Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . (1) Rupesh on 18 September, 2012

   IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
    JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Sessions Case No. 65/2011
Unique Case ID: 02404R0066632011

State          Vs.            (1)            Rupesh 
                                             S/o Turai Mehta, 
                                             Village Satcodaria, PS Maranga, 
                                             Distt. Purnia, Bihar.
                                             (Convicted) 

                              (2)            Urmila
                                             W/o Turai Mehta,
                                             Village Satcodaria, PS Maranga, 
                                             Distt. Purnia, Bihar.
                                             (Convicted) 

FIR No.                       :              487/2010
Police Station                :              Saraswati Vihar 
Under Section                 :              363/364A/342/120/34 IPC

Date of committal to Sessions Court  : 28.03.2011
Date on which orders were reserved  : 24.08.2012
Date on which judgment pronounced : 05.09.2012

JUDGMENT

Brief Facts:

(1) As per the allegations the accused Rupesh and Urmila in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped the prosecutrix 'P' (name of the girl is withheld being the case under Section 363 IPC), State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 1 of 77 a minor, from the lawful custody of her parents, for ransom and demanded Rs.50,000/­ from her parents on telephone. It is further alleged that after kidnapping the prosecutrix 'P', both the accused secretly and wrongfully confined her at their house at Village Sarkodria, Purnia, Bihar.

Case of prosecution in brief:

(2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the intervening night of 24/25.12.2010 the complainant Om Parkash came at the Police Station and gave his statement to SI Sandeep wherein he had alleged that on 24.12.2010 at about 6 PM his daughter 'P' (aged about 10 years) along with his maid Sonia (aged about 18 years) had gone to market to purchase vegetables and thereafter they did not return back. The complainant also gave the description of his daughter 'P' and maid Sonia to the police. He further told the police that he had made all efforts at his level to trace out both the girls but could not find them and hence showed his suspicion that some unknown person might have taken away both the girls after alluring them. SI Sandeep recorded the statement of Om Prakash and made endorsement on the same and got recorded the FIR after which the investigations was initiated. Thereafter, on 28.12.2010, the complainant Om Parkash came at Police Station and informed the SI Sandeep that he had received a call from the State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 2 of 77 kidnappers from mobile number 08809118347 who had demanded Rs 50 thousand for the release of his daughter 'P' and had called him at Katiyar Bihar with money. Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted who went to village Satkodariya, Purnia, Bihar, and the prosecutrix 'P' and the Sonia were recovered from the house of accused Rupesh and Urmila. Thereafter, both Urmila and Rupesh were arrested in this case and were brought to Delhi. After completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.

CHARGE:

(3) Charge under Section 364­A/365/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Rupesh and Urmila to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE:

(4) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses:

Public Witnesses:

(5) PW5 Om Parkash has deposed that he is a driver by profession and is having three children and the prosecutrix 'P' is his eldest daughter who is now aged of about 10 years. According to the State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 3 of 77 witness, on 24.12.2010, his daughter 'P' along with his maid servant Sonia aged about 18 years, left the house for taking vegetables at about 6 PM and both did not returned back. The witness has deposed that he made efforts to trace his daughter and maid Sonia in the area and searched them in the relations but both could not be traced and thereafter he went to the police station and made his statement to the police which is Ex.PW5/A. The witness has further deposed that he had given employment to maid Sonia through one Ranbir @ Randhir and he had given the mobile number of Randhir to the IO.

According to him, Sonia was the daughter of his (Randhir's) relative and on 26.12.2010 Ranbir @ Randhir informed him that his daughter 'P' and Sonia reached at Bihar. He has deposed that the phone of a person whose name was initially heard by him as Parvesh as the tone was not clear had made a call to him on the mobile phone No. 9717864459 from phone No. 08809118347, and later he came to know that his name was infact Rupesh and this person informed him that his daughter 'P' is with him and he demanded Rs. 50 thousand from him for the release of his daughter. The witness has deposed that the mother of Rupesh namely Urmila introduced herself as wife of Mukhiya who stated to him that "mein mukhiya ki bibi bol rahi hu, tumahri beti mere pass hai, pachas hazar rupey ley kar aa jao, tumari beti ko mein chor doongi". The witness has further deposed that on this on 29.12.2010 in the morning he along with police staff State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 4 of 77 left Delhi and reached at police station Maranga at district Purnea, Bihar where the IO took the local police and thereafter they all reached at the house of Urmila and Rupesh and a raid was conducted and his daughter was recovered from the house of Rupesh and Urmila who were also present there at that time. The witness has further deposed that the IO prepared the document Ex.PW5/B at the time of recovery of his daughter bearing his signatures at point A and thereafter both the accused were brought to the police station and were arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F and their disclosure statements were recorded vide memos Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H. According to the witness, two phones Model 1616 make NOKIA and other (whose make he does not remember) which recovered from accused Rupesh and Urmila respectively which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/I and Ex.PW5/J. The witness has also identified the photograph of his daughter 'P' on the hue and cry notice Ex.PW5/K at point A and the photograph of the maid Sonia is at point B. he has further deposed that the statement of his daughter 'P' was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate and she was handed over to him.

(6) The witness has correctly identified the accused Rupesh and Urmila in the court, (co­accused Sonia is juvenile) and has also State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 5 of 77 identified the two mobile phones as the same recovered by the police at Bihar which phone Model 1616 is Ex.P1 and the other phone Model 1209 is Ex.P2.

(7) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he is driver of the car by profession on salary basis for the monthly salary of Rs,7,000/­ and his wife is housewife. According to him, when the services of Sonia was engaged he was not in Delhi and his wife had brought Sonia from Ranbir for a monthly salary of Rs.1500/­. He has deposed that he knew Asif who was treated by his wife as a brother and was on visiting terms in his family. He has further stated that at the time of the incident, his daughter 'P' was a student of class 2nd of a government school; his son youngest to 'P' is student of class 3rd and at that time he was also in class 2nd. According to the witness, his duty starts from 8:00 AM and there was no fix time of his coming back from the duty. He has deposed that he is residing in a rented house and the rent of his house is Rs. 3500/­ which is including electricity and water charges. He has deposed that he is not aware that who comes to his house in his absence and states that he knew that Asif and Rajesh had visiting terms with his family and has explained that they used to come to his house occasionally. He admits that he is not in such a financial position so as to bear the salary of a maid servant and has voluntarily explained that at the time State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 6 of 77 of taking the services of the maid, his wife was not well therefore he required the services of maid servant. He has denied that his wife, Asif and Rajesh used to beat maid Sonia in his family. The witness has explained that he knew Randhir through Asif by whom the maid Sonia was taken and when he came to know that Sonia was missing along with his daughter, he firstly contacted Randhir. The witness has deposed that he and Randhir made efforts to trace Sonia and his daughter and when they could not be traced he went to the police station and lodged the report. According to him, he did not know Urmila or Rupesh and he only knew Randhir therefore he contacted Urmila and Rupesh and has voluntarily explained that when he received the call from Urmila and Rupesh they got the talk of his daughter done with him. The witness has deposed that his daughter informed him that both Urmila and Rupesh are demanding Rs. 50 thousand along with Sonia. According to him, his daughter 'P' was addressing the accused Urmila and Rupesh as aunty and uncle on telephone when she talked to him. The witness has deposed that Randhir himself went to Purnea of his own alone prior to his leaving Delhi with the police. The witness has denied the suggestion that his daughter had voluntarily gone with Sonia or that no demand for ransom was made from him and he have created a false story. (8) PW6 Randhir has deposed that he is mason by profession and belongs to Tehsil Shadabad, District Hathras, Uttar Pradesh and State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 7 of 77 used to bring the labour from District Purnea, Bihar. According to him he knew Urmila as she was working with him as a labour and also used to bring the labour with her. He deposed that he procured one maid Sonia and she was handed over to one Babloo who further got her employed in the house of Rajesh as maid servant. According to him, Om Parkash had come to the house of Babloo and asked for a maid servant as his wife was ill, therefore Babloo had sent Sonia a maid servant to the house of Om Parkash. The witness has deposed that on 25.12.2010, he came to know through Rajesh that maid Sonia had taken away the prosecutrix 'P', the daughter of Om Parkash and both were missing. According to him, he contacted Urmila resident of district Purnea, Bihar and inquired about Sonia and 'P' and requested her if both come to her house to inform him and on the next day i.e. on 26.12.2010, Urmila made a call to him and informed him that the prosecutrix 'P' and maid Sonia had come to their house. He has deposed that he had talked to both Rupesh and Urmila and thereafter he along with Babloo went to the house of Om Parkash and got the talk of Om Parkash done with Urmila and Rupesh and also with the prosecutrix. He has further deposed that he was aware about the address of Urmila and therefore he took Rs. Two Thousand from Babloo and he alone went to District Purnea, Bihar at the village of accused Urmila. According to him, he left Delhi on 26.12.2010 in the evening hours and reached there on 28.12.2010 in the morning State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 8 of 77 hours and made a call to Rupesh and Urmila and asked them to reach near police station Maranga, district Purnea and both of them reached near the police station. The witness has deposed that he asked them about the prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia to which both admitted that the prosecutrix 'P' and maid Sonia are with them and they further told her that Sonia is demanding Rs. 50 thousand for the release of 'P'. The witness has deposed that they both told him that if they do not pay Rs. 50 thousand to them then they will have to pay Rs 50 thousand to Sonia therefore both of them had demanded Rs 50 thousand for the release of 'P'. He has further deposed that he asked both the accused to go to their house while he himself made a call to Om Parkash and informed him about the demand of Rs 50 thousand by both the accused as demanded by Sonia. According to him, Om Parkash along with police staff reached at the Police Station Maranga on 31.12.2010 and since he had seen the address of Urmila and Rupesh earlier therefore they along with the police staff raided their house and at that time mukhiya Ran Vijay of the village was also called. According to the witness, the prosecutrix 'P' was recovered from the house and at that time Sonia and both the accused persons were available there who were arrested by the police and were brought back to Delhi. He has identified identified both the accused persons namely Urmila and Rupesh.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 9 of 77 (9) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that presently he was earning about Rs 400/­ daily and was doing the work of Mistry since his childhood. According to the witness the labour from Delhi are also engaged by him apart from labour from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and Urmila was working with him as labour since long. The witness has deposed that when he used to take labour through Urmila he paid the wages directly to the labour not through Urmila. According to the witness, he provided Sonia to Babloo only on his request and it is Rajesh who requested for a maid servant from Babloo and thereafter Om Parkash took the services of Sonia. He has also clarified that it was Om Parkash who informed him that the maid Sonia was missing along with his daughter. The witness has explained that he had asked the accused to keep the prosecutrix 'P' carefully and told Rupesh and Urmila that they were reaching at their address and also asked Urmila to keep 'P' and Sonia at their house. The witness has admitted that it would have been difficult to trace out the child in case if Urmila and Rupesh would not have stopped Sonia and the child prosecutrix at their house. According to the witness, he only pointed out the house of Urmila and Rupesh to the police staff and thereafter Om Parkash brought his daughter 'P' and maid Sonia from inside the house. The witness has further deposed that when they reached at the house of Urmila and Rupesh, both the accused Urmila and State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 10 of 77 Rupesh were present there along with the child prosecutrix and the maid Sonia. According to the witness, Om Parkash had requested him to ensure that his child is detained at the house of Urmila and Rupesh and not permitted to move further. He has also deposed that apart from Urmila, Rupesh, the prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia there was nobody else in the house from the family of Urmila and Rupesh. According to the witness, no search of the house of Urmila and Rupesh were conducted by the police and only the child was rescued. The witness has deposed that on 01.01.2011 the medical examination of child prosecutrix 'P' and maid Sonia was got done. He has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the police station Maranga district Purnea or that nothing happened as stated by him above. He has further denied that the prosecutrix was not recovered from the possession of accused Urmila and Roopes.

(10) PW7 is the victim / prosecutrix 'P'. She has deposed that she is ten years of age and she is studying in Tamil School, near Samrat Cinema, Shakurpur. According to the child witness, her father is a driver by profession and her mother used to work in kothis. She has deposed that she knew Sonia (juvenile accused) as Sonia was working as maid in her house. According to the child witness, her mother had sent her to purchase vegetables and hence she accompanied Sonia to the market where Sonia made her to sit in an auto and thereafter in a train and after travelling for three days State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 11 of 77 Sonia took her to Kathiyar, Purnia, Bihar. When the child was asked as to why she had accompanied with Sonia, she explained that since Sonia was residing in her house, hence she did not suspect and went with her. According to the witness, Sonia took her to the house of one Radha and when she (witness) told them that she wanted to go home, they had a talk with her mother on telephone and demanded money. When the witness was asked to explain as to who had asked for the money, the witness has deposed that Urmila demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/­. The witness has deposed that in her presence Urmila had told her mother on telephone to come to Kathiyar, Purnia along with money and take her (witness) back. The child witness has deposed that she was thereafter rescued by the police. She has also deposed that she was kept in the house of Urmila or Rupesh for four to five days along with Sonia.

(11) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the child witness has deposed that Sonia had taken her forcibly. She has further deposed that whatever she had stated in her earlier statement to the police, was on the asking of Sonia who told her to make such statement or else she (witness) would not reach to her mother. She has deposed that she was not allowed to go out when she was kept at the house of Rupesh nor she was allowed to play with the children outside the house. According to the witness, both Rupesh and Urmila had demanded the money. She has deposed that when Sonia State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 12 of 77 took her to the house of Urmila and Rupesh, there was a quarrel between Sonia and Urmila and Urmila told Sonia that since she had brought her (witness), they would demand money for her (witness) release.

(12) PW8 Kusum has deposed that she is a housewife and her husband is a driver by profession. According to her, in the year 2010 she was not doing any job and used to do household work due to illness and at that time she was residing at his aforesaid old address. The witness has deposed that on 24 in the year 2010, month she does not recollect, it was winter season, when at about 6:00 PM, she send his daughter 'P' along with maid Sonia to bring vegetables from nearby vegetable market. She has deposed that she waited them till around 6:30 PM and when her daughter did not return she made inquiries from her neighbourhood when one of her neighbour told her that she had seen the prosecutrix 'P' playing in the gali when she (victim) had told Sonia to take the prosecutrix with her to bring vegetables. The witness has deposed that thereafter she waited for them and also went to the vegetable vendor and made inquiries regarding the prosecutrix and Sonia but said vegetable vendor told her that they had not come to take vegetable. According to the witness, she along with her husband also went to made inquiries from Babloo and Randhir from whom she procured maid servant Sonia but they also told her that Sonia and prosecutrix 'P' did not come to their State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 13 of 77 place. She has deposed that thereafter they made search for prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia till 12 AM (midnight) and thereafter her husband made complaint to the police. She has further deposed that around third of next month of the incident, she took custody of her daughter, who was recovered by the police.

(13) On leading question put by the Addl. PP for the State with permission of the court, the witness has admitted that the date of incident is 24.12.2010 and that the statement of her daughter was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC on 03.01.2011, after which they took the custody of her daughter.

(14) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that on 24.12.2010, her daughter 'P' was playing in the gali and she gave Rs 15/­ to Sonia to bring vegetables and at that time she was alone. According to the witness, her husband had made a complaint regarding missing and has voluntarily explained that name of Sonia as well as name of prosecutrix 'P' was mentioned in that complaint. She has admitted that Sonia was her maid servant who was taken through Babloo and Randhir and Sonia worked for about 15 days at her house, and has voluntarily explained that she had taken the services of Sonia for about a month to help in her domestic work due to her personal illness. The witness has deposed that she took Sonia as she had faith over Babloo and Randhir therefore no preliminary inquiry about the whereabouts of Sonia was State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 14 of 77 made by her and police verification of Sonia was not made. She has voluntarily explained that since her husband was out of the city for a marriage in her relation and also because her husband had told her that as soon as he will come back he will get verification of Sonia done from the police and therefore police verification of Sonia could not be got done. According to the witness, she had asked Sonia from where she had come to Delhi on which Sonia told her that she was from Bihar and had come to Delhi to work. The witness has further deposed that she did not ask the name of parents of Sonia as she felt there was no need and states that she had also told her that she was a muslim girl. According to the witness, Sonia was about 18 years old and was married but she did not know whether she was having any child or not. The witness has deposed that police had apprehended Sonia but she does not know whether any case was registered against Sonia. She has deposed that before about one or two years prior to the incident she used to work at Kothies as a domestic work and Sonia was taken on job at monthly payment of Rs.1000/­. According to the witness, in her family, her husband is the only earning member who used to earn Rs 7000/­ per month and has voluntarily explained that he also used to do extra work but she is unable to give the details of his earnings from that work. (15) According to the witness, no criminal case pending against her. She has initially denied that a case FIR No. 6/11 U/S State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 15 of 77 3 /4/5 ITP Act PS Saraswati Vihar is pending against her and has rather admitted the same and explained that the said case was falsely registered against her by Sonia and that she does not know name of the court where the said case is pending. She has admitted that the said case is pending before the court of Sh. Bhupender Singh, MM, Rohini and she is accused in that case and is on bail. She has denied the suggestion that Sonia did not take her daughter 'P' with her or that Sonia did not kidnapped her daughter. She has denied that they kept Sonia at her house for the purpose of flesh trade or that customers for the purpose of prostitution used to visit her house. She has also denied that Rajesh, Asif and Babloo were frequent customers for the aforesaid purpose and has voluntarily explained that Rajesh was friend of her husband and Asif was her so called brother and he used to reside at first floor as tenant. She has also denied that Babloo kept Sonia at her house for the purpose of running prostitution. She has also denied that Sonia was a minor and has voluntarily added that she was 18 years old. The witness has deposed that Sonia was not carrying any document with her therefore no question of checking her document arise. She has further deposed that she was not aware if Sonia was kidnapped from the lawful custody of her guardians and has voluntarily explained that Sonia never told her about the same. She has denied the suggestion that she kept Sonia in lock forcibly confined at her house and on getting a chance she managed to escape. State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 16 of 77 She has denied that this case was falsely lodged by her in order to save their skin.

(16) According to the witness, she had married Om Parkash about one and a half year ago in Mandir and has voluntarily added that she knew Om Parkash for about four years and at the time of marriage no relative of either side participated. According to the witness, name of her first husband is Charan Singh who had married another girl. The witness has deposed that all three children i.e. prosecutrix 'P', Vishal and Aysha are from her wedlock with Charan Singh. According to the witness, she had suspicion on Sonia in kidnapping of Prosecutrix but she does not know if Randhir made a call to Urmila. She has deposed that she came to know from Randhir that Sonia had gone to the village of accused persons and taken Prosecutrix with her. She has denied that Urmila and Rupesh informed her on telephone about arrival of Prosecutrix and Sonia to their place and they asked them to come and take back Prosecutrix and has voluntarily explained that they demanded Rs 50 thousand in lieu of letting off prosecutrix. The witness has further denied that she was told that they should take prosecutrix back with them as Sonia was going to make complaint against them. She has also denied that Om Parkash told Urmila to advise Sonia not to complaint against them and also showed his willingness to pay rupees fifty thousand to Sonia not to register the case.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 17 of 77 (17) The witness has deposed that Randhir told her on 27.12.2010 in the morning about reaching of prosecutrix and Sonia at Bihar and at that time her husband was also present at her house. According to the witness, they told Randhir to approach the police with them to make complaint. She has admitted that her husband told Urmila on telephone to keep her daughter safe at Bihar at their house till their reaching and has voluntarily added that the police had asked them to talk with Urmila in that manner without disclosing that police had been informed. She has also admitted that Urmila and Rupesh provided food and shelter to her daughter prosecutrix. According to the witness Randhir never told her that Sonia is not resident of same village as Urmila. She has deposed that she fell ill about 8­10 days prior to 24.12.2010 as she had a miscarriage due to slip of leg. According to the witness, neither she nor her family members were acquainted with Rupesh and Urmila prior to incident and has explained that she came to know about them when police took them to Delhi in custody. She has deposed that her daughter / prosecutrix was not happy with her work and it was for this reason she left the house of her own with Sonia. She has denied the suggestion that the said ransom of rupees fifty thousand was not demanded by Rupesh and Urmila or that the ransom amount was demanded by Sonia.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 18 of 77

(18) PW9 Parmod Goswami has deposed that she was working at police station Maranga as the "Defadar"(incharge of chowkidar equivalent to Hawaldar). According to the witness, on 26.12.2010, he was present at his house as it was morning time and was about to leave to join duty, when he saw many persons of the village collected in front of the house of Rupesh. The witness has correctly identified the accused Rupesh in the court. According to the witness he went there and saw village mukhiya namely Ran Vijay Singh and his wife amongst the crowd and Mukhiya Ran Vijay Singh told him that Sonia had brought a girl from Delhi. The witness has deposed that he asked Sonia as to why she had brought the girl to the village from Delhi and thereafter he procured mobile number of the father of that girl Sonia. He has also deposed that Mukhiya Ran Vijay Singh talked with the father of that girl on mobile phone as to why they used to take bad work (galat kam) from Sonia and asked her father to take that girl i.e. prosecutrix back with him to Delhi. The witness has deposed that he also told father of the prosecutrix that Sonia will lodged case against him for the said cause on which father of prosecutrix told that they will give some money to Sonia. According to the witness thereafter he went to police station Maranga and joined his duties.

(19) The witness has deposed that on 30.12.2010 Delhi police reached at police station Maranga and he accompanied Delhi police State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 19 of 77 to the house of Mukhiya Ran Vijay Singh at around 1:30 PM and from there, Mukhiya accompanied they to the house of Rupesh and in the court yard of the house of Rupesh the girl prosecutrix was eating rice and mother of Rupesh namely Urmila was bringing more rice for prosecutrix from the kitchen. The witness has identified the accused Urmila in the court. According to the witness, thereafter Rupesh, Urmila, Sonia and the prosecutrix were brought to police station Maranga and Delhi police also accompanied to police station Maranga and after leaving them in the police station, he went back to his house.

(20) Ld. APP for the State with due permission of the court, has cross examined the witness wherein the witness has denied the suggestion that Delhi police recorded his statement on 31.12.2010 on his dictation and read out contents of it after recording it. He has further denied that he had told the IO in his statement that on 31.12.2010 at about 10:30 PM a raid was conducted at the house of Urmila and from there prosecutrix and Sonia were recovered. According to the witness, the prosecutrix 'P' was recovered from the possession of Urmila and Sonia was recovered from the possession of Rupesh.

(21) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that there were around 100 houses beside the house of Urmila and Rupesh. According to the witness, he State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 20 of 77 acquainted with the house of Urmila and that is kachha makan made of "phoos" and there were two rooms in her house. He has admitted that there is no door at the house of Urmila. According to the witness, Sonia and the prosecutrix 'P' resided at the village for about 4­5 days and the prosecutrix used to stay at the house of Urmila and she used to take food and bath there. The witness has voluntarily added that Sonia, accused persons and the prosecutrix were under surveillance of villagers so that Sonia should not escape. According to the witness, the prosecutrix 'P' was not kept under any kind of boundations and has voluntarily added that the prosecutrix 'P' used to play in and around. The witness has deposed that in his presence Urmila did not raise any demand from Om Parkash on mobile phone and has voluntarily explained that it was Om Parkash who offered money to Sonia for not registering case against him. (22) In his further cross examination, the witness has deposed that they reached to the house of Mukhiya at about 1:30 PM and the house of Mukhiya was situated at about 500 yards from the house of accused persons and many other villagers also reached in front of the house of Mukhiya when he accompany Delhi police to Mukhiya house. According to the witness, they went to the house of Urmila at about 1:40 PM and has voluntarily added that there was not much walking distance between the house of Mukhiya and house of accused persons. According to him, all the villagers know the fact State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 21 of 77 that Sonia had brought the prosecutrix 'P' to the village. The witness has deposed that he did not talk to Om Parkash and has voluntarily added that the mukhiya kept the loud speaker of phone on when he was talking to Om Parkash. According to the witness, if one sits inside the house of Rupesh, he can be visible from outside. He admits that along with him, one Delhi Police official and Om Parkash went to the house of Rupesh and they saw Prosecutrix from distance. According to the witness he occasionally met with prosecutrix 'P' and she was not having any complaint against the accused persons and has voluntarily explained that at many time he gave toffee to her. (23) PW10 Babloo has deposed that he is running a general store at the aforesaid address. According to him he knew Randhir who by profession is Raj Mistri and used to come to purchase a biri cigrattee from his shop. The witness has deposed that Randhir told him that one of his relative came to him and is looking job for her, he had contact with his friend Rajesh and Asif who used to reside at Punjabi Bagh and they told him that there was requirement of a maid servant for the purpose of sweeping and cooking. According to him, thereafter that girl whose name he does not recollect was kept as maid servant to the house of Rajesh but later on 26th month and year he does not recollect, he came to know that the girl ran away after taking the daughter of her employer. He has deposed that he does not know what happened thereafter.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 22 of 77 (24) Ld. APP for the State with due permission of the court, has cross examined the witness and the witness has admitted that in his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC which is Ex.PW10/PX1, he had given the name of the girl as Sonia and has voluntarily added that the name was told to him by the Mistry so he had given the same. He further admits that his friend Rajesh and Asif who used to reside at JJ colony kept Sonia as maid servant with their known person. (25) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that Sonia did not meet him before going, nor he saw her before going. According to him he did not meet Prosecutrix at any point of time. He has deposed that he came to know about Sonia having gone away with the prosecutrix 'P' from Om Parkash and said Raj Mistri. He admits that Randhir made a call to Urmila at Bihar from the phone of Om Parkash and Rajesh in his presence wherein he told Urmila to keep the child proper and in safe custody and that they were coming to Bihar to take child back. He further admits that Urmila was asked on the phone to take care of Prosecutrix and Sonia and not to allow them to leave the village. The witness has denied the suggestion that Om Parkash had told Randhir that in case Sonia succeeded in taking his daughter to some other place with her, she would not be traced out. The witness has admitted that Urmila kept prosecutrix 'P' properly on the asking of Rajesh and Om Parkash. According to the witness, he paid Rs 2000/­ State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 23 of 77 to the Raj Mistry on the asking of Om Parkash and Rajesh as a fare for Bihar.

(26) PW12 Ran Vijay Singh has deposed that on 31.12.2010 he was present at his home at about 1­1:30 PM when one person namely Sandeep of Delhi Police official along with the other Delhi police officials along with chowkidar of their village Parmod Goswami reached at his house and thereafter they reached at the house of Urmila where the prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia were found at the house of Urmila and one person Rupesh was also found there. According to the witness, one mobile phone each was recovered from the accused Urmila and Rupesh and SI Sandeep, Delhi police official took possession of both the mobile and both Urmila and Rupesh were taken in custody by Delhi police official Sandeep and they were arrested by the Delhi Police. The witness has deposed that Police also prepared the seizure memo of the prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and seized the mobile phones recovered from the possession of the accused Rupesh vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/I. According to the witness, the police also seized the mobile phone recovered from the possession of accused Urmila vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/J. He has identified the accused Urmila and Rupesh in the court. He has also identified both the mobile phones Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 24 of 77 (27) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that these mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the accused persons at the time of their arrest. According to him, it was the Delhi police and the chowkidar from Satpudariya Panchyat who had come to his house on 31.12.2010 when he came to know that two girls had come from Delhi. He has deposed that when they went to the house of Urmila there he had spoken to Sonia and the prosecutrix 'P' and both Sonia and prosecutrix 'P' told him that they had been brought from Delhi by Urmila and Rupesh. The witness has deposed that in his presence there was a talk between Om Parkash and Urmila and has voluntarily explained that he had spoken to Urmila from his house and even Sandeep had spoken to her. He has deposed that he is not aware what conversation took place between Urmila and Om Parkash. He is also not aware if Urmila had informed Om Parkash that his child Prosecutrix along with Sonia were at her house and she (Urmila) had not brought her. According to the witness, he is not aware if prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia had reached the house of Urmila on 26.12.2010. He has denied the suggestion that he was aware of the same because Urmila had given a telephone call to him regarding the same. He has also denied that Om Parkash had given him a call from Delhi asking him to ensure that Sonia does not make a complaint against him and his wife for pushing her into immoral trafficking as State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 25 of 77 he was ready to pay her any amount. He has denied that he had been on talking terms with Om Parkash and has voluntarily added that even after the incident he had not spoken to him till date. According to him in his presence Urmila never asked for any money and has voluntarily added that she only asked Sandeep for money when she spoke to him over the phone. He has further deposed that he was the mukhiya of the Panchayat for the last 10 years and the population of village is about 12 thousand. According to him the distance between his house and the house of Rupesh is one kilometer. He has denied that Urmila had informed him about the children reaching her house on 26.12.2010 early morning at about 7­7:30 AM. He has denied that on 26.12.2010 large number of persons from our village collected at the house of Urmila or that on 26.12.2010 Urmila made a call to Om Parkash and spoke to him in his presence. He is not aware, how the girls Sonia and Prosecutrix reached the house of Urmila i.e. whether of their own or otherwise. According to the witness no weapon was recovered from the house of Urmila during the raid. He has deposed that they i.e. he, along with 2­3 persons of Delhi police and Parmod Goswami, chowkidar had gone inside the house of Urmila and Rupesh and stayed there for about half and hour during which time the documents were prepared and documents regarding the recovery of both the mobiles, recovery memo of the child were prepared.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 26 of 77 (28) According to him, he is intermediate pass and is still the mukhiya of the gram panchayat of the village since the year 2001. He admits that whenever there is some police case, he normally contacted and he also assist the police. He has deposed that he has been going to the courts in Bihar and has explained that he goes there regarding the disputes in the village. He has denied that he is stock witness of police station Maranga district Purnia Bihar. He has denied that Urmila is not involved in any other criminal case and he am giving wrong information. He has also denied that all documentation was done later on while sitting in the police station and he only signed the documents on the instructions of the police. Medical Witnesses:

(29) PW3 Dr. Prosecutrix Prabha has deposed that on 31.12.2010, she was working as Medical Officer at the aforesaid hospital and on that day patient Sonia was produced before her and she was examined vide MLC Ex.PW3/A and her X­Ray was also conducted for the determination of her age. According to the witness as per the examination and the X­Ray report, her age was estimated between 14­15 years. The witness has further deposed that on examination, she found no external injury any where on her body including her private part; hymen was raptured (old). She has deposed that hymen was found high, vaginal swab was taken and State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 27 of 77 sent to Pathologist Sadar Hospital for microscopic examination for presence of spermetozoa. According to the witness, as per swab report, spermetozoa was not found.

(30) The witness has further deposed that on the same day, prosecutrix 'P' was also produced before her for her medical examination and her age estimation and she had examined her vide MLC Ex.PW3/B. According to the witness, on examination, she found no external injury any where on her body including her private part; hymen was found intact. The witness further deposed that for determination of age, her age X­Ray was got done and as per report no spermetozoa was found and as per radiologist her age was determined in between 12­13 years. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and her entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.

Electronic Evidence:

(31) PW15 Gaganjit Singh Sidhu, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd., has brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile number 9211870154 was issued in the name of Amit Kumar S/o Ram Kishan R/o 1808, Imle Mohalla, Sita Ram Bazar, New Delhi, on the customer application form Ex.PW14/A on the basis of his ID proof of the applicant which is Ex.PW14/B. The call detail record of this mobile number from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 28 of 77 Ex.PW14/C (collectively). The certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act issued by Sh. M. N. Vijayan, Alternate Nodal Officer is Ex.PW14/R. He also produced the reply to the notice was also field by Sh. M. N. Vijayan, Alternate Nodal Officer which is Ex.PW15/A. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has denied that the call detail record is not an authentic record and is manipulated at the instance of the IO. (32) PW16 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer Idea Cellular Ltd., has produced the record pertaining to mobile number 9990220056 was issued in the name of Mohd. Shahid S/o Ajgar Ali R/o B­69, B Block, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Udham Singh Park, Delhi, on the customer application form Ex.PW14/K on the basis of his ID proof i.e. voter ID card of the applicant which is Ex.PW14/L. He also brought the call detail record of this mobile number from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is Ex.PW14/M (collectively running into seven pages) and the certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act is Ex.PW14/N. In his cross examination the witness has denied that the call detail record is not an authentic record and is manipulated at the instance of the IO.

(33) PW17 R. K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., has brought the record pertaining to mobile number 8809118347 was issued in the name of Rupesh Mehta S/o late Sh. Turai Mehta R/o State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 29 of 77 Village Satkodaria, PS Maranga, Distt. Purnia, Bihar, on the customer application form Ex.PW14/F on the basis of his ID proof i.e. voter ID card of the applicant which is Ex.PW14/G, call detail record of this mobile number from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is Ex.PW14/H (collectively running into eight pages). (34) He also brought the record of the mobile number 9717864459 which was issued in the name of Randhir Singh S/o Bujbal Singh, R/o 18/36, Basant Nagar, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, on the customer application form Ex.PW14/C on the basis of his ID proof i.e. voter ID card of the applicant which is Ex.PW14/D, call detail record of this mobile number from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is Ex.PW14/H (collectively running into six pages). (35) This witness has further produced the record of the mobile number 9631844339 issued in the name of Kare Lal Yadav S/o late Sh. Chathar Yadav, R/o 101, Rangra, Town / Village Rangra, Anchal Gopalpur, Distt. Bhagalpur, Bihar, on the customer application form Ex.PW17/A (OSR) on the basis of his ID proof i.e. voter ID card of the applicant which is Ex.PW17/B (OSR), call detail record of this mobile number from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is Ex.PW14/I (collectively running into six pages). In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that after switching off the mobile, no call can be received and made. State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 30 of 77 He has denied that the call detail record is not an authentic record and is manipulated at the instance of the IO.

Police Witnesses:

(36) PW1 HC Ram Ji Lal has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1. He was posted as duty officer and has recorded the FIR in this case copy of which is Ex.PW1/A. He also made endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(37) PW2 W/Ct. Sunita has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1. The witness has relied upon the document i.e. arrest memo of Sonia @Soni (juvenile) which is Ex.PW2/A. She has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and her testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(38) PW4 HC Ravinder Nath has deposed that on 02.01.2011 he was working as MHC (M) at police station Saraswati Vihar and on that day SI Sandeep Kumar had deposited one Mobile Phone Model No. 1209 and another Mobile Phone Model No. 1616 with him and he made entry No. 3269 of Register No. 19, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A. According to him no tampering was done during the period same remained in his possession. This witness has State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 31 of 77 not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and her entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(39) PW11 Ct. Usha Devi has deposed that on 31.12.2010, she was posted as constable at police station K Hart, district Purnia and on that day she along with the Delhi police officials and Head chowkidar Parmod Goswami went to Sadar Hospital along with the accused lady Urmila and prosecutrix and Sonia and after their medical examination, they were taken back to the police station K Hart and kept there under her supervision. According to the witness, thereafter the above said Poonam, Sonia, accused Urmila and one accused Rupesh were produced before the SDO and the transit remand was obtained by Delhi police officials. The witness has further deposed that thereafter they returned back to police station Maranga, District Purnia and thereafter Delhi police official went away towards Delhi along with Poonam, Sonia and accused Urmila and Rupesh. She has deposed that she took the personal search of the accused Urmila vide Ex.PW5/F. The witness has correctly identified the accused Rupesh and Urmila in the court today.

(40) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that they took the prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia to the Sadar Hospital for medical examination at about 5­6 PM. She has deposed that the accused Urmila and Rupesh were not taken to hospital for medical examination in her presence. She has further State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 32 of 77 deposed that the head chowkidar Parmod Goswami with them when they took the above said prosecutrix 'P'and Sonia for medical examination and Delhi police was also with them. She has admitted that in the intervening night of 31.12.2010 and 01.012011, the prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia were under her supervision but prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia did not make any complaint against anyone during that intervening night to her.

(41) PW13 SI Radhey Shyam has deposed that on 29.12.2010 he was posted at PS Subhash Place as ASI and on that day he joined the investigation with SI Sandeep, Ct. Bachchu Singh and complainant Om Prakash and they went to Katihar, Bihar and they reached there at about 10.00PM on 30.12.2010. This witness has further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 31.12.2010 at about 10.00 AM they proceeded towards police station Maranga and reached there at about 12.30PM and that one Randhir met them there. He has further deposed that SI Sandeep examined him and thereafter SI Sandeep met Station Incharge of PS Maranga and one Dafadar(chowkidar) namely Parmod Goswami was included in their team from the police station Maranga and thereafter they all including Randhir went to village Satkodaria and they reached there at about 1.30 PM at the house of Ran Vijay, Mukhiya of the Village and he was also included in their team and thereafter they reached at the house of accused Urmila. According to him, there Urmila and her State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 33 of 77 son Rupesh met them and that Prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia were also found in the house of Urmila. He has further deposed that SI Sandeep interrogated Prosecutrix 'P' and thereafter interrogated Sonia and thereafter Urmila and her son Rupesh were interrogated by SI Sandeep. He has further deposed that thereafter SI Sandeep prepared the seizure memo in respect of Prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia vide Ex.PW5/B and thereafter accused Rupesh was arrested by SI Sandeep vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/E. This witness has further deposed that accused Urmila was arrested by SI Sandeep vide Ex.PW5/D. He has further deposed that one mobile phone model No. 1616 make NOKIA black­blue colour was recovered from the possession of the accused Rupesh and the same was seized by the SI Sandeep vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/I. He has further deposed that one another mobile phone model No. 1209 make NOKIA black­blue colour was recovered from the possession of the accused Urmila and the same was seized by the SI Sandeep vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/J. This witness has further deposed that SI Sandeep recorded disclosure statement of accused Rupesh vide Ex.PW5/G and that SI Sandeep recorded disclosure statement of accused Urmila vide Ex.PW5/H. He has further deposed that SI Sandeep recorded statement of Ran Vijay Singh and Dafadar (Chowkidar) Parmod Goswami and State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 34 of 77 thereafter they reached at the police station K.Haat and one lady Ct. Usha was included in their team and she took personal search of the accused Urmila vide Ex.PW5/F. This witness has further deposed that Urmila, Prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia were inthe custody of lady Ct. Usha and accused Rupesh was in the custody of Ct. Bachchu Singh and thereafter they went to the Sadar Hospital within the jurisdiction of PS K. Haat. He has further deposed that accused Urmila and Rupesh were medically examined there and Prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia were also medically examined there and thereafter they returned back to PS K. Haat and both accused Urmila and Rupesh were kept in the lock­up. According to him, Prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia were under the supervision of Lady Ct. Usha.

(42) This witness has further deposed that on 01.01.2011 Prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia again produced before the Sadar Hospital for their medical examination and thereafter they returned back to the police station K. Haat and thereafter both accused Urmila and Rupesh and Prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia were produced before the SDM, Purniya, Bihar and obtained the transit remand and thereafter they reached at the police station Maranga and at about 7.00 PM they left for Delhi along with the accused persons and Prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia and that IO recorded his statement. He has identified the accused Rupesh and Urmila. He has also identified one mobile phone NOKIA colour black­blue of model No. 1616­2 Type State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 35 of 77 RH­125back side of the mobile phone is opened and found IMEI No. 353752/04/741256/3 with SIM No. 89915241000044339960H4 as the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Rupesh and the same is already Ex.P­1. This witness also identified one mobile phone NOKIA colour black­blue of model No. 1209 Type RH­105, back side of the mobile phone is opened and found IMEI No. 358308/03/ 546136/2 with SIM No. 8991521100 0070223969 as the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Urmila and the same is already Ex.P­2.

(43) In his cross­examination by counsel for the accused this witness deposed that he did not make any separate ravangi while leaving Delhi and has voluntarily explained that a combine ravanagi/ departure entry was made by SI Sandeep but he does not recollect the number of the same. According to him, SI Sandeep had made the arrival entry in PS Maranga and has voluntarily stated that he does not recollect the details. He has further deposed that they had reached the PS Maranga at about 12.00­12.30PM and that from Delhi they went to Katihar by train and from Katihar they hired a TATA Sumo. He has further deposed that the father of the girl namely Om Prakash was with them and that the fare of the hired TATA Sumo was paid by SI Sandeep and not by Om Prakash and that they were four persons who went from Delhi including him. He has voluntarily stated that he, SI Sandeep, Ct. Bachchu and Om Prakash had gone State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 36 of 77 together. He has further deposed that only SI Sandeep was armed with the official fire arm and that the raid at the house of Urmila was conducted at about 3.00­3.30PM. He has further deposed that the village is around 3 to 4 kilometers from the police station and that in the village first they went to the house of Mukhiya where they reached at around 1.30 PM. He has further deposed that during this period from 1.30 to 3.00 PM they were talking to the Mukhiya and briefed him about the facts of the case. He has stated that there was no secret informer with them and has voluntarily stated that the Mukhiya knew everything about the village. He has further deposed that SI Sandeep had made inquiries from Mukhiya about the children but he was not aware about the details of their conversations. He has denied that he was aware that Mukhiya had informed SI Sandeep of being aware of presence of the girls in the village and had told them that the girls had come voluntarily to Urmila and has voluntarily stated that Mukhiya told them that Urmila was even previously involved in child trafficking case. He has further deposed that a large number of persons from the village had collected in the house of Urmila during the raid. He has voluntarily stated that these persons were in the gali but not inside the house. According to him, apart from the Mukhiya and Om Prakash SI Sandeep did not take signatures of any other public persons on the documents prepared. He has explained that all documents were prepared at the house of State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 37 of 77 Urmila while sitting outside her kachha house. He has further deposed that after the mobile phones were seized by the IO, they were also sealed and the seal after use was given to Ct. Bachchu Singh and that there was no lady constable or police staff with them. He has further deposed that no female neighbour was joined in the raid and also when Urmila was arrested. He has admitted that there was no lady staff at the time of recovery of the children and that it took about 1 - 1 ¼ hours to complete the entire documentation at the spot. He has further deposed that on their return they did not go to the police station Maranga but they went to the police station K. Haat which is the bigger police station and has a lock­up. He has further deposed that there was a combined entry made by SI Sandeep in the police station K Haat. He has voluntarily stated that he did not make any separate entry. According to him, he cannot tell the details of the entry made by SI Sandeep and it was only at the railway station that they obtained the details of previous involvement of Urmila. He has further deposed that he cannot give the details of the said case nor he can tell about the outcome of the same. He has admitted that Om Prakash is the father of child 'P'. According to him, he cannot tell if Om Prakash is not the father of the girl Prosecutrix 'P' nor her guardian nor the husband of Kusum. He has voluntarily stated that in his complaint he has stated that he is the father of 'P'. He has further deposed that he cannot tell what investigations were conducted State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 38 of 77 between 24.12.2010 and 26.12.2010 and whether Om Prakash used to visit police station daily to pursue his complaint and has voluntarily stated that he only joined the investigations on 29.12.2010. He has admitted that when children were recovered they were safe and there were no signs of injuries on their bodies. He has admitted that children did not complain that they were being ill­ treated by Urmila in any manner. He has denied that no disclosure statement was made by the accused or that the IO recorded the same of his own. He has further denied that thumb impression of the accused were taken on blank papers which were later on converted into memos by the IO. He has denied that all documentation was done while sitting in the police station on the prompting of Om Prakash. He has denied that fair investigations have not been conducted by the Investigating officer or that he had signed the various documents on the asking of his senior officers. (44) PW14 SI Sandeep Kumar is the investigating officer of this case and has proved the investigations conducted by him. According to him in the intervening night of 24/25.12.2010, he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM and at about 2:00 AM, the complainant Om Parkash came at the police station and alleged that his maid Sonia aged about 18 years and his daughter Prosecutrix aged about 10 years were missing. He recorded his statement vide Ex.PW5/A and made endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW14/A State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 39 of 77 and handed over the same to the duty officer who lodged the FIR No. 487/10 and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to me for further investigations. According to him, in the morning time, he had flashed the message hue and cry about the missing of above said both girls and also tried to trace both the missing girls but same could not be found. The witness has deposed that on 28.12.2010 at about 1:00 PM, the complainant Om Parkash came at police station and met him and he informed that the kidnappers were demanding Rs 50 thousand for the release of his daughter Prosecutrix and he had talked with kidnappers on their mobile phone number 08809118347 and he further informed him that kidnappers called him at Katiyar Bihar with money. According to the witness, he briefed his higher police officers about these facts and thereafter on their directions, he formed a team and including ASI Radhey Shyam, Ct. Bachu Singh and included complainant Om Parkash in the team. The witness has deposed that on 29.12.2010, he along with ASI Radhey Shyam, Ct. Bachchu Singh and complainant Om Prakash went to Katihar, Bihar and they reached there at about 9:30­10.00 PM on 30.12.2010. According to him, on the way to the Katihar complainant Om Parkash also received calls from the kidnappers and the kidnappers were talking from the above said mobile phone number and also from the another mobile phone number bearing the last three numbers 339 (he does not remember the complete mobile number). State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 40 of 77 He has deposed that the complainant Om Parkash gave assurance to the kidnappers that he was coming to Katihar with ransom amount. The witness has deposed that he was also in contact with one Randhir through the complainant Om Parkash in this process. According to him, on the next day i.e. on 31.12.2010 at the morning time, he directed Randhir through the Om Parkash to come at police station Maranga and thereafter they reached at police station Maranga at about 12.30 PM, and Randhir met them there who wax interrogated as he was known to the complainant as well as to the kidnappers and he told informed that both Prosecutrix and Sonia were in the possession of accused Urmila and Rupesh at the village Satkodariya at the house of Urmila. The witness has deposed that he immediately contacted the station incharge of police station Maranga and sought seek help from him and also provided one dafadar (chowkidar) Parmod Goswami to him and he was included in their team and also made arrival DD there. The witness has deposed that thereafter they all including Parmod Goswami and Randhir reached at the house of Mukhiya Ran Vijay Singh at village Satkodaria and he was informed about the facts and thereafter they were also included in the team after which they reached at the house of Urmila where Urmila and her son Rupesh met them and Prosecutrix and Sonia were also found in the house of Urmila. According to the witness, he interrogated Prosecutrix and thereafter interrogated Sonia and he recorded State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 41 of 77 statement of Prosecutrix and Sonia and prepared their seizure memos vide Ex.PW5/B. The witness has deposed that he also interrogated Urmila and her son Rupesh and arrested accused Rupesh vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C and took his personal search vide memo Ex.PW5/E. He also arrested accused Urmila vide memo Ex.PW5/D and seized one mobile phone model No. 1616 make NOKIA black­ blue colour which was recovered from the possession of the accused Rupesh which was having the SIM containing the mobile number by which the kidnappers were talking with Om Parkash. The said mobile number was 08809118347 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/I. The witness has deposed that one another mobile phone model No. 1209 make NOKIA black­blue colour was recovered from the possession of the accused Urmila and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/J. Thereafter, he recorded disclosure statement of accused Rupesh vide Ex.PW5/G and of Urmila vide Ex.PW5/H. According to him, he also recorded statement of Ran Vijay Singh and thereafter we reached at the police station K.Haat. He has deposed that the met station incharge of PS K.Hat and one lady Ct. Usha was included in the team and she took personal search of the accused Urmila vide Ex.PW5/F and recorded the statement of Parmod Goswami. The witness has deposed that thereafter, Urmila, Prosecutrix and Sonia were in the custody of lady State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 42 of 77 Ct. Usha and accused Rupesh was in the custody of Ct. Bachchu Singh and thereafter they went to the Sadar Hospital within the jurisdiction of PS K. Haat. He has further deposed that the accused Urmila and Rupesh were medically examined there and Prosecutrix and Sonia were also medically examined there and thereafter they returned back to PS K. Haat and both accused Urmila and Rupesh were kept in the lock­up whereas Prosecutrix and Sonia were under the supervision of Lady Ct. Usha.

(45) The witness has deposed that on 01.01.2011 Prosecutrix and Sonia was again produced before the Sadar Hospital for their medical examination and thereafter they returned back to the police station K. Haat and thereafter both accused Urmila and Rupesh and Prosecutrix and Sonia were produced before the SDM, Purniya, Bihar and obtained the three days transit remand and thereafter we reached at the police station Maranga. He also recorded the statement of L/Ct. Usha and at about 7.00PM they left for Delhi along with the accused persons and Randhir, Om Parkash, Prosecutrix and Sonia. The witness has deposed that in the night of 02.01.2011, they reached at Delhi and both accused were produced before medical examination and thereafter they were kept in the lock up. (46) According to the witness, on 03.01.2011 both accused were produced before the court and they were sent to JC. He has deposed that he also produced Prosecutrix and Sonia before the Ld. State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 43 of 77 MM for recording their statements U/s 164 Cr. P.C. and the same were recorded after which Sonia was sent to Nirmal Chaya and Prosecutrix was handed over to her father Om Parkash. According to the witness, on 10.01.2011, he arrested Sonia vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and recorded her disclosure statement vide Ex.PW14/B and she was also sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, on 26.01.2011, he recorded the statement of Rajesh and Babloo and during investigations, he also obtained the call details of mobile phone No. 9631844339, 9990220056, 9717864459, 8809118347 and 9211870154. He has correctly identified the accused Rupesh and Urmila in the court. He has also identified the mobile phones Ex.P1 and P2.

(47) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that on the intervening night of 24­25.12.2010 Om Parkash had come along with one or two neighbours but he did not hand over any photograph of the child and the maid on that day. According to the witness, the hue and cry notices were issued after 2­3 days. He has deposed that he made inquiries from Om Parkash regarding maid servant Sonia and he told him that he had kept her through one Randhir. According to him, Om Parkash told him that the age of the maid was 18 years but he did not hand over the date of birth details of the child to him despite his notice. He has deposed that during the period from 25.12.2010 to 28.12.2010 only routine State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 44 of 77 efforts were made to trace the child. He admits that Om Parkash had told him that he was having a mobile phone. According to him, no telephone was put on surveillance. He has deposed that the first time he received the information regarding the call was from Om Parkash on 28.12.2010. The witness has deposed that on 29.12.2010 he left Delhi vide a departure entry and had made the arrival entry in police station Maranga, but does not recollect the details of the same. He has deposed that they had reached the police station Maranga on 31.12.2010 at about 12.00­12.30PM. According to him, the raid at the house of Urmila was conducted at about 3.00­3.15PM and in the village first they went to the house of Mukhiya, Ran Vijay Singh where they reached at around 1.30­2PM. He has deposed that he had made inquiries from Mukhiya about the children but he could not give him the entire details though he was aware of the children staying with Urmila. He has deposed that he did not associate any other neighbour of Urmila or any public person in the raid apart from the Mukhiya, Randhir and Om Prakash. According to him no female neighbour was joined in the raid and also when Urmila was arrested. He has explained that it was only at the railway station that they obtained the details of previous involvement of Urmila because they came to know that previously she had been apprehended by the Railway police. The witness has deposed that during the investigations, he was not aware that the Om Parkash was not the State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 45 of 77 father of Prosecutrix but now during the trial while they were coming to the court, he came to know that Om Parkash was not a father of 'P'. He is also not aware if Om Parkash was married to Kusum or not. The witness has admitted that Om Parkash used to come to the police station between 26.12.2010 and 28.12.2010 and has voluntarily added that he met him on one or two occasions but mostly spoke to him on telephone. He admits that children (prosecutrix 'P' and Sonia) did not complain that they were being ill­treated by Urmila in any manner and has voluntarily added that the child only told him that she was not permitted to go out of the house. He has denied that no disclosure statement was made by the accused or that the he recorded the same of his own or that thumb impression of the accused were taken on blank papers which were later on converted into memos by him. He has further denied that all documentation was done while sitting in the police station on the prompting of Om Prakash. He has also denied that the fair investigations have not been conducted by him. He has denied that call details records had been manipulated on his instructions and it is for this reason that he has not cited as a witness. According to him, prior to 28.12.2010 Om Parkash did not give him any information regarding Urmila and for the first time on 28.12.2010 he told him that he was receiving a call from one Parvesh and he had send one Randhir at his own level to the house of Urmila. Om Parkash did not tell him that he had information from Randhir State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 46 of 77 regarding the children with Urmila. He has further denied that Rupesh had been falsely implicated and in fact the call was from one Parmod Goswami, chowkidar who was asking for ransom. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

(48) After completing the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in which all the incriminating evidence / material was put to them which they have denied.

(49) According to the accused Rupesh and Urmila, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They have stated that on 26.12.2010, both girls i.e. Sonia and 'P' reached their house of their own after which Sonia quarrelled with her and Rupesh, alleging that at the place where they had got her employed, she was being physically and sexually abused on which Rupesh made a call to Randhir and informed him reaching the girls at her house. The accused further state that after some time, Om Prakash and Babloo also had a talk on telephone with Rupesh and they requested Rupesh to ensure the security of the girls and therefore they (accused) kept them at her house and provided them with everything possible. The accused have further stated that they also informed the Maranga Police Station about the presence of the girls and the officials at Police Station told Rupesh that he should keep the girls with him and State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 47 of 77 whenever the Delhi police would reach there, they would be informed. According to the accused, they never demanded any ransom amount and in fact it was Sonia who had demanded the money. They have also stated that the girls were not recovered from their house. The accused have admitted that Om Prakash is himself a criminal who is involved in the crime as Sonia has lodged a complaint against Om Prakash and others on which a FIR has been registered vide No. 6/2011 under Section 3 and 4 ITP Act and Section 342/34 IPC which is pending before the concerned court and is fixed for 9.10.2012. They have stated that only for the purpose of saving their skin, Om Prakash and Kusum have registered the present case in connivance with the police.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE (50) The accused have examined as many as three witnesses in defence. DW1 Santosh Kumar has deposed that he did not see anything on 26.12.2010. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused.

(51) DW2 Vinod Sain has deposed that he does not recollect the date but it was in the last month of the year 2010, he had gone to Mehto Chowk to meet his sister, when he heard a lot of commotion and he was told by public persons standing there that one girl by the name of Sonia had brought a child to the village whom they had kept State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 48 of 77 in the house Rupesh. According to the witness, thereafter he went to the house of Rupesh and found the child there and he told the villagers to inform the police officials on which he alongwith other villagers and the chowkidar namely Arjun Paswan went to the police station and informed the SHO about the same on which they were told by the senior officers that they already had the information about the same from the sweepers/jamadars of the area. According to him, the police further told them that they had told the Urmila to keep the child safely and not to hand her over to anybody without the permission of the police.

(52) In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, the witness has admitted that he is not a resident of village Satkodaria but his sister Teetari Devi is married in this village for the last more than 15 years. According to him, he had gone to her house in Satya Narain Pooja but he cannot tell the Tithi or the occasion for which the Satya Narain Pooja was held at her house. The witness has deposed that the house of his sister is three kms. away from Mehto Chowk but he cannot tell the names of the persons standing at the Mehto Chowk who were making commotion and Arjun Paswan was telling everybody. He does not know Sonia nor he can recognize her nor he made any enquiries regarding Sonia nor he was aware if Sonia was minor below 18 years of age and states that he never seen her. According to him , he is known to Rupesh since his birth as he has State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 49 of 77 his maternal family(Nanihal) in his village but states that he is not friendly to Rupesh. He is not aware if there are other criminal cases connected with kidnapping against Urmila which are pending in the courts at Bihar. He is unable to tell any DD entry or number of the complaint which they had lodged in the police station and has voluntarily added that he had only gone with the chowkidar. According to the witness, 8 to 10 persons had gone to the police station but he is not able to give their names and has further states that Arjun Paswan and Satya Narain had also gone with him. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the village nor he had ever gone to the police station. He has further denied the suggestion that he has created this story on the asking of the accused Rupesh and Urmila to save them from penal consequences. (53) DW3 Permanand has deposed that on 26.12.2010, there was a talk in the village that Sonia had brought a girl to the village and a large number of public persons had gathered near the house of Rupesh and Urmila and Mykhiya and Dafedar (Chowkidar) were also present there. According go the witness, the people gathered at the spot told Urmila to inform the police about the girl and thereafter, the said girl was taken to the police station. He has deposed that he along with other villagers namely Vinod, Urmila, Rupesh and the chowkidar went to the police station and informed the SHO about the same on which they were told by the senior officers that they already State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 50 of 77 had the information about the same from the Chowkidar of the area. According to him, the police further told them that they had asked Urmila to keep the child safely and not to hand her over to anybody without the permission of the police.

(54) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that he is not a resident of village Satkodaria. According to him, he does not know Sonia nor can he recognize her nor he made any enquiries regarding Sonia nor his is aware if Sonia herself was minor below 18 years of age. The witness has deposed that he knew to Rupesh for 5 to 6 years as he (Rupesh) is working in a brick­klin (eant bhatta). He admits that he is not working in any brick­klin nor he had ever worked with Rupesh. The witness has deposed that he knew Urmila for the last 5 to 6 years but is not aware if there are other criminal cases connected with kidnapping against Urmila which are pending in the courts at Bihar. He has deposed that he had only gone to the Police Station along with the chowkidar Parmod and is unable to tell the name of the police officer sitting in the Police Station who had told them that the complaint had already been received by them. According to him, apart from Pramod, one Vinod resident of Baskhara had also come with them. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the village nor he had ever gone to the police station or that he has created this story on the asking of the accused Rupesh and Urmila to save them from penal State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 51 of 77 consequences.

FINDINGS:

(55) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. I have also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and also the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused. My findings are as under:

Identity of the accused:

(56) In so far as the identity of the accused Rupesh and Urmila from whom the prosecutrix 'P' has been recovered, is concerned, they have been correctly identified by the child / prosecutrix 'P' (PW7) and also by the complainant Om Prakash (PW5) who had accompanied the Delhi Police to the village of the accused to recover the child. I hold that the identity of both Rupesh and Urmila stands established.

Testimony of Om Parkash (PW5) is to be read with caution:

(57) PW5 Om Prakash is stated to be the step­father of child 'P' and it was he who lodged the missing complaint. It is writ large from his testimony that he was having live­in­relationship with Kusum, the mother of the child and has not been able to prove any State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 52 of 77 valid marriage with her after the first husband of Kusum had divorced / deserted her. It is further evident that Sonia (Juvenile accused) who had been allegedly working as maid in the house of Om Parkash has made very serious allegations against him. Om Parkash being a driver by profession and was earning about Rs.

7,000/­ per month and is paying Rs.3,500/­ per month as rent. He has stated that he had brought Sonia from Randhir and had employed her on monthly salary of Rs.1,500/­ and also concedes that he was not in a position to afford the salary of a maid servant. The only explanation given that at the time of taking the services of Sonia, his wife as unwell. This being so, the version given by Om Parkash does not inspire confidence of the court. Rather, the possibility of the Sonia being pushed into the flash trade by Om Parkash and Kusum as claimed by Sonia, cannot be ruled out or else there was no other way he could have afforded to avail services of a maid servant and pay her salary. The conduct of Om Parkash himself does not appears to be above board and hence under the given circumstances this court is required to act with caution while dealing with the testimony of Om Parkash and allegations made by him against the accused Rupesh and Urmila for ransom of Rs.50,000/­ for release of the child 'P'. Allegations against the accused Rupesh and Urmila:

(58) The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2010 Sonia State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 53 of 77 (juvenile accused) had kidnapped the minor prosecutrix 'P' who is the step­daughter of complainant Om Prakash and Kusum, from her house, and had taken her to her native village at Purnia, Bihar, where she was kept in the house of the accused Rupesh and Urmila who demanded Rs.50,000/­ from Om Prakash for her release. (59) In this regard, the testimony of child prosecutrix 'P' (PW7) is most relevant who has been examined in question answer form being 12 years of age. The relevant portion of her examination­in­chief is as under:

"Ques. Apka naam kaya hai?

Ans. Mera naam 'P' hai.

Ques. Apki Umar Kitni hai?

Ans. Meri Umar dus saal hai.

Ques. Aap kaun se school me padhte ho? Ans. Tamil School, Samrat Cinema ke pass, Shakurpur.

Ques. Apke Mummy, Papa kya kaam karte hai? Ans. Mere papa gadi chalate hai, Mummy kothiyo main jati hai.

Ques. Tum Sonia ko kaise jante ho? Ans. Meri choti bahan hai, kyunki meri mummy kaam pe jati the,Sonia ko hamare ghar pe kaam karne ke liye rakha tha Naukrani ke tarah. Mai usko didi bulati thi. Ques. Kya uske sath kahin gaye the? Ans. Meri mummy ne mujhe subziya kharidenae kae liya behja tha, isliye mai uske sath subziyan kharidne gai thi. Usne mujhe ek auto mai bithaya, phir uske baad mujhe Train State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 54 of 77 mai le gai. Hum train main teen din rahe. Ques. Apko pata hai kahan le gai? Ans. Kathihar.

Ques. Kathikar kahan hai?

Ans. Purniya, Bihar main.

Ques. Aap didi ke saath kayun chale gaye? Ans. Kyunki woh hamare sath rahti thi, mujhe us par yakeen tha.

Ques. Apne ghar le gai ya kisi or ke ghar? Ans. Radha didi ke ghar.

Ques. Aap ghar kyun nahi gaye, bola tha ke Mummy ke paas jana hai?

Ans. Han, bola tha. Maine apni Mummy sae telephone pe baat ke thi, teb unhone paise mange the.

Ques. Kitne?

Ans. Main Urmila Aunti ke paas gai, usne pachas hazar rupaye mange.

Ques. Tumhe kaise pata?

Ans. Kyunki usne mere samne bola, meri Mummy ko, telephone pe kae tum Kathihari Purniya paise le aao or apni ladki ko le jao. Bahar nahi jane dete the.

Ques. Tum vapas kaise aye?

Ans. Mujhe police wale uncle vapas le ke aye. Ques. Tum kitne din Urmila Aunti or Rupesh uncle ke saath rahe?

Ans. Char­panch din.

Ques. Or bhi koi ruka tha?

Ans. Sonia didi ruki thi."

(60) The child witness (PW7) has been cross examined at length wherein she has stated that she had been taken by Sonia by State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 55 of 77 force. She further states that in the house of Rupesh, she was detained and was not permitted to go out. She has further explained that both Urmila and Rupesh had asked for money. She has also explained that when she (Sonia) had taken her to the house of Urmila and Rupesh, Sonia was fighting with them and Urmila and Rupesh asked Sonia to demand money from her (child 'Ps') mother for her release.

(61) On the aspect of how and when the prosecutrix 'P' was kidnapped, the testimony of the child witness finds due corroboration from the testimony of her mother Kusum (PW8). Kusum has in her testimony stated that on the date of incident i.e. 24.12.2010 at about 6 PM, she send her daughter 'P' along with maid Sonia to bring vegetables from nearby market but they did not return till 6:30 PM. The child 'P' has also corroborated her version and stated that she was asked by her mother to accompany Sonia but instead Sonia took her in an auto and thereafter in a train and took her to Kathiyar, Purnia, Bihar. The child witness has explained that she had trust and faith in Sonia as she was residing in their house and therefore she without any hesitation went with her.

(62) The statement of Sonia (minor co­accused) under Section 164 Cr.PC recorded by Ld. MM is also relevant. It is evident from the said statement that Sonia was hardly 15 years of age at the time when the incident took place. According to Sonia, she had come to State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 56 of 77 Delhi through Urmila who sent her to Randhir who sent her to one Babloo who sent her to one Rajesh and it was Rajesh who sent Sonia to Om Parkash. She has also stated that she had been working in the house of Om Parkash where she had been subjected to sexual abuse not only by Om Parkash (father of child 'P') but also by other persons namely Babloo, Asif and Rajesh who have been forcing her into prostitution and also used to give her beatings. She also told the Ld. MM that for two to three months, she had been raped by these persons and whenever she was raped, Kusum, Asif and Rajesh used to remain there. She also told the Ld. MM that she was trying to escape from the house of Om Parkash and on the date of incident on getting an opportunity when she was running away from there, the child 'P' also accompanied her and she had informed the child 'P' that she was being forced to do galat kaam. However, the child 'P' told her that she would come with her and thereafter they both went to the house of Urmila because it was Urmila who had sent her to work in the house of Om Prakash and Kusum. Sonia also told the Ld. MM that when Urmila had asked as to who was the child 'P', she informed her that the child was the daughter of the person who had compelled her to do galat kaam on which both Urmila and Rupesh compelled her (Sonia) to speak to the father of the child 'P' and demand Rs. 50,000/­ and to tell him that only after this demand is met, they would release the child and thereafter both Urmila and Rupesh State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 57 of 77 locked Sonia and the child 'P' in a room.

(63) Whatever Sonia had stated to the Ld. MM in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, finds independent corroboration from the testimony of child 'P' to the extent that when Sonia ran away from the house of Om Parkash she (Sonia) told her that galat kam was being done with her due to which reason she was running away. The child 'P' has also in her testimony stated that when she reached the house of Urmila and Rupesh, she had seen Sonia quarreling with them and it was the accused Urmila and Rupesh who asked Sonia to make a call to the child's parents and demand for Rs.50,000/­ from them. The child 'P' also stated that both she and and Sonia had been kept confined in the house of the accused Rupesh and Urmila and this fact also stands established because both Sonia and child 'P' were recovered from the possession of Rupesh and Urmila which aspect the accused do not dispute. (The only dispute being that according to the accused they had informed the local police regarding Sonia and the prosecutrix / child 'P' coming to their house and states that they had kept the child 'P' and Sonia at their house on the asking of the local police and also father of child 'P').

(64) The testimonies of various witnesses on record reveal an angle of human trafficking of a minor Sonia (who has been made an accused in the present case and is facing trial separately). It is evident from the testimony of Randhir (PW6) that the accused State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 58 of 77 Urmila used to supply labour / manpower to him and it was Randhir who had procured Sonia through Urmila and kept her on employment with one Babloo (PW10) who in turn further got her employed in the house of Rajesh as a maid servant. According to Randhir, it was Om Prakash who had come to the house of Babloo and asked for a maid servant as his wife was ill and therefore under these circumstances Babloo sent Sonia to the house of Om Parkash. This fact also finds due corroboration from the testimony of Om Parkash (PW5) who admits that after the child 'P' had gone missing, he made efforts to trace his daughter and Sonia and since he had procured Sonia through Randhir, therefore it was Randhir who contacted Urmila who had sent the girl Sonia to him and thereafter it was Randhir who contacted Urmila and Rupesh and confirmed that the child 'P' and Sonia had reached Bihar.

(65) Firstly, it is writ large from the evidence which has come on record, that at the time of incident Sonia herself was a minor aged about 15 years and was admittedly under the employment of Om Parkash.

(66) Secondly it is an admitted case of the complainant Om Parkash that he is a driver by profession earning around Rs.7,000/­ per month and unable to afford a domestic maid. It is this which raises a doubt in the mind of the court as to how and from where he could afford a maid servant. Therefore, the possibility of the State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 59 of 77 allegations made by Sonia that she was being sexually abused by them and compelled into flesh trade, cannot be ruled out and hence it is perhaps of this that she escaped from the house of Om Parkash and the child 'P' acted as a shield for her.

(67) Thirdly the aspect that Sonia after her escape, went to the house of Urmila also stands established because she was recovered from her house and it is only natural that she would have gone to Urmila first since it was Urmila who had put her under employment with Randhir who thereafter handed her over to Babloo and thereafter Rajesh after which she reached the house of Om Parkash.

(68) Fourthly it is evident from the testimony of Randhir (PW6) and also from the Call Detail Records placed before the court that Randhir had immediately contacted the accused Rupesh. This confirms the version of the prosecution that Sonia was put under employment of Randhir by Urmila.

(69) Fifthly Parmod Goswami who has been examined as PW9 by the prosecution has in his testimony stated that in his presence the minor Sonia who was present in the house of accused Urmila, had told the Mukhiya Ran Vijay Singh that at the house of the father of child 'P', she was compelled to do galat kaam and on this the Mukhiya Ran Vijay Singh had also spoken to the father of the child 'P' and informed him that the child was present in the State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 60 of 77 village and also questioned him as to why he used to take galat kam / bad work from Sonia and told him that Sonia will lodge a case against him for the same, on which the father of the girl told him that they would give some money to Sonia. I may observe that this Pramod Goswami is the witness of the prosecution and has not been declared hostile by them and there is no reason to disbelieve his version.

(70) Sixthly the case of the prosecution is that a sum of Rs. 50,000/­ was demanded as ransom by the accused Urmila and Rupesh from Om Parkash for release of the child 'P', in respect of which the only evidence on record is the oral testimony of the parents of the child, the child 'P' herself, Randhir and Rajesh, according to which a sum of Rs.50,000/­ was demanded by the accused for release of the child. Both the accused Rupesh and Urmila do not deny that this demand was raised, but according to them this was not for the purpose of releasing the child 'P' but was the amount which Om Parkash himself had offered to pay to Sonia so that the matter regarding sexual exploitation of the minor Sonia by pushing her into flesh trade, is not reported to the police and this fact finds independent corroboration from the version given by the prosecution witness Parmod Goswami (PW9).

(71) Seventhly this fact regarding kidnapping and making alleged calls by accused Rupesh and Urmila and demand of ransom State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 61 of 77 raised by them through their personal mobile phones from which they had made calls to Rajesh, Randhir and also Om Parkash. It does not appear probable that a kidnapper would directly disclose his own identity and also the identity of the place where the child had been kept and would ask Om Parkash to give Rs.50,000/­ to them. It makes me ponder why a kidnapper would disclose everything, i.e. their own identity, the place where the child was kept and when get the money. In this background, the other aspect which emerged from the evidence on record i.e. Rs.50,000/­ (which is otherwise a meager amount to be demanded for release of a child), was an amount which Om Parkash had volunteered to give to Sonia for not disclosing this fact to the police since Sonia had objected to her sexual exploitation in the house of Om Parkash. This aspect appears to be more convincing and probable, since it was beyond his financial means that Om Parkash being a driver could have afforded a maid servant servant a fact which he admits and hence a big question which arises is "from where and how could Om Parkash pay the salary to Sonia". The possibility that Om Parkash along with his other friends including Rajesh in whose house Sonia was previously employed, were compelling and pushing Sonia into immoral trafficking, cannot be ruled out and perhaps it is for this reason that Sonia herself a minor, escaped from his house by taking the child with her to act as her shield.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 62 of 77 (72) Eighthly in so far as Sonia (who has been made a co­ accused in the present case) is concerned, she herself is a juvenile and hence I refrain myself from making any observations on the allegations made against her and confine myself only to the allegations made against the accused Urmila and Rupesh, in whose house Sonia had reached along with the child 'P' after escaping from the house of Om Parkash. Having come to know that the child 'P' had been brought by Sonia to their house without the consent of her parents, both Urmila and Rupesh were under legal obligations to have informed the parents of the child and local police, which they did not do. Technically and legally it is from this point of time onwards that the wrongful confinement of the child 'P' in the house of the accused Rupesh and Urmila commenced.

(73) Lastly, as already discussed herein above, the aspect of kidnapping for the purposes of ransom has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It does not stands established beyond doubt that at the time when the child was taken out from the custody of her parents without their consent, the intention of Sonia was to ask for ransom for her release. Rather the evidence on record shows that even the accused Urmila and Rupesh were taken by surprise when the child was brought to their house by Sonia. The only evidence on record regarding the demand of Rs.50,000/­ forthcoming is from the parents of the child and Randhir. It is State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 63 of 77 worthwhile to mention her that Sonia herself has made specific allegations against Om Parkash and Kusum (and also Rajesh and Asif

- not examined as witness in the present case) of having pushed her into flesh trade / immoral traffic, who on the basis of her complaint have been booked in FIR No. 6/2011 under Section 3/4/5/ ITP Act at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and I may further mention that PW9 Parmod Goswami a witness of the prosecution has independently confirmed this version of Sonia having informed the accused Urmila and Rupesh and also the Mukhia Ran Vijay Singh, regarding father of the child 'P' (Om Parkash) of compelling her into immoral trafficking on which Om Parkash was confronted with the said allegations and he offered to pay some money to Sonia for not reporting this matter to the police. There being no independent corroboration forthcoming to the allegations regarding demand of ransom for release of the child, (which question of ransom otherwise does not appear probable since everybody in the village of the accused and Om Parkash himself being aware of the presence of the child 'P' in the house of the accused), I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused of having kidnapped the child 'P' and of having confined her in their house for the purposes of ransom, do not stand established beyond reasonable doubt. Technically and legally both the accused Rupesh and Urmila are only liable for the charges under Section 365 IPC (relating to kidnapping and confining State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 64 of 77 of the child 'P' in the house of the accused Urmila and Rupesh). Electronic Evidence:

(74) The electronic evidence in the form of Call Detail Record has been proved by the witnesses from service providers. Gaganjit Singh Sidhu (PW15), Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd., has proved the record pertaining to mobile number 9211870154 (being used by Om Parkash) was issued in the name of Amit Kumar vide customer application form Ex.PW14/A; ID proof of the applicant Ex.PW14/B and its call detail record from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 vide Ex.PW14/C (75) Pawan Singh (PW16) Nodal Officer Idea Cellular Ltd., has proved the record pertaining to mobile number 9990220056 (being used by Rajesh friend of Om Parkesh) which number is in the name of Mohd. Shahid vide customer application form Ex.PW14/K; ID proof i.e. voter ID card Ex.PW14/L and its call detail record from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is Ex.PW14/M. (76) Further, R. K. Singh (PW17), Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., has proved the record pertaining to mobile number 8809118347 in the name of Rupesh vide customer application form Ex.PW14/F and ID proof i.e. voter ID card Ex.PW14/G whose call detail record from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is Ex.PW14/H. He has State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 65 of 77 further proved the record of mobile number 9717864459 in the name of Randhir Singh vide customer application form Ex.PW14/C and ID proof i.e. voter ID card Ex.PW14/D whose call detail record from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is Ex.PW14/H. This witness has also proved the record of mobile number 9631844339 (being used by Urmila) which is issued in the name of one Kare Lal Yadav vide customer application form Ex.PW17/A and ID proof i.e. voter ID Ex.PW17/B (OSR) whose call detail record from 24.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 is Ex.PW14/I. (77) I have gone through the call detail record of the aforesaid mobile numbers. The Investigating Officer SI Sandeep (PW14) has duly proved the recovery and seizure of the mobile phone make Nokia Model 1616 of black­blue colour from the possession of accused Rupesh vide memo Ex.PW5/I which mobile phone is Ex.P1 having IMEI No. 353752/04/741256/3 with SIM No. 89915241000044339960H4. He has further proved the recovery and seizure of another mobile phone make Nokia Model 1209 of black­ blue colour from the accused Urmila vide memo PW5/J which mobile is Ex.P2 having IMEI No. 358308/03/546136/2 with SIM No. 89915211000070223969. The case of the prosecution is that after the child 'P' was missing, Om Parkash immediately get in touch with Randhir from the mobile of his friend Rajesh (9990220056) on his State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 66 of 77 telephone because it was through Randhir that the Sonia had been employed at the house of Om Parkash. Thereafter, it was Randhir (9717864459) who made call to the accused Rupesh (8809118347) and thereafter they (Rupesh on one side and Om Parkash, Randhir on the other side) were communicating each other on mobile phones of Rupesh and Rajesh till 28.12.2010. Thereafter, on 28.2.2010, it was for the first time that Om Parkash himself started communicating with Rupesh and had also spoken to Urmila of her mobile phone (9631844339). The Call Detail Records of all these mobile numbers which have been placed on record, prove the said calls in the portions highlighted therein. It is also not disputed by the accused that they were not speaking to Om Parkash, Randhir and Rajesh and asking for ransom but according to them they had made a protest to Randhir as to why Sonia was sent to Om Parkash for employment where she had been subjected to sexual abuse and was pushed in the flesh trade.

The electronic evidence placed on record only proves and establishes the contact between the accused Rupesh and Urmila on one side with Randhir, Om Parkash and Rajesh on the other side, during this period when the child 'P' had been staying in the house of accused Rupesh and Urmila. However, this electronic evidence does not conclusively establishes their conversation which took place between them. Hence the electronic records neither corroborates the version of the prosecution that ransom had been demanded on telephone nor the State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 67 of 77 version of the defence that the accused objected to Om Parkash, Randhir and Rajesh having sexually abused Sonia when Om Parkash himself offered Rs.50,000/­ to Sonia for the purposes of dropping the case filed by her against him.

Apprehension and arrest of the accused and recovery of Child 'P' and Sonia (Juvenile accused):

(78) The prosecution case is that when the Delhi police reached Purnia, Bihar, they constituted a raiding party and conducted a raid on the house of accused Rupesh and Urmila from where they recovered the child 'P' and Sonia. These facts have been duly established from the testimony of the child 'P' (PW7) which proves that she had been rescued by the Delhi Police from the house of Rupesh and Urmila and also finds due corroboration from the testimonies of PW9 Parmod Goswami and PW12 Ran Vijay Singh (Pradhan of the village), who have both corroborated the testimonies of PW13 SI Radhey Shyam and PW13 SI Sandeep (IO) to the extent that on 31.12.2010 in the morning they went to Police Station Maranga and reached the village of Rupesh and Urmila where both the accused were residing and after seeking help from local police and Pradhan of the village namely Parmod Goswami and Mukhiya, they went to the house of Urmila and Rupesh from where they recovered the child 'P' and Sonia. This aspect of recovery of child 'P' State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 68 of 77 from the house of accused persons is not disputed and only dispute is with regard to the raid. The case of the prosecution is the accused had kept the child 'P' who had come along with Sonia in their house and had also informed her father of the same and it was on his (Om Parkash's) asking and also on the asking of the local police to whom they had disclosed about the child, that they had kept the child with them. According to the accused, the complainant Om Parkash himself is involved in sexual abuse of Sonia and a complaint has been lodged against him by Sonia vide FIR No. 6/2011 under Section 3 & 4 of ITP Act and Section 342/34 IPC. According to the accused, they have rather assisted the police.

Defence of the accused:

(79) The accused persons have examined one Vinod (PW2) and Permanand (PW3) in defence, who has stated that all the persons in the village were aware of the presence of child and had even informed the local police about the same and that the local police had told Urmila to keep the child safely and not to handover the child to anybody without their permission.

(80) It is writ large from the defence adduced by the accused State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 69 of 77 that they do not dispute the presence of the child 'P' in their house but according to them, they were told by the local police to keep the child safely. This however does not appears to be plausible because had that been so, there would have been some record of the same in the Police Station and the family of the child would have been informed about her presence in the village. However, in the given circumstances, the possibility of the child having come with Sonia of her own when Sonia escaped from the house of Om Parkash, cannot be ruled out, more so because the prosecution witness Parmod Goswami (PW9) has independently corroborated this version regarding the presence of the child 'P' along with Sonia in the village in the house of the accused and of Sonia having informed everybody that she had been sexually abused in the house of Om Parkash. (81) The fact that there is no information having been given to the local authorities coupled with the testimonies of the child that she was confined inside the house and was not permitted to go outside, technically and legally make the accused Rupesh and Urmila liable for the offence under Section 365 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 364­A IPC).

FINAL CONCLUSION:

(82) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 70 of 77 tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

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.

(83) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigations conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 71 of 77 proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer. Further, from the evidence on record the following aspects stands established :

➢ The identify of the accused Rupesh and Urmila stands established.

➢ It stands established that Om Parkash and Kusum are living like husband and wife after first husband of Kusum had walked out of the marriage and it is Om Parkash who is taking care of her children from her first marriage including the child 'P' (Om Parkash is the step father of the child 'P').

➢ It stands established that Sonia, a minor aged about 15 years, original resident of Bihar, had come to Delhi through Urmila seeking an employment and was sent to Randhir.

➢ It further stands established that Randhir first put Sonia under the employment of one Babloo and thereafter sent her to the house of Rajesh (friend of Om Parkash) but soon thereafter Om Parkash wanted to avail the services of a maid servant as his wife Kusum was not keeping well, therefore Sonia was sent to the house of Om Parkash for working as domestic help.

➢ It stands established that Om Parkash is a driver hardly State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 72 of 77 having monthly income of about Rs.7,000/­ and himself not financially capable of maintaining and affording a maid servant.

➢ It stands established that on 24.12.2012 while Kusum sent Sonia to market to purchase vegetables along with her daughter 'P', they did not return back after which Om Parkash and Kusum started searching for them and ultimately contacted Randhir who in turn contacted Urmila and Rupesh since it was Urmila who had sent Sonia for employment to Randhir.

➢ It further stands established that when Randhir called up the accused Rupesh and Urmila, they informed Randhir that both Sonia and child 'P' had come to their house. ➢ It stands established from the electronic record that thereafter there were regular telephonic communications between Rupesh and Urmila on one side and Om Parkash, Randhir and Rajesh on the other side (as proved from the electronic evidence of the mobile phone).

➢ It further stands established that Om Parkash informed the police that demand of Rs.50,000/­ had been raised by the accused Urmila and Rupesh for the purposes of release of their daughter 'P' and throughout Om Parkash State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 73 of 77 was aware of the names and address of Urmila and Rupesh on which with the assistance of Delhi Police, they reached the village of the accused Urmila and Rupesh and Sonia and the child 'P' were recovered. ➢ It stands established that soon after the recovery, Sonia who herself is a minor, told the IO and also made specific allegations in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC recorded by Ld. MM, informing them that she had been pushed into flesh trade and prostitution by Om Parkash and was being sexually exploited by Om Parkash himself and also by Rajesh and one Asif, and whenever she was sexually assaulted, Kusum, wife of Om Parkash, used to remain present.

➢ It stands established that on the basis of the above statements of Sonia, a case bearing FIR No. 6/2011 under Section 3/4/5/ ITP Act at Police Station Saraswati Vihar for sexually exploiting the minor and compelling her into prostitution.

➢ It stands established that the child 'P' was confined in the house of Rupesh and Urmila after she was brought to the village by Sonia.

➢ The apprehension and arrest of both the accused from their native village has not been disputed by them nor State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 74 of 77 they have disputed that Sonia and child 'P' were recovered from their possession.

(84) Prosecution however has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Urmila and Rupesh having kidnapped the child 'P' for the purposes of ransom. Further, despite the fact that the accused have taken a defence that they had kept the child in their house on the asking of local police whom they had already informed about the child being brought by Sonia, they have not been able to prove this aspect beyond doubt.

(85) 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. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused Urmila and Rupesh, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, etc. (86) Hence, I hereby hold that the prosecution having proved the identity of both the accused, manner in which the offence of kidnapping had been committed and place where the child had been State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 75 of 77 confined, the documents prepared by the Investigating Officer, there is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution qua the accused Urmila and Rupesh. 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, in so far as the aspect of kidnapping is concerned. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up continuous link. (87) In view of the above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Urmila and Rupesh for confining the child 'P' in their house after kidnapping her from the lawful custody of her parents. However, the aspect that the kidnapping of the child was for the purposes of ransom, has not been proved and established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I hereby hold the accused Rupesh and Urmila guilty for the offence under Section 365 Indian Penal Code (Not under Section 364­A Indian Penal Code). (88) I may further observe that specific allegations have been made by Sonia (juvenile co­accused in the present case) against the complainant Om Parkash, Kusum, Rajesh and Asif, State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 76 of 77 pursuant to which FIR No. 6/2011 under Section 3/4/5 ITP Act was registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar. It is necessary that detailed investigations are got conducted on this aspect of trafficking of the juvenile Sonia. In the aforementioned FIR, investigations should also be conducted on the aspect of the juvenile Sonia being compelled into immoral trafficking / flesh trade.

(89) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 10.09.2012.

Announced in the open court                                    (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 05.09.2012                                            ASJ (NW)­II: ROHINI




State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar              Page 77 of 77
    IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
    JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Sessions Case No. 65/2011
Unique Case ID: 02404R0066632011

State          Vs.            (1)            Rupesh 
                                             S/o Turai Mehta, 
                                             Village Satcodaria, PS Maranga, 
                                             Distt. Purnia, Bihar.
                                             (Convicted) 

                              (2)            Urmila
                                             W/o Turai Mehta,
                                             Village Satcodaria, PS Maranga, 
                                             Distt. Purnia, Bihar.
                                             (Convicted) 

FIR No.                       :              487/2010
Police Station                :              Saraswati Vihar 
Under Section                 :              363/364A/342/120/34 IPC

Date of Judgment   :                         05.09.2012
Arguments heard on :                         17.09.2012
Date of Sentence   :                         18.09.2012



APPEARANCE:

Present:       Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Convict Rupesh and Urmila in Judicial Custody with Sh. Narender Kumar, Advocate.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 78 of 77 ORDER ON SENTENCE:

Vide detailed judgment dated 05.09.2012, the accused Rupesh and Urmila have been held guilty for the offence under Section 365 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.

As per the allegations the accused Rupesh and Urmila in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped the prosecutrix 'P' (name of the girl is withheld being case under Section 363 IPC), a minor, from the lawful custody of her parents, for ransom and demanded Rs.50,000/­ from her parents on telephone. It is further alleged that after kidnapping the minor prosecutrix 'P', both the accused secretly and wrongfully confined her at their house at Village Satkodariya, Purnia, Bihar.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 24/25.12.2010, Om Parkash (complainant) came to Police Station and gave his statement to SI Sandeep wherein he alleged that on 24.12.2010 at about 6 PM his daughter 'P' (aged about 10 years) along with his maid Sonia (aged about 18 years) had gone to market to purchase vegetables and thereafter they did not return back. On 28.12.2010, Om Parkash (complainant) again came to Police Station and informed the Investigating Officer SI Sandeep that he had received a call from the kidnappers from mobile number 08809118347 and the kidnappers had demanded Rs.50,000/­ for the release of his daughter 'P' and had called him to Katiyar, Bihar with State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 79 of 77 money. Thereafter a raiding party was constituted who went to village Satkodariya, Purnia, Bihar, and the prosecutrix 'P' and the girl Sonia were recovered from the house of Rupesh and Urmila.

Thereafter both Urmila and Rupesh were arrested. The girl Sonia, child 'P' and the accused Urmila and Rupesh, were brought to Delhi.

On the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution in the Court, vide a detailed judgment dated 05.09.2012, this court observed that the allegations against the accused under Section 364­A IPC do not stand substantiated and proved in view of the allegations made by the minor Sonia against the complainant Om Parkash, Kusum, Rajesh, Asif, etc., pursuant to which FIR No. 6/2011 under Section 3/4/5 of ITP Act was registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar. This court also observed that a detailed investigation is required to be conducted on the aspect of trafficking of juvenile Sonia and of sexually abusing her and compelling her into flesh trade. In the present case, the accused Rupesh and Urmila have been held guilty for the offence under Section 365 Indian Penal Code.

Ld. Counsel for the convicts has vehemently argued that the convicts have no history of previous conviction. He has pointed out that the convict Urmila is a widow, 60 years of age with two sons and is a labour by profession. Further, the convict Rupesh who is 22 years of age is totally illiterate and is a labour by profession with a State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 80 of 77 family comprising of wife, small children and one brother who are totally dependent upon him being the sole bread earner of the family. Ld. counsel has argued that the conviction is on the basis of a technical offence and not because of any dishonest intent of the convicts. He submits that any harsh view would be detrimental not only to the convicts but also the family of the convicts. He requests that a lenient view be taken against the convicts.

On the other hand the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has prayed that a strict punishment be awarded to the convicts keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations involved. He has also pointed out that it is evident from the charge sheet that Urmila has also been named as an accused in a case bearing FIR No. 90/2009, dated 10.10.2009 under Section 363/366/366A/372/373/374/376 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the ITP Act, Police Station Katihar (Jogwani - Railways) Bihar.

I have considered the rival contentions. There is no record of any previous conviction against the accused persons. In the present case, the complainant himself is not above board and there are allegations against him of having sexually abused the minor Sonia and of compelling her into prostitution in respect of which a separate FIR has been registered. The conviction of the accused under Section 365 IPC is on account of technical reasons, since they had failed to inform the police or the local administration about State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 81 of 77 Sonia (herself juvenile) having brought the child 'P' with her which child they had kept confined in their house. Further, in respect of the case FIR No. case bearing FIR No. 90/2009, dated 10.10.2009 under Section 363/366/366A/372/373/374/376 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the ITP Act, Police Station Katihar (Jogwani - Railways) Bihar, IO of this case was directed to place before this court the present status of the said case and now at this stage of arguments on sentence, he has placed on record the verification report from Police Station Maranga, Purnia, Bihar, according to which no case is pending against the convict Urmila. This court also made inquiries from the convict Urmila regarding the above case and she informed that the said case was foisted on her when she was caught in the train by the Railway Police while travelling without ticket. She submits that till date she has never been called in the said matter. This being the background, I hereby hold that the ends of justice would met by awarding the following sentence to the convicts:

The convict Rupesh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/­ for the offence under Section 365 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 Days.

State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 82 of 77

The convict Urmila is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/­ for the offence under Section 365 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 Days.

Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial.

The convicts have been informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they 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.

Before I end, I may again reiterate that keeping in view the allegations made by Sonia (juvenile) against the complainant Om Parkash, Kusum, Rajesh, and Asif, pursuant to which FIR No. 6/2011 under Section 3/4/5 of ITP Act was registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, the ACP concerned is hereby directed to get conducted detailed investigations through the SHO concerned on this aspect of trafficking of the juvenile Sonia and of her sexually exploitation by the aforesaid State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page 83 of 77 persons and also of the said persons compelling her into prostitution / flesh trade, while carrying out the investigations in the above FIR, intimation of which shall be placed before this court.

Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and another be attached along with their jail warrants. Copies are also directed to be placed before the ACP, SHO and the Investigating Officer.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Court                                    (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 18.09.2012                                            ASJ (NW)­II: ROHINI




State Vs. Rupesh etc., FIR No. 487/10, PS Saraswati Vihar              Page 84 of 77