Delhi District Court
State vs Ramesh @ Ravi on 5 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No.24/2011
FIR No.05/2011
PS I. P. Estate
State
Versus
1. Ramesh @ Ravi
S/o Sh. Ratta Ram,
R/o H. No. T235/26A,
Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Rahul
S/o Late Sh. Pardeep Gautam,
R/o 21B, Palam Vihar,
PS Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.
Haryana.
Presently at:
H. No. 16A, Preet Nagar,
Ambala Cantt., Haryana.
3. Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli
W/o Late Sh. Pardeep Gautam,
R/o 21B, Palam Vihar,
PS Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.
Haryana.
1
Presently at:
H. No. 16A, Preet Nagar,
Ambala Cantt., Haryana
4. Karan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Pola Ram,
R/o Village Bijna Pokhar and PS Sadar,
District Karnal, Haryana. .......Accused Person(s)
Date of institution : 21.03.2012
Date of Judgment : 03.04.2014
J U D G M E N T
Accused Ramesh @ Ravi, Rahul, Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and Karan Singh were sent up for trial for offences U/s 365, 366, 368, 506 & 34 IPC.
2. Present case came to be registered on 11.01.2011, on the statement made by Bali Ram, aged 21 years, S/o Ram Parkash, R/o Vill. Pokhar Bhinda, Post Bankata Bharpurba, PS Kaptan Ganj, Distt Khushi Nagar (U.P.). In his statement made before SI Rajesh Shah at PP LNJP, Bali Ram stated that on 09.01.2011 he accompanied his wife - prosecutrix herein, aged 18 years, from Gorakhpur and alighted from train at New Delhi Railway Station on 10.01.2011 at 8.00 a.m. He was to get her medically treated, as she was suffering from some intestinedisease.
2
At the railway station, they enquired from a boy as to which way led to LNJP. The said boy, rather, started accompanying them saying that he would take them to hospital. On reaching the hospital, they occupied seats in front of gynae ward. During conversation, the boy told them that it would take 56 days and they would be in need of a room. According to the complainant, he then accompanied the boy in search of some house, while his wife remained sitting in from of gynae ward. The boy took him around for 1 - 2 hours and then made him to wait at a place saying that he would return to him. Saying so the boy left the company of the complainant. When the boy did not return, according to the complainant, he returned to the hospital at that time, he learnt from some patients present there that the boy accompanying them (complainant and his wife) had taken her away about an hour prior thereto saying that they had got a room.
Further, according to the complainant, he searched for his wife but in vain. That is how he reached the police post and lodged report narrating the occurrence and that he was confident that aforesaid boy has kidnapped his wife. In his statement, Bali Ram gave description of his wife and that of the aforesaid boy, who had kidnapped her.
Case of prosecution is that after registration of the case, SI Rajesh Shah accompanied by Bali Ram set out in search of the prosecutrix and the suspected boy but they were not traceable.
3
On 23.01.2011, secret information was received by SI Rajesh Shah that a boy, namely, Ramesh involved in the crime was expected to reach New Delhi Railway Station, towards Ajmeri Gate side. Thereupon, the Sub Inspector accompanied by others reached the disclosed place and from there arrested Ramesh accused as description of accused Ramesh was already available with the police. At the time of arrest, Ramesh was found in possession of two mobile phones i.e. one make Karbonn and the other make G5. These were seized. During interrogation, Ramesh accused made disclosure statement as to where he had taken and left the prosecutrix. He also disclosed the address of coaccused Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli. Thereafter, the party headed by SI Rakesh Tyagi, accompanied by Bali Ram reached Ambala. First of all they reached 25D, Indra Puri, Ambala, but it was found locked. Having come to know of latest address of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli they reached here Rahul accused was apprehended.
It is further case of prosecution that Rahul, accused disclosed as to how he and his mother Smt. Aruna Gautam, acused had taken the prosecutrix to Village Bijna and left her there at the house of Karan Singh accused. So the party accompanied by Bali Ram and Rahul (accused) reached the house of Karan Singh in Village Bijna. Prosecutrix was found present there with some ladies. Bali Ram identified the prosecutrix. The ladies present there are stated to have disclosed that the prosecutrix was brought there 34 days back 4 and that a sum of Rs.50,000/ was paid for leaving the prosecutrix there. Karan Singh, accused is stated to have concealed himself on having learnt about arrival of the police. ASI Rakesh Tyagi brought Rahul and the prosecutrix to Delhi. The prosecutrix was produced before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It is case of prosecution that Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli was arrested on 20.10.2011. Karan Singh accused was also arrested subsequently. SI Rajesh Shah sent Ct. Kailash to the native place of Bali Ram & the prosecutrix to verify factum of their marriage.
3. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court. Supplementray challan was put in on arrest of Karan and Smt. Aruna Gautam accused.
4. Copies of challan documents relied on by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
Charge
5. Prima facie case having been made out, charge was framed against accused Ramesh and Rahul on 03.06.2011 and against Babli @ Aruna Gautam and Karan Singh accused (arrested subsequently) on 03.05.2012, as under: (1) for offence under Section 366, 506, 368 and 379 IPC against Ramesh @ Ravi accused;
5 (2) for an offence under Section 366 read with Section 34 IPC against Rahul Gautam accused;
(3) for offences 368, 379 IPC and U/s 120B read with Section 368, 379 IPC and 120B read with Section 366 IPC against Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli accused, and (4) for offences under Section 368 and 120 B IPC read with Section 366 IPC against Karan Singh accused.
Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereupon, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined, following witnesses: PW1 Bali Ram The Complainant, PW2 Ms. Sanghni The Prosecutrix, PW3 Budhai Kanojia Father of prosecutrix PW4 Ram Prakash Father of the complainant PW5 HC Krishan Pal To prove recording of FIR Ex.PW5/A. PW6 ASI Rakesh Tyagi To prove part of the investigation, arrest of accused Rahul and recovery of prosecutrix.
PW7 Ct. Anil Kumar To prove arrest of accused Ramesh PW8 HC Mustaque Khan To prove arrest of accused Ramesh and recovery of mobile phones.
PW9HC Suresh Kumar Concerned MHC(M).
6 PW10 Sh. Arun Singh, Nodal To prove call detail record in respect of Officer mobile phone no.8858228231.
PW11 Sh. Chander Shekhar, Nodal To prove consumer application forms and Officer call detail record in respect of mobile phone nos.9818128518, 9560196518.
PW12 Sh. Israr Babu, Nodal Officer To prove consumer application forms and call detail record in respect of mobile phone nos.7838769835.
PW13 WHC Brijesh To prove factum of recovery of
prosecutrix.
PW14 SI Rajesh Shah Investigating Officer of the case.
PW15 Ms. Twinkle Wadhwa, M.M., To prove recording of the statement of Tis Hazari Courts prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
PW16 HC Gajender Singh To prove arrest of Karan Singh accused on 17.12.2011 from the shop situated outside his house in Village Bijna.
PW17 Ct. Tejinder Pal Singh To prove arrest of Karan Singh accused on 17.12.2011 from the shop situated outside his house in Village Bijna.
PW18 Ct. Kailash Who went to village Pokhar Bhinda, Post Bankata Bharpurba, PS Kaptan Ganj, Distt Khushi Nagar (U.P.) for verification of factum of marriage of Bali Ram and prosecutrix.
PW19 ASI Ramesh Kumar Who prepared supplementary report regarding Karan Singh and Aruna Gautam, accused.
Statement of Accused
7. When examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused persons Ramesh, Rahul and Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli denied all the incriminating circumstances 7 appearing in evidence against them and claimed false implication. Accused Karan Singh admitted that police rescued prosecutrix from his house as she was left there by coaccused Smt. Aruna Gautam but denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and claimed false implication.
Plea put forth by accused Ramesh is as under: "I did not meet Bali Ram at Delhi Railway Station or so offered. For the first time I saw Bali Ram at police post JPN.
My brother Naresh was called by the police to JPN police post on 22.01.2011. Police contacted me on phone and called me at Welingdon Hospital saying my brother was lying admitted there. That is how I was brought to the police post from Welingdon. Bali Ram was already present there at the police post.
I was having my Gfive mobile phone with me at the time I was so arrested. No phone make Karbon was recovered from my possession.
I know Aruna Gautam @ Babli accused as earlier she was also arrested with me in a case registered at PS Railway Main Delhi perhaps u/s 365 IPC.
I never went to village Bijana to leave prosecutrix there." Plea put forth by accused Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli is as under: "Rahul accused is my son. It is wrong to suggest that Ramesh brought Sanghini to our house. I do not know Ramesh, coaccused.
Earlier we used to reside at 25D, Indra puri Ambala. I do not know if police visited said house. I have no knowledge as to what the neighbourers told the police.
It is wrong that our house no. is 21B Palam Vihar, Ambala Cantt. The address of house is 16A, Preet Nagar, Ambala Cantt.
I do not know as to when and from where my son was arrested by the police or that when he was brought to Delhi.
I was arrested from Tis Hazari Court. But I do not remember the 8 name of the police officer."
Plea put forth by accused Rahul is as under: "My parents some time resided at 25D, Inderpuri Ambala. I started residing at house of my maternal uncle while I was in 7th standard. So I do not know about the other facts put to me in this question. I, My mother and other family members used to reside at 16A, Preet Nagar, Ambala Cantt., Haryana.
I was picked up by the police from Ambala bus stand and brought to Delhi. I or my mother Smt. Aruna Gautam are not involved in any such act.
I was picked up by the police from Ambala bus stand and brought to Delhi."
Plea put forth by accused Karan Singh is as under: "On 23.01.2011, Babli @ Aruna Gautam and her son Rahul left the prosecutrix at my house at village Bijana for her marriage with me. Babli used to run a marriage bureau. I do not know as to who told her that I was to get married. Babli @ Aruna Gautam told me that prosecutrix was her daughter. While leaving the prosecutrix at my house Babli @ Aruna Gautam told that I could marry her. During those days I and my elder brother used to live together. I could not marry the prosecutrix as on the same Delhi Police landed at my house. I was present at my house. Prosecutrix was present at my house. Police made inquires from me. I told the police the same version which I have given to this Court just now.
Police recovered the prosecutrix from my house. I was also taken away by the police when they visited my house on 23.01.2011, but after having come out of village they let me of, However they took prosecutrix along."
8. Arguments heard. File perused.
9. Learned Addl. P.P. has referred to the evidence led by the prosecution and submitted that from the statements of PW1 Bali Ram complainant and PW2 the prosecutrix, it stands established that it is Ramesh accused who met them at New Delhi Railway Station, accompanied them to LNJP Hospital and 9 from there he kidnapped the prosecutrix after having deceived both of them, in the manner narrated by these two witnesses.
Further, it has been submitted that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it stands proved that the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of Karan Singh accused on 24.01.2011 which proves the accusation levelled against Karan Singh accused.
As regards accused Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and her son, Rahul, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that from the statement of prosecutrix and the other material available on record, it stands proved that after Ramesh accused brought the prosecutrix to the house of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli, she and her son accompanied by accused Ramesh took her to the house of Karan Singh and left her there for the purpose of her marriage with Karan.
So learned Addl. P.P. has contended that all the accused persons deserve to be convicted of the charges framed against them and sentenced thereunder.
On the other hand, on behalf of Ramesh accused, it has been contended that there are material contradictions in/ the statements of PW1 Bali Ram and PW2 - prosecutrix and further that prosecutrix when examined for the second time, did not support the case of prosecution on many aspects. It has been contended that prosecution has failed to prove that it is Ramesh accused who abducted the prosecutrix or took her to the house of Smt. Babli. 10
Learned defence counsel representing Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and Rahul has also referred to the statements of the PW2prosecutrix and PW1 Bali Ram to point out contradictions and submitted that prosecution has failed to establish that at any point of time prosecutrix was taken by Ramesh accused to the house of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli or that she and her son Rahul took her to the house of Karan or sold her for the purpose of her marriage with Karan Singh. Reference has also been made to the statement made by the prosecutrix wherein she did not support the case of prosecution against any of the accused persons, to contend that no reliance should be placed on the statement of prosecutrix regarding the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the two accused.
Arrival of the complainant and the prosecutrix in Delhi
10. As noticed above, occurrence took place on 10.01.2011, within the jurisdiction of PP JPN Hospital. Case was registered on the statement made by Bali Ram, aged 21 years, complainant, wherein he narrated the manner in which they reached New Delhi Railway Station at about 8.00 a.m. on that day and as to how a boy kidnapped his wife - prosecutrix, aged 18 years.
As to the relationship between PW1 Bali Ram and the PW2 the prosecutrix, the former has stated that the prosecutrix is his wife and that he had brought her from Gorakhpur to Delhi for her medical treatment. Prosecutrix has denied to have married the complainant, but supported him by 11 stating that they had come to Delhi for her medical treatment. Both of them are from Village Pokhar Bhinda, Post Bankata Bharpurba, PS Kaptan Ganj, Distt Khushi Nagar (U.P.).
PW3 Budhai Kanojia, father of the prosecutrix has deposed that during winter season of 2011 while he was in Ludhiana, he received information that his daughter - prosecutrix was missing. Thereupon, he reached his village and then Delhi from where he obtained her custody under orders of the court. There is nothing in his statement that his daughter got married to Bali Ram.
PW4 Ram Parkash is father of the complainant. He has also nowhere stated that his son - complainant ever married the prosecutrix. In his cross examination, he specifically stated that complainant is still unmarried.
During investigation, PW18 Ct. Kailash was sent by SI Rajesh Shah, IO of the case, to the village of the prosecutrix and the complainant, so as to verify factum of their marriage. According to PW18, from the enquiry conducted by him from the family members of the complainant, prosecutrix and Pardhan of the village, he found that there was love affair between the prosecutrix and the complainant and that they had left the village.
From the above evidence, it does not stand established that Bali Ram and the prosecutrix ever got married to each other, but it stands proved that both of them left Gorakhpur by train and reached New Delhi Railway Station on 10.01.2011 at 8.00 a.m. by Lucknow Mail.
12
On 10.01.2011 Ramesh accused meets the complainant and the prosecutrix
11. Case of prosecution is that after having alighted at New Delhi Railway Station, the complainant enquired from a boy, as to which way led to JPN Hospital. On this, the said boy accompanied them to the hospital and then the trio reached in front of Gynae ward. According to PW1 Bali Ram, it is Ramesh accused, who met them at the platform. During trial, on seeing Ramesh accused, he correctly identified him. Similarly PW2 - prosecutrix also correctly identified Ramesh accused as the boy who met them at the railway station and who, on enquiry about JPN Hospital, accompanied them to the hospital and that is how, the three reached the hospital.
During cross examination of this witness on behalf of Ramesh accused (recorded on 02.09.11), PW1 admitted to have not mentioned in statement which led to registration of this case name of the disease which the prosecutrix was suffering from. He also admitted to have not got her treated after her release by the Court on 08.02.2011. Even if the complainant (PW1) did not specifically name the disease from which prosecutrix was suffering, it stands recorded therein that the prosecutrix was to be got treated for intestines. It is significant to note that the witness explained (in his cross examination on behalf of Rahul accused) that he and prosecutrix had come to Delhi for the purpose of their marriage and that too without telling their parents. He further 13 explained that he represented to the police that prosecutrix was his wife, because otherwise police would not have initiated any action to search her.
In view of this explanation, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution when the complainant represented to the police that prosecutrix was his wife.
There is nothing on record to suggest that after the prosecutrix was rescued and released to her parents, she never got herself treated or that she was got treated by her parents but the same does not create any doubt in the version narrated by the complaint that he and prosecutrix had reached Delhi. In her cross examination, prosecutrix clearly stated that he had come to Delhi with Bali Ram, complainant to marry him but gone to hospital as there was swelling in her intestines.
It is true that statement of PW1 is not in consonance with the statement of PW2 Sanghni as to the mode of conveyance used in visiting the hospital, as according to PW1, they reached hospital riding a rickshaw, but according to the prosecutrix they reached the hospital by a tempo. But, the same does not adversely affect the case of prosecution as the fact remains that both of them clearly stated that Ramesh accused took them to the hospital.
A perusal of cross examination of PW1 Bali Ram recorded on 02.09.201 would reveal that during cross examination on behalf of Rahul accused, it was suggested to the witness that Ramesh accused is his friend and known to him. 14 But the witness denied this suggestion. No evidence has been brought on record by any of the accused to suggest that Ramesh had friendship with PW Bali Ram.
Ramesh accused firstly takes the complainant away and then the prosecutrix
12. It is in the statement of PW1 Bali Ram that Ramesh accused told that treatment of prosecutrix would take some days and that he could arrange a room for them.
Similarly, the prosecutrix (PW2) stated that on reaching the hospital, Ramesh accused told them that her treatment would take a couple of days and that he would arrange a quarter for them. So, both the witnesses are in consonance with each other on this point. According to PW1, he then accompanied Ramesh, accused, from the hospital in search of a room whereas prosecutrix remained behind, at the hospital. Further, it is in the statement of the complainant (PW1) that accused Ramesh took him out for about 1 ½ or 2 hours and then made him to stand & wait at a place, near a round about, telling him that he would return shortly, but he did not return despite wait for 1 or 2 hours. Further, according to PW1, he searched for the boy, but he could not find him. Then, he returned to the waiting room at the hospital, but the prosecutrix was not there. He learnt from the patients in the waiting room that his wife had gone with the boy who has accompanying them 15 in the morning, and that the said boy had told her (prosecutrix) that her husband had found room and he was calling her. The witness went on to state that he kept on searching for his wife till late in the night, at different places, but could not find anywhere and ultimately he lodged statement Ex.PW1/A on the next day.
PW2 - the prosecutrix has also deposed that after about two hours, Ramesh accused returned to the hospital and told her that she should accompany him as Bali Ram had found a room. Ramesh accused then took her in a bus and after a journey of 23 hours, he took her to some place outside Delhi i.e. at the house of one Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli.
So, both the PWs have supported the prosecution case even on this point.
Ramesh accused is arrested on 23.01.2011
13. Case of prosecution is that occurrence took place on 10.01.2011 and Ramesh accused was arrested from Ajmeri Gate side of New Delhi Railway Station on 23.01.2011 on the basis of secret information. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW14 SI Rajesh Shah, PW7 Ct. Anil Kumar and PW8 HC Mustaq.
PW14 According to PW14, after registration of FIR on 11.01.2011, he in the company of Bali Ram, searched for the prosecutrix and suspect, but no one 16 was traceable. Further, according to the witness, on 23.01.2011, he received secret information that a boy, namely, Ramesh accused involved in the crime was expected to come near New Delhi Railway Station (Ajmeri Gate). HC Mustaq and Ct. Anil Kumar reached New Delhi Railway Station (Ajmeri Gate). Description of Ramesh accused was already available in the statement made by complainant. So he apprehended Ramesh @ Ravi. The witness correctly identified Ramesh accused present in court. He further deposed about recovery of mobile phone make Karbonn on personal search of Ramesh accused and about its seizure vide memo ex.PW7/D. Arrest memo Ex.PW7/A and personal search memo Ex.PW7/B have also been proved by this witness.
Arrest memo Ex.PW7/A reveals that it is dated 23.01.2011. In column no.5 of this document, place of arrest of Ramesh finds mentioned as Ajmeri Gate near New Delhi Railway Station with time of arrest at 7.00 p.m. It bears attestation of HC Mustaq and Ct. Anil Kumar as attesting witnesses to the arrest. Similarly, personal search memo Ex.PW7/B prepared by SI Rajesh Kumar bears attestation of the aforesaid two witnesses.
PW7 Ct. Anil Kumar when examined as PW7 has deposed regarding arrest of Ramesh accused on 23.01.2011 in presence of SI Rajesh and HC Mustaq on the basis of secret information. He has proved his attestation of memos Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. PW7 has also deposed about recovery of two 17 mobile phones from Ramesh accused. According to him, one mobile phone was of make Karbonn and the other was of make G5. When the two mobile phones were produced in court, he correctly identified the same. Both these mobile phones are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Although in his statement, PW SI Rajesh Shah did not state about recovery of two mobile phones and according to him only one mobile phone was recovered from him at the time of arrest of Ramesh accused, same does not create doubt in version of prosecution about arrest of Ramesh accused.
Seizure memo Ex.PW7/D reveals that it was prepared by SI Rajesh Shah. It bears attestation of HC Mustaq and Ramesh accused. As per contents of this memo, two mobile phones referred to above, were recovered from Ramesh accused at the time of his arrest from Ajmeri Gate in front of New Delhi Railway Station. In his cross examination, PW7 stated that PW Bali Ram was not accompanying them at the time accused Ramesh was apprehended. It is in the statement of this witness that mobile phone make Karbonn was without sim. He denied the suggestion put by learned defence counsel that Ramesh accused was actually apprehended from RML Hospital where he was called through his brother prior to 27.01.2011 or that no mobile phone or sim card was recovered from him. He further denied that the mobile phones have been planted.
18
PW18 PW18 HC Mustaq is other witness to the arrest of Ramesh accused. According to this witness, Ramesh accused was apprehended by SI Rajesh in his presence at 7.00 p.m. and in presence of Ct. Anil on the basis of secret information that was received on the same day i.e. 23.01.2011 at 6.00 p.m. He denied that Bali Ram was accompanying them at the time of arrest of Ramesh accused. So in th is regard, he supported the statement of PW1 Bali Ram. He denied that Ramesh accused was arrested from RML Hospital after his brother Naresh was asked to call him and reached near RML Hospital prior to 23.01.2011 or that mobile phone make Karbonn was planted on Ramesh accused. The witness categorically stated that out of the two mobile phones from Ramesh accused at the time of his arrest, one of make Karbonn and other of make G5. He explained that the first mentioned mobile phone was without sim, but the other was having sim card in it. He then correctly identified both the mobile phones which were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. He also proved arrest memo and personal search Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/D. From the above evidence led by the prosecution, it stands established that Ramesh was apprehended on 23.01.2011 from Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi Railway Station on the basis of secret information. 19
Rescue of prosecutrix from the house of Karan Singh accused
14. It is case of prosecution that prosecutrix was recovered on 24.01.2011 from the house of Karan Singh accused in village Bijina, PO Khaas, PS Karnal, District Karnal, Haryana at the pointing out of Rahul accused, in presence of Bali Ram, complainant, WCt Brijesh and Ct. Parveen.
In this regard prosecution has examined PW6 ASI Rakesh Tyagi, PW13 WCt. Brijesh, PW1 Bali Ram and PW2prosecutrix .
PW6 According to PW6, ASI Rakesh Tyagi on 23.01.2011, as per instructions of SI Rajesh Shah, he accompanied by other including Ct. Parveen, WCt. Brijesh and Bali Ram reached Ambala Cant. From there, they reached house no. 25D, Inderpuri i.e. house of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli, but it was found locked. Upon inquiry, persons residing in the neighbourhood told that Smt. Aruna Gautam that she used to reside there about one year back. Those neighbours could not tell the whereabouts of Smt. Aruna.
Further, according to PW6, at about 1 pm, SI Rajesh Shah informed him on phone about address of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli 21B, Palam Vihar, Ambala Cant, PS Ramesh Nagar and that one Rahul was available at this house. According to the witness, thereupon he accompanied by others reached house no. 21B, Palam Vihar, where Rahul accused was found present. On seeing the police party, Rahul accused got perplexed. As 20 regards his mother, Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli, Rahul told that she was away for the last 34 days.
He further disclosed that 34 days prior thereto that he had left the prosecutrix at the house at village Bijana, District Karnal. Thereupon Rahul accused led the police party to the house of Karan Singh accused at village Bijana, where ladies were found present. In one of the room of the said house prosecutrix was found present. She was identified by Bali Ram complainant. Accordingly, she was rescued vide memo Ex PW1/B. That is how, prosecutrix and Rahul accused were brought to Delhi.
It is in the statement of this PW6 that Karan Singh was not found present there. Ladies present there told that Karan Singh had both the legs amputated.
PW1 Then there is statement of PW1 Bali Ram. He candidly stated to have not entered the house of Karan. There is nothing in his chief examination regarding presence of Karan at his house. It is pertinent to mention that during cross examination PW1 was not cross examined as to whether Karan was or was not present there at that time.
21
PW2 PW2 Ms. Sanghini, the prosecutrix. PW2 Ms. Sanghini stated that Karan accused was present at this house at the time police reached there.
In her cross examination on behalf of Ramesh accused, she could not tell if police let off Karan after having taken money from him.
As regards her recovery, she stated in Ex PW15/B i.e. statement under Section 164 CrPC, that on the very next date of her having been brought to the house of Karan Singh, police reached there and rescued her. She specifically stated that her husband was also accompanying the police at that time.
It is significant that in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, Karan accused has admitted recovery of prosecutrix from his house on 23.01.2011. The answer put forth by Karan Singh accused in reply to question no. 21 reads as under: "Police recovered the prosecutrix from my house. I was also taken away by the police when they visited my house on 23.01.2011, but after having come out of village they let me of, However they took prosecutrix along."
So, he admitted that police took him away at the time prosecutrix was recovered from his house.
Court finds that oral evidence stated by the prosecution witnesses is supported by the documentary evidence i.e. rescue memo Ex PW1/B dated 24.01.2011.
22
This document bears attestation of Bali Ram, WHC Brijesh and Ct. Parveen. In view of attestation of this document by these three witnesses on 24.01.2011, the accused persons cannot take advantage of her testimony recorded in Court on 30.07.2012 (when Karan Singh and Aruna Gautam @ Babli accused were sent up for trial) wherein she denied to have made any such statement before Metropolitan Magistrate; denied that Ramesh had taken her to the house of Babli; denied to have stated before the Magistrate that Rahul was also at the house at Ambala; denied that she was kept at the house of Babli or that she so stated before the Magistrate; denied to have stated before Metropolitan Magistrate that from Ambala Babli, Ramesh and Rahul took her to Karnal and then sold her to Karan Singh who was not having both the legs.
PW13 WHC Brijesh PW13 WHC Brijesh has also deposed to SI Rajesh Tyagi visit to Ambala, where they reached in a house at Palam Vihar but learnt that the prosecutrix was not there. Further according to her, a boy namely Rahul was found present and it transpired that his mother had left or sent the prosecutrix at some other place in a village.
Further according to PW13, in the company of Rahul, all of them reached village Bijna District Karnal, Haryana, where Rahul pointed out towards a house. Prosecutrix was found present there with 34 other ladies. 23 Bali Ram, complainant identified her as his wife. Accordingly, they took the prosecutrix along and returned to Delhi.
PW1 Bali Ram Then there is statement of PW1 Bali Ram. According to him, 7/8 days after recording of FIR he accompanied the police to Ambala Cantt i.e. to the house of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli (accused) - mother of Rahul accused, sister and younger brother of Rahul, accused were found present at that house. Police made inquiries. Further according to the complainant, he accompanied police to Ambala thrice and it was on the third visit that Rahul accused was found present at the house of his mother Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli, accused. On 23.01.2011, his wife was rescued from the house of Karan in village Bijna, Karnal.
Had Karan Singh accused not been present there, prosecutrix would not have named him or stated about his presence at the time police reached there or even identified him in Court. It appears that initially police did not want to initiate action against Karan accused either because he is handicapped or for some other reasons best known to the police. But on this ground, the version narrated by the victim cannot be doubted.
As to who left the prosecutrix at the house of Karan Singh accused
15. As noticed above, accused Karan Singh has come up with the defence plea that on 23.01.201 Babli @ Aruna Gautam and her son Rahul left the 24 prosecutrix at his house in village Bijana for her marriage with him, while representing that she (prosecutrix) was her daughter and that he could marry her.
Learned counsel appeared for Karan Singh accused has contended that no reliance can be placed on this defence plea put forth by Karan Singh in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. In support of this contention, learned counsel has referred to decision in Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 3150; Mohan Singh V. Prem Singh & anr., AIR 2002 SC 3582; Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi V. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 3114 & Munish Mubar V. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912.
In Raj Kumar Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alterum partem.
In Mohan Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble Court has held that statement fo accused under Section 313 CrPC can be used for appreciating evidence led by by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. If the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire 25 confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inclupatory part of h is statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction.
In Rafiq Ahmed's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed that It is true that the statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the accused but certainly it can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly when the prosecution has otherwise been able to establish the chain of events.
In Munish Mubar's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the issue of the examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., held that the accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. as regards any incriminating material that has been produced against him. Such a view was taken in the light of the fact that there existed evidence to show that the accused had parked his car at the Delhi Airport, and that the same had remained there for several hours on the date of commission of the crime in question. Thus, in light of the fact that such a fact had been established, and that such circumstances also simultaneously existed, the accused was expected to explain the reason for which he h ad gone to the airport, and why the car had remained parked there for several hours.
In Ramnaresh and Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh AIR 2012 SC 1357, Hon'ble Apex Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such 26 adverse inference against the accused, as may be permissible in accordance with law. While such an observation has been made, this part of the judgment must be read alongwith the subsequent observation of the Court stating that if he keeps silent or furnishes an explanation, in both cases, the same can be used against him for rendering a conviction, in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution.
In Brajendrasingh V. State of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 1552, Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is equally true that a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, simpliciter cannot normally be made the basis for convicting the accused. But where the statement of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is in line with the case of the prosecution, then the heavy onus of providing adequate proof on the prosecution, that is placed, is to some extent, reduced.
As discussed above, from the very beginning, it is case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was taken by Ramesh from Delhi to Ambala where she was cofined for 56 days and from there his coaccused Smt. Babli and Rahul took her, to the house of Karan Singh accused and sold her there for the purpose of marriage with Karan Singh.
When Karan Singh accused has put forth the defence plea in consonance with the prosecution version and the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, this is additional material supporting the prosecution case that it is Babli @ Aruna Gautam and her son Rahul who 27 brought the prosecutrix to the house of Karan Singh and left her there for her marriage with him.
18. On this point, prosecution has examined prosecutrix herself and also relied on other evidence including the disclosure statement made by Ramesh accused.
According to the prosecutrix (PW2), from Delhi Ramesh took her in a a bus to a place outside Delhi, to be specific at the house of Babli where she and Rahul were present. It may be mentioned here that in her statement recorded on 09.08.2011 she correctly identified Rohit accused. By then his mother Aruna Gautam @ Babli had not been arrested. She further deposed about her detention at the said house for 23 days and that during this period Smt. Babli took her mobile phone and money from her.
Then, she deposed that Rmaesh, Rahul and Babli took her to Karnal i.e. to the house of Karan. It may be mentioned here that as on 09.08.2011, Karan accused had not apprehended but the witness categorically named him, gave his description by stating that he was having none of his legs and that at that time she was left there by Babli, representing to Karan that she (prosecutrix) was her relative.
In her statement subsequently recorded on 30.07.2012 (after arrest of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and Karan Singh, and when they were sent up for trial) prosecutrix correctly identified Karan and Ramesh accused but displayed 28 ignorance about Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli. At that time she stated that she was kept in Ambala and not taken to any other place.
However, accused persons cannot take advantage of this statement of the prosecutrix when she displayed ignorance about Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and stated that she was not taken anywhere from Ambala or that she was rescued by the police only from Ambala. The first reason to say so is that in her statement earlier made before this Court on 02.09.201 she clearly mentioned all the accused persons and described role of each one of them. She has not been able to explain as to why she earlier named all the accused persons and attributed specific roles to each one of them when her statement was recorded on 02.09.2011. Furthermore, had she not been taken away from Ambala to Karnal, how could she identify Karan Singh. This goes to show that when she appeared in the Court for the second time, i.e. on 30.07.2012, she tried to exclude Smt. Aruna Gautam, for the reasons best known to her.
It has been contended on behalf of accused that although the prosecutrix stayed at the house of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli in Ambala for 56 days, she did not raise hue and cry, which speaks against her conduct.
It is in the cross examination of the prosecutrix (recorded on 31.07.2012) that she stayed at the house of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli at Ambala for 56 days and that from Ambala she was taken to Karnal by Smt. 29 Aruna Gautam, Rahul and Ramesh.
From all the facts and circumstances, it appears that prosecutrix, a simple villager having been abducted and taken far away from PW Bali Ram, for whom she had love and affection, preferred to keep mum, with the hope that she would get opportunity to escape from the clutches of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and Rahul. When she was in wrongful confinement, non raising of hue and cry does not speak against her.
According to the prosecutrix, her mobile phone was also snatched from her by Smt. Aruna Gautam, when she was taken away from Ambala to Karnal i.e. to the house of Karan Singh accused. She was so taken away in a vehicle when three accused persons accompanied her.
In her cross examination recorded on 31.07.2012 when questioned as to why she did not raise any hue and cry on way from Ambala to Karnal, she volunteered that the accused persons accompanying her told her that she was being taken to Bali Ram.
In this situation, when she believed the three accused and also did not get any opportunity to raise hue and cry or to retaliate, being in their captivity, nonraising of hue and cry again does not go against her.
Prosecutrix while appearing in court as PW2, has deposed that police rescued her from the house of one Karan, who was not having both the legs. Further, according to her, Rahul and Aruna Gautam @ Babli left her at the 30 house of Karan. At that time, Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli told Karan that she (the prosecutrix) was her relative. She further deposed to have over heard conversation between Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and brother of Karan that they were getting her married to Karan.
In her subsequent statement dt.30.07.2012, the prosecutrix identified Ramesh and Karan, accused but she displayed ignorance about Aruna Gautam @ Babli.
When the prosecutrix was put leading question by learned Addl. PP, after seeking permission from the Court, she turned volteface on many aspects on which she had earlier supported the case of the prosecution while appearing in Court on 09.08.2011. It may be mentioned here that prosecutrix was recalled on account of arrest of other two accused namely Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and Karan Singh subsequently as the law requires, and it appears that she turned volteface to save the accused persons.
However, when learned Addl. PP further put leading questions to her, she supported the prosecution version by stating that it is Babli accused present in Court to whose house Ramesh accused had taken her on the aforesaid date. She further stated that Babli, Rahul and Ramesh accused had taken her to the house of Karan Singh and that Babli accused had snatched her mobile phone and currency notes worth Rs.1000/. 31
It is significant to note that when leading questions were being so put by learned Public Prosecutor to the prosecturix on 30.07.2012 (at the time of recording of her statement for the second time), she even denied to have stated before this Court on oath on 09.08.2011 and 02.09.2011 that she was taken away by Ramesh, firstly to the house of Babli and Rahul in Ambala where she was kept for 23 days and Babli @ Aruna Gautam snatched mobile and cash from her and that thereafter, Babli and Ramesh accused had taken her to the house of Karan Singh where she was sold for the purpose of marriage with Karan Singh.
She also denied to have stated before this Court on 09.08.2011 and 02.09.2011 to have heard Babli talking to brother of Karan Singh to get her married to Karan Singh.
Surprisingly, when learned Addl. PP read over to the witness her previous statement made before this Court on 09.08.2011 and 02.09.2011, she denied to have made any such statement.
It is time to advert to the version of prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 CrPC which came to be rescued after her rescue.
16. It is case of the prosecution that immediately after rescue of the prosecutrix from the house of Karan Singh accused, she was brought to Delhi and her statement Ex PW15/B under Section 164 CrPC was got recorded on 25.01.2011.
32
Recording of this statement has been duly proved by prosecution by examining the concerned Metropolitan Magistare as PW15.
In her statement, prosecutrix clearly stated before the Metropolitan Magistrate that Ramesh took her to Ambala to the house of Smt. Babli and that both Babli and Ramesh took money from her; that she was wrongly confined in a room of the house for many days; that from there she was taken away by Ramesh, Babli and her son, Rahul, to Karnal, in a vehicle.
Then she stated therein about her sale to someone, to whose house she was taken. She named the said person as Karan. Both legs of said person namely Karan Singh were amputated as further explained by her At that house, she learnt that Karan Singh was to marry her.
As regards her recovery, she stated in Ex PW15/B i.e. statement under Section 164 CrPC, that on the very next date of her having been brought to the house of Karan Singh, police reached there and rescued her. She specifically stated that her husband was also accompanying the police at that time.
It is significant to note that in her cross examination recorded on 02.09.2011, prosecutrix clearly stated that police rescued her from Karnal. Prior thereto, according to her, she stayed at the house of Babli accused at Ambala for 56 days and from Ambala she was taken by Babli, Ramesh and Rahul to Karnal.
33
She further stated that firstly Ramesh had taken her to the house of Babli and not to the house of Karan accused. Then she specifically stated that she was taken to the house of Karan Singh subsequently. She denied that she was never taken to the house of Karan or that Karan never illegally confined her.
As to what was told by Smt. Babli to accused Karan at the time prosecutrix was left at the house of Karan Singh, the prosecutrix initially stated that Babli did not state to Karan in her presence that she (Babli) was related to her, but in the next breath she stated that Smt. Babli had told him her that she (Babli) was related to her. As regards, mode of conveyance in her removal from Ambala to Karnal, prosecutrix stated that it was a Maruti car.
In view of the above statement of the prosecturix made by her before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, immediately after her rescue from the house of Karan Singh and statement made by her before this Court on 02.09.2011 supporting her version as available in statement Ex PW15/B, this Court finds that the prosecutrix turned volteface on 30.07.2012 while making statement for the second time, to help the accused persons for the reasons best known to her.
It may be mentioned here that although prosecution has examined three Nodal Officers of different mobile service providers. But in the arguments neither prosecution nor the accused have placed reliance on the Customer 34 Application Forms and Call Detail Records in respect of the four mobile phones. Therefore, the same are not being taken into consideration.
Conclusion
17. In view of the above discussion, this court finds that prosecution has established on record that it is Ramesh accused who took away the prosecutrix on 10.01.2011 from LNJP Hospital, initially by way of deceitful means and then, on the way, by force and then left her at the house of Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli at Ambala for the purpose of marriage; that Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and Rahul in furtherance of common intention of Ramesh accused kept the prosecutrix in wrongful confinement knowing well that she had been abducted and subsequently he, Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and her son Rahul took her to the house of Karan accused and left her there for the purpose of her marriage with Karan, without her consent and that Karan wrongfully confined her knowing well that she had been abducted, and with an intent to marry her against her consent.
18. Accordingly, this Court holds that prosecution has established charge for an offence U/s 366 IPC against Ramesh accused; charge for an offence U/s 368 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against Ramesh, Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli, Rahul and Karan Singh accused.
Having regard to the above discussion and finding, this Court does not deem it a fit case to hold the Ramesh accused guilty separately of the offence 35 under Section 506 IPC.
19. As regards charge for offence U/s 120B read with Sec.368 IPC, when the accused persons have been held guilty for the aforesaid offences and there is no direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, this Court does not deem it a fit case to hold them guilty of the offence under Section 120B IPC.
20. As regards allegation of theft by Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli, version narrated by the prosecutrix is self contradictory on the amount so stolen. A perusal of evidence would reveal that the prosecutrix stated that she was having Rs.1000/ with her at the time Ramesh accused took her away from Delhi. But in the charge, this amount stands recorded as Rs.4000/. Even otherwise, there is no cogent and convincing evidence that mother of the prosecutrix had given to her Rs.4000/ at the time she left for Delhi. So, this charge under Section 379 IPC does not stand established against accused Ramesh or Aruna Gautam @ Babli.
21. As a result of above findings, this court holds the accused persons guilty for the following offences : S. No. Name of Accused Convicted for the Offences
1. Ramesh @ Ravi i) U/s 366 IPC
ii) U/s 368 read with Sec. 34 IPC
2. Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli U/s 368 read with Sec. 34 IPC
3. Rahul U/s 368 read with Sec. 34 IPC
4. Karan Singh U/s 368 read with Sec. 34 IPC 36 Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted of all the other offences with which they were charged.
22. Be put up on 05.04.2014 to hear the convicts on the point of sentence.
Announced in Open Court
on 03.04.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
37
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No.24/2011
FIR No.05/2011
PS I. P. Estate
State
Versus
1. Ramesh @ Ravi,
2. Rahul,
3. Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli,
4. Karan Singh .......Convicts
ORDER ON SENTENCE
05.04.2014
Present: Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Addl. PP for State.
All convict in JC.
Sh. Vinay Sharma, counsel for Karan Singh accused. Ms. Chitra Mal, counsel from DLSA for Ramesh @ Ravi accused. Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, counsel for Rahul and Aruna Gautam @ Babli accused.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for State, convicts and their respective counsels on the point of sentence.
38
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that having regard to the serious nature of the offence and the manner in which the prosecutrix was abducted by Ramesh and then wrongfully confined at the house of two coaccused and then supplied to Karan Singh for her marriage with him without her consent, all the accused persons deserve maximum sentence.
Convict Karan Singh submits that his coaccused Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli left the prosecutrix at his house representing that she (prosecutrix) was her daughter and he could marry her. He further submits that he is in custody since 17.12.2011 and as such lenient view be taken having regard to the fact that he is handicap and unable to move without wheel chair. Similar submissions have been put forth by Karan Singh convict.
Convicts Rahul and Aruna Gautam and their counsel have also prayed for leniency on the point of sentence while submitting that they are victims of circumstances and in custody since long.
Convict Ramesh has not said anything on the point of sentence, despite opportunity.
As already decided by this court on 03.04.2014, convict Ramesh took away the prosecutrix on 10.01.2011 from LNJP Hospital and left her at the house of coaccused Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli in Ambala. The manner in which he deceived the prosecutrix and PW Bali Ram and took away her from the hospital, where they had come for treatment, his complicity with the two accused 39 Smt. Aruna Gautam @ Babli and Rahul in keeping the prosecutrix in wrongful confinement at the house of these two coaccused, and in having played role in her supply at the house of Karan Singh, a person with disability in limbs, and that too for the purpose of her marriage, this Court finds that he deserves to be dealt with severe punishment.
So far as Smt. Aruna Gautam is concerned, she has a daughter of marriageable age. At the time she indulged in commission of the present crime, had she thought even once that the prosecutrix was like her our daughter, better sense would not have allowed her to commit this crime. The fact remains that this thought did not come to her mind and she, little bothering about the future of the prosecutrix not only kept the prosecutrix in wrongful confinement but went a step ahead by supplying her to Karan Singh, a person with disability.
Convict Rahul, her son, did not render any good advice to his mother so as to desist her from indulging in this serious crime. Rather, he colluded with his mother and played active role in implementation of their wrong designs while playing with the life of the prosecutrix.
So far as Karan singh convict is concerned, he wanted the Court to believe that Smt. Aruna Gautam left the prosecutrix at his house representing that she was her own daughter. This plea of the convict has been disbelieved. How could he believe that a mother was leaving her daughter at his house without ceremoniously marrying her. The fact remains that he had criminal intent 40 in wrongfully keeping the prosecutrix at his house so that he could ultimately marry her even without her consent.
As a result of above findings, all the convicts are sentenced as under : S. Name of Convicted for the Offences Rigorous Fine Simple N Accused Imprisonment Imprisonment in o. default of payment of fine.
1. Ramesh @ i) U/s 366 IPC 3 ½ years Rs.10000/ One Month Ravi
ii) U/s 368 read with Sec. 34 3 ½ years Rs.10000/ One Month IPC
2. Smt. Aruna U/s 368 read with Sec. 34 IPC 3 ½ years Rs.10000/ One Month Gautam @ Babli
3. Rahul U/s 368 read with Sec. 34 IPC 3 ½ years Rs.10000/ One Month
4. Karan Singh U/s 368 read with Sec. 34 IPC 2 ½ years Rs.5000/ 15 Days Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment in case of Ramesh convict shall run concurrently.
The period of imprisonment already undergone during investigation, inquiry and trial to be set off against the period of sentence awarded vide this judgment.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law on expiry of period for Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court
on 05.04.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
41