Delhi District Court
State vs . Udaiveer Singh on 12 April, 2007
FIR NO. 71/2006 : P.S. GEETA COLONY 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI.
STATE VS. UDAIVEER SINGH
FIR NO. 71/2006
P.S. GEETA COLONY
U/S 363/365/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
A) THE SL. NO. OF THE CASE :
B) THE DATE OF COMMISSION
OF OFFENCE : 19.02.2006
C) THE NAME OF COMPLAINANT : STATE
D) THE NAME AND PARENTAGE
OF ACCUSED : Udaiveer Singh
S/o Sannulal
R/o Vill. Punnu, PS Dhiror,
Dist : Mainpuri, UP.
PROCLAIMED OFFENDER : Smt Guddi
W/o Jaduram
R/o Mohalla Raghuraj Puri,
Near Rishi Ashram, Mainpuri,
UP.
E) THE OFFENCE COMLAINTD OF : 363/365/34 IPC
F) THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : PLEADED NOT GUILTY
G) THE FINAL ORDER : CONVICTED
H) THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 12.04.2007
I) THE BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. On 19.2.06 Sh. Harish Chand lodged a complaint at PS Geeta FIR NO. 71/2006 : P.S. GEETA COLONY 2 Colony regarding missing of his daughter Laxmi aged 13 years. He alleged that the girl was missing since 7 am , he suspected on Udaiveer Singh who used to come at that place alleging that he with the help of Guddi had kidnapped / abducted his daughter. The case U/s 363 IPC was registered. The searching operation was started, a team of police officials went to Mainpuri District, at Mohalla Raghunath Puri near Rishi Asham and traced the girl Laxmi from there. The police then went at the house of Udaiveer Singh at Thokar no. 14, Pushta road and on the identification of Laxmi accused Udaiveer was arrested. Despite efforts accused Guddi could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender on 23.5.06. The girl was medically examined and after investigation accused was chargesheeted U/s 363/365/34 IPC.
2. On his appearance after complying with the requirement contemplated U/s 207 CrPC and hearing arguments, prima facie case was made out against accused and charge was framed against accused of offence punishable U/s 363/365/34 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Accused was examined U/s 313 CrPC wherein he stated that the girl was not recovered from his possession nor he made any disclosure statement and he was falsely implicated in this case. In his defence he examined two witnesses Sh. Ashok Kumar as Dw1 and Sh. Tehsil Dar as Dw2.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld APP for the State and Ld counsel for accused Sh. M.P. Singh Rathore and have gone through the evidence on record.
FIR NO. 71/2006 : P.S. GEETA COLONY 35. Ld counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW3. Pw1 stated that the girl was recovered from Mainpuri however according to Pw3 the girl was recovered from pushta. The prosecution did not place on record the railway tickets showing that the police officials had gone to Mainpuri to trace the girl. Ld counsel further stated that the girl in her statement U/s 164 CrPC did not name the accused though recorded on 24.2.06 and as per the prosecution story she got to know the name of the accused on 21.2.06. Ld counsel stated that the application of the accused U/.s 311 CrPC was allowed for recalling prosecution witnesses for cross-examination, the witnesses did not turn up so the testimony of the prosecution witnesses particularly of PW1 and Pw2 would not be read against the accused.
6. Ld APP for the State on the contrary argued that efforts were made to trace the witnesses but they were not traceable and could not be produced in the witness box. Ld PP stated that the girl was recovered from the possession of the accused who had kidnapped her and confined her at a place with dishonest intention.
7. I have considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. The statement of Pw1 and Pw2 were recorded on 25.7.06. On that day opportunity was afforded to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses but the accused did not cross-examine them. His application U/s 311 CrPC was allowed vide order dt. 3.10.06. On 21.12.06 the report was submitted by process serving agency that PW Harish Chand and Laxmi are not traceable since the jhuggi where they FIR NO. 71/2006 : P.S. GEETA COLONY 4 have been living had been demolished. So it is not the case of the accused that the witnesses were available and despite that they were not produced in the witness box. I find that sincere efforts were made by the investigating agency to trace these witnesses but despite efforts these witnesses could not be traced. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 was recorded in the presence of accused and at that time the opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses. So in view of the provision U/s 311 CrPC r/w Section 299 CrPC and Section 33 of the Evidence Act the testimony of these witnesses would be read against the accused.
9. Pw1 Sh. Harish Chand stated that on 19.2.06 his daughter Laxmi aged 13 years was missing from his jhuggi. He made search of her, he came to know that she was taken by the accused Udaiveer with the help of Guddi who had come at his place 4/5 days prior to the incident. He stated that on 20.2.06 he with the police had gone to Dist Mainpuri from where his daughter was recovered. He proved the arrest memo of accused Udaiveer Ex. Pw1/B and disclosure statement Ex. Pw1/C.
10. Pw2 Kumari Laxmi stated that accused Udaiveer had taken her from her jhuggi at about 7 am. She stated that about 2-3 months before the incident, accused to say that he would send her to Dist Mainpuri and would provide her proper food and clothes. She stated that the accused took her to ISBT Anand Vihar, made her sit in a bus with an aunt namely Guddi for going to Dist Mainpuri. She stated that Guddi took her to her house in Mainpuri however nothing wrong was committed with her. She stated that on the next day, her father alongwith police raided the house of Guddi at Dist Mainpuri and recovered her and at her instance arrested the accused Udaiveer Singh.
FIR NO. 71/2006 : P.S. GEETA COLONY 5She stated that she was brought to Delhi and thereafter she was medically examined. It is not the case of the prosecution that Pw1 had inimical relations with him and was interested in his false implication.
11. Pw3 HC Kewal Krishan stated that on 20.2.06 he with IO went to Dist Mainpuri UP where they conducted raid at the instance of the complainant and recovered the girl from the house of Guddi. He stated that the accused Udaiveer was arrested from Thokar no. 14, Yamuna Pushta Raod on the identification of the girl Laxmi. He was cross- examined at length but Ld Defence Counsel failed to impeach his testimony on any material point.
12. Pw4 HC Rajesh is the formal witness. He went to Dist Mainpuri for execution of NBW against accused Guddi but could not find her there.
13. Pw5 SI Sultan Singh is the investigating officer of this case. He deposed on the line of Pw1 and Pw2 and proved the disclosure statement, arrest memo of the accused. He stated that he got the statement of the girl recorded U/s 164 CrPC and also got the girl medically examined. He denied the suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused.
14. He admitted that TIP of the accused was not conducted. I am of the view that there was no need for conducting the TIP of accused particularly when Pw2 stated that accused Udaiveer had come at her house for about 3-4 months and she knew him from before.
15. Pw7 Dr. Nidhi medically examined the girl and found her minor, she FIR NO. 71/2006 : P.S. GEETA COLONY 6 also did her gynecological examination.
16. Though the accused in his defence examined two witnesses who stated that police picked the accused Udaiveer from his jhuggi on 19.2.06 but from the testimony of Pw1 and Pw2 which is duly corroborated by the police officials no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the defence witnesses. It is not the case of the prosecution that when the girl was recovered accused was present. Rather prosecution story is that accused was arrested after recovery of the girl on the identification of the girl.
17. In the light of above discussion no doubt is left in my mind that accused had kidnapped the minor girl with help of Co-accused Guddi and confined her to a secret place without the permission of her parents at Dist Mainpuri with dishonest intention. I therefore hold the accused Udaiveer Singh guilty and convict him of offence punishable U/s 363/365 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.04.2007 (SANJIV JAIN) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts : Shahdara.
FIR NO. 71/2006 : P.S. GEETA COLONY 7IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI.
STATE VS. UDAIVEER SINGH FIR NO. 71/2006 P.S. GEETA COLONY U/S 363/365/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide separate judgment accused Udaiveer Singh has been convicted of offence punishable under Section 363/365/34 IPC.
I have heard ld counsel for the convict on point of sentence. Convict is aged about 45 years, married and has six children, he is in custody since February 2006. He is the sole bread earner in his family. He does not have any criminal antecedents. Purpose of punishment is to reform and rehabilitate the offender.
Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case I sentence the accused to go rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default three months simple imprisonment for offence punishable U/s 363 IPC. He is also sentenced go rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default three months simple imprisonment for offence punishable U/s 365 IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. He is given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.04.2007 (SANJIV JAIN) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts : Shahdara.