Delhi District Court
State vs Kulwant Singh & Ors on 13 January, 2010
State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors
IN THE COURT OF SH M. R. SETHI
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE : (FTC) (W): DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO.03/09
FIR No. 925/01
P.S Nangloi
State Versus 1 Kulwant Singh
S/o L. Prem Singh
R/o WZ-708 Shiv Nagar
Jail Road, Hari Nagar
Delhi
2 Balwinder Kaur
W/o Joginder Singh
R/o B-25,Phase-II,
Nihal Vihar,Delhi
3 Manjeet Singh
S/o Rajender Singh
R/o WZ A-144, Santgarh
Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
Date of Incident: 15.10.2001
Date of Arguments: 13.01.2010
Date of Judgment : 13.01.2010
1
State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors
JUDGMENT:
1 Succinctly stated, allegations against the three accused were to the effect that on 15.10.2001 the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had abducted the prosecutrix Harvinder Kaur @ Ravinder Kaur from her house with intention that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or to marry with accused Manjit Singh. It was further alleged against the accused persons that they had wrongfully confined prosecutrix, who was a minor girl aged about 14 years.
2 On basis of aforesaid allegations, on 31.10.2005 charge was framed against all the three accused persons for having committed offences punishable under Sec.366-A/34 IPC as well as under Sec.368/34 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In order to prove its case against the accused persons, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses during course of trial.
2
State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors 4 PW-1 Ct Bala Saheb stated about arrest of accused persons on 15.10.2001 and identified his signatures on the arrest memos and personal search memos which were proved as Ex PW1/A, B,C, D and E. During course of cross-examination witness stated that the accused persons were arrested at about 2.00 AM on the night between 15/16 October,2001 when they came to police post alongwith Kulwinder Singh. Witness denied the suggestion of having signed all the memos at instance of the Investigating Officer.
5 PW-2 Lady Ct Sushila identified her signatures on the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Balwinder Kaur which were proved as Ex.PW1/E & Ex.PW2/A respectively.
During course of cross-examination she denied the suggestion that accused was falsely arrested. 6 PW-3 HC Jitender Prakash proved copy of FIR Ex PW3/A and his endorsement on rukka Ex PW3/B. 3 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors 7 PW-4 SI Rajvir Singh claimed that on 15.10.2001 one Kulwant Singh handed over a complaint to him on which he made endorsement Ex PW4/A and sent the rukka for registration of FIR.
During course of his cross-examination he claimed that the complainant had come alone at about 9.15/9.30 PM and had handed over written complaint to him. 8 PW-5 Kulwinder Singh was the complainant who claimed that he did not remember the exact date and month but it was during summer of 2001 when he received a phone call from his mother to the effect that his younger sister Ravinder Kaur was not traceable at home. Witness claimed that he immediately rushed to his house and found that his sister had already returned back. He further stated that on inquiry she stated having gone to house of her friend. Witness claimed that he did not know anything else.
After seeking permission from the Court, the witness was cross-examined by Additional PP for State wherein he denied having made any complaint to the police 4 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors on 15.10.2001. When the complaint Mark A was shown to the witness he denied having signed the same at point Mark B. The witness denied each and every sentence of complaint Mark A which was read over to him by Additional PP for State during course of cross-examination. He further stated that he could not identify any of the three accused persons in court. He further denied having produced his sister before the IO in PP Nihal Vihar. He also denied having made any statement under Sec.161 Cr. P. C to the IO. Witness denied that he had been won over by the accused persons or was deposing falsely.
During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness claimed that he was deposing at his own instance and without any fear or force or coercion.
9 PW-6 Mrs Harjit Kaur was mother of the prosecutrix. A perusal of her evidence recorded on 11.2.2009 reveals that it had been observed by my learned Predecessor that the witness seemed to be not mentally fit condition. Some questions were put to the witness and her answers recorded before she was asked to depose. In 5 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors opinion of my Learned Predecessor, from the answers given, the witness was not completely in competent to testify in court.
During course of her examination in chief, witness claimed that her younger daughter and she herself had been enticed by accused Balwinder Kaur on pretext that accused Balwinder Kaur would get her daughter married with a suitable match. She claimed that thereafter, Balwinder Kaur took her and her daughter to Gurudwara where she got married her daughter with accused Manjit Singh. Witness claimed that in the Gurudwara she came to know that Balwinder Kaur had got some money from mother of accused Manjit Singh for the said marriage. She claimed that thereafter she alongwith daughter returned back home.
After seeking permission from the court witness was cross-examined by Addl. PP for State and during course of her cross-examination she claimed that the date of incident might be 15.10.2001. She admitted that on 15.10.2001 accused Balwinder Kaur came to their house and told her that she would get married her younger daughter Ravinder in a good house. She admitted that 6 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors thereafter she went inside her house and when she came out she saw Balwinder Kaur taking away her daughter by holding her hand. She admitted that she followed them and that Balwinder Kaur was telling her daughter that she was taking her for medicine and that accused Manjeet also started accompanying them. She admitted that thereafter, accused Balwinder Kaur and Manjeet Singh took her daughter to the house of S. Kulwant Singh and thereafter, she herself returned back to her house. She further admitted that after coming back to her home she told everything to her sons and at about 6-00 PM her sons brought back her daughter to her house. She admitted that at the relevant time age of her daughter was around 14 years.
During course of cross-examination witness admitted that she did not remember anything about this case or as to who came to her house and at what time. She admitted that she had not gone anywhere and came to know everything at home. She admitted that she was not at her home and police had not made any inquiries from her. She admitted that she had given affirmative answers to all the questions put to her. Witness claimed that she did not 7 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors know what happened in the Gurudwara as all the work was already done when she reached there. She claimed that her sons had brought back her daughter from the house of accused Manjeet. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely or did not know anything about the case.
Thereafter, the witness was re-examined by the Additional PP for State and she claimed that her daughter Ravinder Kaur was born after her daughter Dimpy. She did not remember as to which of her son was born earlier to Dimpy.
On further cross-examination on behalf of accused, witness admitted that Ravinder Kaur is also called Dimpy.
9 The prosecutrix herself was examined as PW.7. As was the case with PW-6, it was observed by my Ld. Predecessor that the witness seemed to be not in fit condition of mind. Accordingly, some questions were put to the witness by my learned Predecessor and thereafter, it was observed that although the witness had not replied some of 8 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors the questions properly, she did not seem unfit to testify in court. Accordingly, her statement was recorded. 10 Witness claimed that her real name was Ravinder Kaur and her nick name was Simmy and that Dimpy was her elder sister. She claimed that she did not remember as to when she got married to Gurpreet Singh and claimed that she did not know anything about the present case.
After seeking permission from the Court, the witness was cross-examined by Additional PP for State wherein she disowned the entire case of the prosecution. She specifically claimed that she did not know the accused Balwinder Kaur and could not identify her. She specifically stated that her real name was Ravinder Kaur and not Harvinder Kaur. She claimed that she had never stated to the police that her real name was Harvinder Kaur. Witness denied having made any statement to the police on 15.10.2001 and claimed that police never met her on that day. She specifically stated that she was not present in her house on 15.10.2001 and was away on some tour. She denied all the facts mentioned in her statement under Sec.161 Cr P. C. She further stated that she had never come 9 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors to the court on 19.10.2001 and her statement was never recorded by Magistrate under Sec.164 Cr. P.C. She denied all the contents of her alleged statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. When the said statement was shown to the witness, witness refused to identify the signature on the same as being her signature. She claimed that she had gone on two months tour and denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely having been won over by the accused.
During cross-examination by learned counsel for accused witness admitted that her present age was 32 years.
11 PW-8 Shri Rajinder Kumar, ASJ, Dwaraka claimed having recorded statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr. P. C on 19.10.2001. He proved the application in that regard as Ex PW8/A and the statement as Ex PW.8/B. Certificate regarding correctness of the proceedings was proved as Ex. PW8/C. During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused witness specifically claimed that the prosecutrix was not presently known to him and had been 10 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors identified by the Investigating Officer. 12 PW-9 Shri Rajinder Singh claimed that he could not identify writing or signature of Mrs. R. Bhagat on certificate Mark P9-A dated 27.11.2001. 13 PW-10 Mrs R. Bhagat identified her signature on certificate Mark P9-A which was proved as Ex PW10/A. During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness claimed that police had only asked her for certificate regarding date of birth of Harvinder and that she handed over the same to the police. She denied the suggestion that certificate Ex PW10/A or the date mentioned therein were incorrect. She admitted that she had no personal knowledge regarding date of birth of Harvinder and that the certificate had been prepared as per record.
14 PW-11 Gupreet Singh was brother of the prosecutrix and claimed that he did not know anything regarding the present case and that his statement was never recorded by police.
11
State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross-examined by Addl. PP for State wherein he admitted that his sister Ravinder Kaur was known as Harvinder Kaur. He claimed that he could not say if on 15.10.2001 he was present in his house alongwith his brother, sister and mother or that if on that day accused Balwinder Kaur had come to their house. He specifically stated that he did not know any of the three accused present in court. He denied the suggestion that on that day accused Balwinder Kaur took his sister with her . When his statement under Sec.161 Cr. P.C (Mark P-11A) was read over to the witness, he denied having made any such statement to the police and also denied authenticity of the facts mentioned therein. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save accused persons. 15 PW-12 SI Rajnikant was the Investigating Officer who claimed having prepared recovery memo in respect of the prosecutrix who was produced by the complainant. The recovery memo was proved as Ex PW12/A. He further stated having prepared other documents and personal search memos regarding the accused persons and having 12 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors got sent the prosecutrix to Nari Niketan. He also claimed having produced the prosecutrix before the Court for recording of her statement under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness claimed having seen the accused persons, the complainant and the prosecutrix in the police post at about 11-00 PM. He could not tell names of friends of the complainant who were present in the police post and claimed that he had not recorded statements of any of those persons. He further claimed that he had not recorded statement of any independent public witness during course of investigation. Although witness claimed that he had no personal knowledge regarding mental state of the prosecutrix and her mother, he admitted that the complainant had mentioned in his statement that both of them were mentally unstable. He stated that he had not got them medically examined in this regard. He denied the suggestion that their statements had been incorrectly recorded by him or that the facts not stated by them had been mentioned by him in their respective statements. 16 Thereafter, statements of the accused persons 13 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors were recorded, wherein they denied the allegations of prosecution and claimed that they had been falsely implicated in this case.
17 Arguments were advanced by Shri Mukul Kumar, Additional PP for State and Ms Sadhna Bhatia, learned counsel for accused persons.
18 It was submitted by Additional PP for State that PW-6 during course of her testimony had proved case of the prosecution and that her testimony was enough for conviction of the accused persons. It was stated that for some unknown reasons, the other witnesses had refused to accept or support case of the prosecution. It was further submitted by Additional PP for State that the accused persons have failed to show as to why they were falsely implicated in this case in the first instance. 19 On behalf of the accused persons, it was submitted that none of the prosecution witness had supported case of the prosecution. It was pointed out that the complainant when examined as PW-4 and the prosecutrix when examined as PW-7 had disowned case of 14 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors the prosecution. As regards PW-6, it was submitted by learned counsel that apparently this witness was not of stable mind and no reliance could be placed on her testimony.
20 Perusal of the record of the case reveals that all is not well with the case of prosecution. In the first instance no independent public witness has been examined. Investigating Officer PW-12 categorically admitted that he had not recorded statement of any of the independent public person who had accompanied the complainant and the prosecutrix to the police station.
21 That being the position, the only witnesses in this case are the family members of the prosecutrix as well as the complainant. The same are PW.5,PW.6,PW.7 and PW.11. 22 The complainant PW-5 has disowned the prosecution story as well as his complaint allegedly lodged with the police in the first instance. He did not even identify his signatures on the same and denied each and every fact suggested to him by Addl. PP for State. He could not even identify the accused persons. The prosecutrix PW-7 has also 15 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors disowned case of the prosecution and had failed to identify the accuseds. She denied having been enticed or taken away by accused Balwinder Kaur and claimed that she did not know Balwinder Kaur. Not only has this witness denied the prosecution story,she has gone to the extent to claim that she was not present in her house on the date of incident i.e 15.10.2001 and rather was away on some tour which lasted for about two months.
23 PW-11 also has completed disowned case of the prosecution and claimed that he did not know any of the three accused persons in court.
24 This brings us to testimony of PW-6 Harjeet Kaur, who is mother of the prosecutrix. In the first instance, it was observed by my Ld Predecessor before recording her statement that the witness did not seem to be in mentally fit condition. Although, some questions were put to the witness,it was observed that she was not completely incompetent to testify in court. Apparently, some doubt existed in mind of my learned Predecessor regarding mental capacity of the witness and her mental incapacity has been brought out during course of her examination in chief, 16 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors cross-examination by Addl. PP for State and by learned counsel for accused. The witness has apparently accepted all the suggestions made to her by Addl. PP for state and has also accepted all the suggestions made to her by learned counsel for the accused. Both apparently run contradictory to each other. In considered opinion of this court, keeping in view the answers given by the witness during course of her testimony in court, no reliance whatsoever can be placed upon her testimony.
25 Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of any incriminating evidence on record, this court is of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Not only , there is no independent public witness examined in this case, even the family members of the prosecutrix and moreso, the prosecutrix as well as the complainant have disowned the prosecution story.
26 In view thereof, keeping in view the evidence that has come on record, this court has no option but to order of acquittal of the accused persons in this case. All the 17 State Vs Kulwant Singh & Ors accused are accordingly ordered to be acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (M. R. SETHI)
on 13.1.2010 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
(FTC) (WEST):DELHI
18