Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Amit Kumar, on 13 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 76/13.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0637102008.
State Vs. 1. Amit Kumar,
S/o Sh. Madan Lal,
R/o 8/129, Mehram Nagar,
P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Delhi.
2. Charu Singh
W/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh,
R/o F-24, 3rd Floor,
West Patel Nagar,
Delhi - 110008.
3. Amit Pal Walia,
S/o Late Sh. Manjit Singh,
R/o A-I/104, Hari Enclave,
Sultanpuri,
New Delhi.
4. Sukhdev Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o UNI, 9 Rafi Marg,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 26.9.2008.
FIR No.139 dated 22.5.2008.
U/s. 498A/406/34 IPC.
P.S. Bindapur.
SC No.76/13. Page 1 of 67
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 31.10.2013.
Date of pronouncement : 13.1.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The above noted accused have been chargesheeted for having committed the offences punishable u/s.376/420/120B/ 366/365/506/120B IPC. It is alleged that the accused in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy hatched by all of them cheated the prosecutrix by inducing her to deliver a sum of Rs.45,000/- to them in lieu of a job with some reputed airlines, abducted her from her house, confined her in a house at West Patel Nagar, got her married to accused Amit Kumar deceitfully as well as forcibly who thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her against her consent.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.3.2008, the prosecutrix namely 'N' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) submitted a written complaint to ACP CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, alleging torture, harassment and cruelties by the accused in relation to dowry demands as well as cheating, impersonation and forcible marriage. The gist of her complaint is mentioned herein below :
"I am 20 years old and have got myself admitted in Frankfin Institute of airhostess training at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. On 13.8.2007 I received a phone call on my mobile phone no.9891354915 from Amit Pal Walia, who introduced himself as a placement SC No.76/13. Page 2 of 67 consultant working with one Mr. Sukhdev from their office at 211, Gali No.7, Safdarjung Enclave, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi, and offered to get me a placement with a reputed airlines. Amit Pal Walia and Amit Kumar visited my house on 15.8.2007 and got filled some forms from me. They also took my educational certificate and a demand draft in the sum of Rs.300/-. They represented to myself and my family members that they are having reputed airlines as their clients and would get good placement in good airlines for me. We believed their representation. They also took a further sum of Rs.15,000/- from us on 19.8.2007. In the last week of September, 2007, they told me that an interview for air hostesses has been fixed at Mumbai, I was taken to Mumbai by Amit Pal Walia on 09.8.2007 and we returned to Delhi on 12.9.2007. On 27th or 28th September, 2007 Amit Pal Walia and Amit Kumar came to our house in Tata Indigo car bearing registration no.DL-9CQ-1621 to inform me that I have cleared the first interview and I have to go Mumbai on 30.9.2007 for another interview. They took me to Mumbai on 30.9.2007 and we returned to Delhi on 04.10.2007. Amit Pal Walia took further sum of Rs. 30,000/- from us and assured that he will inform us about the status of the interview. On 08.10.2007 Amit Pal Walia made a phone call to me saying that I will have to leave Mumbai on 12.10.2007 for final round of selection. I was not feeling well at that time. Amit Pal Walia got me admitted in Kolmet Hospital, Pusa Road, SC No.76/13. Page 3 of 67 Karol Bagh, New Delhi, from where I was discharged on 12.10.2007. Mr. Sukhdev, Smt. Charu and their daughter Neetu came to see me in the hospital and Amit Pal Walia introduced them to me as his parents and sister. In the evening on 12.10.2007, all of them came to our house and picked me up for departing to Mumbai but they took me to House No.F-24, IInd floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, and told me that I will be taken to Mumbai in a couple of days. During my stay in the said house, all of them started pressurising me to marry Amit Pal Walia. I was shocked astonished on their behaviour. They did not permit me to talk even to my parents. I was kept confined in that house and as I was not in a position to resist their demands, they got me forcibly married to Amit Pal Walia on 17.10.2007. No marriage ceremony was organized. He only applied vermilion on my forehead forcibly and we exchanged garlands. They threatened me with dire consequences if I reveal the same to anybody. On 18.10.2007 they took me to Mansa Devi and returned back to Delhi on 20.10.2007. Meanwhile, my family members had lodged a missing complaint in P.S. Uttam Nagar on 20.10.2007 regarding me as they found me untraceable after 12.10.2007. On hearing about the said complaint, these persons brought me to P.S. Uttam Nagar on 21.10.2007 after issuing threats to kill me and my entire family, if I made a statement against them. At their instance and under their pressure, I gave statement to the police as desired by SC No.76/13. Page 4 of 67 them and they managed to avoid any legal action. Thereafter, they took me again alongwith them and I started living with Amit Pal Walia as his wife at A-104, Hari Enclave, Sultanpuri, Delhi. Thereafter, they asked me to forget the past and try to live and adjust with them. They also asked me to persuade my parents to accept marriage and discharge their duties to give dowry articles as per Hindu tradition and custom. When I refused to oblige them, they locked me in a room, kept me hungry and threatened me that if I did not act as per their instructions, they will kill me and my family. Under compulsion, I contacted my parents and apprised them about the atrocities and torture being meted out to me and the demands of these peoples. Accordingly, my mother and brothers arranged a small function at their house on 12.12.2007 and called all of these persons. My mother gave a golden ring and gold chain to Amit Pal Walia, gold chain to Snehlata, gold chain to Sukhdev, golden ear tops to Charu, golden earrings to Neetu as well as clothes and other gifts besides cash of Rs.51,000/- to Amit Pal Walia. However, they were not happy with the aforesaid jewellery and cash and immediately on reaching Sultanpuri house, they started abusing me that they expected atleast a good car to be given by my parents and cash of Rs.2 Lacs. They took all my jewellery and never returned the same to me thereafter. Upon further threats issued to me by them, I asked my parents to pay them a further sum of Rs.5 SC No.76/13. Page 5 of 67 Lacs. My mother was compelled to give them a cheque bearing no.513473 dated 28.12.2007 in the sum of Rs.1 Lac in the name of Amit Pal Walia. But even thereafter their greed did not satiate and they continued to demand remaining amount of Rs.4 Lacs and the car. My mother had to sell her jewellery ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000/- which amount she paid to Amit Pal Walia on the occasin of Lohri, which was organized at the house of Sukhdev. Even then I was not treated properly. I was being abused, threatened and harassed by all of them for more cash and dowry articles. Sukhdev threatened me that in case their demands are not fulfilled, my parents and brothers would be falsely involved in a drug case. I came to know that these persons are indulged in various criminal activities. I became aware that Amit Pal Walia and Sukhdev are making fake passports, visas and appointment letters. I also came to know that Amit Pal Wali was already married and has a son from that marriage, who is residing at Dhaka. On 02.3.2008 Amit Pal Walia was arrested by officials of P.S. Pandav Nagar in case FIR No.61/08, u/s.420/120B IPC. Upon arrest of Sukhdev, Charu and Snehlata asked me to bring Rs.2 Lacs or Rs.3 Lacs from my parents for the release of Amit Pal Walia from jail. When I expressed my inability to do so, I was mercilessly beaten. They snatched my Mangalsutra and sold the same in the market and utilised the sale amount for the release of Amit Pal Walia. He was ultimately, released from jail SC No.76/13. Page 6 of 67 on 18.3.2008, after which he gave beatings to me as why I did not bring any money from my parents. They hatched a plan to eliminate me and in order to execute their plan, they tried to poison me by administering milk laced with 'Bhang' to me on the occasion of Holi i.e. 22.3.2008. However, I had fortunately learnt about their plan and I refused to drink the same. Thereafter, Amit Pal Walia, Sukhdev and Neetu beat me mercilessly. Amit Kumar also gave 2 or 3 danda blows and I fallen flat on the floor. Amit Kumar threatened me that he will abduct my brothers from their college and get them killed. They locked me in the house at Hari Enclave, Sultanpuri, Delhi, and did not provide me any food. I was not allowed to talk to anybody. However, in the afternoon on 26.3.2008, I got a chance to run away from their captivity and managed to reach P.S. Sultanpuri, from where I called my parents, who also reached there and my father lodged a complaint in the police station. I was brought back home by my parents. My all personal belongings including my passports and educational certificates and other documents as well as Istri Dhan/dowry articles/jewellery items are in the custody of these persons."
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that after receipt of the aforesaid complaint of the prosecutrix, conciliation proceedings were held between prosecutrix and her husband Amit Pal Walia. However, no settlement could be reached and SC No.76/13. Page 7 of 67 accordingly FIR No.139/08, u/s.498A/406/34 IPC, was registered in P.S. Bindapur and the investigation was entrusted to SI Sri Krishan. The IO conducted raids on the hide outs of the accused but could not find them. Further investigation was transferred to DIU West and entrusted to Inspector Ran Singh. Meanwhile, the prosecutrix filed an application before the court of concerned Ld. Magistrate alleging that the police officials have not considered her complaint properly and FIR has been registered under wrong provisions of law. Prayer was made to add sections 365/366/420/376/120B IPC to the FIR. Inspector Ran Singh recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother and accordingly added sections 420/120B/365/366/342/376 IPC to the case. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded on 14.7.2008 and she was got medically examined in DDU Hospital on 15.7.2008. Inspector Ran Singh collected various documents from the prosecutrix and her family relating to the case and also collected treatment papers of the prosecutrix from Kolmet Hospital, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, where she remained admitted from 08.10.2007 to 12.10.2007. Amit Kumar came to be arrested on 29.7.2008. He is stated to have made disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the commission of offence and also got recovered Tata Indigo car bearing registration no. DL-9CQ-1621, in which the prosecutrix had been abducted from her house on 12.10.2007. The car was seized by the IO. Statements of various witnesses were recorded. Other accused Charu Singh was also arrested. However, Amit Pal Walia and Sukhdev Singh could not be arrested despite search and accordingly, Charge Sheet was filed without waiting for arrest of these two accused.
SC No.76/13. Page 8 of 674. Later on, accused Amit Pal Walia came to be arrested on 27.9.2008 but accused Sukhdev could not be arrested despite intense efforts. Ultimately, Sukhdev Singh was granted anticipatory bail by the concerned Sessions Court on 14.11.2008. Accordingly, a Supplementary Charge Sheet was filed. The supplementary Charge Sheet was then clubbed with the main Charge Sheet and both were tried together.
5. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charges u/s.120B IPC, u/s.420/120B IPC, u/s.366/120B IPC, u/s. 365/120B IPC and u/s.506/120B IPC were framed against all the accused on 01.7.2009. Additional Charge u/s.376 IPC was framed on the same date against accused Amit Pal Walia. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Charge framed against them and accordingly trial was held.
6. The prosecution has examined following 24 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused :
(1) PW1 is the prosecutrix 'N', whose deposition would be discussed in detail in later part of the judgment. (2) PW2 is Lady Const. Geeta. She alongwith Inspector Ran Singh had taken the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital on 15.7.2008 for medical examination and the exhibits were handed over to her by the doctor. (3) PW3 is Sh. Ram Pal. He was running a travel agency under the name and style of Rohit Tour & Travels alongwith brothers Satbir and Om Pal. Accused SC No.76/13. Page 9 of 67 Amit Kumar was also a partner of the agency.
According to him, the Tata Indigo car bearing registration no.DL-9CQ-1621 was in the name of his brother Om Pal and the same was seized by the police officials from his house on 30.72008 vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. He also deposed that accused Amit Pal Walia refused to accept the service of any driver other than Amit Kumar.
(4) PW4 is Dr. Aruna Singh, who had examined the prosecutrix in Casualty and prepared MLC Ex.PW4/A. (5) PW5 is HC Ramfal, who was the MHC(M) in P.S. Bindapur in the year 2007 - 08.
(6) PW6 is Const. Ram Kumar. He was alongwith Inspector Ran Singh when accused Amit Kumar was arrested on 29.7.2008 at the instance of the prosecutrix near Sulabh Sauchalaya in Mehram Nagar, Delhi Cantt. vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A. He is also a witness to the disclosure statement of the accused Amit Kumar Ex.PW6/C. (7) PW7 is WSI Uma Bhardwaj, who was posted at CAW Cell, West District, in the year 2008 and had conducted counselling between the prosecutrix and accused Amit Pal Walia. She had sought permission for registration of the FIR u/s.406/498A/34 IPC. (8) PW8 is Sh. Kamal Chandna. He is UDC in Transport Office, District South West, Palam and proved the registration record of the vehicle no.DL-9CQ-1621. (9) PW9 is Smt. Prabha Aggarwal. She is the mother of the prosecutrix. Her deposition would be discussed in SC No.76/13. Page 10 of 67 detail in the later part of the judgment.
(10) PW10 is ASI Radhey Shyam. He was the Duty Officer in P.S. Bindapur on the night intervening between 21 - 22.5.2008 and had received the complaint of the prosecutrix marked by SHO and on the basis of the same recorded the FIR Ex.PW10/A. (11) PW11 is Sh. Pooran Chand. He was the Metropolitan Magistrate on 14.7.2008 and had recorded the statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW11/A of the prosecutrix.
(12)PW12 is Sh. Pradeep Kumar. He is the photographer and had taken photographs and video of the marriage of the prosecutrix with Amit Pal Walia on 17.10.2007. He had been called there by accused Amit Kumar. He deposed that he did not find any priest or any guest in the house and he was told that the marriage has already been performed. He also deposed that atmosphere in the house was not of a marriage. He proved the photographs taken by him as Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D19.
(13) PW13 is Sh. Om Pal. He is the owner of the Tata Indigo car bearing registration no.DL-9CQ-1621 which was being run in travel agency under the name and style of Rohit Tour and Travels.
(14) PW14 is HC Pooran Mal. He had taken the exhibits of the case to FSL on 11.11.2008 and 12.11.2008.
(15) PW15 is Const. Hari Om, who was posted as Constable in DIU South West, Sector-9 Dwarka, and accused Sukhdev had been formally arrested in his SC No.76/13. Page 11 of 67 presence vide memo Ex.PW15/A. (16) PW16 is Dr. Rita Ranjan. She had come to depose in place of Dr. Preeti Gupta, who had conducted gynaecological examination of the prosecutrix and identified the signatures of Dr. Preeti Gupta on the MLC at point A. (17) PW17 is Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sadh. He is the owner of house no.B-48, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24, who had rented out the ground floor of the same to accused Amit Pal Walia. He deposed that Amit Pal Walia was residing there alongwith his wife and mother.
(18)PW18 is Sh. Ajay. He was the Assistant Branch Manager of Karnataka Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and proved the account opening form pertaining to bank account no.5472500100261301 upon in the name of Simran Pal w/o Sh. Amit.
(19)PW19 is Sh. Rohtash Singh. He is an LDC from Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, but not produced the summoned record as same could not be retrieved.
(20) PW20 is Smt. Kamlesh Khanna. She was running a grocery shop in Lajpat Nagar and had deposed that accused Amit and his wife used to purchase grocery items from his shop. Amit's wife Simran had also borrowed some money from her. Accused Amit also had taken Rs.4 lacs from her on the pretext of sending her as well as her husband to USA.
(21) PW21 is Sh. Subhash Chand Sharma. He is a photographer and on the instructions of police SC No.76/13. Page 12 of 67 officials, he had taken photographs of house in Hari Enclave in presence of accused Amit. He also deposed that accused Amit opened the lock of the door and upon search of the house, police had recovered one passport of Karnataka Bank, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/G. (22) PW22 is Inspector Ran Singh. He was the initial IO of the case and had arrested accused Amit Kumar, accused Charu Singh and accused Amit Pal Walia.
(23) PW23 is Inspector Satish Kain, who was also the IO of this case for some period of time and had sent the exhibits of the case to FSL. He had formally arrested accused Sukhdev Singh.
(24) PW24 is Sh. Manoj Kumar Pandey. He was the Chief Editor of the newspaper (Poll India Newspaper) in the year 2008 and according to him, accused Amit Pal was given job in the said newspaper in the year 2007 as a Reporter. Amit Pal had worked with them about 15 to 20 days and thereafter stopped reporting for duty. He had handed over the documents of accused Amit Pal Walia to the police officials.
7. The accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 24.7.2013. All of them denied the incriminating facts and circumstances put to them and claimed false implication. Accused Amit Pal Walia further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the mother of the prosecutrix as she was not happy with his marriage with the prosecutrix. He also stated that the prosecutrix had undergone abortion as per her own wish despite SC No.76/13. Page 13 of 67 advise against it by him as well as the doctor.
8. The accused have examined two witnesses in their defence. DW1 is Dr. Harish Tyagi, Consultant Medicine, Kolmet Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi, and proved the treatment record of the prosecutrix when she was admitted in their hospital from 081.0.2007 to 12.10.2007 as Ex.DW1/A (colly). DW2 is HC Brahm Swaroop from PCR North West zone, Model Town, Delhi and proved DD No.30A dated 26.3.2008 recorded in P.S. Sultanpuri at 5.50 p.m.
9. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire documentary as well as oral evidence on record.
10. It was submitted by the Ld. APP as well as Ld. Counsel for the complainant/prosecutrix that the prosecutrix fell into the trap which was laid by the accused pursuant to a well hatched conspiracy to cheat her and blackmail her. It was submitted that the evidence on record establishes that all the four accused were conducting themselves according to a definite plan. The prosecutrix was made to believe by accused Amit Kumar and Amit Pal Walia that they would secure her a good job in a reputed airlines in pursuance to which she handed over certificates as well as requisite money to them. She was taken for false interview twice to Mumbai and thereafter on the pretext of a third interview, she was taken from her residence and held captive in Patel Nagar house of accused Sukhdev, where she was pressurized to solemnize marriage with accused Amit Pal Walia. Despite her SC No.76/13. Page 14 of 67 initial resistance, she had to give in on account of hostile atmosphere all around her. She was forced to put a garland around the neck of accused Amit Pal Walia, who put vermilion upon her forehead just to instill a belief in her mind that she has married to accused Amit Pal Walia. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was misled in believing that she is the legally wedded wife of accused Amit Pal Walia and accordingly she gave her consent for sexual intercourse with accused Amit Pal Walia. It is submitted that in fact the so called marriage between the prosecutrix and Amit Pal Walia is no marriage in the eyes of law, firstly for the reason that essential ceremonies requisite for a Hindu marriage i.e. Saptpadi etc. were not performed and secondly for the reason that accused Amit Pal Walia was already a married man and hence the sexual intercourse committed by accused Amit Pal Walia with the prosecutrix amounts to rape as the consent for the same given by the prosecutrix was not free and fair. It is submitted that the case is fully covered by Clause Fourthly contained in section 375 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that all the four accused were acting in tandem with each other and were playing their rules as agreed upon by them, which shows that all were acting pursuant to a conspiracy. It is further submitted that nothing contrary to the prosecution case has been elicited in the cross examination of any of the prosecution witnesses and all the accused are liable to be convicted for the offences for which they have been charged with.
11. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that from the initial complaint of the prosecutrix itself, on the basis of which FIR has been registered u/s.498A/406/34 IPC, it is evident SC No.76/13. Page 15 of 67 that there was a proper marriage between her and accused Amit Pal Walia. It is submitted that the marriage was performed with the consent and approval of parents of the prosecutrix, which is evident from the dowry articles given by them to the prosecutrix, a list of which has been annexed alongwith aforesaid complaint. It is further submitted that the mother of the prosecutrix has admitted in her cross examination that the prosecutrix and accused Amit Pal Walia used to visit their house after the marriage and she had given the gifts to them on every occasion. It is submitted that from the facts which have come out in the cross examination of the prosecutrix, it is manifest that she had solemnized the marriage with accused Amit Pal Walia willingly and without any force, fraud or pressure. It was further contended that there is no reliable evidence on record to suggest that accused Amit Pal Walia was already married to some other lady. It is further submitted that the physical relations between the prosecutrix and accused Amit Pal Walia do not amount to offence of rape as they are legally wedded husband and wife. It is further submitted that the charges framed against other three accused have also remained to be proved by the prosecution and therefore, all the four accused are liable to be acquitted.
12. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW1. She has deposed that she has done a course from Frankfin Institute of Air Hostesses Training in Aviation Hospitablity, Travel & Tourism Industry from Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi. After completion of course, she had applied for job as a Cabin Crew in different airlines. On 13.8.2007 at about 4 p.m., she was present at her home, one Amit Kumar called her from telephone no.9211078033 SC No.76/13. Page 16 of 67 p.m. on her mobile no.9891354915. He introduced himself as Amit Kumar, a Crime Reporter, Star News and told her that he had received her resumes through one person namely Deepak or Dinesh and that he can arrange for her job with some airlines. She told him that Deepak/Dinesh returned her resume on account of some objection regarding my height in respect of job in Spice Jet Airlines. She asked Amit Kumar as to the name of the airlines where he can get her job arranged. He told that Indian Airlines had advertised some vacancies on which she asked for the eligibility criteria. On this, Amit Kumar handed over phone to other person namely Amit Pal Walia. He also told her that he was working as Crime Reporter with Star News and was also running a placement agency with one person namely Sukhdev Singh. On her asking, he informed her that the eligibility criteria for Cabin Crew in Indian Airlines was "Graduate, Height 5 feet 5 inches, and age 20 years". She told him that she did not fulfill any of these criteria. On this, he stated that they were having good contacts in different airlines and he can arrange for her job in some airlines. She asked him to come home to meet her family. She further deposed that on 15.8.2007 at about 7.00/8.00 p.m., accused persons Amit Kumar and Amit Pal Walia came to her house in a silver grey colour Indigo car bearing no.DL-9CQ-1621. There was a sticker of Star News displayed on the front windscreen of the said car. Both of them had displayed I. Cards of Star News Reporter in their neck. Accused Amit Pal Walia told her father that they can arrange for her job in some airlines and he was supported in this by accused Amit Kumar. They further informed that they will charge Rs.3 Lakhs to Rs.4 Lakhs for the said purpose. Amit Pal Walia told that he was residing at South Extension, New Delhi and that he was SC No.76/13. Page 17 of 67 having office at four to five places in Delhi. He further informed that his father Sh. Sukhdev Singh was owner of United News of India. He confirmed that Sukhdev Singh was also running a placement agency with them. Amit Pal Walia further stated that they shall take a token money of Rs.15,000/- initially to start the process. Thereafter they left their house. Afterwards, she checked on Internet and found that Indian Airlines had advertised some vacancies for Cabin Crew. Thereafter, both accused persons Amit Kumar and Amit Pal Walia again visited her house in the same car on 16.8.2007 or 17.8.2007 and gave her a form of Indian Airlines stating that they shall collect it on 19.8.2007 alongwith token money. On 19.8.2007 both of them again came to her house and collected a demand draft of Rs.300/-, cash of Rs.15,000/- and filled up form and 2 - 3 passport size photographs from her. They showed her photographs and resumes of some other persons stating that they had arranged job for those persons in Jet Airways and Cruise and that they were getting Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month. On her asking, accused Amit Pal Walia had informed her that the interview call shall be received on his mobile phone as he has mentioned his number on her resume. Thereafter, both of them left. After about 2 - 3 days, accused Amit Kumar called her asking if she had done her course from Frankfin Institute. When she replied in affirmative, he stated that no airline is hiring the students of Frankfin Institute as some of their students had indulged in illegal activities for which some case against them was going on. She told him that she does not have diploma or certificate from any other Institute. Then he stated that they shall look it into the matter. They had harassed her over this issue. Thereafter, whenever she called them to ask about date of SC No.76/13. Page 18 of 67 interview, they gave evasive answers and once they gave the date as 02.9.2007. When she told them that they have to go to Vaishno Devi around that time, accused Amit Pal Walia stated that her interview was not on 02.9.2007 and they can go to Vaishno Devi. They returned from Vaishno Devi on 4/5.9.2007 and accused Amit Pal Walia had informed her that the interview was scheduled for 09.9.2007 at Mumbai. On 07.9.2007 or 08.9.2007, both accused Amit Pal Walia and Amit Kumar came to her house to ensure that she had prepared for interview. Her mother told him to get three tickets reserved for Mumbai for 09.9.2007 on which accused Amit Pal Walia stated that as she was applying for Air-hostess, her mother could not accompany her everywhere and there was no need for her mother to go with them to Mumbai and that they should have faith. Her mother gave Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- to accused Amit Pal Walia for tickets and hotel expenses. On 09.9.2007, both the accused persons again came to her house. Her mother also accompanied upto the airport from where accused Amit Pal Walia took her to Mumbai via Kingfisher Airlines, on the same day. They stayed at Parklane Hotel at Mumbai in a single room on twin beds. On 10.9.2007, accused Amit Pal Walia took her to some place and on the way he met one person namely Dinesh. Accused Amit Pal had called Dinesh there telephonically. Accused Amit Pal and Dinesh talked at some distance from her. Thereafter, accused Amit Pal told her that Dinesh belonged to Indian Airlines and that he had seen her and that no further interview was required and that all the formalities had been fulfilled and that she shall be called for second round for interview. Thereafter, accused Amit Pal remained at Mumbai on the pretext of some official work and also to meet his Tau ji who was staying SC No.76/13. Page 19 of 67 at Mumbai and he made her also stayed at Mumbai saying that she had come to Mumbai with him and she was his responsibility and she shall return with him only. They returned to Delhi on 12.9.2007. On 12.9.2007 or 13.9.2007 accused Amit Pal Walia in presence of accused Amit Kumar took a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her mother stating that first round of interview had been cleared and payment was required on that account. On 27.9.2007 or 28.9.2007, both the accused persons Amit Pal Walia and Amit Kumar again came to their house and told that she was to go to Mumbai for another interview on 30.9.2007. Her mother again insisted for going with her but accused Amit Pal Walia again refused to take her Mumbai with her. On 30.9.2007, both the accused persons picked her from her house and her mother accompanied them to the airport. Accused Amit Pal Walia took her to Mumbai and they stayed there in a hotel namely 'The Jewels'. On the next day or next to next day, they shifted to Hotel Parklane. On her asking about the stay in the Hotel Parklane, accused Amit Pal Walia replied that the hotel belonged to some of his known. Accused had taken her to an office like place where two/three persons and some candidates were found. Accused Amit Walia asked her not to interact with any candidate saying that since she has come through some source and not to reveal anything about herself. They remained there for about half an hour and thereafter they returned to the hotel. Entries in the visitor register of the hotel were made by the accused and she did not sign in the register at any point of time. She may have signed at one place in the register in the hotel on the first day during her second visit to Mumbai but she had signed in her name. On 04.10.2007, they returned to Delhi and accused Amit Pal had SC No.76/13. Page 20 of 67 taken Rs.30,000/- from her mother on the same day. He told her that he will inform her about the status of interview. After two/three days, she called accused Amit Pal Walia on his mobile phone and enquired about status of interview and he replied that he was busy with some reporting work. On the next day, she again tried on his mobile phone but he was not responding. She was having another number of accused Amit Pal Walia and she contacted on the said phone also, the phone was picked by accused Amit Kumar and he told her that "Amit Bhaiya had gone for some reporting at Sansad Bhawan and he shall call her as soon as he gets free." On the next day, both accused persons came to their house and accused Amit Pal Walia had shown her a document in respect of my selection in second round and a certificate of Air Wings Academy stating that in case some objection regarding my training at Frankfin Institute is raised, he shall show the said certificate for my selection. She requested him to give her photocopies of both these documents but he refused. Thereafter both of them left stating that they shall inform me as and when call for final interview is received.
13. She further deposed that on 08.10.2007, she had attended birthday party of her friend wherein she got food poisoning. At about 6.00/7.00 p.m. when her mother was about to take her hospital, incidentally accused Amit Pal Walia came to their house and took them to Kolmet Hospital, Karol Bagh, on the pretext that the doctor there was known to him. She was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, accused Amit Pal Walia telephoned his family and accused Sukhdev Singh came to the hospital and Amit Pal Walia introduced him to her as his father. Next day, accused SC No.76/13. Page 21 of 67 Charu came to hospital alongwith accused Sukhdev Singh and their daughter Neetu Singh. Accused Amit Pal introduced them as his mother and sister. On the third day, one other elderly lady namely Snehlata was also called in the hospital telephonically by accused Amit Pal Walia or accused Amit Kumar. When her mother and brother offered to stay in the hospital at night with her, accused Charu and Sukhdev had told them that she was just like their daughter and that they shall take care of her as their house was near that hospital. So her mother and her brother did not stay with her at night in the hospital. She was discharged from the hospital on 12.10.2007. All the formalities in the hospital were completed by accused Amit Pal Walia and Sukhdev Singh. The documents were signed by accused Amit Pal Walia as her cousin or relative whereas the payment was made by accused Sukhdev Singh. After discharge, she had gone to her home. During her stay in the hospital, accused Sukhdev Singh and Amit Pal Walia had also introduced her to one aged person namely Ram Naresh Tiwari whom they were addressing as Guruji. She was told that he was Editor of Dainik Jagran and was also working in United News of India. From the hospital, she alongwith her father went to her home on 12.10.2007 and reached there at about 12.00/1 p.m. In the hospital, accused persons Sukhdev Singh, Amit Pal Walia, Amit Kumar and Charu Singh had informed her that final interview was to be held on 13.10.2007 at Mumbai. But her father told them that she was not well and she would not go for the said interview. On 12.10.2007 at about 3.00/4.00 p.m., all the abovesaid accused persons came to her house in Indigo car having no.DL-9CQ-1621 and insisted that it was question of her career. Accused Charu Singh assured her parents stating that she was also like her SC No.76/13. Page 22 of 67 daughter. She further stated that she (prosecutrix) and accused Amit Pal Walia would go to the Airport while the remaining accused persons would go to Patel Nagar. She also gave her address and phone number to her parents. On this, they were convinced and her mother permitted her to go with Amit Pal Walia on assurance of the accused persons. She went with them in the same car. When they did not reach Airport for some time, she got suspicious and asked the accused persons as to where were they taking her. Accused Sukhdev Singh told her that they were first going to Patel Nagar as Amit Pal Walia had to collect some documents from there. At Patel Nagar, they took her to their house at 3rd Floor on the pretext that there was some delay in flight. At about 6.00 p.m. they told her that interview had been rescheduled for two days after 13.10.2007. When she tried to call her mother on her mobile phone to take her back, accused Sukhdev Singh snatched her mobile phone and her documents. Accused Charu Singh locked the main door. Thereafter, accused Sukhdev Singh and Charu Singh started compelling her to marry accused Amit Pal Walia. When she refused, they threatened her that they had some private recordings at her stay at Bombay in the hotel room and they would expose those CDs through media channel. Accused Charu Singh further threatened that accused persons had contacts with high police officers and they knew that her father was living at Manipur and they were staying there alone and also that they would kidnap her brother from his college. Accused Sukhdev Singh and Amit Kumar threatened her that they would falsely implicate her family members in criminal cases by planting drugs etc. in their house. She still refused to marry Amit Pal Walia. She was kept there till 16.10.2007. Accused Amit Kumar SC No.76/13. Page 23 of 67 thereafter left from there. During her stay there, she was continuously threatened by remaining three accused persons. They used to telephone accused Amit Kumar and instruct him to park a black colour car in front of her house and to send some anti social elements to her house so as to scare me. On this she got scared and told them not to harm her family and agreed to do whatever they wanted. On 17.10.2007 all the four accused persons threatened her to act according to their will stating that two photographers would be coming there shortly and that she has to pretend that everything was being done with her consent. Thereafter, photographers came there. Myself and Amit Pal Walia exchanged garlands. Daughter of accused Sukhdev Singh and Charu Singh was also present there at that time. Accused Amit Pal Walia had forcibly put Sindoor in her hairs. All this was photographed in a closed room. The lights of the room were also kept switched off. At that time, she was introduced to one more lady namely Snehlata by accused Sukhdev Singh and Amit Pal Walia stating that she was "Badi Maa". When the photographer left, she requested the accused persons to let her go and that she can arrange for whatsoever amount is demanded by them. But accused Amit Pal Walia declined stating that they would take large amount of money as she was from Aggarwal family. Thereafter, she was again locked in another room where accused Amit Pal Walia had sexual intercourse with her against her will or consent.
14. She further deposed that on 18.10.2007, all the four accused persons took her out of Delhi in a Toyota car. She does not know whether it was Chandigarh or some other place as she has never been to Chandigarh earlier. Before leaving their home, SC No.76/13. Page 24 of 67 accused Amit Pal Walia and Charu Singh again threatened her that she should not create any scene in the public place otherwise they would expose the recording of the previous night recorded in a mobile phone. At Chandigarh also, accused Amit Pal Walia had physical relations with her without her consent. She subsequently came to know that the said place was Chandigarh. Photographer was also there at that place. Again said, there was no photographer and photographs were taken by accused Amit Kumar with their camera. On 20.10.2007, after receiving a call from Delhi, accused Amit Pal Walia told her that they were returning to Delhi and they came back to Delhi on the same day. On 21.10.2007, accused Sukhdev Singh and Amit Pal Walia told her that they had to go to PS Bindapur as police had received a complaint against her. They further threatened her that in the police station, she has to state that everything was done with her consent otherwise, accused Amit Kumar would take the photographs and expose her in the media channels. Due to this, she gave the statement according to their directions in the police station. On direction of accused Amit Pal Walia, she gave a wrong address of South Extension in the police station. In th police station, the accused persons had shown some documents to the police and got some calls made to the IO to show that they were genuine persons. From police station, they returned to Patel Nagar. In the evening, accused Amit Pal Walia brought her to Sultanpuri where the lady namely Snehlata was present. On 22.10.2007, all the accused persons came to Sultanpuri house. They asked her to call her mothr and to pay Rs.60 Lakhs - 70 Lakhs cash for her release. When she refused, she was beaten and she was denied food. Then she agreed to call her mother. On 10 or SC No.76/13. Page 25 of 67 11.12.2007, she called her mother telephonically in the presence of accused Charu Singh and Sukhdev Singh and asked for some money. Her mother stated that she did not have so much money and further that the accused persons were not allowing her to meet her for one reason or another and that she wanted to meet her. Her mother called all of them for 12.12.2007 to her house. When her mother asked her whether she had voluntarily married accused Amit Pal Walia, accused Charu Singh disconnected the phone before she could reply. On 12.12.2007, accused Amit Pal Walia and herself went to her parental house. Before going there, he had threatened her not to disclose anything there. At her mother's house, she was not left alone for a moment to talk to her mother. They stayed there for 1½ - 2 hours and her mother gave some cash and jewellery to accused Amit Pal Walia specifying the gifts for accused persons. From there, they went to Patel Nagar where all the cash and jewellery articles were taken by accused Charu Singh. Accused Sukhdev Singh started shouting that they did not need jewellery and they wanted Rs.60 - 70 lakhs cash. Then accused Amit Pal Walia took her to Sultanpuri. In Sultanpuri, she was never left alone and there was always someone to ensure that she does not run away from there. One person namely Rishipal also used to visit Sultanpuri house whom Amit Pal Walia used to call his elder brother. Accused Amit Walia used to tell her that they would leave her if she had physical relation with Rishipal. Accused Sukhdev Singh and Charu Singh one day told her to call her mother as they needed money. She informed her mother and her mother handed over a cheque of Rs.1 lakh to Amit Pal Walia in his favour. In the first week of December, 2007 when she was at Sultanpuri at home of accused Amit Pal Walia, he told her that she SC No.76/13. Page 26 of 67 would have to go with him. On this she accompanied him in car no.DL-9CQ-1621. First they went to Patel Nagar from where he took along accused Sukhdev Singh and Charu Singh in the car and she was taken to Kolmet Hospital, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. She was told in the car that they were taking her there for abortion. She refused and insisted that her mother be recalled first. They stated that they were not able to contact her mother. When she still refused to undergo abortion, they told that they will tell her neighbours that she was living with Amit Pal Walia at his house and was not studying at Bombay as had been told by her mother to their neighbours. On this, she agreed to do as per their directions. They instructed me to tell the doctors at Kolmet Hospital that myself and accused Amit Pal Walia were both reporters and were going abroad and there was no one in their family to take care of child, due to which she wanted abortion. At Kolmet Hospital, first doctor also advised them against abortion but accused Amit Pal Walia convinced her and she was admitted there and abortion was carried out. After she was discharged from the hospital on the same day or probably on the next day, we first went to Patel Nagar and from there she was taken to Sultanpuri.
15. On 26.1.2008, accused Amit Pal Walia took her to Swati Hotel at Karol Bagh where they stayed for one night and next day they went to Mumbai by train. She was not told the purpose of our visit to Mumbai. They stayed there about 7 - 8 days. During her stay there, she came to know through telephonic conversation of accused Amit Pal Walia that police was looking for him in Delhi in connection with some passport and Visa. After 5 - 6 days of their stay at Mumbai accused Amit Pal Walia took her SC No.76/13. Page 27 of 67 jewellery stating that funds with him have finished. He told her that he will sell her jewellery i.e. chain, earrings and two rings to buy ticket for Delhi.
16. She further deposed that on 9/10.2.2008 they returned to Delhi and after three to four dates, she came to know that accused Amit Pal Walia had married twice before marrying her. She saw one passport and Visa of accused Amit Pal Walia issued in some muslim name i.e. Naved Hussain. I also saw passport of his wife again with some muslim name i.e. Shirin Hussain and of his child as well. Again said, I had seen photograph of the child and not passport. When she confronted him, he told her to mind her own business. During her stay there, she had also seen accused Amit Pal Walia offering Namaj due to which she became suspicious about his identity and religion. She also come to know that accused Amit Pal Walia was also known as Raj, Ritu, Raja, Naved etc. and that he had escaped from Ambala also where CBI was looking for him. However, she did not know about the details of the said case at Ambala where it was murder or something else. After coming from Mumbai, she was convinced that accused Amit Pal Walia used to deal in issuance in fake passport, visa, appointment letters etc. He had got written from her also some letters and application to Australian Embassy and French Embassy in the names of some other applicants on the basis of their resumes provided to her by accused Amit Pal Walia. She also came to know that accused persons Sukhdev Singh and Amit Kumar and other another person named Ali were also involved with accused Amit Pal Walia in this case. She had also seen at the house of accused Amit Pal Walia the demand draft of Rs.300/- handed over SC No.76/13. Page 28 of 67 by her to accused Amit Pal Walia in favour of Indian Airlines. By this, she came to know that accused persons had wrongly told her that said demand draft had been submitted to Indian Airlines. On 02.3.2008 when she was in the house situated at Sultanpuri, she came to know that accused Amit Pal Walia was missing from the house. She also came to know that Sneh Lata living in the said house with them was mother of accused Amit Pal Walia. When she inquired from Snehlata the whereabouts of accused Amit Pal Walia, she informed her that he shall return shortly but she appeared to be perturbed. Thereafter, Sneh Lata called Rishipal and Rishi Pal and Snehlata talked to accused persons Sukhdev Singh and Charu Singh and from thier talk, she came to know that accused Amit Pal Walia was arrested in FIR No.61/2008 u/s. 420/120B IPC, P.S. Pandav Nagar. Those persons asked her to ask her mother to pay Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.4 lacks cash. On her refusal, she was beaten up. After 4 - 5 days, the accused persons forced her to write some letters to create a defence for themselves as they thought that she could run away from their house. She had written the letters including some love letters as per their direction. Accused Amit Pal Walia was released on bail on 18.3.2008. On 22.3.2008 accused Amit Pal Walia took her to Patel Nagar, on occasion of Holi. She came to know from their conversation that accused Amit Kumar and accused Sukhdev Singh had also married twice and all of them had made plan to eliminate her for which they gave her milk laced with some thing which she refused to have. On this, she was beaten up and she lost consciousness. She regained consciousness in the evening at Sultanpuri where she was again threatened not to leave that house. On 26.3.2008 she came to know that accused Amit Pal SC No.76/13. Page 29 of 67 Walia was going to Chandigarh and after he left his house, as she was alone that day, she picked up the keys and managed to escape from there. Again said, Sneh Lata was also present at home at that time. She went to PS Sultanpuri from where she called her mother and talked to her. She asked her to come to P.S. Sultanpuri and she did not say anything else. Her parents came to P.S. Sultanpuri and she wrote an application, copy of which is Mark-A1 to SHO P.S. Sultanpuri. They also disclosed the complete facts to SHO but he directed them to go to the police station of their area, on which her father brought her home. When they had given their complaint to P.S. Sultanpuri, they had given them some document. On 27.3.2008, she got drafted a complaint from her lawyer but she did not tell him the complete facts. They gave the said complaint to various authorities on 28.3.2008.
17. She further deposed that on 07.4.2008, they went to CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar and from there, they were directed to CAW Cell, Nanakpura. But they were again sent back to CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar. The inquiry officer conducted the proceedings with a view to get the matter compromised, but they informed him that their case was not regular matrimonial dispute and that they had been cheated. Thereafter, they got case registered u/s.498A/406/34 IPC. They had also given alongwith their complaint, a list of dowry articles. The said list is Ex.PW1/A (two pages) bearing her signature at point A. When they had gone to P.S. Bindapur to collect a copy of FIR, on their query, they were informed that sections 498A/406 IPC were in respect of matrimonial offence. They contacted CAW Cell where they were informed that other sections will be added as per investigation report. As no action SC No.76/13. Page 30 of 67 was taken by IO, they approached DCP and their matter was sent to DIU West. In fact, IO of P.S. Bindapur had also threatened them. Her complaint made to CAW Cell Kirti Nagar is Ex.PW1/B (eight pages). On 09.7.2008 her statement was recorded by IO of DIU West. On 14.7.2008 her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded in Rohini Courts. On 15.7.2008, she was got medically examined at DDU Hospital. The doctor had taken her garments and swabs which were seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW2/A. On 27th or 29th July, 2008 accused Amit Kumar was arrested in her presence from Mehram Nagar near Palam Airport vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A. His personal search was also carried out vide memo Ex.PW6/B. In the last week of July, they came to know that accused Amit Pal Walia had filed a writ petition no.986/2008 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against them alleging that they had kidnapped his mother. They went there and apprised the Public Prosecutor about the true facts. It was revealed that accused Amit Pal Walia had himself kept his mother Snehlata at Pyare Mohan Hotel at Mathura. The writ petition was then dismissed as withdrawn. On 30.7.2008, in her presence, the Indigo car bearing no.DL-9CQ-1621 was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A. On 10.9.2008, accused Charu Singh was arrested from her house at Patel Nagar vide memo Ex.PW1/C. During investigation, IO, herself and her mother went to house of accused Charu alongwith accused Charu Singh where photographs of the spot were taken by the IO with the help of some photographer. Thereafter, on the same day, they alongwith IO and accused Charu went to United News of India to point out the office of accused Sukhdev Singh. She also gave another address of accused Sukhdev Singh at Safdarjung and they went to the said address. Thereafter, they returned to the police station. On SC No.76/13. Page 31 of 67 26.9.2008 or 27.9.2008, accused Amit Pal was arrested from Dwarka in her presence but she did not recollect exact location. During investigation, she and her mother were asked by the IO to reach at A-104, Sultanpuri, Delhi, i.e. the house of accused Amit Pal Walia. From the search of the house, a passbook in the name of Simran Pal w/o Amit Pal was recovered. Same was taken into possession vide house search memo Ex.PW1/G and the passbook is Ex.PX1. When she was living with accused Amit Pal Walia, she was given a Press Card of Dainik Jagran, religious messenger times by accused Amit Pal and Sukhdev Singh. It was having the date of issue as 08.10.2007. The said card is Ex.PX2. She never used the said Card. All her education certificates are in custody of accused persons.
18. In the cross examination of prosecutrix conducted by the Ld. APP after declaring her hostile on some aspects, she deposed that Press Card Ex.PX2, photocopy of form of DD No. 747150 dated 16.8.2007 issued from SBI Branch, Keshav Puram, Delhi, photocopy of Saving Bank account passbook of A/c No.2088 of Corporation Bank, withdrawing Rs.15,000/- by cheque no. 309507, photocopy of cheque no.513473 of A/c No.2088 of Rs.1 lakh issued in the name of Amit Pal Walia dated 28.12.2007, photocopy of educational documents, character certificate and photos of marriage were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW1/H. The photocopies of abovesaid documents are collectively marked as Mark X1.
19. In her cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Amit Pal Walia, she deposed that she has two brothers, SC No.76/13. Page 32 of 67 one elder to her and one younger to her and both are unmarried. Her brother has done B.Tech. from NSIT, Dwarka, and is doing business. Her father runs a military canteen in Manipur and comes to Delhi 6 - 7 times in a year and stays for one or two months on each occasion. Her maternal aunt (Mausi) Mrs. Anuradha Jindal and some other relatives are also living in Delhi. She only visits the house of her maternal aunt. Her maternal aunt resided within a distance of half an hour from their house during the period 2006 to2008. After finishing her course at Frankfin Institute, she had personally applied for job with many aviation companies such as Spice Jet, Jet Airlines, Go Airways and Kingfisher Airlines. She also applied in hotels namely Hotel Raddison, Hotel Lee Meridian and Hotel Maurya Sheraton in Delhi. She appeared in interview in all the airlines and the hotels. She had got placement at Hotel Taj, Dhaula Kuan, where she worked for 2 months or 3 months as Guest Service Executive at a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. She left the job as she was not comfortable in night shifts and has her studies for graduation were getting disturbed. She also worked for 3 - 4 months in Event Management Company namely 'Encompass' on a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. At that time, she was using mobile phone no.9891354915 of Idea Cellular Company Ltd. Her elder brother was using mobile no.9810991910 of Airtel Company and her mother was using mobile no.9436034988. She was not working anywhere in the months of June or July, 2007 and she had sent application to various companies for the post of Air Hostesses. She had gone for an interview to Mumbai in connection with job in Go Air Airlines with her uncle Mr. Anil. Again said, Mr. Anil is not related to her but is only a family friend and lives in Paschim Vihar. Her parents were not in Delhi at that time and her SC No.76/13. Page 33 of 67 elder brother was to appear in engineering exams and therefore, her parents had telephonically requested Mr. Anil to accompany her to Mumbai for interview. She had cleared the interview of Deccan Airlines and Go Air Airlines but Deccan Airlines told her that she is under age and Go Air Airlines preferred local residents of Mumbai. Her candidature in Spice Jet was rejected because of her less height. She further deposed that she did not make any call to M/s. Star News confirming whether accused Amit Pal Walia and accused Amit Kumar were employed there. She also did not check this fact on the website of Star News. On 13.8.2007, her mother and brother were present at home and the call from accused Amit Kumar was first received by her mother and then she handed over the phone to her. She stated voluntarily that between October, 2007 and December, 2007, her father had made enquiry at his level and had come to know that neither Amit Kumar nor Amit Pal Walia had any concern with M/s. Star News. She also did not make any effort to find out the veracity of the placement agency which Amit Pal Wali was running alongwith accused Sukhdev. She admitted that pursuant to the talks with accused Amit Pal Wali and accused Amit Kumar on 13.8.2007, she visited the website of Indian Airlines on her home computer in the evening hours and found that some vacancies have been advertised by the airlines. She talked to accused Amit Pal Walia either from her mobile phone or from the mobile phone of her brother in the evening of 14.8.2007 in presence of her mother and asked him to visit her residence on 15.8.2007 at about 3 p.m./4 p.m. as her father was to leave for Manipur during the night. Her father left for Manipur on 15.8.2007 in the night and remained there for almost two months. Accused Amit Pal Walia and accused SC No.76/13. Page 34 of 67 Amit Kumar reached their house on 15.8.2007 at about 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. and her father as well as mother were present there. They remained in their house for about half an hour or one hour and she happened to see their Indigo car, in which they had come. He and her parents had asked them about the credential documents of their placement agency but they did not have any. Her parents also spoke to both the accused. Amit Pal Walia introduced his co- accused Amit Kumar as his brother and also as a reporter in Star News. Accused also told them that Sukhdev Singh is their father and all the three carry on the business of consultancy together and accused Sukhdev Singh is the owner of United News Agency. She admitted not having mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW1/B and in her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW7/A about the visit of accused Amit Pal Walia and accused Amit Kumar to their residence between 16.8.2007 and 19.8.2007. She denied that between 16.8.2007 and 31.8.2007 she used to talk continuously to accused Amit Pal Walia on phone daily about 10 - 15 times a day. She did not meet accused Amit Pal Walia anywhere between 20.8.2007 and 31.8.2007. She denied that she had told accused Amit Pal Walia that she had developed liking for him and had fallen in love with him. She denied knowing any person by the name of Narender, r/o Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. She also denied that she had gone to Mata Vaishno Devi pilgrimage alongwith said Narender and not with her maternal aunt and uncle. She denied that accused Amit Pal Walia had met them at Mata Vaishno Devi shrine on 03.9.2007 and that she spent whole day with him there. She denied having told accused Amit Pal Walia that she has a lot of friction with her mother on account of said Narender as she suspected her mother of having illicit relations with said Narender.
SC No.76/13. Page 35 of 67She denied that she had returned from the pilgrimage in Toyota Innova car bearing registration no.DL-1VB-2720 hired by accused Amit Pal Walia. She admitted that she did not check and verify about the interview for the selection of Air Hostesses with Indian Airlines for 02.9.2007 either before her visit to Mata Vaishno Devi on 02.9.2007 or after her return therefrom on 05.9.2007. Neither she nor her mother asked accused Amit Pal Walia or accused Amit Kumar about any document viz. E-mails, fax, etc. as proof of interview schedule for 10.9.2007. She had told her father about her visit to Mumbai alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia. She had stayed in Hotel Parklane alone as accused Amit Pal Walia told her that he will stay with his Tauji (uncle) namely Goga Kapoor. She did not go even once with accused Amit Pal Walia to the house of said Goga Kapoor. She denied that actually, there was no interview fixed for 10.9.2007 or that after her travel to Mata Vaishno Devi with accused Amit Pal Walia, she desired to go out of Delhi with him alone and due to this reason the plan for interview at Mumbai was hatched. She also denied that from 09.9.2007 to 12.9.2007, she stayed in a single room in Hotel Parklane alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia with her wish and consent. She denied that she had made physical relations with accused Amit Pal Walia during that period voluntarily. She admitted that after her return from Mumbai on 12.9.2007 till the end of that month, she did not take any measure on her own to verify the factum of interview with Indian Airlines by any means. She only remained in touch with accused Amit Pal Walia in this regard. She admitted that between 12.9.2007 and the end of the month, she was having regular telephonic conversation with accused Amit Pal Walia. She admitted that on their second visit to Mumbai on 30.9.2007, she SC No.76/13. Page 36 of 67 and the accused Amit Pal Walia stayed in a single room in Hotel Jewel as well as Hotel Park. The interview was to be held on 01.10.2007 and on that day, accused Amit Pal Walia had taken her to some other office but it was not the Head Office of Indian Airlines. She did not sign any document or register in that office and did not get any official documents from the said office regarding her interview. She denied the suggestion that from 30.9.2007 to 04.10.2007, she had regular physical intercourse with accused Amit Pal Walia with her free will and consent and that for this reason, they chose to stay in a single room in the hotel at Mumbai.
20. She further deposed that on 08.10.2007 she had gone to attend a birthday party of her friend Anita at her residence which was 2 or 3 Blocks away from their house. She went there at or around 1 p.m. or 2 p.m. and returned at about 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. She suffered food poisoning and due to which she was feeling sick in the evening hours. At that time, her mother and brother were present at home. Her mother had taken her to a lady physician in a nearby clinic, who advised her that she needed to be admitted in some hospital. When they were about to leave for a hospital, suddenly accused Amit Pal Walia came there, even though he was not to visit them on that day and offered to take them to the hospital in his car. She admitted that there are various Nursing Homes and private hospitals in their own locality and in the neighbourhood area and her mother did not take her to any of these hospitals. Her mother had not asked accused Amit Pal Walia to take her to Kolmet Hospital, Karol Bagh and the accused himself took her there. She denied that actually on 08.10.2007 she had a SC No.76/13. Page 37 of 67 serious fight with her mother, as she had told her mother that she is madly in love with accused Amit Pal Walia and in a fit of rage, she had consumed phenyl, due to which she vomitted constantly. She also denied that her mother deliberately called accused Amit Pal Walia in order to seek his help as she herself was reluctant to take her to any hospital fearing registration of a criminal case. She further deposed that accused Amit Pal Walia used to visit the hospital regularly for one or two hours daily. Her father, accused Amit Pal Walia and accused Sukhdev were present at Kolmet Hospital at the time of her discharge on 12.10.2007. She admitted that accused Amit Pal Walia had signed on the hospital documents as close relative/person, who got her admitted in the hospital and also put his signature on the endorsement of receiving satisfactory service from the hospital despite presence of her father in the hospital. Accused Amit Pal Walia visited their house on 12.10.2007 at 3 p.m. even though there was no occasion for him to come there. He had come there alongwith accused Charu, accused Sukhdev and accused Amit Kumar and they remained in their home for about one hour. She admitted that none of her family members accompanied them to airport on 12.10.2007. She admitted that when she left her house alongwith aforesaid four accused on 12.10.2007, she was having her mobile phone bearing no.9891354915 with her and she did not make any telephonic call to her parents or brother to tell them that they were not going straight to airport and rather are going to Patel Nagar to pick up some documents. She did not ask accused Sukhdev and accused Charu Singh as to how they came to know that flight was delayed. She did not call her parents or her brother at that time. She did not notice whether anybody was residing at the ground floor, first SC No.76/13. Page 38 of 67 floor and second floor of the said house at Patel Nagar. As far as she remembered the third floor had a separate entry but a common staircase leading from ground floor. Besides the accused Amit Pal Walia, daughter of accused Sukhdev was also present on the third floor when she entered there. Even at that moment, she did not ask accused Amit Pal Walia about the airport to Mumbai. Accused Sukhdev and accused Charu Singh had told her that her interview has been rescheduled after two days. On her enquiry that she did not see them receiving any call, they told her that perhaps she did not notice the same. When accused Sukhdev snatched her mobile phone, she did not shout for help as she was not able to comprehend the situation. She further deposed that she raised hue and cry and shouted for help 4 or 5 times during the period of her confinement from 12.10.2007 till 16.10.2007. She denied that during this period, she alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia had gone to different markets for shopping and other recreational activities. She denied that during this period, she was regularly making calls to her parents from her mobile phone and requested them to give consent for her marriage with accused Amit Pal Walia. She was not given any food for three days of confinement. Only water was kept in her room in a jug. She denied that she alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia had met her mother on 16.10.2007 and requested her to give consent for their marriage and to participate in the marriage but she refused. As per his memory, the marriage between herself and accused Amit Pal Walia had taken place at around 7 p.m. on 17.10.2007. Accused Sukhdev and accused Charu Singh gave her a Saari to wear before solemnization of marriage. She did not raise any hue and cry at that time as she was threatened by accused that they would kill SC No.76/13. Page 39 of 67 her if she raised any alarm. She admitted that solemnization of marriage was photographed as well as videographed. She admitted that the photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D19 are the photographs of her wedding ceremony with accused Amit Pal Walia on 17.10.2007. The marriage function including the photography continued for about 35 minutes. She denied that the aforesaid photographs were taken in broad and bright light. She admitted that she appears to be happy and in celebrity mood in these photographs and stated voluntarily that she was asked to give these expressions. She admitted that the house shown at point A in photographs Ex.PW1/D20 and Ex.PW1/D21 are of the house, in which she had been kept confined by the accused. She was shown the contents of the CD produced on behalf of the accused and she admitted that it is the recording of her marriage ceremony with accused Amit Pal Walia. The CD is Ex.PW1/D22. She admitted that in the videography, she is seen taking Mangalsutra from the hands of accused Amit Pal Walia and helping him to open it so as to enable him to put it around her neck. She admitted that during the period from 18.10.2007 to 20.10.2007 when she had gone to Chandigarh alongwith accused and stayed there in a hotel. She did not raise any hue and cry or offer any resistance or seek any help from any quarter whatsoever. She also admitted that during this period all of them had visited Mansa Devi temple. She admitted that she is seen in 11 photographs collectively marked as Ex.PW1/D23. She admitted that these photographs were taken at public places where many persons were present. She admitted that she did not raise any hue and cry or shout for help in the temple or at the aforesaid places. She admitted that in one or the photographs, she is seen riding a SC No.76/13. Page 40 of 67 horse. She admitted that during this period, she did not ask the accused Amit Pal Walia to permit her to talk to her mother.
21. She further deposed that she had gone to P.S. Bindapur on 21.10.2007 in the morning hours i.e. before 12'O Clock. She met two police officials in the police station but did not recollect their name or rank. They spent atleast one hour in the police station. Her parents had also come to the police station. She admitted that she had gone there regarding the complaint of kidnapping lodged by her mother. She admitted that she gave statement to the police officials that she had gone with accused Amit Pal Walia voluntarily and also performed marriage with him and was living with him on account of her own volition and desire and that she was not under any sort of illegal confinement. She voluntarily stated that she gave this statement to the police at the instance of the accused. She admitted that she did not complain to the police officials in this regard nor did she raise any hue and cry in the police station. She did not tell police official that she wanted to talk to her parents separately. She did not remember the exact address of Sultanpuri where she was residing with accused Amit Pal Walia. One Mrs. Snehlata was also residing in that house and one Rishi Pal also used to visit there on a number of occasions. She admitted that the said house was located in residential area and the area was extremely congested with thousands of people living in the vicinity. She deposed that she did not talk to her mother during the period 21.10.2007 to 01.12.2007 but she saw accused Amit Pal Walia talking to her mother on number of occasions during this period. Even accused Snehlata also talked to her mother on some occasions. She admitted that she alongwith SC No.76/13. Page 41 of 67 accused Amit Pal Walia had visited her parental house on 12.12.2007 and she had made a telephonic call to her mother a couple of days prior to the visit at the instance of accused Sukhdev and accused Charu to ask for money from her parents. They remained in her parental house for one and a half hours. She admitted that on that occasion, her mother accepted her marriage with accused Amit Pal Walia and also gave them blessing. Her father was not present in the house at that time. From her parental house, she again accompanied accused Amit Pal Walia to Patel Nagar and from there went to Sultanpuri. She admitted that she did not offer any resistance and did not raise any hue and cry and did not shout for help at any point of time from 21.10.2007 to 01.12.2007. She further deposed that bangles worn by her seen in photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D19 were given to her by accused Charu and accused Amit Pal Walia. She also admitted that the photographs show that the designer 'Henna' (Mehndi) was applied on her hands and arms. According to her, she discovered in the first week of December, 2007 that she was pregnant. She did not share this news with anybody else but mother of accused Amit Pal Walia disclosed it to everybody else. She admitted that she had got her pregnancy terminated in Kolmet Hospital, Karol Bagh, but did not seek any help from the doctor in any manner. She did not remember the date of abortion. She deposed that she voluntarily desired to terminate her pregnancy as she was not happy with the same. She did not disclose the history of illegal confinement and forcible sexual intercourse to the lady doctor, who treated her, as she felt embarrassed to see all this. She admitted that on 26.1.2008, she spent a night alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia in Hotel Swati, Karol Bagh, and from there they SC No.76/13. Page 42 of 67 went to Mumbai where they stayed for 7 to 8 days in Hotel Park Lane. She admitted that during this entire period, she did not seek any help from any person at the railway station, co-passengers in the train, ticket checker in the train, railway police etc. as she was feeling embarrassed. She admitted that they had stayed in a single room in a hotel at Mumbai and accused Amit Pal Walia had gone out of the hotel once or twice during those 7 - 8 days and she did not attempt to run away or raise any hue and cry or seek anybody's help. According to her, the room was closed from outside whenever accused Amit Pal Walia went out. She admitted that she did not call anybody from the telephone available in the hotel room. She deposed that after return from Mumbai, one day she noticed that the briefcase of accused Amit Pal Walia was lying open and on checking the same, she found Visa in the name of Simran Hussain and passport in the name of Simran Pal Walia, both having same photograph. It was noted on the passport that Simran Pal Walia is the wife of accused Amit Pal Walia. She also saw the driving licence of Simran Pal Walia w/o Sh. Amit Pal Walia. She came to know that accused Amit Pal Walia is also known as 'Raj' or 'Raja' as Rishi Pal used to address him as such. She gathered from the conversation of Rishi Pal and Snehlata that accused Amit Pal Walia was wanted by CBI and was on the run. When she confronted accused Amit Pal Walia with the aforesaid Visa, passport and driving licence of other girl, he asked her to mind her business. She tried to escape from Sultanpuri but could not succeed as either there was someone present in the house or the house was locked from outside. However, she never cried for help during her period of confinement. She came to know on 01.3.2008 or 02.3.2008 about the arrest of accused Amit Pal Walia SC No.76/13. Page 43 of 67 in another case. After his arrest, accused Amit Pal Wali remained in custody for 14 - 15 days. She did not try to raise any alarm or escape from the house during those days as Snehlata, Rishi Pal, accused Charu and accused Amit Kumar and accused Sukhdev used to remain in the house during the day time. However, she did not try to seek help at night time. She had gone to visit Amit Pal Walia at Tihar Jail during his custody and mentioned herself as his wife in the application submitted there. She did not raise any alarm or seek any help from police officials present at Tihar Jail. She admitted that she had written love letters to accused Amit Pal Walia during the period of his stay in Tihar Jail. She did not remember the contents of those letters. She also did not remember if she addressed accused Amit Pal Walia as 'Shona' in those love letters or if she had written in those letters "I will die if you will not come soon, really I am telling you, you mean a lot of me, you are everything to me, my love, I am missing you terribly." She stated voluntarily that these letters were dictated in English to her by accused Sukhdev. She had gone two or three times to Karkardooma Court to meet Sh. A.P. Singh, Advocate, for filing bail application of accused Amit Pal Walia and spent half an hour with the said advocate on each occasion. She did not complain to that advocate that she was illegally confined and raped by accused Amit Pal Walia. She did not raise any alarm during her visit to the court. She did not shout for help when she was beaten at Patel Nagar on the day of Holi in March, 2008. On 26.3.2008 she had found the keys of the house lying in a room of the house and the door was locked from inside not from outside. She admitted that on 26.3.2008, her parents had taken her to P.S. Sultanpuri but neither she nor her parents lodged any complaint against anybody SC No.76/13. Page 44 of 67 on that day.
22. She further admitted that the list of dowry articles Ex.PW1/A is in her handwriting. She also admitted that she had never met accused Amit Kumar before 13.8.2007 nor had she talked to him on phone or otherwise. She admitted that she had signed as Neha Walia on the treatment papers Ex.PW1/D27 (colly) on 03.12.2007. She admitted that she was fully conscious on that day before she was examined in Kolmet Hospital and the doctor had asked her about the history of ailment but she did not tell the doctor that she had been kidnapped and her pregnancy is the result of her having been raped. At another place in the cross examination, she admitted that she had talked to her mother on telephone on 10th or 11th December, 2007 and her mother had asked her to visit their house on 12.12.2007 which she accepted. She also admitted that on 12.12.2007 when she alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia had gone to her parental house, her mother had given her some gifts and cash and blessing as well. She admitted that her mother was quite aware that she alongwith accused would be visiting their house on 12.12.2007 and still she had not informed police about their visit. Besides this, she denied all other suggestions put to her by Ld. Cross examining Counsel.
23. The next material witness for the prosecution is Smt. Prabha Aggarwal, the mother of the prosecutrix, who has been examined as PW9. In her examination in chief, she has corroborated the deposition of the prosecutrix by saying that accused Amit Kumar and Amit Pal Walia introduced themselves to her as Crime Reporter in Star News and able to arrange a job for SC No.76/13. Page 45 of 67 the prosecutrix which would cost about Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.2.5 Lacs; that they refused to take payment by cheque and on their demand, she paid them Rs.15,000/- in cash as token money; that after about 15 - 20 days both the accused came to their house and stated that the first round of interview of the prosecutrix would be held at Mumbai and after two or three days thereof, accused took the prosecutrix alongwith them to Mumbai for interview; that she wanted to accompany her daughter to Mumbai for the interview but the two accused persuaded her to leave the prosecutrix alone; that after further 15 to 20 days, the two accused again took the prosecutrix alongwith them for a second round of interview at Mumbai and returned from there after 3 to 4 days; that on that occasion accused Amit Pal Walia took a sum of Rs.30,000/- from her; that on 08.10.2007 she was informed by the two accused that the final found of interview would be held on 12.10.2007 at Mumbai and she requested them to extend the date of interview as the prosecutrix was not feeling well; that accused Amit Pal Walia came to their house on the same day and took her alongwith prosecutrix to Karol Bagh where he got the prosecutrix admitted in Kolmet Hospital; that accused Charu Singh also remained in the hospital for one night; that the prosecutrix was discharged from the hospital on 12.10.2007 and on the same day all the four accused came to their house asking her to send prosecutrix for final interview; that she initially did not agree but later on sent the prosecutrix alongwith them for the final round of interview; that she was not able to talk to her daughter or accused Amit Pal for the next two days and accordingly talked to accused Sukhdev and Charu, who told her that Amit Pal Walia has taken the prosecutrix to Mumbai for the interview and when she was not SC No.76/13. Page 46 of 67 able to talk to her daughter or Amit Pal Walia for the next 3 - 4 days and the accused Sukhdev as well as Charu Singh were not giving satisfactory reply, she lodged a complaint in P.S. Bindapur on 20.10.2007. She further deposed that on 21.10.2007, she was called to P.S. Bindapur and on reaching there, she found her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia and Sukhdev already present there. She saw vermilion in her daughter's hairs. She tried to talk to the prosecutrix but the accused did not allow her to do so. When she demanded marriage documents and photographs, accused Sukhdev told her that she would get the same within three days and thereafter the accused left the police station alongwith prosecutrix. She was not able to talk to her daughter for next two months. In the first or second week of September, 2007 the prosecutrix telephoned her and demanded money. She told the prosecutrix to bring accused Amit Pal Walia, Amit Kumar, Sukhdev and Charu to her house and she would try to help her as much as possible. She further deposed that the prosecutrix alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia came to their house on 12.12.2007 and remained there for about one hour but she was not able to talk to her daughter as all her questions were answered by accused Amit Pal Walia. She gave Rs.50,000/- in cash and some gold to them. Thereafter the prosecutrix went back alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia. She further deposed that within one week thereafter, the prosecutrix telephoned her again and told her that she is in need of more money. She gave the prosecutrix a cheque in the sum of Rs.1 Lac in favour of accused Amit Pal Walia. The cheque was collected by accused Amit Pal Walia from her near Uttam Nagar Metro Station. On 02.3.2008, she received a phone call from P.S. Sultanpuri informing her that the SC No.76/13. Page 47 of 67 family members of accused Amit Pal Walia have lodged a complaint against her alleging that she has kidnapped him. She visited P.S. Sultanpuri on the next day and came to know that accused Amit Pal Walia is lodged in Tihar Jail. She got address of prosecutrix at Sultanpuri and went there to see her. The door of the house was opened by one gentleman, told her that the prosecutrix is residing in the said house. She saw the prosecutrix upstairs but could not talk to her and accordingly returned home. On 26.3.2008, she received a call from the prosecutrix asking her to reach P.S. Sultanpuri. She alongwith her husband reached P.S. Sultanpuri and found that the prosecutrix was crying. The prosecutrix told her that she had not been taken for final interview but was actually taken to Patel Nagar, confined in a room there, forced to marry accused Amit Pal Walia and was raped by him. They brought the prosecutrix home. After some days, they contacted a lawyer and got drafted a complaint but they did not tell the complete facts in order to save the honour of their daughter. They submitted a complaint to CAW Cell. She further deposed that later on accused Amit Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and accused Amit Pal Walia was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E. She proved the photocopy of the complaint submitted by her to the police on 20.10.2007 as Ex.PW9/A.
24. In the cross examination she stated that her younger sister Anu resides in Delhi with her family and some of her distant relatives like uncles, cousin etc. also reside in Delhi. In the year 2007 - 08 her sister Anu was residing in Uttam Nagar just two or three Blocks away from her house and used to visit them SC No.76/13. Page 48 of 67 occasionally on festivals or when she had some work. She admitted that in the year 2007 her daughter i.e. prosecutrix had appeared for several interviews with various airline companies for a job of air-hostess and sometimes she used to accompany her for these interviews, if the place of interview was far off. She further deposed that on 15.8.2007, accused Amit Kumar and accused Amit Pal Walia had come to their house in presence of her husband and only her husband talked to them. Accused Amit Kumar introduced accused Amit Pal Walia as his elder brother and they were having Star News I.Cards hanging around their neck. She did not try to verify from the office of Star News whether these two accused were actually working there or not. She denied the suggestion that accused Amit Pal Walia had met them during their pilgrimage to Mata Vaishno Devi on 02.9.2007 to 05.9.2007 or that they returned to Delhi from there in a vehicle arranged by them. She deposed that the prosecutrix was having a mobile phone during that period and denied that she was aware that the prosecutrix used to meet accused Amit Pal Walia daily during that period or that there used to be frequent calls between her and the prosecutrix on this issue. She deposed that she did not ask accused Amit Pal Walia to show any written document about the interview at Mumbai. She had asked him about the name of organization that was conducting the interview of the place where the interview was to be held but he did not give any specific reply. According to her, the prosecutrix had never went alone with anyone out of Delhi before 09.9.2007. When she accompanied accused Amit Pal Walia to Mumbai for the interview. She did not ask her son to accompany the prosecutrix to Mumbai as she did not want to disturb his studies. She admitted that the prosecutrix SC No.76/13. Page 49 of 67 had earlier also gone on one occasion to Mumbai for interview with Go Air Airlines with a family friend Anil as on that day, she was not in Delhi. She did not feel it necessary to ask her sister or her brother-in-law (Jija) to accompany the prosecutrix to Mumbai on 09.9.2007. She was in regular touch with the prosecutrix during her aforesaid visit to Mumbai and she used to talk to her about 4 to 5 times in a day. Prosecutrix had told her that she was staying alone in Hotel Parklane as they had got only one room and the accused Amit Pal Walia was staying in his uncle's house. On return from Mumbai, prosecutrix told her that she was not interviewed by any person orally or in writing and she was just taken in front of somebody on 10.9.2007 who after seeing her said 'O.K.'. She did not remember in whose birthday party had the prosecutrix gone on 08.10.2007, when she felt ill. She had taken the prosecutrix to a doctor in the neighbourhood, who advised her to take the prosecutrix to the main clinic as she was suffering from food poisoning. She did not call her sister or her brother-in-law for help at that time. Her husband was in Delhi at that time and had gone to attend some marriage. She informed her husband about the condition of the prosecutrix and her husband returned home after attending the marriage. According to her, accused Amit Pal Walia had come to their house on that day at about 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. on his own. She did not ask accused Amit Pal Walia to take the prosecutrix to the hospital and they went alongwith him to Kolmet Hospital at Karol Bagh as she was not able to arrange any conveyance. She admitted that Mata Chanan Devi Hospital is at a distance of 15 - 20 minutes from their residence. She was not aware about AIIMS, Safdarjung Hospital, DDU Hospital and other such big hospitals. On reaching Kolmet Hospital, she did not fill SC No.76/13. Page 50 of 67 any form at the reception. She did not know whether the prosecutrix had undergone for stomach wash. She did not deposit any fee in the hospital before admission of the prosecutrix there and did not know who deposited the fee. She did not know if accused Amit Pal Walia also remained in the hospital for the night or had left after dropping them there.
25. She further admitted that she did not call her younger sister or her brother-in-law (Jija) to the hospital despite the doctor telling her that the prosecutrix would remain hospitalized for next two to three days. She did not pay the final bill of the hospital as it was paid by accused Amit Pal Walia and he had filled up the documents. She further deposed that after discharge of prosecutrix from the hospital on 12.10.2007, they reached home at about 12 noon or 1 p.m. and all the four accused also reached there after about one and a half hours. Her husband was present at home at that time. The accused asked her to send the prosecutrix for final round of interview and when she refused, they forced her for the same. She did not ask them to show any document regarding final round of interview. She did not see any air ticket in the hands of the accused but accused Charu had told her that there was an open ticket. She deposed that neither she herself nor her husband nor her son had accompanied the prosecutrix to airport on that day. She further deposed that when she alongwith her husband had gone to P.S. Bindapur on 21.10.2007 regarding the complaint filed by them on 20.10.2007. all the accused persons alongwith the prosecutrix were present there. The police officials did not permit her to talk to the prosecutrix despite the fact that they alongwith the prosecutrix SC No.76/13. Page 51 of 67 and the accused were sitting in one and the same room. From the appearance of the prosecutrix, accused Amit Pal Walia and the clothes they had worn, she assumed that they had got married. She and her husband did not complain to the SHO or any other superior police officer against the conduct of the police officials, who did not allow them to meet their daughter. She denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix had told the police officials in her presence that she was a major and had voluntarily solemnized the marriage with accused Amit Pal Walia. She admitted that she did not call any of her relatives including her younger sister between 12.10.2007 and 21.10.2007 to inform that the prosecutrix had been kidnapped. She admitted that she did not inform any of her relatives about the kidnapping of the prosecutrix till March, 2008. She further deposed that they did not go to the residence of accused Sukhdev during the period between 12.10.2007 to 21.10.2007 as they did not have his address but stated that she had called accused Sukhdev on mobile phone once or twice during this period as she was having his mobile phone numbers. She deposed that the prosecutrix had made a telephonic call to her in the second week of December, 2007. She talked to the prosecutrix for two minutes at that time and the prosecutrix did not tell her that she had been kidnapped or has been forced to marry accused Amit Pal Walia or that she has been confined in the house or that she has been raped. She did not remember the exact date when accused Amit Pal Walia alongwith the prosecutrix came to their home in the month of December, 2007. she served them tea and snacks only and they remained at their house for about one hour. She did not have any direct talk with the prosecutrix at that time. Her son was also sitting with them at that time. On that day also, SC No.76/13. Page 52 of 67 the prosecutrix did not tell her that she had been forcibly detained by accused Amit Pal Walia or that he has raped her. She had told her husband before the aforesaid visit of prosecutrix that she has invited Amit Pal Walia and the prosecutrix home as her husband was in Manipur at that time, it was not possible for him ro come to Delhi to meet his daughter and accused Amit Pal Walia. She admitted that she had given some gifts including one gold chain, gold earrings and some cash to the prosecutrix and accused Amit Pal Walia on 12.10.2007 for themselves and for the other three accused. The said gold chain and earrings were available with her at her home. She also admitted that she had given her blessings to the couple for their marriage as she wanted to take them in confidence. She further deposed that she did not make any telephonic call to the prosecutrix or Amit Pal Walia after 12.12.2007 but the prosecutrix used to call her as and when she thought necessary. She admitted that the prosecutrix never told her during any of these telephonic calls after 12.12.2007 that she was in illegal confinement or that she had been abducted or subjected to forcible marriage and rape. She further admitted that she used to accompany the prosecutrix to CAW Cell on a number of occasions and also used to meet the Enquiry Officer, who was dealing with the complaint filed by the prosecutrix. She admitted that during this period, neither she nor the prosecutrix submitted any complaint in writing to the police officials regarding the kidnapping and rape. She further denied all the suggestions put to her by the Ld. Counsels for the accused.
26. A close scrutiny of the testimony of aforesaid two star witnesses of the prosecution reveals that there is no truth in the SC No.76/13. Page 53 of 67 allegation regarding kidnap of the prosecutrix, her forcible marriage with accused Amit Pal Walia and her having been raped by accused Amit Pal Walia. According to their deposition before this court, accused Amit Kumar, accused Amit Pal Walia had introduced themselves as Crime Reporters of Star News and told them that they can arrange a job for the prosecutrix (PW1) with some airlines. It is not in dispute that these two accused were totally stranger to PW1 and her mother PW9 till that day. It is thus intensely intriguing as to how they placed utmost trust and faith upon the representations of the two accused Amit Kumar and Amit Pal Walia. Neither PW1 nor PW9 made any attempt to confirm whether these two accused were in fact employed in Star News. They did not try to find out the veracity of the placement agency being run by accused Amit Pal Walia alongwith accused Sukhdev. It has come in the testimony of PW1 that she had done course of air-hostess at Frankfin Institute and had personally applied for job in various aviation companies and had also appeared for the interview conducted by these aviation companies in Hotel Raddison, Hotel Le Meridian and Hotel Maurya Sheraton etc. It has also come in her cross examination that her brother had obtained degree of B.Tech from NSIT, Dwarka, a reputed technical institute of India. Still they believed the representation of these two accused blindfoldedly without making enquiry regarding their credentials. It is quite strange that PW1 accompanied accused Amit Pal Walia to Mumbai on three occasions for an interview with an airlines company but no such interview took place there and still she or her mother did not doubt the conduct of accused Amit Pal Walia and his co-accused. Neither PW1 nor PW9 asked accused Amit Pal Walia to show any interview letter to them and SC No.76/13. Page 54 of 67 they kept on believing him without asking for any document confirming that he had applied for a job on behalf of PW1 and that she had been called to Mumbai for any interview. PW9 has deposed in her cross examination that she had asked accused Amit Pal Walia about the name of the organization which was conducting interview at Mumbai and the place where the interview was to be held but he did not give any specific reply. However, despite this she did not become suspicious about the conduct of the accused and sent her daughter alongwith him to Mumbai for the interview.
27. It is the case of the prosecution that the four accused had taken the prosecutrix from her house on 12.10.2007 on the pretext of accompanying accused Amit Pal Walia to Mumbai for final round of interview and instead of taking her to Mumbai, she was taken to a house in Patel Nagar, confined there forcibly and compelled to solemnize marriage forcibly with the accused Amit Pal Walia. It has come in the evidence of PW1 that on that day, accused Charu Singh assured her parents that the prosecutrix was like a daughter to her and only accused Amit Pal Wali would accompany her to Mumbai. PW1 has further deposed that accused Charu Singh gave her address and phone number to her parents whereupon they were convinced and permitted her to go alongwith the accused. PW9 has deposed that when she was not able to talk to her daughter or accused Amit Pal Walia for the next two days, she talked to accused Sukhdev and Charu, who told her that accused Amit Pal Walia as well as prosecutrix are in Mumbai for the interview and when she was not able to talk to her daughter or accused Amit Pal Walia for next 3 or 4 days, she and SC No.76/13. Page 55 of 67 accused Sukhdev and accused Charu Singh were not giving any satisfactory reply, she lodged a complaint in P.S. Bindapur on 20.10.2007. PW9 has deposed in her cross examination that she did not ask the accused to show any document regarding final round of interview. She did not see any air ticket in the hands of any of the accused but accused Charu Singh had told her that there was an open ticket. Neither she nor her husband nor her son accompanied the prosecutrix on that day and the prosecutrix was sent alone alongwith the accused.
28. I wonder that if the accused intended to kidnap and confine the prosecutrix, why would accused Charu give her address and phone member to the mother of prosecutrix. It is totally unheard of that a kidnapper would provide his/her address and phone number to the kins of the victim to be kidnapped. Further when PW9 was not able to contact her daughter or accused Amit Pal Walia on phone, she could have easily visited the house of accused Charu and found her daughter there. Very strangely, she did not do so.
29. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the accused brought her to the P.S. Bindapur on 21.10.2007 pursuant to the missing complaint lodged by her parents on 20.10.2007. it is also evident that PW9 and her husband has also reached the police station on that day. PW9 has deposed in cross examination that she, her husband, their daughter (PW1) and all the accused were sitting in one room in the police station but still they could not talk to their daughter. PW1 has deposed that she did not tell the police officials that she wanted to talk to her parents SC No.76/13. Page 56 of 67 separately. She gave a voluntary statement to the police officials that she has performed marriage with accused Amit Pal Walia voluntarily, is living with him on her own volition and is not under any sort of confinement. However, she stated that she made this statement at the instance of the accused. Which of the accused had influenced or pressurized or threatened her to make such statement and in what manner, has not been explained by her. She admits that she did not complain to the police officials in this regard and did not raise any hue and cry in the police station. She did not tell the police officials that she wants to go with her parents.
30. In this regard, PW9 has deposed in her cross examination that police officials did not permit them to talk to their daughter but neither she nor her husband complained to the SHO or any other senior police officer against the conduct of police officials. She also deposed that from the appearance of PW1 and accused Amit Pal Walia and the clothes they had worn, she assumed that they had got married.
31. The impression which can be gathered from the deposition of PW1 as well as PW9 is that PW9 and her husband were satisfied that their daughter (PW1) has solemnized marriage willingly with the accused Amit Pal Walia and that she had not been kidnapped or confined forcibly by the accused and therefore they did not press further their complaint dated 20.10.2007 and did not ask their daughter to return home alongwith them.
32. PW1 had admitted in her cross examination that the SC No.76/13. Page 57 of 67 marriage function held on 17.10.2007 was photographed as well as videographed and has admitted that photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D17 are that of her marriage with the accused Amit Pal Walia. Even a cursory look at these photographs shows that she seems to be very glad. The smile on her face, as seen in these photographs, seems to be genuine and not a fake one. The photographs do not give any impression that the marriage had not taken place with her consent or that she was forced to sport a fake smile when these photographs were taken.
33. Coming back to the date 08.10.2007. Evidence on record suggests that PW1 had fallen sick on that day. Case of the prosecution is that she had suffered food poisoning in the birthday party of a friend. PW9 had taken her to a nearby doctor but was advised to take her to a big hospital. It is deposed by both PW1 and PW9 that accused Amit Pal Walia came to their house on that day on his own, unexpected and took PW1 to Kolmet Hospital, Karol Bagh, for treatment where she remained admitted till 12.10.2007. PW9 admitted that Mata Chanan Devi Hospital is at a distance of 15 - 20 minutes from their house. She further deposed that she did not fill any form in the hospital, didn't deposit any fee there and didn't pay the final bill of the hospital. She did not call her sister or sister's husband to the hospital during those days and didn't inform them about the hospitalization of her daughter.
34. The aforenoted conduct of PW9 demonstrates that accused Amit Pal Walia was not having mere business relations with her family and there was something more than that. Otherwise how come accused Amit Pal Walia came to their house SC No.76/13. Page 58 of 67 on 08.10.2007 when he had no business there on that day. Even if nothing unusual can be read in the conduct of accused Amit Pal Walia in taking PW1 to hospital on seeing her ailing but his taking her not to a nearby hospital but to a distant hospital in Karol Bagh is not usual. Why did PW9 allow the accused Amit Pal Walia to fill the documents in the hospital and why did he pay the hospital charges, which by no means could have been negligible, when his acquaintance with them only as an agent to provide job to PW1. It becomes manifest that some sort of intimacy had grown between him and PW1 and that on 08.10.2007 he had been informed about her sickness either by PW1 herself or PW9. It is for his reason only that the accused Amit Pal Walia showed personal interest in the hospitalization and treatment of PW1, accused Charu as well as accused Sukhdev also visited the hospital during those days and accused Amit Pal Walia paid all the hospital charges.
35. It is also for the same reason that PW9 and her husband permitted their daughter (PW1) to accompany the accused on 12.10.2007 without getting any satisfaction that she was in fact required to appear in some interview at Mumbai. It appears that the prosecutrix (PW1) wanted to go with the accused and her parents had no option except to allow her. It is for this reason that they did not insist upon the accused to show the interview letter or the air ticket. This totally falsifies the kidnap and forcible confinement allegations.
36. The conduct of PW9 is not informing any of her near relatives including those who were residing in Delhi about the kidnap or forcible marriage of PW1 raises strong doubts regarding SC No.76/13. Page 59 of 67 the credibility of the prosecution case.
37. PW1 has deposed that accused Charu Singh and Sukhdev Singh compelled her to marry accused Amit Pal Walia and when she refused, they threatened her that they had some private recordings of her stay at Mumbai in the hotel room and they would expose those videos through media channel. PW1 has deposed that she had stayed alone in the hotel room in Mumbai and the accused has stayed at his uncle's house. In that case, where was the occasion for the accused Charu and Sukhdev to possess any private recordings at Mumbai Hotel and hence, to the knowledge of PW1, the threats extended by them were useless. This too demonstrates that the prosecutrix (PW1) had solemnized marriage with the accused Amit Pal Walia without any threat or pressure.
38. The deposition of PW1 that she was having regular telephonic conversation with accused Amit Pal Walia between 12.9.2007 till the end of month also shows that she did treat him only as an agent for getting her a job but had come very close to him.
39. According to PW1, she was kept confined by the accused in a room on the third floor of a house in Patel Nagar. She admitted in cross examination that the said house was located in an extremely congested area with thousands of people living in the vicinity. She further admitted that she did not offer any resistance and did not shout for help at any point of time from 21.10.2007 to 01.12.2007. she also admitted that she did not raise any alarm or offer any resistance or seek help from any quarter SC No.76/13. Page 60 of 67 whatsoever during her visit to Chandigarh alongwith the accused from 18.10.2007 to 20.10.2007. She admitted that they had also visited Mata Mansa Devi shrine. She admitted that photographs Ex.PW1/D23 (colly) were taken during this visit and she is seen in these photographs. She admitted that these photographs were taken in public places where many persons were present and she did not raise any hue and cry at those places. In these photographs too, the prosecutrix (PW1) is seen in a very cheerful mood without any signs of fear or pressure. She seems to be enjoying the company of the accused Amit Pal Walia. In one of the photographs, she is seen riding a house alone. Apparently, she has not made any attempt to run away at any of these places and remained in the company of Amit Pal Walia without any fear or threat. Such conduct of the prosecutrix does not support allegations of kidnap, forcible marriage and rape. Further a kidnapper would never take his victim to these public places, roam freely with the victim at these places and permit his victim to have a horse ride alone.
40. PW1 has further deposed in his cross examination that she did not talk to her mother during the period 21.10.2007 to 01.12.2007 but she saw accused Amit Pal Walia talking to her mother on number of occasions and even Snehlata also talked to her mother. If these calls were made by the accused for ransom for the kidnapped girl, PW9 would have deposed so. Since she has not stated anything in this regard, it can be said that calls were made to PW9 to accept the marriage of PW1 with Amit Pal Walia, as suggested by the accused.
SC No.76/13. Page 61 of 6741. PW9 has deposed in her cross examination that PW1 had made a call to her in first week of December, 2007 and they talked to each other for two minutes but prosecutrix didn't tell her that she has been kidnapped, forcibly married and raped.
42. With regards this, PW1 has deposed that on 10th or 11th December, 2007 she called her mother telephonically in the presence of accused Charu and Sukhdev and asked for some money. Her mother told her that she doesn't have so much money and expressed her desire to meet her (PW1). Her mother (PW9) called all of them to her house on 12.12.2007. She alongwith accused Amit Pal Walia went to her parental house on 12.12.2007, stayed there for about 1½ hours and her mother gave some cash and jewellery to Amit Pal Walia specifying the gifts for all the accused. She deposed that before going there, Amit Pal Walia had threatened her not to disclose anything there. However in the cross examination, she admitted that on that occasion her mother accepted their marriage and gave them blessings and from her parental house, she again accompanied back accused Amit Pal Walia.
43. PW9 has deposed that on the aforesaid visit of PW1 and accused Amit Pal Walia to their house, she served them tea and snacks. Her son was present in the house at that time. PW1 did not tell them that Amit Pal Walia has forcibly confined and raped her. She admitted that she had give some gifts including one gold chain, earrings etc. and also her blessings to the couple for their marriage. She also deposed that she had informed her husband, who was in Manipur at that time, that she has invited SC No.76/13. Page 62 of 67 PW1 and Amit Pal Walia but it was not possible for him to come to Delhi to meet his daughter and Amit Pal Walia. Later on, she also hands over a cheque in the sum of Rs.One Lac to Amit Pal Walia near Uttam Nagar Metro Station.
44. It is, therefore, amply evident that PW9 as well as her husband had accepted the marriage of PW1 with Amit Pal Walia and for this reason only PW9 gave cash, jewellery as well as her blessings to the couple. Had she been infact under the belief that her daughter PW1 has been kept under forcible confinement, she would have already called police to her home before arrival of Amit Pal Walia there and got him arrested. She knew already that Amit Pal Walia is coming to visit her on 12.12.2007. Thus PW1 and PW9 have themselves trashed the prosecution case. Their aforesaid deposition clearly demonstrates that prosecutrix (PW1) had willingly married accused Amit Pal Walia and the allegations of kidnap, forcible marriage and rape are totally baseless.
45. PW9 has further deposed in her cross examination that she did not make any telephonic call to prosecutrix or Amit Pal Walia after 12.12.2007 but prosecutrix used to call her as and when she thought necessary but in their calls also, prosecutrix did not tell her that she has been abducted or was in illegal confinement or has been raped.
46. Much emphasis was laid by the Ld. APP as well as Ld. Counsel for the complainant upon the testimony of PW12, the photographer who had taken photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D19 to contend that no marriage ceremony was in fact SC No.76/13. Page 63 of 67 performed between PW1 and Amit Pal Walia on 17.10.2007 and therefore the physical intercourse between the two amounts to rape. PW12 has deposed that he did not find any priest or any guest in the house and he was told that marriage has already been performed. He also deposed that the atmosphere in the house was not of marriage.
47. I concur with the submissions of Ld. APP and Ld. Counsel for the complainant that there is no evidence on record to show that the marriage of PW1 with Amit Pal Walia was performed as per Hindu rites. There are only photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D19 on record in this regard but these do not show that the ceremonies like 'Saptpadi', 'Kanyadan' etc. were performed which are essential rites for a valid Hindu marriage. However this does not advance the case of prosecution at all. As discussed hereinabove, evidence on record shows that PW1 (prosecutrix) was major, had developed intimacy with Amit Pal Walia, accompanied him voluntarily, was living with him voluntarily and engaged in physical relations with him willingly. Sexual intercourse between an adult male and female is not rape, even though they are not married to each other.
48. It was next submitted on behalf of the prosecution as well as the complainant that even if it is assumed that PW1 had willingly performed marriage with PW1, it is not a valid marriage as the deposition of PW17, PW18 and PW20 shows that he was already married. It was contended that since PW1 was not aware of previous marriage of the accused Amit Pal Walia at that time her consent to the sexual intercourse with him can not be termed SC No.76/13. Page 64 of 67 as fair and untainted. She did it with the belief that she is his legally wedded wife, which turns out to be untrue. It is submitted that case falls squarely under clause 'fourthly' of section 375 IPC and hence the sexual intercourse between PW1 and accused Amit Pal Walia amounts to rape. I cam unable to countenance these submissions. First for the reason that as noted hereinabove, there is no proof on record that essential rites and ceremonies of a Hindu Marriage were performed between PW1 and Amit Pal Walia. The evidence only shows that PW1 was living with the accused Amit Pal Walia voluntarily and having intercourse with him willingly. Similarly there is no evidence on record that accused Amit Pal Walia was already married to a lady Simran Pal. The evidence of PW17 and PW20 is to the effect that Amit Pal Walia was staying in House No.B-48, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi, alongwith a lady named Simran Pal who, they claim to be his wife. PW17 in his cross examination had deposed that he did not see any marriage photograph or marriage certificate of the accused Amit Pal Walia. He did not see any document or correspondence showing that Amit Pal Walia and Simran Pal were husband and wife. Similarly, PW20 has not stated on what basis she claims Simran Pal to be wife of accused Amit Pal Walia.
49. So far as PW18 is concerned, he proved account opening form of Bank A/c No.5472500100261301 (Ex.PW18/A) which shows that this account is in the name of Simran Pal w/o Sh. Amit, R/o B-9, Lajpat Nagar. There is no evidence to show that Amit mentioned in the Ex.PW18/A is accused Amit Pal Walia or that this bank account was got opened by him.
SC No.76/13. Page 65 of 6750. It may further be noted that this lady Simran Pal has not been traced during the course of investigation. She turns out to be a mysterious lady. Neither could she be identified nor could her whereabouts be found.
51. Be that as it may, I find no evidence on record to establish that accused Amit Pal Walia was already married to the lady Simran Pal before his so called marriage with PW1. Testimony of PW17 and PW20 merely shows that Amit Pal Walia was living with a lady. She could have been his friend or a live-in partner.
52. It is also pertinent to note here that the prosecutrix (PW1) has addressed her complaint dated 28.3.2008 (Ex.PW1/B) to the ACP CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar and not to the SHO of the concerned police station. The complaint is typed in English and has been prepared after due deliberation and admittedly in consultation with a lawyer. Both PW1 and PW9 have deposed that they alongwith the accused participated in conciliation proceedings in the CAW Cell. The complaint Ex.PW1/B is accompanied by a list of dowry articles given to the prosecutrix by her parents before and after the marriage. The list is Ex.PW1/A.
53. I wonder that if it was a case of abduction, confinement, forcible marriage and rape, where was the occasion for PW1 to file the complaint in CAW Cell and participate in conciliation proceedings and where was the occasion for her parents to give dowry (cash & jewellery as mentioned in Ex.PW1/A) to her.
SC No.76/13. Page 66 of 6754. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of any of the accused. Therefore, all the accused are hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 13.1.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.76/13. Page 67 of 67