Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/20/2009 on 2 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KR. JANGALA; ACMM ( N/W)
ROHINI COURTS ; DELHI.
FIR NO. 20/09
U/S 323/342/374/406 IPC
P.S. Saraswati Vihar
S/V Charan Soy etc.
02.01.13
ORDER ON THE POINT OF CHARGE
1.The brief facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered in P.S. Keshav Puram on the complaint lodged by Ms. Barkha Singh, Chairperson, Delhi Commission for Women. It is alleged by the complainant that she received a complaint dated 12.01.09 from one Mr. Hem Bahadur recommended by ' Bachpan Bachao Andolan' regarding the allegations that his sister and other minor girls are being forcibly brought to Delhi from their native places like Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and UP etc. and forced to work. It is alleged in the complaint that these women and minor girls are recruited through ' Sheetal Enterprises',which is an illegal placement agency , similarly there are many other such placement agencies which are forcibly making the girls to do illegal work. Thereafter,the Chairperson Delhi Commission for women and S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 1 of 15 member of Bachpan Bachao Andalon ( NGO) on the basis of the complaint made by the said Mr. Hem Bahadur alongwith police officials conducted a raids in Shakurpur and found many minor girls working under duress and pressure of these illegal placements services. It is alleged that these girls have not even been paid their labour charges for months together. It is alleged that in the raid four minor boys and 35 minor girls were rescued who were found suffering from abject poverty, exploited to the maximum, forced to work against the set norms and fundamental rights in violation of Human Rights. It is further alleged that during raids some incriminating material such as Blue Films CDs have also been found .
2. It is stated that police after registration of the case FIR got the statement of rescued persons recorded U/S 164 CrPC. It is stated that after getting the statement of rescued girl recorded U/S 164 CrPC the prosecution opinion was obtained and Section 323/342/374/406/34 IPC, Section 23 & 26 of Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, Section 3 r/w 14 of the Child Labour ( Prohibition and Regulation ) Act and Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System Act were added. It is stated that on 28.01.09 accused Charan Soy was arrested and S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 2 of 15 sent to J/C and on 28.01.09 the investigation of the case was transferred to Special Investigation Team, Crime Branch thereafter the accused Naresh Yadav was arrested.
3. It is stated that after obtaining the necessary permission from the court court to open and examine the seized VCD/CDs , the recovered VCD/CD were examined in the presence of members of Swanchetan ( NGO) and no VCD was found to contain any pornographic material. It is stated that the ossification test of the rescued girls namely Lalita, Kavita and Durgi revealed that Lalita's age was between 1214 years, Kavita's age was between 1214 years and Durgi's age was between 1416 years. It is stated that the rescued girl Lalita has levelled certain allegations against Rahis Babu.
4. It is further stated that the age of rescued girl Sonia Soren was found between 1214 years and the age of rescued boy Rinku @ Tinku was found between 10 to 11 years. It is stated that Rinku @ Tinku in his statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC has levelled certain allegations against Naresh Yadav owner of N D Placement agency. It is stated that the rescued girl Anita has levelled certain allegations against Charan Soy and Promita Soy , owner of Adiwasi Berozgar Yojna in her statement S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 3 of 15 recorded U/S 164 CrPC. It is prayed that all the accused persons may kindly be punished.
5. I have carefully perused the material on record and have gone through the submissions of Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. It is submitted by Ld. APP for the state that in the present case the statement of five witnesses/ rescued girls/ boys are relevant. It is alleged that the rescued boys/ girls namely Rinku @ Tinku Sonia Soran,Lolita Bariki, Kavita and Anita @ Chamri has supported the prosecution story regarding commission of the alleged offences, therefore, charge may kindly be framed upon all the accused persons.
7. On the other hand it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that in the present case the rescued boy/girls have not supported the story of the prosecution in their statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC. It is submitted that the present case is totally false and based upon the assumption and presumption without any incriminating evidence on record. It is alleged that the present case has been registered on the pressure of NGO and Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women. It is stated that the alleged victim/ rescued girls did not S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 4 of 15 support the case of prosecution in their statements recorded U/S 164 CrPC but even then the accused persons have been charge sheeted. It is prayed that all the accused persons may kindly be discharged for commission of the alleged offences.
8. The law regarding considerations at the stage of charge is well settled. The Court is not to apply exactly the standard and test which it finally applies for determining the guilt or otherwise. This is being the initial stage, the Court is not supposed to decide whether the material collected by the investigating agency provides sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to culminate in his conviction. What is required to be seen is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged.
9. In the present case the prosecution has allegedly rescued 32 girls and four boys from the placement agencies. The ossification test was also got conducted upon these victims/ rescued persons and their statement were also got recorded S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 5 of 15 U/S 164 CrPC.The police officials have also got recorded the statement of all the witnesses U/S 161 CrPC. However, the statement of these witnesses/rescued persons were also recorded U/S 164 CrPC. When the statement of the witnesses recorded U/S 164 CrPC is on record than no reliance can be placed upon the statement recorded by the police U/S 161 CrPC which is in contradiction with the statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC. Therefore, at this stage the statements of these rescued persons recorded U/S 164 CrPC are relevant. The perusal of the statements recorded U/S 164 CrPC reveals that except five rescued persons no other rescued person has levelled any allegations against any of the accused persons. Since no allegation has been levelled in these statements, therefore, these statements cannot be the basis to frame the charge upon the accused persons.
10.Now I will proceed to examine the statement of five rescued persons recorded U/S 164 CrPC on which the prosecution is relying upon. I have examined the statement of witness Rinku @ Tinku. The witness Rinku @ Tinku in his statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC has disclosed his age 10 years. He deposed that he was employed by accused Naresh to do the cleaning/ moping work in the house. He stated that did not get S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 6 of 15 any amount for his work and all the payment has been made to the person, who has brought him from the village. He also specifically stated that he never asked money from accused Naresh.
The rescued girl Sonia Soren in her statement U/S 164 CrPC has disclosed her age 14 years. She stated that she came to Delhi with agent Arjun with the consent of her parents. She stated that she was kept in good manner during her employment and her salary had been sent to her parents by agent Arjun. It is specifically stated that nothing wrong was done to her during her employment.
The rescued girl Lolita Bariki in her statement U/S 164 CrPC has disclosed her age 16 years . She stated that nothing wrong was done with her and she has not worked in Delhi till date.
The rescued girl Kavita in her statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC disclosed her age 15 years . She stated that she came to Delhi with agent Seema with the consent of her parents. She stated that she was kept at the office as no employment could be arranged. She specifically deposed that nothing wrong was done with her.
The rescued girl Anita @ Chamri deposed that her age is 19 years. She deposed that she had worked at Pitam Pura as a maid for one week. It is stated she wished to go back to her house but agent Charan did not allow her to go back and even S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 7 of 15 did not give her food for three days. It is clearly stated that she do not want to work and wish to go back with her parents and nobody has committed any wrong act with her.
11. Now on the basis of these statements, I will proceed to examine whether the primafacie material has come on record to frame the charge for commission of the alleged offences.
12. The offence U/S 16 of Bonded Labour System ( Abolition) Act: The charge sheet is filed against the accused persons for commission of the offence punishable U/S 16 of the said Act. Except the witness Rinku @ Tinku no other witness has alleged any offence connected with this section. The witness Rinku @ Tinku has alleged that he has not been paid any money for his work and the money has been paid by agent to the person who has brought to him in Delhi. It is also stated that he had never demanded money from the agent/ accused. The Section 16 of the Act provides punishment for enforcement of the bonded labour. The allegations levelled by Rinku @ Tinku does not come within the definition of Bonded Labour System ( Abolition) Act as given in Section 2 (e), (f) and (g) of the said Act. The allegations levelled by this witness does not covered within the definition of offences give U/S 2 (e),(f) and (g). In the present case there is no material on record to frame the charge for S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 8 of 15 commission of the offence punishable U/S 16 of Bonded Labour System ( Abolition) Act against any of the accused persons.
13. Now, I will proceed to examine the allegations for commission of the offence defined U/S 3 and punishable U/S 14 of Child Labour ( Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986: There are allegations against the accused persons for commission of the offence punishable U/S 3 r/w Section 14 of Child Labour ( Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. It is alleged that the accused persons have employed the children below the age of 14 years in violation of Section3 of Act. The section 3 of the Child Labour ( Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, prohibits the employment of the children in certain occupation and processes. The section 3 of the Act laid down that no child shall be employed in any of the occupation mentioned in part 'A' of the schedule or in any work shall mentioned in part 'B' of the schedule. The prosecution in the statement recorded U/S 161 CrPC has mentioned many rescued children below the age of 14 years. However, the statements of rescued children were already recorded U/S 164 CrPC. Since the statements of these rescued children are already recorded S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 9 of 15 U/S 164 CrPC, therefore, the reliance cannot be placed on the statements U/S 161 CrPC recorded by the police, which are in contradiction with the statements recorded U/S 164 CrPC. Only one rescued child namely Rinku @ Tinku has disclosed his age below 10 years in his statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC. No other rescued child has disclosed his or her age below 14 years. The rescued child Rinku @ Tinku has disclosed his age as 10 years and has deposed that he was employed to do the domestic work by accused Naresh. There are specific allegations against one of the accused Naresh for employing the said child Rinku @ Tinku for domestic work which is in violation of schedule 1 part 'A' of Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, there is primafacie material on record against accused Naresh Yadav for commission of the offence as defined U/S 3 of the Act and punishable U/S 14 of the said Act. There are no allegations against any other accused persons for commission of the offence punishable U/S 14 of the Act.
14. Now, I will proceed to examine the allegations regarding commission of the offences punishable U/S 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act: Section 23 of the Act provides punishment for cruelty to S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 10 of 15 juvenile or child and section 26 relates to exploitation of juvenile or child employee . In the present case none of the witnesses/ rescued persons in their statements recorded U/S 164 CrPC has alleged maltreatment or cruelty to them. Even there is no allegations of willful neglect by the accused persons. Even though one witness namely Anita @ Chamri has alleged that she was not given food for three days by accused Charan Soy. However, the said victim/ rescued girl is aged about 19 years and she does not comes within the definition of Juvenile/ child as given in the Act. Therefore, from the perusal of the statements recorded U/S 164 CrPC and other material on record , I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to place on record any material regarding commission of the offence punishable U/S 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
15. Now, I will proceed to examine the provision of alleged sections of IPC: In the present case the accused persons are charged with commission of the offence punishable U/S 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC laid down the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. The rescued girl Anita @ Chamri in her statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC has alleged that accused Charan Soy S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 11 of 15 did not give her good for three days and also did not allow her to go to her home. The said witness has not levelled the allegations against any other accused persons. No other witness has also alleged the commission of the offence punishable U/S 323 IPC. The rescued girl Anita @ Chamri has specifically deposed in her statement U/S 164 CrPC that accused Charan Soy did not give her food for three days. The alleged act of accused Charan Soy for not giving the food to rescued girl for three days, comes within the definition of section 321 for voluntarily causing hurt. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is primafaice material on record for commission of the offence punishable U/S 323 IPC against accused Charan Soy . There is no material on record against the remaining accused persons for commission of the offence punishable U/S 323 IPC.
16. Section 342 IPC: The accused persons are charged for commission of the offence punishable U/S 342 IPC on the basis of statement of accused Anita @ Chamri. The witness Anita @ Chamri in her statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC deposed that the accused Charan Soy did not allow her to go back to her home. The accused is charged for commission of S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 12 of 15 the offence punishable U/S 342 IPC. However, from the testimony of the witness the primafacie material for commission of the offence punishable U/S 341 IPC is disclosed. The testimony of the witness reveals the commission of the offence punishable U/S 341 IPC regarding wrongful restraint.The witness has not alleged the commission of the offence U/S 342 IPC for wrongful confinement . The witness has specifically alleged the commission of the offence by accused Charan Soy only . There is no allegations against remaining accused persons. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is primafaice material on record to frame the charge for commission of the offence punishable U/S 341 IPC upon the accused Charan Soy for wrongful restraint upon girl Anita @ Chamri.
17. Section 374 IPC: The accused persons are also charged for commission of the offence punishable U/S 374 IPC regarding unlawful compulsory labour . However, none of the witness in their statements recorded U/S 164 CrPC has disclosed the necessary ingredient for commission of the offence . None of the witness has alleged the unlawful compulsory labour against their will . Therefore, from the perusal of material on record , it S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 13 of 15 is clear that there is no material to frame the charge for commission of the offence punishable U/S 374 IPC against any of the accused persons.
18. Section 406 IPC: The accused persons are also charged for commission of the offence U/S 406 IPC . The section 406 IPC carries the punishment for criminal breach of trust. However, none of the witness has alleged the offence of criminal breach of trust committed by any of the accused persons. None of the witness relied upon by the prosecution has supported the allegations of commission of offence U/S 406 IPC. Therefore, there is no material on record to frame the charge for commission of the offence punishable U/S 406 IPC against any of the accused person.
19. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material on record to frame the charge for commission of the offence punishable U/S 323/341 IPC against accused Charan Soy and for the offence defined U/S 3 punishable U/S 14 of Child Lobour ( Prohibition and Regulation) Act against accused Naresh Yadav.
There is no material on record to frame the charge for S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 14 of 15 commission of the offence punishable U/S 374/406 IPC and Section 23 & 26 of Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act and Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System ( Abolition ) Act against the accused Charan Soy and Naresh Yadav.
There is no material on record to frame the charge against the accused Ms.Pratima Soy and Rahis Babu for commission of any of the alleged offences punishable U/S 323/342/374/406/34 IPC, Section 23 & 26 of Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, Section 3 r/w 14 of the Child Labour ( Prohibition and Regulation ) Act and Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System Act . Therefore, both the accused persons namely Ms. Pratima Soy and Rahis Babu are discharged in the present case .
Announced in the open court ( Devender Kr. Jangala)
on 02.01.13 ACMM( N/W): Rohini Courts: Delhi
S/V Charan Soy etc. Page 15 of 15