Delhi District Court
State vs . Raju on 28 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SE-03, SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Raju
FIR NO: 518/95
P. S Kalkaji.
Date of institution of case : 10.07.1996
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 28.01.2012
Date of judgment : 28.01.2012
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Sh. N.K. Singh, Ld. APP for State
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 12.09.1995
b) Offence complained of : U/S 363/368/506/120B IPC
c) Name of complainant : Sh. Santosh
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : 1. Raju
local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Mam Raj
R/o House no. 33/222 Trilok Puri,
Delhi.(Since expired and case
abated on 24.05.2005)
2.Smt. Kamla
W/o late Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o Jhuggi no. F-433, Ambedkar
Camp, Nehru Place, Delhi.
3. Raju
S/o late Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o Jhuggi no. F-433, Ambedkar
Camp, Nehru Place, Delhi.
4. Guddu @ Manmohan
S/o Sh. Jogender Sharma
R/o House no. 345, block no. 34,
Trilok Puri, Delhi-91.
5. Dharam Pal
S/o Sh. Sukhdev
R/o C-3/18, New Kondli, Delhi
(Since expired and case abated
on 22.10.2003)
FIR no. 518/95 ; PS: Kalkaji
St vs. Raju U/s 363/368/506/120B IPC no. 1/6
e) Plea of accused : They are falsely implicated.
f) Final order They are acquitted :
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, the five accused persons Raju S/o Mam Raj, Guddu @ Manmohan S/o Joginder Sharma, Dharampal S/o Sukhdev, Raju S/o Sohan Lal and Smt. Kamla W/o Sohan Lal were charged for offences u/s 363/368/506 r/w Section 120B IPC for kidnapping complainant Santosh by administering her sleeping pill in cup of tea at unknown time on 12.09.1995 at House no. 415, Ambedkar Nagar Camp and for wrongful confinement in a room and for threatening and criminal intimidation to complainant Santosh, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy.
2. Prosecution examined four PWs on its behalf. PW1 is complainant Santosh who stated in her examination dated 29.04.1997 that on 20 th September, two years ago in the evening, she had come to meet her brother and sister-in-law and sister at Nehru Place at her parents home from her matrimonial home at Kotla Mubarakpur and she was sitting in front of the jhuggi of her parents when the neighbour Kamla who is her sister-in-law in relation, came to her and offered her tea but she refused, but Kamla again compelled her, so she took tea and felt headache soon after taking the tea and slept and did not know what happened later. PW1 stated that when she woke up in the morning, she found herself in one room and saw Dharampal, Guddu and two other persons named Raju and she asked them where she was and they told her to forget her parents and gave her beatings and locked her in the room. PW1 correctly identified all the accused persons in court and stated that in the same evening, they brought her back to her FIR no. 518/95 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Raju U/s 363/368/506/120B IPC no. 2/6 parents house. PW1 further stated that on the next day, when she was going to toilet, then, Raju's wife and another lady threatened her that they will kill her if she makes any complaint and then Raju etc. started folding hands and said that they had committed blunder. PW1 stated that thereafter, she lodged complaint with police which is Ex.PW1/A and her statement was also recorded before the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Which is Mark-A. She was duly cross examined and discharged. In her cross-examination, PW1 admitted that Smt. Kamla is her Bhabhi in relation and she had quarrelled with Smt. Kamla several times before the incident. She admitted that she was fully conscious when she returned back to her home in the bus with accused Raju, but she failed to tell the bus number or the bus stands or the route on which she was taken back to her home. She further admitted that police had not asked her to identify the place where she was kept by the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
3. PW2 is Sh. Anil Kumar who stated that on 13 th of some month which he did not remember, in year 1995, when he returned home from his work, he saw his sister Santosh sitting on a cot in front of the jhuggi with Kamla and talking, thereafter, he went inside and when he came out of the jhuggi at 8:30 pm, his sister was sleeping on the cot outside the jhuggi but on the next day at about 6:30 am in morning, he found that his sister was not sleeping and he thought that she might have gone to elder sister's house, but on inquiry, it was found that Santosh was not there, so he went to his parents house in the afternoon, but Santosh was not there. He further stated that on 14th next day, he alongwith accused Kamla and his mother went to Trilok Puri and remained at House of Sister of Kamla and Kamla left them and went somewhere with her sister's husband and on her return, they came back and in the evening the same day, Raju S/o Kamla and Kamla's sister husband FIR no. 518/95 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Raju U/s 363/368/506/120B IPC no. 3/6 brought back Santosh and Santosh told him that after taking tea the last evening, she had slept and on the next day, she found herself at unknown place. PW2 further stated that Raju's wife threatened Santosh not to make any complaint but one day, accused Kamla, her father-in-law Ganga Ram, wife of Raju, Guddu and Munnu D/o Kamla gave beatings to his wife, so they made complaint before police.
4. PW3 is Suresh who became completely hostile and stated that he did not remember anything in the case. PW Dr. Anupama Mahadev exhibited the MLC of Santosh dated 20.09.1995 as Ex.PW3/A. PW4 is Ct. Satender Kumar who stated that on 28.09.1995, he joined investigation with SI Tara Chand and arrested accused Guddu and Raju S/o Mam Raj. He exhibited their personal search memos as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B.
5. During pendency of trial, two accused persons namely Raju S/o Mamraj and Dharampal S/o Sukhdev expired and proceedings were abated against accused Dharampal on 22.10.2003 and against accused Raju S/o Mamraj on 24.05.2005. Perusal of order dated 24.05.2005 of Ld. Predecessor Court reveals that PW ASI Tara Chand HC Roshan Lal and Ct. Sunil had not appeared despite service of summons, hence PE was closed on 24.05.2005 and case was fixed for SA of three remaining accused persons. Statement of accused persons Kamla, Guddu @ Manmohan and Raju S/o Sohan Lal u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.09.2009. Accused persons preferred not to lead defence evidence, hence case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard and case was fixed for order for today.
FIR no. 518/95 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Raju U/s 363/368/506/120B IPC no. 4/6 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF:
6. The perusal of the original complaint of complainant reveals that the alleged incident had purportedly occurred with complainant on 12.09.1995, but complaint has been lodged on 20.09.1995 that is much after the date of incident despite the fact that complainant alleges that accused persons had returned her back to her home the very next day. Complainant has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. The statement of PW2 reflects that it was only after some quarrel between his wife and accused Kamla that they decided to lodge the FIR in present case. No missing report was filed by the parents or brother of complainant when complainant allegedly went missing. Even after her alleged return, IO failed to interrogate, inquire and investigate about the place where accused persons had allegedly taken and kept complainant in confinement.
7. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to examine crucial witnesses namely Sh.. Guddu, Smt. Rajbala, Ct. Jagran Ram, Ct. Sunil and IO ASI Tara Chand despite grant of many opportunities. The prosecution did not even bother to file any application for examination of witnesses after order of closure of PE dated 24.05.2005. The prosecution has failed to explain the reason why crucial witnesses were not examined on oath. The perusal of evidence of PW1 reveals that no substantial proof of age of PW1 Santosh has been brought on record by the prosecution. Moreover, bone age test report reflects age of Santosh as between 16-19 years. Moreover, prosecution has failed to bring any substantial evidence on record against accused persons to prove that they had abducted / kidnapped PW1 Santosh and wrongfully confined her at any place. IO has not prepared any site plan to show where PW1 Santosh was kept after confinement. The IO has not FIR no. 518/95 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Raju U/s 363/368/506/120B IPC no. 5/6 investigated the case properly and left many loopholes. The complainant and PW2 have failed to satisfy the court why delay of about 10 days was caused in lodging FIR. Benefit of all the doubts and loopholes left in the prosecution case shall be given to accused persons.
8. After perusal of entire evidence on record, it seems that the FIR is just an after thought and it was lodged only after quarrel between complainant, PW2 Anil Kumar and accused persons who are closely related to each other by blood relation and PW1 has herself stated that accused Kamla is her Bhabhi and many quarrels had occurred prior to the incident. It seems that no incident of kidnapping / abduction had ever occurred and the FIR has been lodged only to settle scores with accused persons due to other quarrels and disputes. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove any criminal conspiracy between accused persons. Hence, this court is of opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons. Hence, all the accused persons namely Raju S/o Sohan Lal, Kamla W/o Sohan Lal and Guddu @ Manmohan S/o Joginder Sharma are given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the offences u/s 363/368/506 IPC r/w section 120B IPC. PB and SB of accused stands discharged. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 28th January, 2012 MM-03/SE/28.01.2012 FIR no. 518/95 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Raju U/s 363/368/506/120B IPC no. 6/6