Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Sunil Kumar Jha on 9 April, 2013
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions JudgeSpl. FTC2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 16/13
UID No. : 02401R0471172010
State versus 1) Sunil Kumar Jha
S/o Sh. Radha Kant Jha
2) Jhalki Devi
W/o Sunil Kumar Jha
Both R/o
Presently at: D134, First Flor,
Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
Permanant Address: Village
Parsa, PS Ghaghordiya, District
Madhubani, Bihar
3) Subhash
S/o Late Kaptan Singh
Village Balambha, Tehsil
Meham, District Rohtak,
Haryana
4) Rampal @ Titu
S/o Late Man Singh
R/o H. No. 902, Mohalla
Sadanpatti, V & PO and PS
Alewa, District Jind, (Hry.)
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : RC7(S)/2010/SIUI/CBI/SC.I
Police Station : Special Cell
Under Section : 120B r/w 323/344/354/366A/376/506 and
Substantive Offences
Judgment reserved on : 16.03.2013
Judgment pronounced on : 09.04.2013
JUDGMENT
Case of the Prosecution The record of this case reveal a very disturbing tale of a minor girl who has been a victim of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. As per record, initially this case was registered as case FIR No. 174/10 PS Bindapur. However, Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 26.5.10 passed in Crl. Writ Petition No. 484/2010 on 03.4.10 transferred the investigation of the said case to the CBI. Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 174/10 PS Bindapura was reregistered as case No. RC.7(S)/2010SCU. 1/CBI/SC.1/New Delhi in CBI,SC.1, New Delhi on 07.6.10 under Section 23, 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; 3, 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986; 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and 366A, 372 and 374 of IPC against Sunil Kumar Jha (A1), Jhalki Devi (A2) and other unknown persons.
The brief facts of the case as borne out from the chargesheet are that FIR No. 174/10 was registered at PS Bindapur on 25.5.10 on the basis of complaint of one Payal Mondal.
As per the orders of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, CBI investigated the matter. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that during the period between January 2010 to May, 2010 at Delhi and Haryana, a criminal conspiracy was hatched by Sunil Kumar Jha (A1), Jhalki Devi (A2), Subhash (A3) and Rampal @ Titu (A4), in furtherance of which minor girl 'US' [name withheld to protect the identity of the victim] was employed by Sunil Kumar Jha (A1) and Jhalki Devi (A2) to work as maid servant at their house by falsely stating that she was required to work at their parents house. Thereafter, the said girl was sold by them to Rampal @ Titu (A4) through Subhash (A3) for a monetary consideration of Rs. 55,000/. Then the said minor girl was molested, physically tortured and threatened by Subhash (A3) and forcibly got married to Rampal @ Titu (A4) against her consent. Thereafter, Rampal @ Titu (A4) raped 'US' for a period of about 2 ½ months against her consent besides illegally confining her and threatening her till she was recovered by the Delhi Police on 20.5.10 from Village Belar Khan, District Jind, Haryana.
Investigation revealed that Nepal Sardar runs his placement agency in the name and style of ' M/s Krishna Radha Placement' from Nangloi, New Delhi. In the month of January, 2010, Sunil Kumar Jha (A1) and Jhalki Devi (A2) R/o F7/199, First Floor, Sector 16, Rohini, New Delhi approached him for the purpose of securing two maid servants i.e. one for themselves and another for their parents, who were said to be living with them on the second floor of above premises. On this Nepal Sardar employed two girls namely Payal Mondal and 'US' at their house on 25.1.10 and 10.2.10 respectively. It was further revealed that A1 and A2 lived at H. No. F7/199, First Floor, Sector16, Rohini, New Delhi from NovemberDecember, 2009 to 28.1.10 as tenant. However, the parents of A1 did not live there as stated by them at the time of employing the aforesaid girls and besides, A1 also suppressed the fact of having left the said premises at the time of employing 'US' on 10.2.10 from Nepal Sardar and A1 and A2 had employed the Prosecutrix 'US' by deceitful manner.
Thereafter A1 employed Payal Mondal at the house of Shailesh Sharma at 8, Golden Jubilee Apartments, Sector 11, Rohini from where she had called up Shyamal Mahto and told him about the same. On this, Nepal Sardar sent Shyamal Mahto alongwith anotyher person namely Pradeep to the aforesaid house of A1 at Sector 16, Rohini and on reaching the said premises, both of them also tried to trace Payal Mondal at the aforesaid house of Shailesh Sharma but could not find her. It was thus revealed that A1 had employed Payal Mondal at the house of Shailesh Sharma only for a few days from where he took her to his newly rented house situated at D134, First Floor, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. On reaching there said house, Payal Mondal found that 'US' was also working there as maid servant.
It is alleged that both Payal Mondal and 'US', while working at the house of A1 and A2 became suspicious of their activities on account of sale of minor girls and decided to intimate about the same to Nepal Sardar. Both the girls requested A1 and A2 to allow them to talk with Nepal Sadrar to which they refused. When the girls again pleaded for the same, they were scolded and Payal Mondan was beaten up by A2.
It was also revealed during investigation that on 03.3.10, A1 and A2 took 'US' out of their house on the pretext of excursion by leaving Payal Mondal and their daughter at their house. On that day, they returned late in the night and 'US' was not with them. Payal enquired from them about her to which they replied that she was being employed somewhere else. On this, Payal became more suspicious that 'US' might also have been sold by them and on getting an opportunity, escaped from their house and reached Nepal Sardar. She narrated the atrocities meted out to her and 'US' by the said Accused persons to Nepal Sardar Thereafter, Nepal Sardar visited the house of the said Accused persons at Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar on 21.3.10 where A2 did not disclose the whereabouts of 'US' and picked up a quarrel with him and Nepal Sardar approached to Delhi High Court by way of the above said Writ Petition for tracing the restoring 'US' to him.
As per the chargesheet, Rampal @ Titu (A4) is a resident of VPO &PS Alewa, District Jind, Haryana. He was in need of a girl for marriage and in this regard came in contract with A3 of village Balambha, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak, Haryana through his relatives/associates namely Ramkuwar and Naresh of village Khedar. A3 had demanded Rs. 55,000/ from him for finding a girl for marriage through A1. Accordingly, A4 arranged the said money and gave the same to A3. Thereafter, on 02.3.10 A3 brought A4 alongwith his relatives to Delhi upto Peeragarhi in a hired Tata Sumo vehicle. On reaching Peeragarhi, A3 had a meeting with A1 and A2 who were already waiting for them. The said A1 and A2 who were already waiting for them. The said A1 and A2 told A3 that the girl would be made available on the next day at Rohtak Bus Stand. On the next day ie. 03.3.10 A1 and A2 took 'US' alongwith them on the pretext of excursion to Rohtak Bus Stand. A3 and A4 and his relatives had already reached there in the same Tata Sumo vehicle hired by them on the previous day. Upon seeing 'US' and A4 agreed to marry her. On this, A3 gave Rs. 45,000/ to A1 while retaining Rs. 10,000/ as his share for procuring the said girl. A1 and A2 asked 'US' to sit in the said Tata Sumo vehicle on the pretext that they would follow her in another vehicle which they did not do.
Thereafter 'US' was taken to the house of relatives of A4. On the way, she enquired from the said persons about A1 and A2 to which it was told to her that they had gone back to Delhi. she was asked to marry A4 to whic she flatly refused. She was first taken to village Barwala, District Hissar at the house of Balbir, brother in law of Ramkuwar where all of them had taken tea and from there she was taken to the house of Ramkuwar at Village Khedar, Distict Hissar. She was again asked to marry A4 but she again refused to marry him and requested to send her back to Delhi.
In the same night, A4 misbehaved with her in a separate room due to which she started crying and tried to run away but was calmed down by Ramkuwar and his wife Kaushalaya. The she slept with Kaushalaya that night and since she was not willing to marry A4, she was taken to the house of Naresh by Ramkuwar next morning where A3 was called. Ramkuwar left Urmila there by telling A3 to take back Urmila as she was not willing to marry A4 and return the money given to him for the purpose.
The investigation revealed that A3 abused and thrashed 'US' at the house of Naresh as she was not agreeing to marry A4 which was objected to by Naresh. On this A3 took her to a separate room where he physically tortured her, threatened her and outraged her modesty to which she could not resist due to helpless circumstances. She kept on begging him to leave her but he did not do so and told Urmila that she was being purchased from A1 and A2 after paying money. He also made her to talk with said A1 over mobile who asked her to marry with A4. It was under
the physical torture, threatening and molestation at the hands of A3 coupled with the compelling/helpless circumstances, that 'US' agreed to marry A4 against her consent.
The investigation further revealed that thereafter 'US' was taken to the house of Ram Kunwar and married to A4 without following any ritual. A4 took her to his village Alewa where she remained with him for about 2 ½ months. During that period, A4 sexually abused 'US' on day to day basis against her consent. A4 had kept 'US' in his illegal captivity by threatening her that she was being purchased by him and as such she could neither go anywhere nor could meet her parents. However, 'US' was not willing to stay with A4 and this fact was told by A4 to Ram Kunwar who in turn intimated about the same to A3. On this A1 and A3 visited the house of A4 and compelled her to live with him as there was no other alternative for her. On that occasion, 'US' requested A1 to allow her to talk with Nepal Sardar to which he told her that he could do so if she was ready to tell a lie that she was working at Gurgaon on her own will, to the neighbour of his Bhagwati Vihar residence. This was also told to her by A2 over mobile. Since she wanted to talk with Nepal Sardar at any cost, she agreed to the same but was again deceived as after doing so, A1 did not allow her to talk with Nepal Sardar and went back. Thereafter, A1 and A2 again met 'US' at the house of A4 's relative where she pleaded before them to take her back but they did not do so.
On the basis of directions given by the Delhi High Court to the Delhi Police, the officials of PS Bindapur were making efforts to trace 'US'. In this regard, HC Rohtas Singh alongwith PCs Anil Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were able to trace 'US' at Village Belar Khan at the house of relatives of A4 on 20.5.10. A4 had taken 'US' to the house of their relatives on the previous day at village Belar Khan where he had threatened her to sell her to a drunkard man if she did not agree to live wiht him as per her wishes. He had also compelled her to enter into a court marriage with him with a view to legalise their relationship. On that night, she was constantly threatened by A4 not to tell anyone about her forced marriage with him after paying money to A1 and A2.
'US' was brought to Delhi on 20.5.10 by the aforesaid police officials alongwith A4 and A3. Thereafter, she was produced before the Delhi High Court on 24.5.10.
CBI recorded her statement on 07.6.10, levelling allegations of sexual abuse, molestation, physical torture etc. at the hands of the Accused persons namely A1, A2, A3 and A4. She did not know the name of A3 but identified him during his TI parade. She was medically examined at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. Besides, statements of 'US' and Payal Mondal were also recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate.
As per the chargesheet, 'US' is a minor girl which has been established by way of her date of birth certificate which was issued by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, NejatII, North 24 Parganas. As per the said date of birth certificate, her date of birth is 14.2.93.
The investigation also revealed that A1 and A2 are maintaining their saving bank accounts Nos. 5492500100302601 and 5492599199386301 respectively with Karnataka Bank, Sector9, Rohini Branch, New Delhi. On 18.1.10 cash worth Rs. 4,00,000/was deposited in the account of A1 and thereafter transferred to the account of A2 on 10.2.10. Thereafter, cash was deposited on different dates in the said account of A2 and the current balance is Rs. 5,70,582/. It is alleged that A1 and A2 could not offer any plausible explanation for the said heavy amount leading to the conclusion that the said money is nothing but he proceeds of illegal sale of minor girls like Urmila. The said account has since been frozen.
CBI submitted the chargesheet after completion of investigation.
Charges On the basis of material on record, prima facie case under Section 120B r/w 323/344/354/366(A)/376 and 506 IPC and separate charge under Section 366(A) IPC is made out against all the four Accused persons vide order dated 22.9.11. Charge under Section 506/344 is made out against Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi. Charge under Section 323/344/354 IPC is made out against Accused Subhash and Ram Pal @ Titu and charge under Section 376 IPC is made out against Accused Ram Pal @ Titu. Different charges under different sections are framed against all the four Accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence and Arguments Prosecution examined 28 witnesses to prove the allegations against Accused persons. Nepal Sardar was examined as PW8. He deposed that he was earlier working in another placement agency. Subsequently he started his own placement agency under the name and style of 'M/s Krishna Radha Placement Agency' in the year 2009. He deposed that Accused Sunil Jha told him on phone that he required two maid servants one for himself and one for his parents. He brought Payal from his native village on 07/08.1.10 and placed her in the house of Accused Sunil Jha on 25.1.10 on salary of Rs. 1400/ per month and commission of Rs. 9,500/. He also exhibited service charge receipt of Payal on 25.1.10 which is Ex. PW5/A and identified the signatures of Accused Sunil Jha and the stamp of his placement agency along with signatures of Samuel, Manager on point B on the registration slip Ex. PW8/A. Witness also exhibited advance salary slip of two months Ex. PW8/B and identified the signatures of Accused Sunil Jha and his Manager along with stamp of his agency on the said receipt.
He further deposed that since Accused Sunil Jha had asked for two girls, he called Prosecutrix 'US' in February, 2010 from West Bengal. When Sunil Jha came to his office, his Manager Samuel sent Prosecutrix US with Accused. She was placed in his house at the salary of Rs. 2000/ per month. The witness identified the registration form pertaining to the Prosecutrix Ex. PW5/B and identified his signatures, signatures of the Manager Samuel and the stamp of his placement agency on the said registration form. He also identified thumb impression of US on her biodata Ex. PW8/C as well as signatures of Samuel and the stamp of his placement agency thereon. He also exhibited service charge receipt of his agency Ex. PW5/C in respect of Prosecutrix US and the registration charge slip dated 10.2.10 Ex. PW8/E in addition to her biodata.
PW8 further deposed that in February, 2010, Payal made a call on mobile phone of Samuel informing him that Accused Sunil Jha had employed her at another house upon which he sent Samuel to check about the same. Since the girl could not be trace, they made oral complaint at PS Rohini. Subsequently, on 14.3.10 Payal made a call from PCO Booth informing him that Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi were maltreating her and not giving her food. She told him that she had come outside the house for fetching milk. He deposed that he went and brought Payal to his office and subsequently on enquiry about the Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi, the police apprehended Jhalki Devi from the house but since the other girl i.e. Prosecutrix 'US' could not be traced, he filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court. Prosecutrix US was produced before Hon'ble High Court and released to her father.
The manager of the placement agency run by Nepal Sardar was brought into the witness box as PW5. Though in his examination in chief, his was recorded as Shyamal Mehto, he stated before the court upon reexamined by Ld. SPP that Nepal Sardar called him by the name of Samuel.
PW5 deposed that he was working in the placement agency run by Nepal Sardar at the salary of Rs. 2000/ per month and in absence of Nepal Sardar, he used to deal with the customers. He also identified Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi before the court and asked for two maid servants one for themselves and another for his parents. He further deposed that in January, 2010, he went to the house of Sunil Jha situated at F7/199, Sector 16, Rohini and left one maid servant namely Payal and took advance of Rs. 9,500/ from Sunil Jha against receipt Ex PW5/A. Thereafter, after 56 days, he received a call from Payal that she had left the house of Sunil Jha and is living at Bindapur. He further deposed that Accused Sunil Jha had come to his office to take 'US' as their maid servant to be employed with the parents of Sunil Jha who were residing on the second floor of H. No. F7/199, Rohini, Sector16, Delhi and at the time of taking that girl, Sunil Jha along with his wife came to the office of Nepal Sardar and signed biodata at point A Ex. PW5/B. Service charges of Rs. 9,500/ were paid by Sunil Jha vide receipt Ex. PW5/C. Prosecution also examined the Prosecutrix 'US' as PW1. She deposed that Nepal Sardar sent her to the house of Sunil Jha for doing domestic work and she was taken by Accused Sunil Jha for attending his parents who were residing on the upper floor of the said house. However, the parents of the Sunil Jha were not residing there and only Accused Sunil Jha and his wife Jhalki Devi, whom she correctly identified before the court were present there. She further deposed that Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi brought another girl namely Payal to their house. She also deposed that Accused persons did not let her talk to her uncle Nepal Sardar by dialing his wrong number. She further deposed that she and Payal did not want to stay there and on this issue, a quarrel took place between Payal and Accused Jhalki Devi and Payal was slapped by Accused Jhalki Devi.
PW1 also deposed that after 23 days, Accused took her out on the pretext of outing but they took her to a place, the name of which she do not remember. She deposed that she went there by bus and after sometime one lady came there and talked to Jhalki Devi and then she went away. She further deposed that thereafter Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi made her to sit in another vehicle along with that lady and two boys. She enquired from Accused Sunil Jha as to why they were not sitting with her to which they replied that they are coming in another vehicle and these persons are their relatives. She deposed that she was taken to an unknown place and they reached there in the night and the said lady told her that this place is of her relatives. After sometime that lady took her to her house where another married lady was present who informed her that she had been brought there for her marriage with another person namely Rampal.
PW1 further deposed that they forced her to marry to which she refused. Thereafter, she went to sleep in a room where Accused Ram Pal also came and when she tried to came out of the room, Accused Ram Pal and one other person whose name she do not remember now (the witness pointed towards Accused Subhash) caught hold of her and dragged her inside. She requested them with folded hands to leave her and let her talk to Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi on telephone but they refused. Thereafter, Accused Subhash left the room and she slept with that lady who had brought her from Jhalki Devi.
PW1 further deposed that on the next morning, said lady and her husband left her in the house of Subhash and she requested Subhash to take her to the house of Accused Sunil Jha to which he refused and took her on the bike to the house of some of the relative. The witness further deposed that on reaching there, Accused Subhash molested her and also threatened her that if she would not marry, she would be killed. She further deposed that one lady staying in the house of Accused Subhash also told in order to save her life, she would have to marry.
PW1 'US' also stated before the court that thereafter lady with whom she was sent by Sunil Jha gave her glass bangles and put lipstick on her forehead and told that now she is married with Rampal. Thereafter, she stayed in that house along with Rampal and other members for some days where she and Rampal were residing in the same room as husband and wife.
'US' further stated that one day Accused Sunil Jha and Subhash came to the house of Rampal but he did not let her talk to her uncle Nepal Sardar. He made her talk to landlady in which house Accused Sunil Jha was residing and instructed her to state that she was working in Gurgaon and under the pressure of Accused Sunil Jha, she had to tell a lie on the telephone to that landlady.
She also deposed that after 1 ½ months, Accused Rampal took her to his relative's house. She also deposed that Accused Rampal forcibly established physical relations with her against her wishes. In the next morning, police officials came to that house and asked her to as to whether she could identify Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi. She also informed the police that she was sent there by Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi. She also identified Accused Subhash, who was already present there in the police vehicle. While responding question put to her by Ld. SPP, Prosecutrix US also deposed that Accused Rampal established physical relations with her without her consent by threatening that she would be killed if she will not subject to his wishes.
Payal was brought into the witness box as PW2. She deposed regarding her placement in the house of Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi by Nepal Sardar. She also deposed that she was not permitted to talk to Nepal Sardar and was scolded and beaten her. She further deposed that one day Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi took 'US' outside the house on the pretext of outing and returned in the night without 'US'. They informed her that she has been put to work somewhere else. She further deposed that she escaped from the house of Sunil Kumar and had contacted Nepal Sardar. The witness identified her signatures on her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC which is Ex. PW2/A. The landlady of H. No. F7/199, Janta Flats, Sector16, Rohini i.e house of Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi was brought into the the witness box as PW3. She deposed that she had let out first floor of the said house to one Sunil Jha who along with his wife and a child stayed there upto 28.1.10. She identified the photograph of Payal Mondal on the form of placement agency Ex. PW3/A and deposed that said girl was working as maid servant in the house of Sunil Jha.
In order to prove the phone call by Payal Mondal to Nepal Sardar, Prosecution relied upon the deposition of Harpreet Kaur who was examined as PW4. She was running a Manu Studio and PCO at A919, J. J. Colony, Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. She identified the photograph of Payal Mondal affixed on the form of placement agency Ex. PW3/A and deposed that she had made a call from her PCO and told her that she did not have any money to pay for the same.
PW6 deposed that Nepal Sardar who runs a placement agency is known to him for more than 34 years and he runs a placement agency for supplying maid servants to the house. PW6 further deposed that once Nepal Sardar told him that he had provided two girls namely Payal and 'US' in the house of Accused Sunil Jha as maid servants and one day Nepal Sardar told him that Accused Sunil Jha has left the room after vacating the same from Rohini and his whereabouts are not known. He deposed that one day a phone came from Payal that she was standing near Uttam Nagar Metro Station and after that Nepal Sardar told him that they had to rush to take Payal and he along with Nepal Sardar, Pradeep and Shyamal went to take Payal and brought her to the house of Nepal Sardar. He deposed that Payal told them that she was maltreated by Accused Sunil Jha and his wife. She also told the address of Bindapur where Accused Sunil Jha along with his wife was residing.
Thereafter, he along with Nepal Sardar, Rattan, Pradeep and Shyamal and some other persons went to that address of Bindapur where they met wife of Accused Sunil Jha who told them that 'US' had run away and at this a quarrel took place between Nepal Sardar and wife of Accused Sunil Jha. After that Nepal Sardar made a call at 100 number and two policemen arrived at the spot. He deposed that wife of Sunil Jha tried to escape but they caught hold of her. He deposed that thereafter he went to PS but nobody came at PS and then Nepal Sardar filed a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court and after about 02 months, he came to know that 'US' was traced by the police and thereafter he along with father of 'US' went to High Court.
Prosecution also placed strong reliance on the testimony of PW11 Naresh Kumar. As per his testimony, Accused Subhash is his maternal uncle whom he correctly identified before the court. He deposed that Ram Kunwar (PW7) is his grandfather in the relation of village and that he had asked him for getting some relation for the marriage of his relative Accused Titu (correctly identified by the witness). He further deposed that he called his maternal uncle i.e. Accused Subhash to arrange a girl for the marriage of Titu and was told that he will tell about the girl within one or two days. Thereafter, he along with four persons came to Delhi at Park No. 1, near Peeragarhi and talked to Accused Sunil Jha and his wife Jhalki Devi (both of them correctly identified by the witness). He also deposed that today girl is not available and girl would be arranged by next date. He further deposed that Rs. 55,000/ were agreed to be paid for arranging a girl. Thereafter, Accused Sunil Jha was called at Rohtak near Bypass Chungi and on the next day morning, he along with Accused Titu, his brother, Accused Subhash, Ram Kunwar and his wife reached Rohtak at around 10 am. They waited for Accused Sunil Jha and his wife Jhalki Devi at the bus stand of Rohtak till 4 PM and at 4 PM, said Accused persons along with a girl US reached at Rohtak bus stand who was of dark complexion. He deposed that Ram Kunwar handed over Rs. 50,000/to Accused Subhash who handed over the said money to Accused Sunil Jha. Thereafter, he along with Ram Kunwar, Accused Titu, brother of Titu, wife of Ram Kunwar, Accused Subhash and 'US' left for Barwala.
PW11 also deposed that said girl refused to marry Accused Titu when he told her that he wanted to marry her. The said girl went along with Accused Titu to the house of Ram Kunwar and Accused Titu and 'US' had quarreled with each other on the issue of marriage.
He deposed that on the next morning, Ram Kunwar along with Accused Titu and 'US' came to his house and 'US' told that she does not want to marry Titu. Thereafter, he made a telephonic call to Accused Subhash who persuaded her to marry with Titu but she did not agree.
PW11 further deposed that Accused Subhash threatened that girl that she would have to marry with Accused Titu and Accused Subash called Accused Sunil Jha on telephone who persuaded 'US' and she agreed to marry with Accused Titu under pressure.
PW17 Ram Kunwar deposed that wife of Balbir Singh asked his wife to search for a girl for marriage of his brother Rampal @ Titu. PW17 deposed that on the advice of his wife, he asked Naresh Kumar in this regard who told him that his maternal uncle i.e Accused Subhash (correctly identified by the witness) will arrange the girl. Naresh thereafter informed that he will arrange a girl for a sum of Rs. 60,000/. The amount was finally settled at Rs. 55,000/.
PW17 also deposed that after two days, Accused Titu, his elder brother Prem, Naresh, Subash and himself gathered at the house of his brother in law Balbir at Barwala for the purpose to visit Delhi to take the girl. The cash amount of Rs. 55,000/ was carried by Accused Titu. Accused Subhash told them that they have to go to Delhi for the purpose of marriage with Accused Titu. They arranged a taxi for the said purpose and reached Delhi at Peeragarhi Chowk. On reaching there, Accused Subhash talked with Accused Sunil Jha who was there along with his wife. (Witness correctly identified Accused Sunil Kumar and his wife Jhalki Devi.) PW17 further deposed that after talking to Accused Suni Jha and his wife Jhalki Devi, Accused Subhash came back and informed that girl will not be available and asked them to return to Rohtak and the girl would be available on the next day.
On the next day, all of them including one Kaushalya Devi and reached at Rohtak Bus Stand at about 11 AM. They waited there till 4 PM. When Accused Sunil and his wife Jhalki Devi came there along with one girl. Accused Subhash handed over the money to them and Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi directed the girl to sit in their taxi. Both of them also promised them that they are coming behind them in another vehicle. Thereafter, they left for their village along with said girl in the taxi. He also deposed that girl refused to marry with Accused Titu when she was asked about the same.
He further deposed that Accused Subhash made her talk to Accused Sunil Jha and she subsequently agreed for the marriage and the said girl was married to Accused Titu without any marriage ceremony and merely by exchange of garland etc. He also deposed about the recovery of girl 'U' from the house of Accused Titu by the police.
PW15 is Balbir who deposed that he is brother in law of Accused Rampal @ Titu and deposed that Accused Rampal @ Titu had come to his house along with Naresh Kumar and they were talking about the marriage of Rampal @ Titu and were talking about the expenses of marriage will be Rs. 55,000/. He further deposed that thereafter, Naresh gave Rs. 55,000/to Accused Subhash (correctly identified by the witness). He also deposed that Accused Rampal @ Titu was married to the girl named 'U' though he did not know whether marriage was solemnized with the consent of said girl or not. He further deposed regarding the recovery of said girl from the house of Rampal @ Titu by the police.
The Prosecution also relied upon the testimony of two witnesses i.e. PW19 and PW20 namely Pinki and Kamlesh respectively. The said witnesses were neighbours of Accused Rampal @ Titu. They both deposed that they had seen one girl 'U'S in the house for about 2 ½ months. (Both the witnesses correctly identified Prosecutrix 'US' on the form of Krishna Radha Placement Agency Ex. PW5/B. In order to establish the allegations that Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi were involved in the work of selling girls and were running a racket of human trafficking. Prosecution placed strong reliance on the testimony of PW21 Ramesh B., Assistant Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd. Bangalore who was posted at Rohini Branch from 15.10.07 to 30.1.12. He exhibited account opening form of account No. 5492500100386301 in the name of Jhalki Devi which is Ex. PW21/B and deposed that said account was opened on the introduction of Accused Sunil Jha. He also exhibited statement of account of the aforesaid account of Jhalki Devi and the same is Ex. PW21/H. The said statement of account was for the period 01.1.10 to 22.5.10 and deposed that from the said statement, it is seen that Accused Jhalki Devi was having Rs. 1398/ in her credit account and by 20.5.10 the total balance in her account was Rs. 5,70,582/.
PW21 also exhibited account opening form of Accused Sunil Jha as Ex. PW21/K and deposed that as per statement of account of Accused Sunil Jha Ex. PW21/T, the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was deposited in the account on 18.1.10 and amount was transferred to the account of Jhalki Devi on 10.2.10.
Apart from the aforesaid witness, CBI also examined Sh. Ajay Garg, Ld. MM who had recorded statement of 'US' and Payal Mondal under Section 164 CrPC. PW23 exhibited the said statements of the witnesses recorded by him under the provisions of Section 164 CrPC.
Sh. Ashish Aggarwal, Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi was brought into the witness box as PW24. He exhibited TIP proceedings which conducted for TIP of Accused Subhash. The same are Ex. PW24/C. (Prosecutrix correctly identified the said Accused in the TIP proceedings).
The officials of CBI who conducted investigation of the case namely Insp. Seema Pahuja, SI Ravinder Singhla, SI Ranjeet Kumar Pandey and Insp. Vishal were examined as PW25, 26, 27 and 28 respectively. They deposed regarding investigation conducted by them in this case including recovery of the Prosecutrix 'US' from the house of Accused Rampal @ Titu and the arrest of the Accused during the course of investigation.
Plea of the Accused and Defence Evidence All the evidence led by the Prosecution was put to the Accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Accused denied the allegations against them and contended that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi pleaded that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of Nepal Sardar. Jhalki Devi stated that Nepal Sardar has business enmity with her husband Sunil Jha.
Accused Subhash on the other hand also took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Nepal Sardar.
Similarly, Accused Rampal @ Titu pleaded false implication in this case at the instance of CBI.
Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi examined two witnesses in their defence.
DW1 Inder Dev Pandey deposed that he had purchased a plot of land i.e. A445, Shahbad Diary in 2009 for consideration of Rs. 3,11,000/ by way of registered POA. Photocopy of the same was produced by the witness before the court.
Similarly, DW2Vidya Wati, wife of DW1 also deposed that they have purchased a plot of land bearing NO. A445, Shahbad Diary for a consideration of Rs. 3,11,000/.
Arguments, Findings and Analysis On the basis of aforesaid evidence, Prosecution strongly argued that the allegations against Accused persons have been duly proved on record and the Accused persons be convicted for the offences for which they have been charged.
Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsels by way of their verbal submissions as well as written arguments opposed the case of the Prosecution.
I have considered the rival submissions made before me in the light of evidence of record.
The age of the victim 'US' was established by way of testimony of PW12, 13 and 14. They exhibited birth certificate of the Prosecutrix, as per which her date of birth is 14.2.93. The said certificate is Ex. PW12/A. PW12 the Executive Assistant of the concerned Gram Panchayat also produced the original register regarding registration of birth of Anganwari worker of Shamali Sardar, Bayermari Gangdhar para, ICDS Centre. The entry regarding date of birth of the Prosecutrix is Ex. PW12/C. Similarly, PW13 Rekha Mridha who was Panchayat Pradhan from 05.7.03 to 03.7.08 also proved birth certificate Ex. PW12/A and entry in the register of birth Ex. PW12/C. PW15 also corroborated the testimony of PW12 and 13 regarding date of birth of Prosecutrix 'US'. In view of the aforesaid documentary as well as oral deposition of the said witness, I find that the Prosecution been able to prove that date of birth of Prosecutrix is 14.2.93.
I find myself unable to accept the arguments of the Defenec that since Prosecutrix had herself stated her date of birth to the examining doctor at the time of medical examination to be 18 years, the Prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident in question. Moreover, the factum that the Prosecutrix 'US' herself was unable to recall her date of birth also does not affect the case of the prosecution adversely in view of the documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It is not the plea of the Defence that there is no kind of manipulation in the said record regarding her date of birth. In the light of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that it had been proved on record that date of birth of the Prosecutrix 'US' was 14.2.93.
In order to establish the fact that Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi deceitfully procured the Prosecutrix PW1 from lawful custody of Nepal Sardar reference may be made again to the testimony of PW1 'US'. In her testimony, she clearly deposed that though she was taken by Sunil Jha for attending to his parents, his parents were not residing on the upper floor and only they were residing in that house. PW5 Shaymal Mehto @ Samuel and PW8 Nepal Sardar also deposed that Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi had asked for placement of two girls one for themselves and another for their parents.
The fact that PW1 was placed in the house of Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi as maid servant also stands established from the deposition of PW8 Nepal Sardar and PW5 Shyamal Mehto. Both the witnesses have proved that the form of the placement agency bear the photograph of the Prosecutrix as well as signatures of Accused Sunil Jha.
Although the Accused persons though in their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC have categorically denied this piece of evidence. However, neither any contradictions could be elicited in cross examination of PW1, 5 and 8, nor any defence evidence was led to refute this contention of the Prosecution regarding deployment of 'US' in the house of Accused Sunil Jha.
I also find myself unable to accept the contention of Defence that prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC against Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi. It was contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that admittedly PW8 Nepal Sardar was not present in his placement agency when Sunil Jha allegedly took the Prosecutrix PW1 along with him. My attention was drawn to the examination in chief of PW8 wherein he deposed that Accused Sunil Jha came to his office when he was not present there and Samuel sent girl 'US' with Sunil Jha. It was contended that in these circumstances, case of the Prosecution becomes doubtful and the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC cannot be established against Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi.
On the other hand, Ld. SPP for CBI pointed out that from the testimony of the Prosecutrix PW1, PW5 and PW8, it has been clearly established that Prosecutrix was taken from the office of placement agency run by Nepal Sardar by Accused Sunil Jha. The witnesses have also deposed that Sunil Jha falsely stated that he requires two girls, one for themselves and the other for taking care of his aged parents who were not residing in his house. I am unable to agree with the Defence that since Nepal Sardar was not present in his office when Accused Sunil Jha took away the minor girl along with him, the offence under Section 366A cannot be made out against the Accused persons. In as much as it has been proved on record that it is Accused Sunil Jha who took away the minor girl along with him from the placement agency run by PW8 Nepal Sardar.
PW2 Payal Mondal deposed before the court that one day Accused Sunil Jha had took PW1 'US' outside the house on the pretext of outing and returned in the night without 'US' and when she asked about 'US', they told her that she has been put to work somewhere else. PW1 'US' herself also deposed that she was taken on the pretext of outing by Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi where they met one lady and two boys were standing at some distance. She also deposed that she was made to sit in another vehicle along with said lady and two boys and when she asked Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi as to why they were not sitting along with her, they replied that they would come in another vehicle.
The driver of the TATA Sumo i.e. PW9 Anil Kumar deposed that on 02.3.10, Ram Kunwar booked his vehicle to go to Peeragarhi, Delhi at the rent of Rs. 3,200/ and that on that day Accused Ram Kunwar, Titu, Subhash Kumar, Prem Kumar and other two persons came to Delhi in his vehicle and remained at Peeragarhi for around 20 minutes. He correctly identified Accused Subhash and Rampal @ Titu. He further deposed that on 03.3.10, they booked his vehicle to go to Rohtak at the rent of Rs. 2,000/ and Accused Subhash and Titu went Rohtak in his vehicle whey they met one man and one lady alongwith one girl. Witness correctly identified Accused Jhalki Devi and Sunil Jha. Thereafter, all the people including the said girl came to village Khedar. In his crossexamination, the witness also produced his driving licence.
The case of the prosecution is further strengthened from the deposition of PW11 Naresh, PW15 Balbir and PW17 Ram Kunwar. As discussed hereinabove, in their detailed deposition before the court, these three witness categorically deposed regarding purchase of PW1 'US' from Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi for the purpose of her marriage with Accused Rampal @ Titu. All these witnesses correctly identified Accused Sunil Jha, Jhalki Devi, Subhash and Rampal @ Titu and also deposed that Prosecutrix PW1 had refused to marry Accused Rampal @ Titu.
In the deposition of PW17, he has clearly stated that after reaching Khedar, Prosecutrix again refused to marry Accused Rampal @ Titu. He also deposed that in the night girl 'US' was sent in a room for sleeping where Accused Titu had also entered for the purpose of sleeping with her and after sometime, 'US' rushed out of the room while crying and was also trying to escape from their house in the night. He also deposed that they consoled her with great difficulty and asked her as to what happened to her, then she told that she do not want to sleep with Accused Titu and on this he and his wife asked her to sleep with his wife and on that night, 'US' slept with his wife in a separate room.
He also deposed that Accused Subhash had sought sometime to persuade Prosecutrix to marry with Accused Titu. Prosecutrix PW1 in her deposition deposed that she was forced to marry with Accused Rampal @ Titu. She also deposed that when she tried to go out of the room then Rampal @ Titu and one other person i.e. Subhash (correctly identified by the witness) caught hold of her and dragged her inside the room.
In her deposition, PW1 also deposed that Accused Subhash took her to the house of his relative on his bike where he molested her and also threatened that if she will not marry, she would be killed.
The deposition of the Prosecutrix PW1 coupled with the testimony of PW11 Naresh also clearly establishes that Accused Sunil Jha persuaded PW1 and she agreed to marry Accused Rampal @ Titu under pressure.
During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel strongly argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that Prosecutrix as well as PW2 Payal did not remember the relevant dates of the alleged incident. It was further contended that in her crossexamination, PW1 admitted that she was briefed by the police officials before making her statement. It was further pointed out that at no point of time, Prosecutrix PW1 raised alarm against her alleged illegal confinement or sexual exploitation at the hands of the Accused persons.
I have considered the aforesaid arguments. However, I find that the mere fact that PW1, 2 and 3 failed to recall the aforesaid dates during their deposition, cannot make their testimony unworthy of credit. It has been proved on record, as discussed above that Prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the alleged offence. From her testimony, it has already been borne out that PW1 was native of West Bengal and the fact that she could not state anything about the location of house of Sunil Jha cannot make her testimony doubtful. Further, the mere fact that she admitted that she was briefed by the police officials before making her statement, does not imply that her deposition is false or that she is a tutored witness. Moreover, PW1 stated in her crossexamination "It is wrong to suggest that I have been tutored by someone regarding my deposition in court." It is also pertinent to note that the deposition of PW1 is duly corroborated from the deposition of the other prosecution witnesses who have correctly identified Accused persons and have also deposed regarding confinement and the 'so called' marriage of the Prosecutrix PW1 with Accused Rampal @ Titu under threat.
At this juncture, it may also be relevant to refer to judgment relied upon by Ld. SPP for CBI in respect of his argument titled as Mrityunjay Kumar Vs State of Sikkim 2010 Crl. L. J. 44. In the said judgment, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court "It cannot be said that like in the case of criminal force confinement had to necessarily have physical manifestation. Confinement need not necessarily be a confinement where the person is physically held within a certain circumscribed limit. To support the charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical obstruction is not essential. It is the condition of the mind of the person confined, having regard to the circumstance that leads him to reasonable believe that he was not free to move and that he would be forthwith restrained if he attempted to do so."
It also cannot be lost sight of that not only Prosecutrix but also prosecution witnesses including relatives of the Accused particularly PW11 Naresh has also supported the case of the Prosecution. PW17 Ram Kunwar has deposed regarding refusal to marry with Accused Rampal @ Titu by PW1 and her subsequent surrender under the treat extended to her by Accused persons. The consent for marriage with Accused Rampal @ Titu by PW1 in these circumstances was certainly obtained under the fear. It has been thus proved on record that the Prosecutrix continued to remain under threat of Accused persons. She even alleged molestation at the hands of Accused Subhash and in these circumstances, it cannot be reasonably expected from a minor girl that she would try to raise an alarm or to escape. It must also be kept in mind that Prosecutrix belonged to a village of West Bengal and was subjected to sexual exploitation, forced and illegal confinement and was thus under constant mental pressure and threat.
I have considered the arguments of the Defence that Prosecutrix PW1 deposed in her crossexamination that "It is correct that when I stay there I talked with the neighbourers. I cooked food for the family members where I was staying. I did not talk to anybody who came to that house. I also served the food to the animals." It was further argued that the deposition of the Prosecutrix cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid crossexamination, inasmuch as she never made any attempt to escape or raise an alarm, thus implying that case against Accused is false.
However, upon going through the deposition of the Prosecutrix PW1 in its entirety, I find myself unable to accept this argument of the Defence. It is noteworthy that the Prosecutrix PW1 on more than one occasion in her testimony deposed before the court that she had been threatened by Accused Rampal @ Titu. In her examination in chief dated 19.10.11, PW1 deposed that "In the night Accused Rampal threatened me that if I would not settle with him then he will sell me to an old man. In that night Accused Rampal forcibly made physical relation with me against my wishes and also threatened me to say that I am living with him with my own consent if anyone inquires." Further, in response to question put to the witness by the Prosecution, she replied that "He made physical relations with me daily without my consent by threatening that I would be killed if I will not subject to his wishes."
Similarly, with regard to argument of the Defence that she did not raise an alarm when Accused Subhash took her on a bike to house of his relative and molested her, as deposed by PW1, I find on going through her examination in chief itself that Prosecutrix clearly deposed that "There Accused Subhash molested me and also threatened me that if I would not marry, I would be killed." The testimony of PW1 to this extent, is totally unrebutted as not even a single suggestion was given to her by the Defence during her crossexamination.
I thus find upon considering the evidence on record that obviously the Prosecutrix was thus under continuous threat and pressure and in these circumstances the fact that she succumbed before the Accused persons and did not resist their illegal sexual advances towards her, cannot by any means imply that she was a consenting party. I am supported in my view by judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Satpal Singh Vs State of Haryana 2010 Crl. L. J. 4283 wherein it has been held that "Consent implies the exercise of a free and untrammelled right to forbid or withhold what is being consented to, it always is a voluntary and conscious acceptance of what is proposed to be done by another and concurred in by the former. An act of helplessness on the fact of inevitable compulsions is not consent in law. More so, it is not necessary that there should be actual use of force. A threat or use of force is sufficient."
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements including case titled as State of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh and Others 1996 Crl. L. J. 1728 has repeatedly laid down that "The Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the Prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are facts which the Courts should not overlook." It was further laid down that "The Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an Accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?"
In the light of the above discussion, the evidence on record and the relevant case law, as discussed above, I find that Prosecution has been able to prove that Accused Sunil Jha, Jhalki Devi, Subhash and Rampal @ Titu had entered into criminal conspiracy between January, 2010 to May, 2010 and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy they removed the Prosecutrix 'US' from lawful custody of Nepal Sardar (PW8) and sold the aforesaid girl to Rampal @ Titu through coAccused Subhash for monitory consideration knowing that Prosecutrix 'US' would be subjected to physical torture, illegal confinement and have also forced her to illicit intercourse with coAccused Rampal @ Titu.
The plea of the Accused regarding their false implication due to their enmity with Nepal Sardar, remained unsubstantiated on record and no evidence whatsoever has led by the Defence to prove this contention.
Hence, I find in the light of evidence on record that all the aforesaid Accused persons are liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 344/354/366A/376/506 IPC and are accordingly convicted for the same.
Prosecution has examined PW21 Ramesh B. Assistant Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd. Bangalore who was posted at Rohini Branch from 15.10.07 to 30.1.12 to prove that amount of Rs. 5,70,582/ was transferred from the bank of the Accused Sunil Jha to the account of coAccused Jhalki Devi. However, there is not an iota of evidence on record to establish that money in the said account was received by Accused Sunil Jha by selling of girls. Further, although, by examining DW1 and DW2, Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi have failed to establish their plea that said money was received after selling their plot of land since the original documents of sale were not produced by the witnesses, yet in view of the evidence led by the prosecution, I find that allegations in the chargesheet to the extent that the said amount was received by them by selling girls, have not been established on record.
I may hasten to add at this juncture that prosecution has, however, established on record the allegations against above named Accused that they not only deceitfully procured the Prosecutrix 'US' from lawful custody of PW8 Nepal Sardar after which the Prosecutrix was sold for monitory consideration to Accused Rampal @ Titu through coAccused Saubhash for monitory consideration knowing that Prosecutrix 'US' would be subjected to physical torture, illegal confinement and have also forced her to illicit intercourse with coAccused Rampal @ Titu. Accordingly, Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi are convicted for offence punishable under Section 506/344/366A IPC besides the aforesaid offences.
Further, Accused Subhash and Rampal @ Titu are convicted for offence punishable under Section 344 IPC. However, for want of any evidence that Prosecutrix was given any beatings by the Accused during her illegal confinement, the above named Accused are acquitted for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Besides the aforesaid, Accused Rampal @ Titu is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC for having raped the Prosecutrix 'US' while keeping her in illegal confinement.
All the Accused persons be heard on the point of sentence. Announced in the Open Court on 09.4.2013 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeSpl. FTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja Additional Sessions JudgeSpl. FTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 16/13
UID No. : 02401R0471172010
State versus 1) Sunil Kumar Jha
S/o Sh. Radha Kant Jha
2) Jhalki Devi
W/o Sunil Kumar Jha
Both R/o
Presently at: D134, First Flor,
Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
Permanant Address: Village
Parsa, PS Ghaghordiya, District
Madhubani, Bihar
3) Subhash
S/o Late Kaptan Singh
Village Balambha, Tehsil
Meham, District Rohtak,
Haryana
4) Rampal @ Titu
S/o Late Man Singh
R/o H. No. 902, Mohalla
Sadanpatti, V & PO and PS
Alewa, District Jind, (Hry.)
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : RC7(S)/2010/SIUI/CBI/SC.I
Police Station : Special Cell
Under Section : 120B r/w 323/344/354/366A/376/506 and
Substantive Offences
Judgment pronounced on : 09.04.2013
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide judgment dated 09.04.2013 all the aforesaid Accused persons are convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 344/354/366A/376/506 IPC. Accused Sunil Jha and Jhalki Devi are futher convicted for offence punishable under Section 506/344/366A IPC besides the aforesaid offences. Further, Accused Subhash and Rampal @ Titu are convicted for offence punishable under Section 344 IPC. Besides the aforesaid, Accused Rampal @ Titu is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC for having raped the Prosecutrix 'US' while keeping her in illegal confinement.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the accused persons as also ld. SPP representing the CBI on the point of sentence.
It is submitted that the above named accused are not previous convicts. Accused Jhalki Devi and accused Sunil are stated to be in custody during the investigation and trial of the case for the last about three years. It was contended that they are husband and wife and have three minor children besides old aged parents of accused Sunil.
As regards accused Ramphal, it is submitted that he is of the young age of 30 years and this is his first offence. Whereas accused Subhash is stated to be of 45 years.
In the light of the above contentions, it is prayed that a lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the aforesaid convicts.
Whereas, on the other hand, ld.SPP has argued that the allegations against the aforesaid accused are serious in nature and any leniency accorded to the convicts may affect the society at large. He thus prayed that maximum prescribed sentence be awarded to the convicts so as to have a deterrent effect. Besides, it is also submitted that the convicts Sunil Kumar Jha and Jhalki Devi were also convicted in case RC No.&7(S)/2010 PS CBI/SC1/ND under Sections 323/344, which was pending trial before the court of ld. CMM, Delhi vide order on sentence dated 02.04.2012. Ld. SPP has also relied following judgments in support of his contentions:
a) Sevaka Perumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 Crl.LJ, 1854 (SC)
b) Dhananjoy Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal, 1994 SCC (Crl.)
358.
c) State of Karnataka vs. Sharanappa Basugonda Aregonda, 2002 Crl.LJ 2020 (SC)
d) State of Karnataka vs. Krishna @ Raju, 1987 Crl.LJ 776 (SC)
e) State of M.P. vs. Saleem, 2005 Crl.LJ 3435 (SC).
f) Siddarama & Ors. vs. State of Karanataka, 2006 IV AD (Crl.) (SC) 78 &
g) Nallabothu Venkaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl.) 373.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the convicts are sentenced for the aforesaid offences as under:
I. For offences punishable under Section 120B/344/354/366A/376/506 IPC convicts Sunil Kumar Jha S/o Sh.Radha Kant Jha, Jhalki Devi W/o Sh.Sunil Kumar Jha, Subhash S/o Late Kaptan Singh & Rampal @ Titu S/o Late Man Singh are sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.3,000/ each, in default whereof all of them shall further undergo SI for a period of 3 months. II. (i) For the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC convicts Sunil Kumar Jha S/o Sh.Radha Kant Jha & Jhalki w/o Sunil Kumar Jha are sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/ each, in default whereof both of them shall further undergo SI for a period of 2 months.
(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 344 IPC convicts Sunil Kumar Jha S/o Sh.Radha Kant Jha & Jhalki w/o Sunil Kumar Jha are sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.
3,000/ each, in default whereof both of them shall further undergo SI for a period of 6 months.
(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC convicts Sunil Kumar Jha S/o Sh.Radha Kant Jha & Jhalki w/o Sunil Kumar Jha are sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.3,000/ each, in default whereof both of them shall further undergo SI for a period of 1 year.
III. For the offences punishable under Section 344 IPC convicts Subhash S/o Late Kaptan Singh & Rampal @ Titu S/o Late Man Singh are sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.3,000/ each, in default whereof both of them shall further undergo SI for a period of 6 months.
IV. For the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC convict Rampal @ Titu S/o Late Sh.Man Singh is sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.7,000/, in default whereof the above named convict shall further undergo SI for a period of 2 years.
The fine so paid by the convicts is ordered to be released in favour of the victim towards payment of compensation to her under the provisions of Section 357 Cr.PC.
All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. The convicts shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC. A copy of judgment and order on sentence be provided to convicts free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court
on 15.4.2013 (Kaveri Baweja)
Additional Sessions JudgeSpl. FTC2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.