutrix 'S' was hardly aged 13 years 9 months at the time of incident while the accused was 24 years.
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 48
➢ That the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju is a Mason by profession and had come to Delhi on the asking of Sunil Kumar a resident of the same village.
➢ That on the reference of Sunil Kumar, the accused Raju Kumar Verma got the job of constructing two rooms on the plot of Sher Singh (which plot is opposite to the house of the prosecutrix).
➢ That after constructing the rooms on the plot of Sher Singh, the accused Raju got another construction job due to which reason he requested Sher Singh to permit him to stay in one of the rooms on rent which was permitted by Sher Singh.
➢ That Sher Singh noticed the accused Raju Verma staring at the girls in the neighbourhood and even scolded him for his behaviour.
➢ That even previously the accused Raju had eloped with a girl and got married to her but the said girl expired under suspicious circumstances on account of which a police case was registered.
➢ That Sunil Kumar was aware of this background of the accused and he therefore had specifically warned Raju regarding this behaviour with his neighbourers and persons living around him.
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 49
➢ That the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju had an evil eye on the prosecutrix 'S' aged about 13 years who was residing in the house opposite to the room of the accused.
➢ That the accused used to write letters to the
prosecutrix 'S' claiming his love for her;
➢ That the prosecutrix 'S' got carried away and
induced by his proclamations of love and she also wrote letters to him.
➢ That 09.09.11 while the prosecutrix came out of school, Raju was waiting for her outside the school in an auto and took her in an for sight seeing but instead took her to the railway station from where he took her to Distt. Balia.
➢ That when they (accused and the prosecutrix)
reached Balia Railway Station, Raju called one of his
friend namely Ram Narayan and asked him to get a saree and other articles.
➢ That Ram Narayan came to the railway station and gave one saree to Raju which Raju gave to the prosecutrix and asked her to wear the same and also gave her Sindur and asked to put the same on her forehead.
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 50 ➢ That accordingly the prosecutrix wore the Saree at Railway Station and put Sindur on her forehead after which the accused Raju took her to a room at Balia which he had taken on rent where he had kept the prosecutrix for about 15 days.
➢ That from there the accused took the prosecutrix to another house at Mitha where they stayed for about two three months in a rented accommodation.
➢ That at Mitha, people came to know that he had brought her from Delhi after kidnapping and hence Raju was compelled to vacate the said room.
➢ That thereafter, Raju again brought the prosecutrix to Balia and took her in a room of rent which was adjoining the room which he had earlier taken on rent.
➢ That they again stayed for about two months at Balia and one person who used to make quilts (Rajai) near their house came to know that Raju had brought her from Delhi, on which the said person informed the police.
➢ That Raju came to know about the information given by the said person to the police and thereafter called up Ram Narayan and asked for his help but in the meanwhile, SHO Police Station Suraiya came to know of the fact that Raju had brought her from Delhi and was in St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 51 touch with Ram Narayan on which the said SHO detained Ram Narayan.
➢ That accused Raju was apprehended by the SHO and the prosecutrix was also recovered by the police. ➢ That the accused Raju Kumar and the prosecutrix 'S' were kept in Police Station Suraiya and thereafter, handed over to the police of Bansdi who thereafter brought them to Varanasi and handed us to police at Banaras/ Varanasi.
➢ That while they were in police station of Banaras/ Varanasi, the Delhi Police came alongwith the father of the prosecutrix and she was identified and was brought back to Delhi.
➢ That during this period, the prosecutrix tried to contact her mother on threefour occasions from the mobile phone of the accused and also informed her that she was at Bhagalpur and informed her about the various places where the accused had kept her but Raju used to keep shifting. ➢ That on one occasion, when the prosecutrix made a contact with her mother and told her that she was at Bhagalpur, the accused Raju came to know from the log details in the mobile that she was making the calls to her mother on which the accused broke the SIM.
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 52 ➢ That after Raju came to know that the prosecutrix was in contact with her mother, on one occasion he himself dialed the number of her mother and compelled her to talk her mother and asked her to tell her that she was happy with him.
➢ That Raju had also allegedly kept poison in the house and had been threatening the prosecutrix that in case she told anything to her parents, he would give poison to her.
➢ That during the said period, Raju repeatedly made physical relations with her and the prosecutrix also conceived from him.
➢ That when the prosecutrix was recovered, she was pregnant by two months (confirmed by MLC).
➢ That the prosecutrix did not want the child which was aborted.
(61) The testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' has been held to be credible, reliable, truthful and truthful which is corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and medical evidence which establishes that during the period the prosecutrix stayed with the accused, he had made physical relations with her on account of which the prosecutrix had even conceived and was pregnant by two months at the time of her recovery which child was later on got aborted.
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 53 (62) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (63) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (64) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that on 9.9.2012 at about 12:30 PM at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Nithari Village, Delhi the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju kidnapped the prosecutrix 'S' a minor girl aged about 13 years from the lawful guardianship of her St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 54 parents with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and that between 9.9.2011 and 19.3.2012 the accused Raju Verma committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'S' at different places during her stay with him as a result of which she conceived (which fetus was aborted after registration of FIR), for which I hereby hold the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju guilty of the offence under Section 363/366 and 376 India Penal Code and accordingly convicted. (65) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 19.10.2012.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 12.10.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 55 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 35/2012 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0109482012 State Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju S/o Late Ram Chander R/o Village Bibi Tola, PO&PS Bariya, Distt. Balia, Uttar Pradesh (Convicted) FIR No.: 276/11 Police Station: Aman vihar Under Sections: 363/366/376 Indian Penal Code Date of Judgment: 12.10.2012 Arguments heard on: 19.10.2012 Date of sentence: 25.10.2012 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju in judicial custody with Ms. Sadhna Bhatia Advocate/ Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide a detailed judgment dated 12.10.2012 the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju has been held guilty of the offence under St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 56 Sections 363/ 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
As per the allegations of the prosecution on 9.9.2012 at about 12:30 PM near Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Nithari Village, Delhi the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju kidnapped the prosecutrix 'S' a minor girl aged about 13 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It has also been alleged that between 9.9.2011 and 19.3.2012 the accused Raju Kumar Verma committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'S' at different places during her stay with him.
The prosecutrix 'S' had appeared before this Court and made specific allegations against the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix 'S'; her mother Anita Devi; her father Ishwariya Prashad; Sher Singh the owner of the house in which the accused was residing and Sunil Kumar Verma who belong to the same village as that of the accused Raju and also on the basis of the medical and other circumstantial evidence on record, vide judgment dated 12.10.2012 this Court has observed that it stands established that the prosecutrix 'S' was hardly aged 13 years 9 months at the time of incident while the accused was 24 years; that the accused Raju Kumar St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 57 Verma @ Raju is a Mason by profession and had come to Delhi on the asking of Sunil Kumar a resident of the same village; that on the reference of Sunil Kumar, the accused Raju Kumar Verma got the job of constructing two rooms on the plot of Sher Singh (which plot is opposite to the house of the prosecutrix); that after constructing the rooms on the plot of Sher Singh, the accused Raju got another construction job due to which reason he requested Sher Singh to permit him stay in one of the rooms on rent which was permitted by Sher Singh; that Sher Singh noticed the accused Raju Verma staring at the girls in the neighbourhood and even scolded him for his behaviour; that even previously the accused Raju had eloped with a girl and got married to her but the said girl expired under suspicious circumstances on account of which a police case was registered; that Sunil Kumar was aware of this background of the accused and he therefore had specifically warned Raju regarding this behaviour with his neighbourers and persons living around him; that the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju had an evil eye on the prosecutrix 'S' aged about 13 years who was residing in the house opposite to the room of the accused; that the accused used to write letters to the prosecutrix 'S' claiming his love for her; that the prosecutrix 'S' got carried away and induced by his proclamations of love and she also wrote letters to him; that 09.09.11 while the prosecutrix came out of school, Raju was waiting for her outside the school in an auto and took her in an for sight seeing but instead took her to the railway station from St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 58 where he took her to Distt. Balia; that when they (accused and the prosecutrix) reached Balia Railway Station, Raju called one of his friend namely Ram Narayan and asked him to get a saree and other articles; that Ram Narayan came to the railway station and gave one saree to Raju which Raju gave to the prosecutrix and asked her to wear the same and also gave her Sindur and asked to put the same on her forehead; that accordingly the prosecutrix wore the Saree at Railway Station and put Sindur on her forehead after which the accused Raju took her to a room at Balia which he had taken on rent where he had kept the prosecutrix for about 15 days; that from there the accused took the prosecutrix to another house at Mitha where they stayed for about twothree months in a rented accommodation; that at Mitha, people came to know that he had brought her from Delhi after kidnapping and hence Raju was compelled to vacate the said room; that thereafter, Raju again brought the prosecutrix to Balia and took her in a room of rent which was adjoining the room which he had earlier taken on rent; that they again stayed for about two months at Balia and one person who used to make quilts (Rajai) near their house came to know that Raju had brought her from Delhi, on which the said person informed the police; that Raju came to know about the information given by the said person to the police and thereafter called up Ram Narayan and asked for his help but in the meanwhile, SHO Police Station Suraiya came to know of the fact that Raju had brought her from Delhi and was in touch with St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 59 Ram Narayan on which the said SHO detained Ram Narayan; that accused Raju was apprehended by the SHO and the prosecutrix was also recovered by the police; that the accused Raju Kumar and the prosecutrix 'S' were kept in Police Station Suraiya and thereafter, handed over to the police of Bansdi who thereafter brought them to Varanasi and handed us to police at Banaras/ Varanasi; that while they were in police station of Banaras/ Varanasi, the Delhi Police came alongwith the father of the prosecutrix and she was identified and was brought back to Delhi; that during this period, the prosecutrix tried to contact her mother on threefour occasions from the mobile phone of the accused and also informed her that she was at Bhagalpur and informed her about the various places where the accused had kept her but Raju used to keep shifting; that on one occasion, when the prosecutrix made a contact with her mother and told her that she was at Bhagalpur, the accused Raju came to know from the log details in the mobile that she was making the calls to her mother on which the accused broke the SIM; that after Raju came to know that the prosecutrix was in contact with her mother, on one occasion he himself dialed the number of her mother and compelled her to talk her mother and asked her to tell her that she was happy with him; that Raju had also allegedly kept poison in the house and had been threatening the prosecutrix that in case she told anything to her parents, he would give poison to her; that during the said period, Raju repeatedly made physical relations with her and the prosecutrix also conceived St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 60 from him; that when the prosecutrix was recovered, she was pregnant by two months (confirmed by MLC) and that the prosecutrix did not want the child which was aborted.
In view of the above, it has been held by this Court that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that on 9.9.2012 at about 12:30 PM near Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Nithari Village, Delhi the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju kidnapped the prosecutrix 'S' a minor girl aged about 13 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and that between 9.9.2011 and 19.3.2012 the accused Raju Verma committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'S' at different places during her stay with him as a result of which she conceived (which fetus was aborted after registration of FIR), for which the accused Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju has been held guilty of the offence under Section 363/ 366 and 376 India Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Raju Kumar Verma is stated to be a young boy of 25 years, having a family comprising of aged widow mother, two younger brothers, two younger sisters and two children from his wife who had expired. The convict is 11th class pass and is a Mason by profession. Ld. Amicus Curiae for the convict has vehemently argued that the convict Raju is a young boy and has no criminal record. According to the Ld. Amicus St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 61 Curiae though the convict Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju was involved in the case of unnatural death of his wife but he has been acquitted in the said case. She has argued that the convict is the helping hand of his entire family and prays for a lenient view against the convict.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has prayed for a stern vies against the convict Raju Kumar Verma keeping in view the allegations allegations and also in view of the fact that the prosecutrix 'S' was a minor aged about 13 years at the time of the incident.
I have considered the rival contentions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the judgment of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gangula Satya Murthy reported in JT 1996 (10) SC 550, observed as under:
"Courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity.."
In the case of Shri Bodhisattwa Gautm Vs. Miss Subhra Chakraborty reported in AIR 1996 SC 922, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "Rape destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 62 against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisions."
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is necessary for the court to keep in mind that the object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. The Courts are expected to operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. (Ref: Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2006 IV AD (Crl.) SC 78).
Of late instances of young girls of impressionable age being St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 63 allured, enticed and sexually exploited thereafter are on a rise and this, I may observe, is a matter of national concern. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that serious note has been taken of the same and legislative deliberations are underway on the issue relating to raising of age of consent. The primary obligation of the Courts is to ensure that minors are protected from all kind of exploitations. The convict Raju Kumar Verma is an old player. Admittedly even previously he eloped with a young girl; married her and begotten two children from her after which the said girl expired under mysterious circumstances i.e. allegedly on account of poisoning and he (convict) was booked for the unnatural death of his wife. The prosecutrix 'S' hardly aged 1314 years at the time of the incident was his next prey. During the trial the covillager of the convict Raju namely Sunil Kumar Verma had appeared in the Court and testified that keeping in view of this background of the convict, he had specifically warned him (convict) to desist from his behaviour qua his neighbours and particularly young girls but despite the same the convict had eyed the minor prosecutrix 'S'. What the convict had done previously, he repeated the same with the minor prosecutrix 'S'. He enticed and allured the minor prosecutrix to elope with him, compelled her to stay with him as his wife under the threat of administering poison to her and thereafter made physical relations with her against her wishes as a result of which at a young age of 1314 years when the prosecutrix 'S' should have been seriously involved into studies and preparing for St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 64 herself for a good future, she conceived from the convict. Assuming that all this happened with the consent of the minor prosecutrix 'S' yet the law of this Country protects the minors and her consent is inconsequential. What the convict has done with the minor prosecutrix 'S' is unpardonable and under these circumstances, no leniency can be shown to the convict. I hereby award the following sentences to the convict Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju:
1. For the offence under Section 363 read with Section 366 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/.
In default of the payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. For the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/. In default of the payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 65
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost and another copy of the sentence be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 25.10.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Raju Kumar Verma @ Raju, FIR No.276/11, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 66