Delhi District Court
State vs . Azhar & Ors. on 2 March, 2022
FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri
U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act
State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS RICHA SHARMA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 283/10
U/s 374 IPC & 7/14 of Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 &
27 of Juvenile Justice Act
PS: Jahangir Puri
State vs. Azhar& Ors.
Date of Institution of case: 31.01.2011
Date of Judgment reserved:02.03.2022
Date on which Judgment pronounced:02.03.2022
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 5284730
Date of Commission of : 10.08.2010
offence
Name of the : Ramesh Kumar
complainant
Name of the accused : Mohd. Azhar S/o Lt. Usman
Mohd. Jahangir Khan @ Nihal Khan S/o
Mustafa Khan
Offence complained of : 374 IPC & 7/14 of Child Labour Prohibition
Act 1986 & 27 of Juvenile Justice Act
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 02.03.2022
Final Order : Acquitted
1
FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri
U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
The story of prosecution is as under :
1. The case of the prosecution is, that on 10.08.2010, between 11:30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m, at C652 and C1290, Jahangir Puri within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri, accused persons, namely, Mohd. Azhar and Mohd. Jahangir Puri, both unlawfully compelled minors, namely, Mohd. Idris Khan, Jai Ram Kumar, Tahir Mohd, Shehzad Khan, Vikas Kumar and Dashrath Kumar to labour against their will and that both the accused persons, thereby committed an offence Under Section 374 IPC.
Secondly, on the abovesaid date, time and place, both the accused persons also committed an offence U/s. 3 & 7/14 of Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and in the contravention of Section 27 of Juvenile Justice Act and accordingly, both the accused persons had been facing the trial for the said offences.
2. It is noteworthy, that after the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court against the accused persons for the offences U/s 374 IPC and 27 Child Labour Act. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to accused persons in compliance of section 207 Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.). Charge for the offences U/s 374 IPC and 27 Child Labour Act, was framed against the accused persons vide order dated 25.03.2011, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
3. List of witnesses and documents proved:
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following witnesses and produced the following documents in its documentary evidence :
Sl PW No. Name Document proved Ex. No.
No.
1. PW1 Ramesh Complaint Ex. PW 1/A
Kumar
2. PW2 R. S. Mathur Nil Nil
3. PW3 Mohd. Isha Nil Nil
4 PW4 Retd. Assistant Nil Nil
Labour
Commissioner
5. PW5 Jai Ram His Statement Ex. PW 5/A
Kumar
6. PW6 Master Vikas Nil Nil
Kumar
7. PW 7 Mohd. Sajjad Nil Nil
Khan
8. PW 8 ASI Naresh Copy of Arrival entry of Ex. PW 8/A
officers Ex. PW 8/B
Computer generated copy Ex. PW 8/C
of FIR
Endorsement of Original
Rukka
3
FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri
U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
9. PW 9 Dashrath Nil Nil Kumar
10. PW 10 Mohd. Tahir Nil Nil
11. PW 11 Joginder Singh Nil Nil
12. PW 12 Brij Bhushan Rukka Ex. PW 12/A Statement of Children Ex. PW 12/B to Ex. PW 12/F Disclosure Statement Ex. PW 12/G Arrest Memo Ex. PW 12/H Disclosure Statement Ex. PW 12/I Arrest memo Ex. PW 12/J
13. PW 13 Irshad Khan Nil Nil
14. PW 14 Sanjeev Nil Nil Gosain
5. PW1 is Ramesh Kumar, General Secretary, Readymade Garments Export Employers Union, 1441, Karampura, New Delhi. He deposed, that he is a social worker and they had a registered union, working for the interest of workers through their union. There was a scheme of the Delhi Government that the citizen should inform the competent authority when some one find's that a child below the age of 14 years is working in any factory or hotel etc. He further deposed, that on 10.08.2010, he alongwith Labour Asst. Commissioner, Inspector , SHO and other members, found that some children were working at C1290, Jahangir Puri and C652, Jahangir Puri and children were forced to make gloves in the said factory. At H. no. C1290, Jh. Puri, four children were 4 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
rescued and from C652 two children were rescued, who were also forced to make gloves in the factory. On the day of examination in chief, he did not remember the name of children. He made the complaint Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A to the SHO. Some of the children were below the age of 12 years. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
6. PW2 is Sh. R.S. Mathur, Labour Officer, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, PhaseIV, Delhi. He deposed, that on 10.08.2010, a complaint from the President, Disha and General Secretary of Readymade Garments Export Employees Union (Regd.), was received at the office and one of the complaint was also given at PS Jahangirpuri. A team was prepared consisting of the officers and Inspectors of the office and they went to PS Jahangirpuri from where, the assistance of the police was also obtained. Thereafter, they went to C1290, Jahangirpuri and C652, Jahangirpuri from where six children were rescued, who were below the age of 14 years. Those children were making the gloves at factory. The factory owners were Jahangir Khan and Mohd. Azhar.
The witness pointed out towards the accused, and stated that they might be the owner of the above mentioned factories from where the children were arrested.
5 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
He further did not remember if at the time of raid, the accused persons were present at their respective factories or not.
Ld. APP for the State had after seeking the permission of the Court put some leading question to the witness, as the witness was not disclosing complete facts.
This witness was also duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
7. PW3 is Mohd. Isha S/O Nek Mohd. Miya, R/O I441, Karampura, Delhi. He deposed, that he was the President of Readymade Garments Employees Union. On 28.03.2010, he alongwith General Secretary of the Union, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, the staff members of Labour Department and the staff of PS Jahangirpuri went to C1290, Jahangirpuri where they found four children, who were preparing the gloves. Thereafter, they went to the house C 12652, Jahangirpuri, where they also found two children, who were also preparing the hand gloves. There, they also found the owner of the factory C 12652 i.e. Mohd. Azhar, the accused who was present in the court on the day of examination in chief. Thereafter, they went to PS Jahangirpuri, where his statement was recorded and thereafter, he was relieved.
Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the Court had put some leading question to the witness.
Thereafter, this witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence 6 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
counsel.
8. PW4 is Retired Assistant Labour Commissioner Dayal Singh S/o Sh. Kamal Singh, R/o Block CU, H. NO. 159, Pitampura, Delhi. He deposed, that on 10.08.2010, he was posted as Assistant Labour Commissioner, District North West, Delhi. On that day, an information was received that some child labours were working within jurisdiction of PS Jh Puri. Thereafter, a raiding team was prepared and the police was also informed with regard to the information received. Thereafter, he alongwith the raiding team members including the police officials and the staff of labour department went to C Block Jh Puri at the house bearing No. something 600 and something 1200 where the children were found preparing the hand gloves. The owners of the above mentioned houses/factories were not found there. Total six children were rescued from the above mentioned houses and the children were brought to PS Jh Puri. The children were produced before CWC.
The rescued children were below the age of 14 years. He could not know the name of the owners of the above mentioned factories. The information regarding the children being employed at C Block Jh Puri was given by his staff through a written letter to SHO, vide Mark A. Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the Court cross 7 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
examined the witness, as the witness did disclose the complete facts.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel.
9. PW5 is Sh. Jai Ram Kumar S/o. Sh. Bhola Ram, R/o. Keos Nijamat Mahadev Sathan, Post Office Jitwarpur, District Samastipur, Bihar. He deposed, that about 11/12 years ago, Nihal Khan S/o. Mustafa Khan brought him to Jahangirpuri, Delhi from his native place after having enticed him on some pretext. At Delhi, Nihal Khan engaged him in the preparation of gloves forcefully and did not pay him any wages. He was forced to work there for about 7 months and during that period, Nihal Khan even did not offer him any food. Whenever he asked about wages from accused Nihal Khan, latter told him that Nihal Khan had already sent his wages to his parents at native place. However, in fact, accused Nihal Khan did not send any penny to his parents. He was rescued along with other children by police officials from the possession of accused and taken to Orphanage House, from where he was taken by his parents. His statement was recorded by police, vide Ex.PW5/A, bearing his signatures at point A. The accused was exempted on the day of examination in chief and Ld. counsel for accused Jahangir Khan @ Nihal Khan stated that no dispute with regard to identity of the accused would be raised during trial.
This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel. 8 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
10. PW6 is Master Vikas Kumar S/O Sh. Asharfi Ram, Aged about 15 years, R/o Village Barvatta, District Samastipur, Bihar. He deposed, that in the year 2010, accused Raju Khan, brought him to Delhi from his abovesaid village. Accused Raju Khan retained him in the factory where the gloves were used to be prepared by them in a machine. Accused did not pay for the work, however, the accused used to provide food to them. He remained there for about one and a half month. Some officials had come in the factory and rescued him. Other workers of the factory were matured persons.
His age was about 1011 years, when he was working in a factory no. C. He did not remember the complete number of the said factory. Accused Azhar @ Raju Khan brought him to Delhi for working in the factory of gloves. Accused Azhar did not provide any leave/holiday to him.
Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the Court had put some leading question to PW 6. PW 6 admitted, that the complete number of the said factory was C652, Jahangir Puri.
This witness was duly crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
9 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
11. PW 7 is Mohd. Sajjad Khan s/o Sh. Mohan Khan r/o Village Dewna Post Office Trilak, Distt. Begu Sarai, Bihar. (above 18 years of age). He deposed, that he did not remember the date, month or year. He deposed, that it could be year 200809, when he came to Jh. Puri at the place of daughter of his maternal uncle to stay for sometime. Then, he befriended with some boys. One day, they were sitting at one place. He did not remember the location of that place. Some police officials came there and took them to PS. They were 45 in number. There, they were made to sign some documents. Then, they were sent to Ashram where they remained for about 17 days. Then, his father came and took him. He had never worked in any factory.
Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the Court cross examined the witness.
This witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
12. PW8 is ASI Naresh, No.443East, PS Geeta Colony, Delhi.He deposed, that on 10.08.2010, he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri as duty officer from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. On that day, at about 11:30 AM, he had made arrival entry at the Officers of Labour Department regarding constituting of team, vide DD No.17A. True copy of which is Ex.PW8/A. On the same day, at about 1:20 PM, he had received a rukka from SI Brij Bhushan through Ct. Jagdish on the basis of which he registered present FIR, 10 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
vide computer generated copy Ex.PW8/B, bearing his signatures at pointA . At the relevant time, the computer system was working properly and the FIR was properly saved in the system after it was typed on it and then, no tempering was made with the computerized record. He also made endorsement on the original rukka, vide Ex. PW8/C, bearing his signatures at point A. Copy of the FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct. Jagdish for handing over to SI Brij Bhushan.
This witness was duly crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
13. PW 9 is Dashrath Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Mehto, R/O Kevas Nijamat, District Samastipur, Bihar. He had come to Delhi in the year 2010 for excursion. On that day, he had gone to meet his friend in the factory, where his friend was doing the work of stitching gloves. Police officials came there and mistook that he was working there and took him with them. He was not working in the factory.
Ld. APP for the state, after seeking permission from the Court, cross examined the witness. He stated in his crossexamination, that he had never seen accused Mohd Azhar before this day. He had seen him for the first time in Court. He does not know any person by the name of Vikas Kumar. His statement was not recorded by police. He had never done the work of stitching gloves. He further denied his signature at Point A in statement mark X. 11 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
14. PW 10 is Mohd. Tahir, S/o Mohd. Idris, R/o Village Rajapur, District Begu Sarai, Bihar. He deposed, that he was aged about 1820 years. His mother had sent him to Delhi for studying alongwith his cousin brother Aslam. When they reached Delhi i.e. at rented room of Aslam, police official had apprehended him from there. He did not know the accused. He had never worked in the factory.
Ld. APP for the state after seeking permission from the Court cross examined the witness.
Ld. APP pointed out towards accused Jahangir Khan @Nihal Khan, after pointing, witness submitted that he cannot identify accused as he had never seen the accused before.
This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
15. PW 11 is Joginder Singh, then Labour Inspector, presently Sr. Assistant at Dept. of Forest, Mandir Lane, West Division, Delhi. He deposed, that on10.08.2010, he was posted at labour Department, NorthWest District, as a labour Inspector. Complaint was received by Deputy Labour Commissioner regarding working of minor/ labour in the factory. After receiving the 12 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
information, the same information was shared with the concerned police station Thereafter, Dayal Singh, Assistant Labour Commissioner, H.N. Singh, Assistant Labour Commissioner R.S. Mathur, Labour Officer, Suresh Kumar, Sanjeev Gosai, Prem Chand, V.K Sharma and myself, all Labour Inspector went to the PS Jahangir Puri. Whereas, raiding party was constituted comprising of the above mentioned officers. Police official also joined the raiding party alongwith the complainant Ramesh Kumar, Secretary of the readymade garment export employee union. Thereafter, all the members of the raiding party reached at Cblock Jahangir Puri where at C1290, four minor/ labour aged about 1012 years were rescued, who were engaged in making of gloves. Two minor labourers were rescued from C652, Jahangir Puri, at that time owner of the factory no. C 652 namely Mohd Azhar was present there. The owner of the C1290 namely Jahangir was not present at the time of raid. The rescued minors were brought to the PS by the police official. Police official recorded his statement. He did not know accused Azhar.
Ld. APP after seeking permission from the Court had put some leading questions to the accused.
This witness was duly crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel. 13 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
16. PW 12 is Retd. SI Brij Bhushan, S/O Late Sh. A. S. Sharma, R/O Village and Post Office Basoli, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. He deposed, that on 10.08.2010, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as SI. On that day, one raiding party was prepared comprising of him, Additional SHO namely Dharm Pal, Ct. Ravi, Ct. Jagdish, Ct. Mirtunjay and ten members of the Labour Department of readymade garments i.e. Dayal Singh, H N Singh, Suresh Kumar, R S Mathur, Joginder Singh, Sanjeev Gosai, Prem Chand, V. K. Singh, Isha Pradthan, Ramesh Kumar by SHO to conduct a raid at C Block, Jahangir Puri.
At about 11:30 am, all members of raiding party including him reached at house no. C1290, Jahangir Puri and they found four minor children namely Irdish Khan, Jai Ram Kumar, Tahir and Sajjad Khan were doing packing of hand gloves. They made inquiry from the children and came to know that the accused Nihal Khan @ Jahangir had forced the children to do work in the premises.
The members of raiding party rescued the children from the above mentioned house and then, members of raiding party alongwith above mentioned children went to the H. No. C 652, Jahangir Puri and found that two children namely Dashrath and Vikas Kumar were found doing work of packaging of hand gloves.
14 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
Accused Mohd. Azhar was also present in the house. Children namely Dashrath and Vikas Kumar told them that accused Azhar had forced the childrn to do work in the premises.
Ramesh Kumar, Secretary of readymade Garments Export Employees Union gave him a written complaint in the name of SHO, Jahangir Puri, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka, which is Ex.PW12/A, bearing his signature at point A, on the basis of statement of Ramesh Kumar and handed over the same to Ct. Jagdish for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS Jahangir Puri and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO.
In the meantime, he recorded the statement of rescued child namely Jai Ram Kumar, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW5/A, bearing his signature at point B and statement of other children namely Irshad Khan, Mohd. Tahir, Mohd Sehzad, Dashrath Kumar, Vikas Kumar, which are Ex. PW 12/B to Ex. PW 12/F, bearing their signatures at point A, respectively.
He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Azhar, which is Ex.PW12/G, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, accused Mohd. Azhar 15 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
was arrested vide Ex. PW 12/H, bearing his signature at point A. After production of sound surety, accused Mohd. Azhar was released on police bail. He recorded the statement of the Labour Department official (raiding team members) under section 161 Cr.P.C. After medical examination of the children in the BJRM Hospital, he alongwith the police officials and rescued children came to the police station. He recorded the statement of police officials.
He produced the children before the CWC in Kingsway Camp. After that, according to the order of CWC Kingsway Camp marked as Mark S1, he handed over the custody of rescued children to Mukti Ashram, Ibrahim Pur, Delhi. Thereafter, he came back at PS. On 12.08.2010, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Nihal Khan @ Jahangir Khan, which is Ex.PW 12/I, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, accused Nihal Khan @ Jahangir Khan was arrested vide Ex.PW12/J, bearing his signature at point A. After production of sound surety accused was released on police bail.
After completion of investigation, he prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the court for trial.
This witness was duly crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel. 16 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
17. PW 13 is the statement of Irshad Khan, S/O Shabbir Khan, R/O Keos, Post Jitwar Pur, District Samastipur, Bihar. He deposed, that he did not remember the exact date, when he visited his Tai's House. Thereafter, he visited the uncle house. He worked at hand gloves factory, situated at C1290, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where, Nihal Khan took him and Jai Ram for work in the said factory. The factory owner did not give any salary but they gave food against whatever work that was done by him. Whenever, he asked the owner to visit his house, the owner said that he would go alongwith him on Eid. IO recorded his statement.
Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the Court, cross examined the said witness and pointed out towards the accused persons present in the court but witness failed to identify the accused persons.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
18. PW 14 is Sanjeev Gosain, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gosain, R/o H1/97, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed, that on 10.08.2010, he was posted as Labour Inspector at Labour Department, District NorthWest, Delhi. On the said date, a child rescue operation was held at Jahangir Puri on the information of readymade Garment Export Employee Union (Regt). Initially, their team under the supervision of Sh. Dayal Singh (DLC) visited at PS Jahangir Puri, 17 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
where, he met Inspector Dharmpal, PS of Jahangir Puri. Thereafter, raiding party was constituted and police officials also joined the raiding party alongwith the complainant Ramesh Kumar, Secretary of readymade Garment Export Employee Union. Thereafter, all the members of raiding party reached at C Block, at C1290, Jahangir Puri, where, four minor/labour aged about 10 12 years were rescued, who were engaged in making of gloves and two minor labourers were rescued from C 652 one being Mohd. Azhar, who was also present there and the owner of the C 1290 namely Jahangir was not present at the time of raid. The rescued minor was brought to the PS by the police oficials. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
19. Thereafter, PE was closed after examination of the aforesaid witnesses, vide order dated 22.11.2021.
20. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.12.2021, wherein accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons stated, that they do not wish to lead any defence evidence in this case.
21. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments. Accordingly, final arguments were advanced by both the parties. I have heard the 18 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
submissions and have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire record.
22. The most tectonic witnesses examined by the prosecution in the present case are the children/alleged child labourers and therefore, it is paramount to examine their testimonies first as it is primarily on their testimonies, that the case of the prosecution rests.
23. To begin with, Prosecution has examined PW 7, that is Mohd. Sajjad Khan, whereby he categorically stated in his examination in chief, that he neither remembers the date nor the month or year of the alleged incident. He further stated, that he does not remember the location of the said place and that the police officials made him sign certain documents and thereafter, he was sent to Ashram. It is relevant to mention, that PW 7, Sajjad Khan categorically stated, that he had never worked in any factory and this per se punctures the case of the prosecution as it is the version of the prosecution, that the said witness was rescued from a factory, where he was forcefully deployed by the alleged accused persons to work on a machine that was used for manufacturing gloves. It is further paramount to mention, that Ld. APP for the State cross examined PW 7, as he was resiling from his previous statement. PW 7 further stated in his crossexamination conducted by the Ld. APP for the State, that he does not know any person with the name of Nihal Khan and that there was no 19 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
other person with him. Thus, the said witness completely denied regarding working in any factory or for that matter knowing the accused Nihal Khan. Thus, the said witness did not support the case of the prosecution.
24. Apart from PW 7, Prosecution also examined another witness, that is PW 9 Dashrath Kumar. PW 9 stated in his examination in chief, that he came to Delhi in the year 2010 for excursion and on that day, he went to the factory to meet his friend, and there, the police officials came and mistook him as the person working in the factory and took him alongwith them. PW 9 also categorically stated in his examination in chief, that he was not working in any kind of factory. This witness was also duly crossexamined by the Prosecution as the said witness was not supporting the case of the prosecution.
PW 9 further stated in his crossexamination, that he had never seen accused Mohd. Azhar and that he saw him in the Court on the day of his deposition for the first time.
He further denied knowing any alleged child labour by the name of Vikas Kumar, who also happens to be one of the prosecution witnesses ( alleged victim ) in the present case. PW 9 further submitted, that his statements were not recorded by the police and that he had never worked 20 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
factory engaged in the stitching of gloves. He further stated, that he does not know how to sign and that the signature at point A in his statement Mark X are not his signatures. Thus, PW 9 did not support the case of the prosecution and outrightly denied seeing accused persons and being ever employed in any kind of factory engaged in making of gloves.
25. In addition to this, another witness examined by the Prosecution is PW 10 that is Mohd. Tahir. He deposed in his examination in chief, that his mother had sent him to Delhi for studying along with his cousin brother Aslam and that they were staying in the rented room of Aslam, when police officials apprehended him. He further stated in his examination in chief itself, that he neither knows the accused nor has he ever worked in any kind of factory. This witness was also crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State as he was not supporting the case of the prosecution. The witness completely denied the suggestions of the prosecution regarding he being employed at a factory bearing No. C1290, engaged in making of gloves. He further denied the prosecution's suggestions regarding the accused Nihal Khan not providing him any food or salary. Not only this, when the Ld. APP for the State pointed out towards the accused Jahangir Khan @ Nihal Khan, the witness submitted that 21 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
he cannot identify the accused as he had never seen him before. Thus, this witness also did not support the case of the prosecution and totally denied the averments pertaining to the case of the prosecution.
26. Apart from this, prosecution also examined another witness, that is Irshad Khan, who also stated on the lines of the earlier witnesses and in his examination in chief, he submitted that he cannot identify the accused persons. This witness was also crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State as he was not disclosing true facts but even in his crossexamination by the Ld. APP for the State, witness failed to identify the accused persons. Thus, even PW 13 did not support the case of the prosecution.
Another vital aspect which needs to be appreciated at this stage is, that the case of the prosecution is, that 6 alleged minor children were being employed in factories where children were deployed in making of gloves using certain machines. But, the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact, that in the light of these facts, it was imperative upon the Prosecution to have proved that the investigating agency had seized neither the machine from which allegedly the gloves were manufactured nor the gloves that were being manufactured by the children. However, in the case in hand, there is no case property that is 22 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
seized in form of gloves or machine. In addition to this, there is not even a single photograph or video placed on record by the prosecution to support its case. It would further not be out of place to mention, that though it is alleged by the Prosecution that the accused persons were owner of factory bearing No. C 1290 and C652, but not even a single document is placed on record by the prosecution to have established these facts. Thus, some very vital parameters have not been proved by the prosecution in the present case and no plausible explanation has been adduced for not doing the same as well.
27. In addition to the above witnesses, the prosecution also examined PW 5 that is Jai Ram Kumar and PW 6 that is Master Vikas Kumar.
28. PW 5 that is Jai Ram, who stated in his examination in chief that Nihal Khan brought him to Jahangir Puri and engaged him in preparation of gloves forcefully, avoided giving him food and whenever he asked him for wages, accused Nihal Khan stated that he had already sent his wages to his parents but in fact the same was not true. But, PW 5 did not remember the year in which he was brought to Delhi. Further, PW 5 did not mention the address or the details pertaining to the factory in which he was working and also did not 23 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
mention about any of the other alleged child labourer who were made to work along with him in the same factory. Thus, the testimony of PW 5 was incomplete and not free from blemishes. In addition to this, Master Vikas, another prosecution witness examined by the prosecution did not know the complete address of the factory where he was working and he could furnish the address only after he was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State. Apart from this, the name of the accused that was taken by PW 6 in his examination in chief was Raju Khan and it was only subsequent in his crossexamination, where he mentioned Raju Khan @ Azhar. Thus, in the evidence of Vikas, the name identity of the accused was not established without blemish in the first go and thus, sole reliance on the testimony of these two witnesses cannot be made, more so in a scenario where all the other four witnesses as examined above have completely turned hostile. Though, there is settled proposition of law, that even if all except one witness turned hostile, reliance can be placed on the testimony of that single witness but in the case in hand, this single witness testimony also if taken alone does not prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts as the testimony is bleak, tainted and incomplete. 24 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
29. One of the most crucial witnesses examined by the prosecution in the present case is PW 1 that is Ramesh Kumar, General Secretary, Readymade Garments Export Employers Union, I441, Karampura, New Delhi. It is submitted by him in his examination in chief, that on 10.08.2010, he alongwith Assistant Labour Commissioner, Inspector, SHO and few other members come to know/found that some children were working at C1290 and C652, Jahangir Puri, where, they were forced to work in making of gloves. He further submitted in his examination in chief, that at House No. C1290, Jahangir Puri, four children were rescued and at C692, three children were rescued.
However, he did not remember the names of all the alleged children. He further submitted, that few children were below the age of 12 years as well. It is pertinent to mention, that this witness was crossexamined and in his examination, he deposed that within the span of 45 minutes, all the children were rescued but he did not know the actual time it took in completion of the proceedings. It is further pellucid to mention, that PW 1 categorically stated in his examination in chief, that the area from where the children were rescued was a residential area but not even a single independent witness from the vicinity is examined by the prosecution. Further, no explanation has been accorded by the prosecution as to why the area despite being a residential area, 25 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
no independent witness was examined. It is further not the case of the prosecution, that the witnesses were asked to join the raiding team but they refused to do so. This per se speaks of the laxity on one hand and on the second hand, the case of the prosecution also stands punctured. It is further crucial to mention , that PW 1 specifically stated in his crossexamination done in the Court, that the entire rescue operation was photographed but the record speaks to the contrary. It is a matter on record, that neither any photograph nor any videography pertaining to entire rescue operation is filed on record. Thus, the contention of PW 1 neither stands supported by any photographic evidence nor with any videographic evidence.
30. Another witness examined by the Prosecution is PW 2 that is Sh. R. S. Mathur, Labour Officer, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. PW 2 in his examination in chief was specifically asked after pointing out towards the accused persons, that if they are the alleged factory owners of the factories from where the children were rescued and to this, PW 2 replied, that the accused persons might be owners of the above mentioned factories from where the children were arrested. This PW 2 could not identify the accused persons without doubt and thus, his testimony per se stands tainted. Further, PW 2 26 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
neither remembered the time of the raid nor did he remember if the accused persons were present in the factory at that point of time or not, meaning, thereby, that at the time of the raid, PW 2 had not seen the accused persons. It is further material to mention that PW 2 categorically stated in his cross examination, that he does not remember the nature of the work that was being carried out at the factory from where allegedly the children were rescued. He further did not remember the registration number of the vehicle in which he and other members went to the police station. He also did not remember the name of the police officials who accompanied him. One of the most glaring dent in the testimony of PW 2 is, that he submitted, that the children who were rescued were making purses out of cloth and this is absolutely contrary to the story of prosecution as it is the case of the prosecution that the children were rescued from a glove making factory. It is further material to mention, that PW 2 submitted that no document was prepared on the spot. Thus, PW 2 per se could not stand the litmus test of crossexamination as neither was he aware of the nature of the work which the children were engaged in doing, nor was he aware of the names of the members of the raiding party who accompanied him. Further, no documentation was prepared in his presence or at the spot, as per him and thus, this witness in no way supported the case of the prosecution. 27 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
31. Apart from this, PW 3 that is Mohd. Isha S/o Nek Mohd. Miya, R/o I441, Karampura, Delhi was also examined by Prosecution and he was put leading questions by the Ld. APP for the State as neither did he remember the date of the incident that is 10.08.2010 nor did he remember the address of the factory that is C652, as he submitted in his examination in chief that the factory from where the children were rescued was bearing No. C12652. Even, he like PW 2 submitted, that no writing work was done by him. Further, he did not remember the name of the children who were rescued from the said factory. It is further material to mention, that PW 3 categorically stated that at C652, there was one machine and two children were preparing the gloves there, but it is matter of record that neither any machine nor the alleged gloves that were being allegedly made were seized by the investigating agency.
32. Another witness examined by the prosecution was PW 4, Retired Assistant Labour Commissioner Dayal Singh S/o Sh. Kamal Singh, R/o Block CU, H. No. 159, Pitampura, Delhi. PW 4 could not give the complete address of the houses/factories from where the children were rescued and it was only after Ld. APP for the State had put some leading questions, he admitted to the addresses of the factories/houses from where the children were rescued as C 28 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
1290 and C652. Further, PW 4 did not remember if he met the accused at the said factory and this speaks of the fact that the presence of the accused persons at the spot/factory is doubtful on the alleged date of the incident. Further, PW 4 could not identify the accused Mohd. Azhar and he categorically stated in his examination in chief conducted on 17.01.2014, that he never saw the accused. Thus, PW 4 also did not support the case of the prosecution as the witness neither remembered the address of the factories, nor could he identify the accused, further he did not remember the name of the rescued children, thus, PW 4 also did not come to the rescue of the prosecution in supporting its story.
33. Apart from the above witnesses, all the other witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal witnesses, one being PW 11 Joginder Singh, the then Labour Inspector, presently Sr. Assistant at Department of Forest, Mandir Lane, West Division, Delhi. It is crucial to mention, that PW 11 did not disclose the name of the rescued children in his examination in chief and it was only after leading questions were being put to him regarding the name of the rescued children, that he acceded to the same. It is further material to mention, that PW 11 despite being an official witness was clueless regarding various vital aspects as in his crossexamination, he specifically stated that neither did 29 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
he remember the date on which he received the complaint nor did he remember the registration number of the departmental vehicle, vide which they reached for the rescue operation. It is further material to mention, that PW 11 categorically mentioned that no document of the rescue of the children were prepared in his presence and further no machinery was seized. This gives rise to suspicion as neither the document pertaining to the rescue of the children nor the seizure of machinery was made in the presence of PW 11, despite he being the Labour Inspector and the member of the Raiding Team.
34. The deposition of PW 12, that is SI Brij Bhushan, S/o Late Sh. A S Sharma, R/o Village and Post Office Basoli, District Baghpat, UP is also on the same line as that of PW 11 and even his testimony does not inspire the confidence of the Court as he was clueless on material aspects like the addresses of the accused persons, the exact time when the Labour Department reached at the Police Station. Further, no seizure pertaining to the gloves and the machine used for making gloves was done by him. It is further material to mention that PW 12 further admitted that no independent public person/neighbour was made to join the investigation at the time of the raid and further, no documentary proof was placed on record to prove the fact that the 30 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
children were employed by the accused persons at the factory to work there. Thus, even the testimony of PW 12 is vague and not free from blemishes.
35. It would further not be out of place to mention, that PW 14 also was clueless regarding certain vital aspects and in his crossexamination, he submitted that neither did he remember the vehicle with which he went to the PS nor did he remember the date when the first raid was conducted. He further did not know the name of the police officials and staff members who accompanied him and thus, his testimony is also completely vague and incomplete.
36. Thus, on the basis of the above observations and findings, in the considered opinion of this Court, it can be categorically deduced that the case of the prosecution stands punctured at certain vital junctures as under : a. The alleged places from where the raid was conducted are either mentioned as houses or as factories differently in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses but not even a single document is placed on record to adduce any clarity to the fact that whether these raids were allegedly conducted in some kind of houses, where glove making work was being carried out or 31 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
whether these were proper factories where manufacturing of gloves was being done.
b. Not even a single document is placed on record to prove that the alleged accused persons that is Mohd. Azhar and Mohd. Jahangir Khan were the owners of the alleged factories where glove making work was being done by the minor/minors.
c. The prosecution witnesses have categorically submitted in their deposition before the Court, that the areas where the raids were conducted were residential areas but despite that not even a single independent witness was examined by the prosecution to this effect, this per se put the case of the prosecution under scanner.
d. It is evidently submitted by the prosecution witness PW 1, that the entire raiding operation was photographed but the records speaks to the contrary as neither any single photograph nor any video pertaining to the raid that was conducted is placed on record.
e. It was crucial for the prosecution in order to establish its case to have proved the seizure of machinery and the alleged gloves that were being made at the places where the raids were conducted but no seizure of machinery or gloves was done in the present case, for the reasons best known to the 32 FIR No.283/10 PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
investigating agency/prosecution.
f. Majority of the child witness examined in the present case have either turned hostile or they could not identified the alleged accused persons and thus, the identity of the accused could not be established beyond reasonable doubts.
g. Lastly, the prosecution witnesses collectively did not remember the exact address of the factory where the raids were conducted, nor did they remember the names of the children that were rescued. Further, the witness were clueless regarding the names of the members of the raiding party and also the details pertaining to the vehicles in which they went to the place of raiding and back to the PS. Therefore, on the basis of the above parameters, this Court deems it fit to state, that it is a settled proposition of law, that it is duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and in the event of there being even a slightest iota of doubt, the benefit is to be given to accused. In the case in hand, there are multiple parameters as discussed above on the basis on which the case of the prosecution falls through and thus, all the accused persons namely Mohd Azhar and Mohd. Jahangir Khan @ Nihal Khan hereby stand acquitted.
33 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
37. No doubt wrong acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of the innocent man. The consequences of conviction of innocent men are far more serious and its reverberation would be felt by an innocent all his life in a civilized society, therefore, it is the duty of the court to avoid any wrongful conviction and to grant benefit of doubt where ever the need arises. If two views are possible, one favouring the accused and the other against him, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and in the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
38. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case, it is pellucid that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes as there are numerous inconsistencies found in the testimony of the witnesses . 34 FIR No.283/10
PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 374 IPC & 3 & 7/14 OF Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 and 27 of Juvenile Justice Act State Vs. Azhar & Ors.
39. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion it is pellucid that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes and there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimonies, hence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused person stand acquitted from the charges u/s. 374 IPC & 7/14 of Child Labour Prohibition Act 1986 & 27 of Juvenile Justice Act as the presence of the accused at the spot in the first place remained unestablished apart from the other factors discussed above.
40. Previous Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. Endorsement if any, be cancelled and documents if any, be returned, against acknowledgment after due verification.
File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
(Richa Sharma) Metropolitan Magistrate07 North District, Rohini Court,Delhi,02.03.2022 35