Delhi District Court
State vs . Priya Shah And Others Page No. 1 on 22 April, 2014
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Unique ID No. 02406R0320362011
SC No. : 86/2013
FIR No. : 377/2011
U/s. : 365/376/368/366/506/34 IPC and
section 109/120-B IPC
PS : Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
........................ Complainant.
Versus
1. Priya Shah @ Anjali @ Rani
W/o Shri Shikander Shah
R/o House No. A-53, 1st Floor,
Panchsheel Vihar,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
2. S ( a juvenile, not being tried by this court).
3. Sunita Devi
W/o Shri Ashok Kumar
R/oHouse No. J-3/31 B
Khirki Extension,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Permanent resident of :
Village Hasana Pur,
P.O and P.S Hasan Ganj,
District Unav, Uttar Pradesh.
S.C. No. 86/2013
State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 1
FIR No. 377/2011
P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 2 ::-
4. Amit
S/o Shri Satbir Singh
R/o Village and Post Office Chiri,
P.S Lakhan Mazara, District Rohtak
Haryana.
.........................Accused person.
Date of Institution : 11-01-2012.
Judgment reserved for orders on : 09-04-2014.
Date of pronouncement : 22-4-2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of one Mohd Kalam S/o Nazrool Islam, a resident of house No. 464, Toia-b-Mazjid, Shahin Bagh, New Delhi, who had stated, interalia, that :
"I am a painter and am residing in Delhi for the last about 22 years. In January, 2011 I had brought my wife, my son and my daughters, including the prosecutrix to Delhi. They lived in Delhi for about 4 to 5 months and then I left them at my native village. However, for the last 2½ months my daughter viz., the prosecutrix, and my son Shamam have been residing with me at Shahin Bagh, New Delhi. On 12-9-2011 at about 4 PM my daughter, the Prosecutrix, left my house saying that she is going in search of a job but she did not return. She left my house after quarreling with me as I was not in favour of her doing a job. Later I tried S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 2 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 3 ::-
to search her and on 24-9-2011 at about 1.30 PM as I reached at Sai Baba Mandir, Village Khirki and was showing the photograph of my daughter to different people, a boy namely Bobby Messy came near me and told me that three ladies namely Priya, Sony and Sunita ; residing at A-53, Panchsheel Vihar, New Delhi, on 22-9-2011 at around 8:30 PM, had pulled my daughter inside a van after beating her and had taken her away. However, a bag of my daughter, fell on the road in such scuffle and he has kept such bag. He brought the said bag and it contained the clothes of my daughter. My daughter be searched.
2. On the basis of his above complaint, FIR bearing no. 377/2011, under section 365 IPC was registered at P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. During investigation the accused were arrested and on its completion, the charge sheet was filed.
3. Since it is a Session's triable case, so was committed to this court. On 21-3-2012, a charge under 365/ 368/506/342/366/376/109/120-B IPC was framed against accused person and they all pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 3 FIR No. 377/2011P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 4 ::-
4. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Accused Amit also led evidence in his defence and had examined his brother as DW1. Before proceeding further, let me state in brief the depositions made by the witnesses.
PW1 HC Bir Singh On 24-9-2011 he had registered FIR bearing no. 377/2011 under section 365 IPC Ex.PW1/A and made an endorsement on the Rukka.
PW2 Shri Bobby a driver by profession, on 22-9-2012 was walking on foot from Select City Mall towards Khirki Extension, New Delhi, when at about 8 / 8:30 PM at Sai Baba Mandir Chowk, he saw three women forcing a girl, aged about 19-20 years, to sit in a van and then the said girl was taken by those women. However, in the scuffle, a black colour bag fell on the road. Though PW2 called them but they did not stop. PW2 picked the said bag and found some clothes and photographs in it. PW2 knew those women since were residing near the house of his jeeja at A-53, Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki Extension, New Delhi. At about 9:45 PM, PW2 went to the house of three ladies but found it locked. He then went to Meerut, Uttar Pradesh for some work.
On 24-9-2011 when PW2 was going to meet his friend Raju S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 4 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 5 ::-
near Sai Baba Madir, Khirki Extension, New Delhi, he met a person who was showing a photograph of a girl to public and the said person also inquired from him about the girl in the photograph. PW2 identified the photograph to be of the same girl who was abducted by three women. PW2 then brought the black colour bag which he picked from the road and the said man identified the bag to be of his daughter, the prosecutrix. PW2 told the father of the prosecutrix, the names of those women as Sunita, Priya Shah and accused S (a juvenile), as told to him by his friend Raju. Then PW2 along with the father of the prosecutrix went to P.S Malviya Nagar where the father of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint.
On 25-9-2011 three police officials with a lady police came at the shop of his jeeja at A-47, Khirki Extension and then at the instance of PW2, accused Sunita was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/C from her house at J- Block at Hauz Rani, Khirki Extension, New Delhi and that on 25-9-2011 accused Priya Shah and accused Sony Chaudhary were also arrested vide memos Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B ; their personal searches was conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. PW2 was cross S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 5 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 6 ::-
examined by the Ld. Addl. P.P for the State as was deviating from his statement given to police under section 161 Cr.P.C. In his cross examination he denied that he ever went to a hotel, near railway station Rohtak, Haryana or that accused Amit was ever arrested by the police on 26-9-2011 in his presence. He denied the arrest of accused Amit or Babli or if they both were also involved in sexual exploitation of the prosecutrix.
During his cross examination by the ld defence counsel, PW2 deposed that on 22-9-2011 there were about 5 to 7 public person present at the Sai Baba Chowk, Khirki Extension, New Delhi ; it may have taken just 2 to 3 minutes in the scuffle when the prosecutrix was being pushed inside a white colour van and left ; he had seen this incident from at a distance of about 50 yards ; and before he could react to save the girl, the van left. However, he picked the bag left there and did not inform police as he thought that it may be a family matter of said ladies.
He reiterated that on 24-9-2011 he met the father of the prosecutrix and after seeing the photograph of the prosecutrix he accompanied her father to police station and even gave the bag to police.
S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 6 FIR No. 377/2011P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 7 ::-
PW3 Lady Ct. Manika She brought the prosecutrix Sharma from Nari Niketan and produced her before the court for recording of her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
PW4 Shri Samar Vishal the Ld. MM recorded statement Ex.PW4/A of the prosecutrix and proved his proceedings Ex.PW4/B ; his certificate of correctness as Ex.PW4/C and even passed an order Ex.PW4/D for placing the said statement in an envelope.
PW5 W/Ct. Reena a witness of arrest of accused Priya Shah, accused Sony Chaudhary and accused Sunita and also of their personal searches, conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. PW5 even went to Rohtak where accused Amit was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Accused Amit made disclosure Ex.PW5/E. PW6 The prosecutrix.
PW7 Shri Mohd Kalam The father of the prosecutrix.
PW8 SI Amit Bhardwaj On 24-9-2011 had recorded the statement Ex.PW7/A of the complainant ; made endorse- ment and got the FIR registered.
PW9 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary On 15.12.2011 had conducted S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 7 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 8 ::-
the dental examination of the prosecutrix for determining her bone age and also prepared the MLC Ex.PW9/A. PW-10 SI Murari Lal He prepared the site plan Ex.PW-10/A ; seized a black colour bag of prosecutrix vide memo Ex.PW-7/B ; arrested accused Priya Shah, accused S (a juvenile) vide arrest memos Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B ;
conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW-2/D and Ex.PW-2/E and recorded their disclosures Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B. Pursuant to their disclosures he also arrested accused Sunita vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/C ; conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW-2/F and recorded her disclosure Ex.PW-5/C. All three accused namely S (a juvenile), Sunita Devi and Priya Shah were got medically examined vide applications Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-10/D. Next day, accused S (a juvenile) led the police party to Rohtak, Haryana and got arrested accused Amit vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/G ; the personal search of accused Amit was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-5/D and his disclosure Ex.PW-5/E was recorded. Accused Amit got recovered the prosecutrix from his hotel namely Amit Hotel. The custody of prosecutrix was S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 8 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 9 ::-
handed over to her father. The police tried to search Babli but she could not be traced. The site plan Ex.PW10/E qua the place of recovery of the prosecutrix ; and Ex.PW10/F of premises no. A-53, Panchsheel Vihar, New Delhi, were prepared. Accused Amit and the prosecutrix were got medically examined vide request Ex.PW-10/G and the exhibits of the prosecutrix along with sample seal were seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/F. PW-10 also seized a mobile make Nokia model 2690 of black and white colour from the prosecutrix vide recovery memo Ex.PW-5/G. The DD entry at PS Shehr at Rohtak was made and proved as Ex.PW-10/H. He got recorded the statement u/s. 164 CrPC of the prosecutrix through Ld. MM and got sent the prosecutrix to Nari Niketan vide order Ex.PW-10/J. Accused Amit was got medically examined vide request Ex.PW-10/L and was sent to J/C vide his application Ex.PW-10/M. The prosecutrix was got medically examined qua her bone age.
During the cross examined PW10 deposed that PW2 Bobby Messy had handed over to him a bag of the prosecutrix, kept with him since 22-9-2011. It was unlocked.
No mobile phone was found in the bag. PW10 deposed S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 9 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 10 ::-
that no public person joined the investigation despite requests. On 26-9-11, he went to Rohtak with complainant ; Ct Reena and HC Mukesh.
PW11 Dr. Simrandeep On 29.6.2011, at around 1.03 PM
Kaur she had examined the
prosecutrix and had recorded
her brief history. She prepared the MLC Ex.PW-11/A ; prepared exhibits and gave it to the police along with sample seal of hospital. The hymen of the prosecutrix was not intact and was admitting two fingers.
DW1 Shri Pradeep He is running Amit Hotel, with 18 rooms, near Railway Station, Rohtak, Haryana. He brought a guest register for the year 2011 wherein on 23-9-2011 one Ms. Sony has checked in the hotel at 1 AM and stayed with a person in room no.502 for a day. The relevant entry is Ex.DW1/A.
5. On the basis of the above evidence it was argued by the ld. Addl. P.P that accused person be convicted but whereas the ld defene counsels argued that no case is made out against any of the accused in view of the contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses and they be given benefit of doubt. Further, it was argued that recovery of the prosecutrix S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 10 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 11 ::-
at the instance of accused Amit in his hotel is doubtful and no TIP of accused Amit was ever conducted. The Maruti Van in which the prosecutrix was allegedly abducted was never recovered.
6. To appreciate the contentions of the defence it would be necessary to examine the version of the prosecutrix.
She has been examined as PW6 and had deposed as under :
"I belong to Orissa and had come to Delhi with my family members and stayed at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. After about a month we shifted to Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi. At the time of incident I was only 18 years of age. In September, 2011 I requested my father to allow me to do a job in Delhi but he did not agree since I am a Muslim girl. My father booked a return ticket for me to send me to my village, so I left my father's house and came at the residence of my maternal aunt, namely, Shiva Mami and I stayed there for 3/4 days. Then I took a room on rent near the house of my maternal aunt at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
I came to Select City Mall in search of a job where I met accused Sunita. She gave me her mobile number asking me to contact her in case I do not find any job. Since I could not find any job I come to my room and telephoned accused Sunita. I even stated to her that I was apprehensive of staying in S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 11 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 12 ::-
Malviya Nagar as lot of foreigners were residing there. Accused Sunita then took me to her own house and offered me food and even asked me to sleep there. She promised to search a job for me.
Next day, I again went to search job but could not find one and I returned to house of accused Sunita. In the evening I found accused S (a juvenile), accused Priya Shah, chatting with accused Sunita. Accused Priya Shah inquired about my educational qualification and when I told her that I was intermediate ; she started laughing and said that I can not get a job with such educational qualification and she asked accused Sunita to bring me to her house next morning.
Accused Sunita then took me to the house of accused Priya Shah, who assured me to get me a job in computers and also assured me that she would make necessary arrangements to teach me in computer. Then I returned to the house of accused Sunita.
Next day accused Priya Shah informed accused Sunita on telephone that she had arranged a job for me. Then accused Priya Shah and accused S (a juvenile) came in a car to the house of accused Sunita and we all then went to the house of accused Priya Shah. I was made to sit in a separate room while these three ladies started conversing in a separate room.
Accused Sunita left me in the house of accused Priya Shah despite my objection and accused Priya Shah did not allow me to leave the house saying S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 12 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 13 ::-
that I have been captivated. When I resisted her act, accused Priya Shah told me that she has found a job for me and I had to indulge in prostitution and that she had paid an amount of Rs.5000/- as commission to accused Sunita. I started shouting but accused Priya Shah threatened me that all the occupants of the building are known to her and no one can dare to complain against her.
Next day accused Priya Shah took me to Ber Sarai, New Delhi and left me in a room with two male engineering students. Though one of boys raped me, but another boy, namely, Sagar gave his mobile number to me and even promised to help me. The said boys then left me to the house of accused Priya Shah. Next day accused Priya Shah called more person. Some of them were of African origin and some were Indians and they all raped me. In fact they were six person and one by one they all raped me.
On 22-9-2011 I got a chance to escape from the house of accused Priya Shah. I took an auto and as I reached Krishna Mandir, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, there I was caught by accused Sunita who told me that I need to be taken to the house of accused Priya Shah as I have committed theft.
In the meanwhile, accused S (a juvenile) and accused Priya Shah also reached there, as were called by accused Sunita and then they all took me to the house of accused Priya Shah where I was beaten.
On the request of Raju, brother of accused Priya Shah, she S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 13 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 14 ::-
promised to leave me if I take food. Raju even gave me his mobile number. Accused Priya Shah then asked Raju to bring some food from the market. As Raju left for the market both accused Priya Shah and accused S (a juvenile) started beating me and then all the three accused ladies made me sit in a Maruti Van and they took me to Rohtak in the hotel of accused Amit. I was made to sit in a separate room while the accused ladies had a secret talk with accused Amit. Thereafter accused Amit, accused S (a juvenile) and accused Priya Shah brought one Babli in my room and the said Babli asked them to bring me to her place. I was made to sit in a car by accused Amit and they all followed Babli to her house. I was made to sit in a room and whereas accused Amit, accused S (a juvenile) and the said Babli had a talk. Accused S (a juvenile) even snatched the paper having mobile number of Raju from me by beating me. Accused S (a juvenile) told me that she would come next morning to take me. I was made to sleep in the said room and it was locked from outside. Babli brought tea for me in the morning and told me that the accused person have sold me to her for Rs.25,000/- for 15 days. Babli then started calling various men from that night and they all raped me. I even requested the customers by telling them my plight but one of them informed Babli and she started giving me injections and even threatened me that if I do any adventure I would be killed or be sent to Rajasthan.
However, in the meanwhile, on S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 14 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 15 ::-
26-9-2011, my father came there with Delhi Police and rescued me. I was brought at P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi where I narrated my plight to the police. I was produced before the Ld. MM where I gave my statement Ex.PW4/A under section 164 Cr.P.C. The Nokia mobile phone Ex.P1 was given to me by accused Priya Shah was also seized vide memo Ex.PW5/G. I was allowed to accompany my father and I signed documents Ex.PW6/A. My air bag fell when I had a scuffle with these three ladies at the Mandir at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
During her cross examination, the prosecutrix replied that she left her parents house on her own and had taken a small room on rent at Khirki Extension, New Delhi, at a distance of about 5 to 10 minutes walk from her maternal aunt's house. She further deposed that she met accused Sunita on 15-9-2011 at about 4 PM and thereafter she did not visit Select City Mall. The distance between the house of accused Sunita and the room of the prosecutrix was about 4 to 5 minutes walk. She admitted that she left her rented room after a day when she came to the house of accused Sunita.
Prosecutrix admitted that there exist several houses adjoining to the house of accused Sunita and of accused Priya Shah, however, she was not aware if such adjoining houses were occupied as she was never allowed to move outside. PW6 admitted that she was given a mobile phone by accused Priya Shah when was left with two engineering students at Ber Sarai, New S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 15 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 16 ::-
Delhi but she did not use the said mobile phone as was threatened by accused Priya Shah of dire consequences. She further deposed that she was not allowed to keep the mobile at all times and that she could make calls only in the presence of accused as they watched and threaten her not to disclose anything about her to anyone.
PW6 admitted that she spent the night with two boys at Ber Sarai, New Delhi as was left there at about 10:30 PM and she returned at about 7 next morning. She admitted that she did not raise any hue and cry as was left in the company of those two boys. She voluntarily added that she was made to drink something in a cold drink when the said two boys brought her to the house of accused Priya Shah in a car. She admitted that she did not raise any hue and cry on the way as was threatened by the said boys. She admitted that she was provided with food and other facilities like washing clothes etc by accused Priya Shah at her house but she denied that she ever consented for prostitution. PW6 admitted that she did not raise any hue and cry while being exploited by different person as was threatened by accused.
PW6 deposed that on 22-9-2011 at about 4 PM when she had left the house of accused Priya Shah, accused S (a juvenile) was also present there but since both the accused were talking in another portion so on an excuse she slipped from the main entrance. As PW6 felt that she was being chased so S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 16 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 17 ::-
she had requested the rickshaw walla to drop her at Khirki Extension and from there she took another scooter and had reached Krishna Mandir, Malviya Nagar. PW6 admitted that she did not ask the scooter driver to take her to police station as was afraid and wanted to save herself and rather wanted to reach the room of her maternal aunt but was caught by accused Sunita at Krishna Mandir while she was walking on foot. PW6 admitted that she had a mobile phone with her at that time but she did not use the same to inform police or to her relatives.
PW6 found accused Sunita coming from the opposite side and accused Sunita called other accused person and they all reached there within 5 to 10 minutes. The prosecutrix deposed that she raised alarm near the Mandir but no one came to her rescue. It was around 7 PM / 7:30 PM then.
PW6 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/A qua keeping her in a locked room at Rohtak, Haryana. PW6 admitted that at the time of her rescue she was alone in the house of Babli. She again said that one Sandeep, the brother of Babli along with Babli were present there and in fact Babli had opened the door of the said house but she was left by police. PW6 deposed that police had not broke open the door of the house of Babli at the time of her rescue.
PW6 was also cross examined by accused Amit and she deposed that she was brought in a car from Delhi to Rohtak but she could not raise alarm as her hands and mouth were tied. She S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 17 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 18 ::-
was confronted with her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C to this effect. PW6 admitted that she came to know about accused Amit, being owner of Hotel Amit when she came to Rohtak, Haryana. PW6 admitted that she did not state in her statement Ex.PW4/A that accused Amit came in her room with accused S (a juvenile) and accused Priya Shah or he ever made her sit in the car but had stated that he drove her to the house of Babli.
Shri Mohd Kalam, the father of the prosecutrix, was examined as PW7 and he deposed as under :
"As my daughter, the prosecutrix, did not wish to return to her native village, so on 12-9-2011 had left my house without informing me. I searched my daughter and on 24-9-2011 at around 2 / 2:30 PM when I came near Sai Baba Mandir in the area of Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and was showing the photograph of my daughter to public person, a boy met me and identified my daughter and told me that she was being dragged in a car by three women near Sai Baba Mandir. He told the names of such women as S (a juvenile), Sunita etc. The said boy also told me that he is in possession of the bag which fell during the scuffle between the said ladies. The said bag was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 18 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 19 ::-
PW7 also witnesseth the arrest of all the three accused ladies ; arrested vide memos Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C ; their personal searches were conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/D Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. PW7 also went to Rohtak with police from where accused Amit was arrested vide documents Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/D. His daughter was found in the hotel and was brought to Delhi.
He was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. P.P for the State wherein he deposed that his daughter was sold by accused person to one Babli for a sum of Rs.25,000/- for being sexually exploited for 15 days by different customers.
During his cross examination PW7 admitted that he did not lodge any missing complaint till 24-9-2011. He also admitted that he did not give his daughter's photograph to police nor did he knew Bobby Messey PW2 from earlier and that he was searching his daughter on his own.
In view of the depositions of the prosecutrix and her father, let me first find if the prosecutrix corroborated her earlier statement Ex.PW4/A given to the Ld. MM or there exist any material contradiction(s).S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 19 FIR No. 377/2011
P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 20 ::-
Accused Ladies If one peruse the deposition of the prosecutrix as also her statement Ex.PW4/A one finds that she has corroborated qua the roles of accused ladies, namely, accused Priya Shah, accused Sunita and accused S, (a juvenile), on all material issues. PW6 had corroborated the fact that she came to Delhi from her native village and went in search of a job despite resistance by her father. She left her parents house on her own without the permission of her father and came to reside with her maternal aunt. She took a room on rent near the house of her maternal aunt and one day she went to Select City Mall, Saket, New Delhi in search of a job where she met a lady namely accused Sunita near a juice corner and discussed her problem. Accused Sunita gave her mobile number to the prosecutrix and asked PW6 to contact her in case she do not find a job. PW6 then went to live with accused Sunita in her house on the asking of accused Sunita, in a hope to find a job.
PW6 also corroborated with her statement Ex.PW4/A to the effect that next day accused Sunita called two ladies namely accused Priya Shah and S (a juvenile) who S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 20 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 21 ::-
laughed at the educational qualifications of prosecutrix.
Accused Sunita then left PW6 at the house of accused Priya Shah where she was locked in a room and then accused Priya Shah and accused S ( a juvenile ) told her that they have purchased her and had given commission of Rs.5000/- to accused Sunita.
The prosecutrix corroborated her complaint Ex.PW4/A qua the incident of her rape by engineering students at Ber Sarai, New Delhi where she was sent by accused Priya Shah and then how she was forcibly indulged in prostitution by accused Priya Shah and S (a juvenile) and that the accused ladies used to call six to seven person for doing sex with the prosecutrix.
The prosecutrix being fed up, even tried to escape but was caught on the way by accused Sunita, who then called other accused ladies at the spot and they brought PW6 at the house of accused Priya Shah.
The prosecutrix also corroborated the fact that accused Priya Shah then with the help of other accused ladies forcibly took her to Rohtak, Haryana, where she was kept in the hotel of accused Amit and then was left at the house of S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 21 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 22 ::-
one Babli. The said Babli locked her in a room and used the prosecutrix to satisfy the sexual lust of various customers at her house. The prosecutrix once told a customer of her plight but he rather informed Babli and then she was given injections. However, police came to rescue her on 26th of the month and she was brought to Delhi where she gave her statement Ex.PW4/A. Thus, on all material aspects facts qua the role of all the accused ladies ; the prosecutrix had corroborated her earlier statement Ex.PW4/A. Even the alleged history given by her to the doctor, as narrated in her MLC, Ex.PW11/A tells her plight.
The factum of her being beaten by those accused ladies, who then dragged her in a van is even corroborated by PW2 Bobby Messy, who on 22-9-2012 had seen these accused ladies quarreling with a girl, aged 19/20 years and made her sit in a van and left. Further in scuffle a black colour bag of the prosecutrix fell on the road and it contain clothes and photographs. PW2 further corroborated the factum of meeting with the father of the prosecutrix, who was inquiring about the prosecutrix. PW2 thus also corroborated S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 22 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 23 ::-
the factum of abduction of the prosecutrix by accused ladies in a van.
PW7 - the father of the prosecutrix corroborated PW2 qua the fact that he on 24-9-2011 had met with PW2 who then led to the arrest of accused ladies and ultimately the recovery of the prosecutrix at Rohtak. PW7 identified the bag Ex.P2 of his daughter and articles lying therein as Ex.P3.
Hence so far as the role of accused Sunita and accused Priya Shah is concerned it stands duly proved by the depositions of the prosecutrix ; of PW2 Bobby and of PW7, the father of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix corroborated her earlier statements in all material particulars.
Though the Ld. Amicus Curie for accused ladies argued that there exist contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix as a bare perusal of her cross examination would show that despite there being various person around the house of accused Priya Shah and despite various opportunities for the prosecutrix to escape and to contact police she did not prefer the same and even despite having a mobile with her on various occasions she did not choose to S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 23 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 24 ::-
call police, hence it shows that she herself had indulged in prostitution.
I have heard the Ld. Amicus Curie. I am not inclined to accept his contentions.
I have already observed that the deposition of the prosecutrix and other public witnesses duly prove the role of the two accused ladies namely accused Sunita Devi and accused Priya Shah, who with accused S (a juvenile, not being tried by this court), on 22-9-2011, in the evening had forced the prosecutrix into prostitution and when she had tried to escape from the house of accused Priya Shah, the prosecutrix was abducted by these accused ladies and was brought to Rohtak in Hotel Amit and then took her to the house of one Babli, from where the prosecutrix was got recovered.
The fact that the prosecutrix did not complain to public / police or did not raise hue and cry or did not use her mobile, to my mind, would not go against her as she has explained in her deposition that she was not allowed to move out of the house alone and further was always threatened by the accused and was not allowed to keep the mobile at all times and that accused ladies would snatch the mobile and S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 24 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 25 ::-
would give her only on occasions and even used to watch her while she talk.
Now I may further say here that we are examining the behaviour of the prosecutrix, a girl aged 18 or 19 years, caught in the web of flesh traders. A girl of such age and in the net of such person, I doubt, would ever behave in a normal manner and rather would be greatly apprehensive of any injury which may be caused to her by such person if she ever cry or try to contact any one or fails in such effort. It is on record that Raju, a brother of accused Priya Shah, when tried to help her, she was rather beaten and was shifted from Delhi to Rohtak and sold there. Even the paper on which the prosecutrix had written the mobile number of Raju was also snatched by accused S (a juvenile).
It is also on record that once she tried to escape from the house of accused Priya Shah but unfortunately was caught and again brought by accused ladies to their house and was beaten. Further, the prosecutrix even folded her hands before the two engineering students at Ber Sarai but yet again one of those boys raped her on the pretext that he has given money to use her body.S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 25 FIR No. 377/2011
P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 26 ::-
It is also on record that she even used to tell her woes to every customer when was misused by Babli but one of them rather informed the said Babli and she started giving injections to the prosecutrix.
So, with this background where a prosecutrix was physically and mentally tortured, we cannot presume that she could have acted as a normal person. In such extreme circumstances even if she did not seek help due to fear it would not go against her. Hence, to my mind the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt qua accused Priya Shah and accused Sunita Devi.
Accused Amit The following contentions were raised by Ld. defence counsel on behalf of accused Amit :-
(i) that there exist a contradiction in the statement Ex.PW4/A of the prosecutrix wherein she has not stated about accused Amit having a talk with accused S (a juvenile) in hotel Amit though she deposed so in the court ;S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 26 FIR No. 377/2011
P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 27 ::-
(ii) though it was deposed by the prosecutrix that accused Amit had caught hold of her and had made her to sit in the car and took her to the house of Babli and that while she was made to sit in a room ; accused S (a juvenile), accused Amit and Babli talked with each other and then the accused person left her in the house of Babli but whereas in her statement Ex.PW4/A she has stated that she was taken to the house of Babli by all the accused where Babli gave money to only S (a juvenile) but did not depose, if accused Amit also took money from Babli ;
(iii) that prosecutrix did not disclose as to what were the talks between the co-accused person including accused Amit and as such it cannot be said that accused Amit was also involved in forcing the prosecutrix into prostitution ;
(iv) that there are contradictions qua the place of recovery of the prosecutrix as PW5 W-Ct. Reena and PW6 the prosecutrix deposed that the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of one Babli but whereas PW10 SI Murari Lal and PW7 Md. Kalam had deposed that prosecutrix was recovered from the hotel of accused Amit. Hence, it is argued that accused Amit be granted the benefit of doubt.S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 27 FIR No. 377/2011
P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 28 ::-
Before coming to the contentions raised let me state that I have already examined the roles of the co-
accused ladies and have already held that the deposition of the prosecutrix is substantially corroborated by her statement Ex.PW4/A as also by other witnesses. Hence in the light of above, I come to contention (i). Here I would like to refer to the statement Ex.PW4/A which do show that accused Amit confined the prosecutrix in a room of his hotel and then accused Sunita, accused Priya Shah, accused S (a juvenile) and accused Amit had a talk with each other and one Babli was called in the hotel and the prosecutrix was shown to her.
Further, in her deposition, the prosecutrix has stated that she was made to sit in a separate room and then all the accused prosecutrix had a secret talk and they called one Babli and also told Babli that prosecutrix was the same girl. In the light of these facts, I do not feel that there is any alleged material contradiction and thus contention (i) of the Ld. defence counsel is not sustainable.
Contention (ii) is factually incorrect, as if one peruse the statement Ex.PW4/A, the prosecutrix has stated that Babli had told her that she had purchased the prosecutrix S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 28 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 29 ::-
from co-accused person including accused Amit and that Babli had paid money to the accused person. Hence, contention (ii) also has no force.
Regarding contention (iii), though the prosecutrix did not depose about the nature of the talks between the co-
accused person but I feel that it would hardly have any effect on the outcome of the case, as the prosecutrix, right from the beginning has been agitating that co-accused ladies had abducted her, illegally confined her and had brought her to a hotel of accused Amit and thereafter they all in furtherance of their common intention had called one Babli (not arrested) and had shown the prosecutrix to said Babli and then took the prosecutrix to the house of said Babli from whom the co-
accused received money and left the prosecutrix in the house of Babli for prostitution purposes. Thus, the conduct of the accused Amit as also of other co-accused ladies do show that they all were acting in unison, hence, in these circumstances even if their secret talks were not brought on record it would hardly affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Thus, contention (iii) is also without any merit.S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 29 FIR No. 377/2011
P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 30 ::-
The contradiction (iv) is qua the place of recovery.
Though it is true that two of the witnesses viz PW5 Ct. Reena and PW6, the prosecutrix had deposed that the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of Babli but whereas two witnesses viz. PW7 Md. Kalam and PW10 SI Murari Lal had deposed that prosecutrix was recovered from the hotel of the accused Amit, but the place of recovery of the prosecutrix would hardly make any difference qua the role of accused Amit and qua the allegations made against him as it is the act of the accused which is more important rather than the place of recovery of the prosecutrix. The essence of the offence is the prosecutrix, without her consent or free will, was abducted by co-accused ladies, illegally confined and was taken to the hotel of accused Amit where she was made to indulge in prostitution without her consent and free will and under the threats. Thus, this contention also do not help the accused.
Lastly the contention that the prosecutrix herself was in flesh trade business ; do not convince me, as even if such allegation is presumed to be correct, then also no one else can force a person to do a thing against her wish or S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 30 FIR No. 377/2011 P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
-:: 31 ::-
consent or by abducting her.
Thus, the acts of accused, acting in unison and in furtherance of their common intention, do make out a case against all the accused for the offences under section 366/368/34 IPC for abducting and confining the prosecutrix with intent to force her for illicit intercourse and under section 506/34 IPC for criminally intimidating / threatening the prosecutrix of dire consequences if she leaves the accused person and also under section 376 IPC read with section 109/34 IPC for forcing the prosecutrix into prostitution.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 22-4-2014 ( Yogesh Khanna ) ASJ-Spl. FTC / Saket Courts New Delhi.S.C. No. 86/2013 State vs. Priya Shah and others Page No. 31 FIR No. 377/2011
P.S Malviya Nagar, New Delhi