Delhi District Court
State vs . on 26 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
S.C. No.144/10
(Unique No. 02403R0373492009)
FIR No.226/09
PS: Neb Sarai
U/S: 363/366 IPC.
State
Vs.
Sukhjinder Singh
S/o Sh. Daul Singh
R/o L-1st /25, Gali No.1,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
Date of initial institution : 11.11.2009
Date of institution in this court : 25.11.2010
Date of reserving Order : 11.07.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The state machinery came into motion on receipt of an information given by father of the prosecutrix (name withheld) which was reduced into writing vide DD No.26A on 12.09.2009 at 12:20 midnight. The informant informed that his daughter aged about 13-14 years is studying in class 7 th in Amrita Public School, Sangam Vihar where she had gone on 11.09.2009 at 7:15 a.m, however, she did not return from the S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 1 /24 school. Despite search, her whereabouts could not be known. Thereafter, another information was given by him wherein he suspected that the accused Sukhjinder Singh had kidnapped his daughter for the purpose of marriage. On this information, FIR No. 226/09 was registered under Section 363/366 IPC. ASI Babu Ram alongwith the complainant and his younger brother Raju Singh went for the search of accused Sukhjinder and after finding him, he was interrogated wherein he disclosed to have kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was recovered at his instance from the house of his uncle Ravi from Shyam Vihar, Nazafgarh.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 363/366/342 IPC was filed against the accused. Since the offences are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to this court for trial.
3. Vide order dated 15.03.2010, charge under Section 366/342 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. These witnesses can be divided into three categories i.e. public witnesses, medical witnesses and police S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 2 /24 witnesses.
4A Public Witnesses: In this category seven witnesses namely, prosecutrix, father of prosecutrix Sh. Rakesh, Raju Singh - uncle of the prosecutrix, Sh. Ravi, Smt. Raj, Mrs. Meenu Verma and Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. M.M, can be placed.
4.A.1 Prosecutrix was examined as PW-1. She was 15 years old at the time of her deposition and after satisfying itself about her competency, the court examined her. She stated that on 11.09.2009 at about 7:30 a.m when she was going to her school from her house, her driver Surjinder met her on the way and told her that her uncle Raju Singh had called her for an urgent work; she sat on his motorcycle; he took her to a park and forcibly put some Sindoor at her forehead; that she was beaten by the accused; after taking her at a long distance, Surjinder kept her in a room and he left after locking her inside and threatened not to disclose anything to anyone. He told her that he wanted to marry her. At about 2:00 a.m in the night, her father and her uncle Raju Singh with some police officials came in that room and took her with them. She identified the accused in the court. She S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 3 /24 gave her date of birth as 09.05.1995. She stated that she was also taken to AIIMS hospital for her medical check-up; that her statement was also recorded before the Ld. M.M and she proved her statement so recorded as Ex.PW1/A. In her cross- examination, she stated that she cannot tell the number of the motorcycle on which she was taken by the accused; that the accused did not beat her in the park; that the accused did not put Sindoor on her head in the park; that they remained in the park for about five minutes; that she did not raise any alarm when they started from park; that there were traffic signals on the way but she did not tell anybody at those traffic signals that the accused was taking her away. She further stated that her family members reached at around 2:00-3:00 a.m from where she was taken to PS; no photographs of her were clicked in the PS. She denied the suggestion that she was in love with the accused and also the suggestion that she had not been enticed by the accused at any point of time.
4.A.2 Rakesh Singh, father of the prosecutrix deposed as PW-2. He stated that the accused, whom he identified in the court, was working as his Driver. That on 11.09.2009, his daughter had gone to her school and when she did not return S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 4 /24 till 2:00 p.m, he went to her school and made search for her but she could not be found there; he suspected accused and went to PS in the night and lodged his complaint regarding his missing daughter on 12.09.2009. He proved his statement as Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that from the PS, he alongwith ASI Babu Ram and one other police official reached in the street of the accused where he met them and when he tried to run away, he was overpowered by the police officials. After interrogation, accused took them to Shyam Vihar, to the house of his uncle Ravi, from where the prosecutrix was recovered. He proved the pointing out memo of recovery as Ex.PW2/B. The disclosure statement of accused was proved as Ex. PW2/C, arrest memo as Ex.PW2/D, personal search memo as Ex.PW2/E. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not registered the date of birth of his daughter (prosecutrix) in MCD record; that the admission of his daughter was got done by his brother Vishnu; that accused was working as driver with him since two months; that he alongwith his brother Raju, Vishnu, cousin Ram Niwas and father Vijay Singh went to Shyam Vihar at about 4:00 a.m; that the house where the prosecutrix was kept was a farm house where uncle of the accused was working; that IO did not get photographs of the S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 5 /24 prosecutrix when she was recovered. He denied the suggestion that when he came to know about the affairs of the prosecutrix with the accused, he scolded her and falsely lodged the complaint against the accused. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had not enticed his daughter or that his daughter is more than 18 years old.
4.A.3 PW-4 Raju Singh is the uncle of the prosecutrix. He deposed that on 11.09.2009, prosecutrix had gone to her school but when she did not turn up on her time, she was searched. Accused was suspected because of his own conduct as he was working with them as Driver. The matter was also reported to the Police and one ASI and two other staff members came to their house; when they took police to the house of the accused, he tried to run away but he was apprehended by the police and was taken to the PS where he told that he had kept the prosecutrix at Shyam Vihar. They reached Shyam Vihar where his uncle Ravi and his wife Raj were found and they had kept the prosecutrix inside the room. In his cross-examination, he stated that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 19.05.1995. He also stated that the accused had left their job 4-5 days before the incident and on the date of S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 6 /24 incident he had gone to the house of the accused at about 4:00
-4:30 p.m when he came to know from the mother of the accused that accused had not gone for his duty, although, accused had told him on telephone that he had gone for his duty at Honda Chowk, Gurgaon and this made the witness suspicious about the accused. He further stated that no one resides near the plot from where the prosecutrix was recovered and so the IO did not call anybody at the time of her recovery. Further, he stated not to remember whether the IO had taken photographs of the prosecutrix or not. He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix was in love affair with the accused or that when the witness came to know about her affair, she was scolded and the accused was falsely booked in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that the accused had not enticed the prosecutrix.
4.A.4 PW-6 Ravi is the uncle of the accused. He did not support the prosecution at all and turned hostile.
4.A.5 PW-9 Smt. Raj is the Aunt of the accused and she too turned hostile.
4.A.6 PW-8 is Ms. Meenu Verma, Principal of Amrita Public School. She stated that as per the S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 7 /24
Admission/Withdrawal Register of the school, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 09.05.1995 and in support of her date of birth, father of the prosecutrix had submitted an affidavit. She further stated that on 05.11.2009, she had provided details of age proof of the prosecutrix to the IO and she proved the certificate in this regard as Ex. PW8/A. In her cross- examination, she stated that no birth certificate issued by MCD was submitted for the admission of the prosecutrix.
4.A.7 PW-12 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate stated that on 06.10.2009, he had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C which is already Ex. PW1/A. He proved his certificate as Ex.PW12/B and his directions to send the same in a sealed cover to the concerned court as Ex.PW12/C.
4.B Medical Witnesses: In this category, two witnesses, namely Dr. Dev Jyoti and Dr. Ashish Jain can be placed.
4.B.1 PW-3 is Dr. Dev Jyoti. She deposed that the prosecutrix was medically examined on 12.09.2009 at 2:24 p.m and her MLC was proved as Ex.PW3/A. On examination, no evidence of trauma was found and her hymen S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 8 /24 was found intact. In her cross-examination, she stated that no vermilion was found on the forehead of the prosecutrix at the time of her examination.
4.B.2 PW-10, Dr. Ashish Jain proved the MLC of the accused as Ex.PW10/A. He stated that on 12.09.2009 at about 2:25 p.m, he had examined the accused and he did not find anything which could suggest that the said person was incapable of performing sexual intercourse under normal circumstances.
4.C Police witnesses: In this category, four witnesses, namely, PW-5 Lady Ct. Ratna Bai; PW-7 Ct. Chander Bhan; PW-11 HC Ramphal and PW-13 ASI Babu Ram (IO) can be placed.
4.C.1 PW-5 Lady Ct. Ratna Bai deposed that on 12.09.2009 on the directions of IO/ASI Babu Ram, she had reached B-Block, Shyam Vihar where prosecutrix, accused, IO and Ct. Chandar Bhan met her. From there, accused and the prosecutrix were taken to AIIMS hospital for their medical examination. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix was not recovered in her presence from Shyam Vihar.
S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 9 /24
4.C.2 PW-7 Ct. Chander Bhan stated that on 12.09.2009, he joined the investigation with ASI Babu Ram; he alongwith ASI Babu Ram and the complainant reached L-1, Gali No.1, Sangam Vihar, in search of the accused and when they reached in front of Gali No.1, accused ran away after seeing them but he was nabbed by ASI Babu Ram with his help. On interrogation, accused told that on 11.09.2009, he had enticed prosecutrix from her school for the purpose of marriage and for this purpose he had kept the prosecutrix at his Chacha's house at B-Block, Shyam Vihar. Disclosure statement was proved as Ex.PW2/C, arrest memo as Ex.PW2/D, personal search memo as Ex.PW2/E. He further deposed that he alongwith ASI Babu Ram, complainant and his younger brother Raju Singh and accused reached the house of Chacha of the accused and recovered the prosecutrix. He proved his recovery memo as Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, a Lady Ct. Ratna Bai was called at the spot. In his cross- examination, he stated to have gone to Shyam Vihar in the car of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix was not recovered in his presence from Shyam Vihar.
S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 10 /24
4.C.3 PW-11 HC Ram Phal proved recording of DD No.26A as Ex. PW11/A on 12.09.2009 at 12:20 a.m. He also proved recording of FIR No. 226/09 at 1:45 a.m as Ex.PW11/B and endorsement on Rukka as Ex.PW11/C.
4.C.4 PW-13 SI Babu Ram is the IO. He stated that on 12.09.2009, complainant Rakesh Singh came in the PS and lodged a missing report of his daughter/prosecutrix; that he again came back in the PS after 1 to 1-½ hours and got recorded his statement as Ex.PW2/A. He proved his endorsement/rukka on Ex.PW2/A as Ex.PW13/A. After handing over the Rukka to Duty Officer and after registration of the case, he alongwith Ct. Chander Bhan and the complainant went in search of the accused. When they reached Gali No.1, Sangam Vihar, accused was found coming from the opposite direction and on seeing them, the accused started to run but he was apprehended by them and on interrogation, he disclosed that the prosecutrix was concealed in the house of his uncle at B-Block, Shyam Vihar. He proved the disclosure statement as Ex.PW2/C. Thereafter all of them alongwith the accused went to the house of the uncle of the accused and recovered the prosecutrix from there. He also S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 11 /24 deposed about the arrest, personal search and seizure memo and recording of statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C and about obtaining age proof of the prosecutrix from her school. In his cross-examination, he stated that at about 5:00 a.m, they left for Shyam Vihar where they reached at about 10:00 a.m; he made efforts to find out as to who was the owner of the house at Shyam Vihar; only two rooms were constructed in that house; he could not tell the total measurement of the house; he had not called any public person to join the investigation as the houses were far away from that house. He stated that no ossification test of the prosecutrix was got conducted nor any photograph of the prosecutrix were clicked. He had also not taken the CDR of the mobile phone of Rakesh and Raju Singh. He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix was not recovered from the house of the uncle of the accused.
5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material against him, was put to him. In his defence, he stated that he has been falsely implicated by the family members of the prosecutrix as they had come to know about his love affair with her. He further S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 12 /24 stated that he had neither enticed her nor had taken her away.
6. He produced one defence witness, namely, Aamin Khan, who stated that accused Sukhjinder is his neighbour. In the year 2009, Sukhjinder and the prosecutrix had friendship. On 7-8/09/2009 at about 12:30 p.m he was standing at Budh Bazar and at that time Raju, uncle of the prosecutrix came there. Accused and the prosecutrix also came there on motorcycle. Raju gave beatings to the prosecutrix and threatened the accused to either mend his ways or he will be booked in a case. In his cross-examination by the State, he stated that he did not make any complaint to the Police regarding threats given to the accused in Budh Bazar. He also stated that he had not made any complaint to the Police even after knowing about the present case on the accused. He stated that at the time of the incident, prosecutrix was studying in 11th or 12th class and she was 18 or 19 years old. He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix was studying in 7th standard at that time.
7. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecutrix has made different statements which raise suspicious about her statement. In her statement recorded S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 13 /24 under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 12.09.2009, she stated that she was taken on a motorcycle. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 06.10.2009, she stated that she was taken in a vehicle. In her court deposition, she again used the word 'motorcycle'. It has been stated that the prosecutrix had admitted that when she was being taken away by the accused, he had stopped the motorcycle on Red-light signal but she never raised any alarm. It has also been argued that the case of the prosecution that accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix for the purpose of marriage, is also not proved as no Sindoor (vermilion) was found on the forehead of the prosecutrix, although, she had stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused had put vermilion on her forehead. No photographs of the prosecutrix with vermilion on her forehead were clicked by the police after her recovery nor any vermilion was found by Dr. Dev Jyoti, PW-3, who had examined the prosecutrix on 12.09.2009. Regarding the age of the prosecutrix, Ld. Counsel has stated that neither any Municipal Certificate showing her date of birth nor Vishnu, who had got admitted the prosecutrix in the school was produced by the prosecution to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 09.05.1995. Apart from it, the prosecution has also not got S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 14 /24 conducted any ossification test of the prosecutrix to show that her date of birth was 09.05.1995. Regarding recovery of the prosecutrix from Shyam Vihar, Ld. Counsel has argued that no public witness was joined by the IO at the time of her recovery, although, he himself stated that he had called a Property Dealer at the spot. He has further stated that the witnesses are not sure about the size of the property from where the prosecutrix was recovered and hence confinement of the prosecutrix at Shyam Vihar House and her recovery from there becomes doubtful. In sum and substance, Ld. Counsel has argued that neither the charge under Section 366 IPC nor under Section 342 IPC is proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for State has rebutted the arguments raised on behalf of the accused. He has stated that the prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution case. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, PW-8 Ms. Meenu Verma, Principal of Amrita Public School has proved her date of birth as 09.05.1995 from her Admission Register and according to this date of birth, the S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 15 /24 prosecutrix was about 14 ½ years when she was kidnapped by the accused. He stated that the prosecutrix was recovered at the instance of the accused from Shyam Vihar House. As such, charge under Section 366 IPC and Section 342 IPC are made out against the accused. Ld. Addl. PP has thus prayed for conviction of the accused under Section 366/342 IPC.
9. I have heard both the sides and have also perused the records. As noted above, the accused was charged under Section 366/342 IPC. Section 366 IPC prescribes punishment for kidnapping a woman for enticing her for marriage or for illicit sexual intercourse. Therefore, first of all, in order to prove the charge under Section 366 IPC, it is to be proved that a woman was 'kidnapped' and that kidnapping was for the purpose of either marriage or for illicit sexual intercourse. It is the purpose of kidnapping which has to be marriage or illicit intercourse, which is punishable under Section 366 IPC. What is 'Kidnapping' has been defined under Section 361 IPC.
10. Section 361 IPC defines 'kidnapping from lawful guardianship', which inter-alia provides that whoever takes or entices any minor female under 18 years of age, out of the S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 16 /24 keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor, without his consent, is said to kidnap such minor from lawful guardianship.
11. The offence under Section 361 IPC is punishable under Section 363 IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence of kidnapping is taking away or enticement of a girl below 18 years of age, out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship, without the consent of the guardian. If somebody takes away a female, who is under 18 years of age, without the consent of her guardian, the offence of kidnapping is complete. The consent of the person kidnapped or the intention of the person kidnapping, is immaterial, so long as the person kidnapped is a girl below 18 years of age and her taking away is without the consent of her guardian.
12. A girl, who is outside her house on her way to the school, is always under the constructive guardianship of her parents. Thus, if anybody takes her away out of the control of her guardian, without their consent, he is said to have committed the offence of kidnapping, since taking away of the child has not been authorised by her guardian. It is only and only the consent of the guardian, which protects such S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 17 /24 taking, from the rigours of Section 361 IPC and nothing else.
13. In the present case, prosecutrix has stated that on 11.09.2009 when she was going to her school, accused took her on his motorcycle on the pretext that she had been called by her uncle Raju Singh. She had stated that she was taken by the accused in a park and from there she was kept in a room in Najafgarh area. PW-4 Raju Singh has not stated that he had asked the accused to bring the prosecutrix. Rather, he stated that on 11.09.2009, the prosecutrix had gone to her school but she did not turn up at the scheduled time, which made them search for her. Similar is the deposition of PW-2 Rakesh, father of the prosecutrix, that on 11.09.2009, his daughter/ prosecutrix had gone to her school and when she did not turn up till 2:00 p.m, he went to the school and searched her there. PW-11 HC Ramphal proved recording of DD No.26A by which the missing report of the prosecutrix was recorded on 12.09.2009 at 12:20 a.m. He also proved the FIR No.226/09 under Section 363/366 IPC which was registered at 1:45 a.m on 12.09.2009. As such, neither the father nor Raju Singh had ever authorised the accused to take away the prosecutrix with him. In this manner, the element of 'taking away' the S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 18 /24 prosecutrix without the consent of her guardian is proved. The argument of the ld. Defence counsel that there are contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix regarding the vehicle on which she was taken away, is answered in the manner that in court deposition and statement u/s 161 Cr. PC, she had stated to have been taken away on motorcycle while the word used is 'vehicle' in her statement u/s 164 Cr. PC. The word 'vehicle' cannot be read as 'car' so as to give any benefit of doubt to the accused in this regard. So far as age of the prosecutrix is concerned, PW-8 Ms. Meenu, who is Principal of Amrita Public School, has deposed that according to the school records, her date of birth is 09.05.1995. The prosecutrix had also stated her date of birth to be 09.05.1995 in her deposition. The incident in question had taken place on 11.09.2009 and hence age of the prosecutrix was 14 years, 4 months and 2 days. In other words, her age on the date of the incident was less than 18 years. The defence of the accused is that he was in love affair with the prosecutrix and in support of such claim, he produced DW-1 Amin Khan who deposed that the accused was threatened by uncle of the prosecutrix to either mend his ways or his will be booked in some case. The deposition of this defence witness in this regard does not S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 19 /24 inspire confidence as he did admit in his cross examination that neither at that time nor when he came to know about the case against the accused, he informed any authority about the said incidence of threat extended by the uncle of the prosecutrix. As such, no weightage can be put to such a deposition. The taking away of the prosecutrix by the accused was not authorised by her parents, she was less than 18 years of age at that time and hence, the offence of 'kidnapping' is proved.
14. The next ingredient for an offence under Section 366 IPC is that the 'kidnapping' must be either for the purpose of marriage or for the purpose of illicit intercourse. The prosecutrix had stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused had put Sindoor on her forehead in the park after she was taken away by him on motorcycle. However, in her cross-examination, she denied that the accused had put Sindoor on her forehead in the park. She also stated that after her recovery, no photographs of her were clicked by the Police. PW-3 Dr. Dev Jyoti, who had examined the prosecutrix after her recovery, deposed in her cross- examination that no vermilion was found on the forehead of S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 20 /24 the prosecutrix at the time of her examination. To the same effect, are the depositions of PW-2 Rakesh and PW-13 SI Babu Ram. No photograph or any other evidence showing vermilion on the forehead of the prosecutrix has been brought on record. Prosecution had examined PW-6 Ravi, who is uncle of the accused and PW-9 Smt. Raj, wife of Ravi but both of them resiled from their earlier statements wherein it was claimed that the accused had introduced the prosecutrix to them as his wife. These witnesses were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP but nothing could be elicited from them. There is no other deposition or evidence which can show that the accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix for the purpose of marriage or for sexual intercourse. As such, the basic ingredients of Section 366 IPC which distinguishes it from Section 363 IPC, is missing and not proved. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 366 IPC. However, as noted earlier, depositions on record prove that the accused had committed the offence of kidnapping, punishable under Section 363 IPC.
15. The question which arises for consideration is that no specific charge under Section 363 IPC has been S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 21 /24 framed against the accused in this case and only a charge under Section 366 IPC has been framed against him. 'Kidnapping' simplicitor punishable u/s 363 IPC is a minor offence as compared to Kidnapping for marriage or illicit intercourse punishable u/s 366 IPC. Section 222(2) Cr PC authorises conviction of an accused for a minor offence if the same is proved although he is not charged with it. In terms of Section 222(2) Cr.P.C, the accused can thus by safely convicted for an offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 363 IPC, though, no specific charge of kidnapping was levelled against the accused. The accused is thus convicted for the offence under Section 363 IPC.
16. So far as the offence under Section 342 IPC is concerned, this Section relates to punishment for wrongful confinement. The meaning of 'wrongful confinement' is given under Section 340 IPC as wrongful restraint of a person in such a manner as to prevent him from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. The prosecutrix was recovered from the house of Ravi, who is uncle of the accused at B- Block, Shyam Vihar, Phase-II, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The prosecutrix has stated that she was kept in a room in S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 22 /24 Najafgarh area. The recovery of the prosecutrix from the aforesaid place was also proved by PW-2 Rakesh Singh, PW-4 Raju Singh, PW-7 Ct. Chander Bhan and PW-13 SI Babu Ram. Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that PW-5 Lady Ct. Ratna Bai, PW-7 Ct. Chander Bhan and PW-13 SI Babu Ram have mentioned different sizes of the plot from which the prosecutrix was recovered and as such since there are contradictions in the sizes mentioned by the witnesses, the recovery of the prosecutrix becomes doubtful from that place. Apart from it, it has also been argued that no public witness was joined by the IO in the process of recovery of the prosecutrix. A perusal of the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses do show that they have mentioned different sizes of the plot but nevertheless the witnesses have stated that there were two rooms constructed on the plot. Thus, the inability of the witnesses to tell the exact size of the plot is not such a contradiction so as to cast doubt on their depositions, particularly when the recovery of the prosecutrix was in dead of night. So far as non-joining of the public persons is concerned, the depositions show that the prosecutrix was recovered in the night and it is not unnatural if public persons are not joined in such recovery which was of S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 23 /24 a 14 years old girl, whose safety would have been the first priority of the IO. There is thus no merit even in this argument. The recovery of the prosecutrix was from a room. The accused is, therefore, convicted under Section 342 IPC as well.
Announced in the open Court. (Rajeev Bansal)
Dated:26.07.2012 ASJ-3/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
S.C. No.144/10 FIR No.226/09 State vs. Sukhjinder Singh 24 /24