Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Kumar on 29 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE
PRESIDED BY: MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
Cr.C. No. 68571/2016
FIR No.20/2013
PS: Ranjit Nagar
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors.
CNR No. DLWT02-002836-2013
JUDGMENT
a) ID. No. of the case : 68571/2016
b) Name of the : Ms. Promila Kumari
Complainant/ Informant.
c) Name of the Accused, : 1. Rohit Kumar Bhagat S/o
his/her parentage Sh. Chunniya Bhagat
2. Beena Dhingra W/o Sh.
Kawal Kumar Dhingra
3. Shweta Dhingra W/o Sh.
Amit Dhingra.
d) Offences complained : 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care
of and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 r/w section 34 of
IPC
e) Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order. : Accused Rohit Kumar is ac-
quitted. Accused Beena
Dhingra and Shweta Dhin-
gra are convicted of the of-
fence u/s 23 of JS Act.
f) Date of such order. : 29.04.2025.
g) Date of institution. : 01.11.2013
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:49:35
+0530
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 1 of 42
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the prosecution emanating from the case FIR no.20/2013 registered under section 23/26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 at PS Ranjit Nagar.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that, on 03.02.2013, pursuant to DD no.21A, police found the victim ('P') aged about 15 years near Axis Bank ATM, Pusa roundabout, South Patel Nagar, Delhi. In her statement, the victim disclosed that she hails from Jharkhand where her parents resides. She was brought to Delhi by a fellow villager, namely Rohit Kumar Bhagat (arrayed as accused No.1), who got her employed as a domestic help at a residence, address of which the victim did not know. However, Chachi (Aunty) there, whose name also the victim did not know, used to beat her when she did not perform the chores properly because of which she had left that house and reached at the ATM on foot where she was discovered. In this backdrop, the case FIR was registered and the imputed offences investigated into. Upon completion of investigation, final report in the form of chargesheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was forwarded to this Court arraying the accused Rohit Kumar Bhagat (hereinafter referred to as "the accused no.1") for commission of offence under section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 whereas, the accused Shweta Dhingra and the accused Beena Dhingra (hereinafter referred to as "the accused no.2 and 3", respectively) were indicted for commision of offences under section 370A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Digitally signed by AkritiAkriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:49:43 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 2 of 42
3. After taking cognizance of the offences complained of in the instant case FIR, the accused were summoned vide order dated 01.11.2013. Pursuant to their appearance, copies of the charge-sheets along with accompanying documents were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of the provisions of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since offences under sections 370 and 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed vide order dated 12.11.2013. However, vide order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Court of Sh. V. K. Bansal, the then Ld. ASJ (Fast Track Court), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the accused persons were discharged of the offences under sections 370 and 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accordingly, the instant case FIR was remanded back to this Court. Thereafter, upon hearing the prosecution as well as the defence and after perusal of the material available on record, charge under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was framed against the accused no.1 whereas, charges under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed against the accused no.2 and 3 vide order dated 19.08.2014. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the case against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in its favour.
5. The victim ('P') was examined as PW1 by the prosecution. She deposed that she came to Delhi in the year 2012 to work along with a friend of her fufa, however, she remembered neither the date Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:49:48 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 3 of 42 nor the month in which she had come to Delhi nor the name of the name of the friend of her fufa. The witness deposed that after she arrived in Delhi, she stayed awhile at the house of a relative of her fufa situated at a place called 'Chandan Holan'. Thereafter, the witness testified that she got employed in a house belonging to one Smt. Shweta at Patel Nagar by one Rohit. The witness identified both the accused no.1 and the accused no.2 during their dock identification before this Court and testified that Smt. Shweta resided there along with her husband, two sons and her mother-in-law. There, the witness deposed that, she performed household chores, viz. brooming/mopping; washing utensils, cooking, dusting, etc. Explaining her routine in that house, the witness deposed that she used to get up at about 6:00 A.M. everyday and worked until about 11:00 P.M while eating at different intervals during the starting at 10/11:00 A.M., again at around 01:00 P.M., at around 07.00 P.M. and finally at around 11:00 P.M., though complained about its quantity as her hunger remained unsatisfied. PW1 deposed that no separate room was provided to her in the house. And her monthly pay / salary was Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). She deposed that she worked in the house for about 1½ months (i.e. 45 days) without pay as her salary remains unpaid. The victim testified that her employers scolded and beat her inspite of her performing all the household chores as they used to tell her that she was not doing her work properly and speedily like one day, the accused no.2 caught her by her hair, however, when the former started crying, the latter picked up a bat and threatened the victim that should she cry, beatings will be given to her by that bat. The witness deposed that the accused no.3, the mother-in-law of the accused no.2, had also beaten her with the bat after scolding her on the issue of mopping the floor after Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:49:54 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 4 of 42 which the witness ran away from that house at about 11:00 P.M. The witness testified she was denied food that day. After running away from the house, the witness deposed that she reached a shop situated at Chandan Holan and told the shopkeeper that she had run away from the house of her employer. A policeman met her there to whom she narrated the entire story. The policeman then took her to the police station, then to the hospital followed by Nirmal Chayya. Statement of the witness was recorded by the police vide Ex. PW1/A bearing her signature at point A as well as before the Court under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide Ex. PW1/B bearing her signatures at points A and B. The witness further testified that she had not told anything to the accused no.1 regarding the behaviour of the accused no.2 and 3 or the treatment meted out to her at their behest.
5.1. PW1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3. In her cross examination, PW1, inter alia, testified that she had come to Delhi by train without informing her family members as she was angry with them, though disposed that she had informed her fufa that she wanted to work in Delhi. She deposed that she had never left her house before coming to Delhi.
Her bua informed her that a friend of her fufa is coming to Delhi from Ranchi so she went to Ranchi by bus and from there, arrived in Delhi along with that friend of her fufa. The witness denied the suggestion that the friend of her fufa got her employed at some other house from where she had run away before sending her to be employed at the house of the accused no.2 and instead, claimed that she stayed at the house of her fufa's friend for about 2-3 days only before coming under the employment of the accused no.2 at her Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:50:00 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 5 of 42 house. The witness denied the suggestion that she had worked at the house of the accused no.2 for about 6 months but deposed that she used to address the accused no.2 as 'bhabhi' whereas, the accused no.3 as 'mummy'. The witness conceded that she used to get the same food which the accused no.2 and her family members ate. The witness also conceded that during her employment she was afflicted with a boil (foda) for the treatment of which, she taken to the doctor three/four times by the accused no.2 and that the latter used to change its dressing two/three times a day which led to its recovery, according to the doctor. The witness even conceded that the accused no.2 used to provide her clothes and cater to her other requirements after purchasing the same from the market. And while the witness admitted that the accused no.2 used to take her along whenever she went to the market, the former volunteered that the latter would lock her up alone in the house whenever she went to a party and denied the suggestion that the witness was never locked up alone in the house either by the accused no.2 or by the accused no.3. The witness categorically testified that she was beaten up a number of times by the mother-in-law of the accused no.2, i.e. by the accused no.3, though could not recall the exact dates/ days/ times on which such beatings were given to the victim. The witness denied the suggestion that she was never beaten up either by the accused no.2 or by the accused no.3 since they treated her like their own daughter. The witness not only denied the suggestion that she was treated well by the accused persons and used to get good food from them but instead volunteered the incident where after one beating, blood oozed out from her head, though admitted that she did not run after that beating. The witness conceded that the accused no.1 had asked her to work in the house of the accused no.2 for a complete year and was Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:50:05 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 6 of 42 not supposed to run away as she had done earlier, not to mention that it was decided that her salary would be paid to the accused no.1. The witness admitted having received an amount of Rs.30-40,000/- since the registration of the present case FIR, though denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely; or that the accused no.2 never beat her by pulling her hair.
5.2. PW1 was also cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1. In her cross-examination, PW1, inter alia, testified that she was not employed in any house before her employment in the house of the accused no.2. The witness conceded that when she, accompanied by her fufa, visited the office of the accused no.1, they had informed the latter that the former has an experience of one year at household work, not to mention that she was 18 years old. The witness conceded that the accused no.1 got her the employment after believing that she was 18 years old. The witness further conceded that the accused no.1 used to visit the house of the accused no.2 every month as much to collect her salary as to enquire about her well-being and that she never complained to the accused no.1 about the imputed treatment meted out to her at the behest of the accused no.2 or her mother-in-law, the accused no.3.
The witness admitted that whenever the accused no.1 visited her at the house of the accused no.2, he facilitated her conversation with her fufa using his personal mobile phone and in none of the those conversations, did the witness ever complain about the alleged treatment meted out to her or the behaviour of the accused no.2 or her mother-in-law, the accused no.3 to her fufa. The witness deposed that she had left the house of the accused no.2 at about 07:00 A.M. The witness stated that she knew how to call using a telephone but Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:50:10 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 7 of 42 since the accused no.2 had taken away the slip on which she had written the phone numbers of her relatives, she could not call any one of them. The witness deposed that the police had come to the Axis Bank ATM at 04:00 P.M. the day next. The witness volunteered that she ran away from the house of the accused no.2 on an earlier occasion no less at which point of time she came in contact with Ms. Meena Sachdev, however denied the suggestion that between 07:00 A.M., the day on which she had left the house of the accused no.2 till 04:00 P.M. the day next, Ms. Meena Sachdev remained in contact with her and continued to guide her. The witness admitted that she had informed police that she worked in the house of the accused no.2 for about 1½ months when actually speaking, she had worked there for 05 months. The witness failed to recall whether she started working for the accused no.2 in her house on 09.09.2012 and once again denied the suggestions - that she was not beaten up in the house of the accused no.2; and that she was deposing falsely.
6. Sh. Jogi Ram, father of the victim was examined as PW2 by the prosecution. He deposed that he is a farmer having five daughters and three sons. He deposed that the victim is aged about 18 years old as on the date of his deposition in the instant case FIR which was recorded before this Court on 30.06.2015. The witness could not tell the date, the month or the year in which the victim had come to Delhi, not even how many years ago was it that she came to Delhi or after how long did she return to Jharkhand from Delhi. The witness could not depose where all the victim had stayed whilst she was in Delhi, only that she ran away from his house to come to Delhi.
6.1. PW2 was cross-examined summarily by Ld. Counsel for the Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:50:15 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 8 of 42 accused no.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, PW2 denied the suggestion that he had scolded the victim because of which she had run away from her house and come to Delhi, however, volunteered that the victim was not interested in studies because of which she left her school and came to Delhi, instead.
6.2. PW2 was also cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused no.1. In his cross-examination, PW2 testified that he had not lodged missing person's report after his daughter ran away from the home as he had come to know the whereabout of his daughter after the officials of Delhi Police had reached his house in his village. The witness however denied the suggestions - that he was aware about the whereabouts of the victim and he was deposing falsely; or that since September, 2012 till February, 2013 he received money sent by the accused no.1; or that initially he may not be aware of the whereabout of the victim but later on, victim's fufa had informed him that the victim was in Delhi. The witness deposed that victim's fufa had deposited money in the bank but he had not received it from the bank. The name of victim's fufa was Sh. Goindi Kumar.
7. Ct. Rohit, PIS No.3319, was examined by the prosecution as PW3. He deposed that on 11.03.2013, while he was posted as a Constable in PS Ranjit Nagar, he along with W/Ct. Khilwanti and IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar went to the house of the accused no.2 and 3, both of them identified by the witness during their dock identification before this Court. He testified that upon interrogation of the accused persons, IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar recorded their disclosure statements vide Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B, respectively, both bearing his signatures at points A. The accused no.2 and 3 were Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:50:27 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 9 of 42 arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D, respectively, both bearing his signatures at points A. At the instance of the IO, W/Ct. Khilwanti conducted the personal search of them both vide personal search memos Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F, both bearing his signatures at points A. Thereafter, the witness deposed that the custody of both the aforesaid accused was handed over to Ct. Khilwanti and the information of their arrest was given to Sh. K. K. Dhingra. The accused were brought to the PS and after making the relevant DD entry in the roznamcha, both of them were taken to LHMC Hospital by him and W/Ct. Khilwanti for their medical examination after which, both of them were produced before the Court.
7.1. PW3 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity.
8. Ct. Manoj, PIS No. 611, was examined by the prosecution as PW4. He deposed that on 14.02.2013, while he was posted as a Constable in PS Ranjit Nagar, he along with IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar went to house no.A-29 in Chattarpur Ext., Delhi in search of the accused no.1 where where they were informed that no person by that name resided there, much less runs any placement agency there. The same day, the witness testified that, they visited the house no.A-29 in Chattarpur, Delhi where they received a similar reply from the persons found residing there. On 02.03.2013, however, the witness deposed that he along with IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar apprehended the accused no.1 from the residence of the other co-accused, i.e. from house no.7/20, IIIrd Floor, East Patel Nagar, Delhi. The witness identified the accused no.1 in his dock identification as the person Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:50:32 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 10 of 42 apprehended by them on 02.03.2013 at the aforesaid address in East Patel Nagar. After interrogation, the witness deposed that the IO arrested and personally searched the accused no.1 vide memos Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, respectively, both bearing his signatures at points A. IO then recorded the disclosure statement of the accused no.1 vide Ex. PW4/C, bearing signature of the witness at point A. And after his medical examination, the accused no.1 was taken to the PS. 8.1. PW4 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity.
9. Sh. Rajesh Kumar was examined as PW5 by the prosecution.
He deposed that he is a resident of Ranchi, Jharkhand and engaged in agricultural work in his village. PW2 is his brother-in-law (Jija) whereas, the victim ('P') is his niece. The witness deposed that although, he does not remember the exact date, but it was in the year 2013, when the victim went missing as PW2 had informed him about it. Thereafter, the witness deposed that they searched her to the best of their ability but in vain. However, after a few days, PW2 informed him that the victim has been found in Delhi and some police officials had come to inform him about that. Thereafter, the witness deposed that he along with PW2 came to Delhi and went to PS Ranjit Nagar, Delhi where they found the victim who had left her home because of some argument with her father (PW2) but he didn't know much about the circumstances in which she reached Delhi. The police officials then handed over the custody of the victim to them and recorded his statement.
Digitally signed by Akriti MahendruAkriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:50:39 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 11 of 42
9.1. PW5 was cross-examined summarily by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3. In his cross examination, PW5 conceded that he is not aware of the circumstances in which the victim came to Delhi or even, who brought her to Delhi.
9.2. The accused no.1 adopted the aforesaid cross-examination of the witness conducted at the behest of his co-accused.
10. Ms. Fulmani Bada, bua of the victim, was examined by the prosecution as PW6. She deposed that she hails from Jharkhand however shifted to Delhi to work in the year 2008. She further deposed that the victim had come to Delhi to find work as a maid. The accused no.1 provided her work in a house located in Patel Nagar, Delhi. The witness identified the accused no.1 in his dock identification conducted before this Court. In the year 2014, the victim was given money for the work she had done. In the summer of 2016, the victim informed her that she was beaten up by the persons that she used to work for and even denied food by them.
10.1. PW6 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3. In her cross-examination, PW6 deposed that she had neither seen the house where the victim used to work in Patel Nagar nor has personal knowledge as to by whom was the victim allegedly beaten. The witness denied having given any statement to the police earlier regarding the alleged beating and denied the suggestion that she never met the victim in the year 2016 for her to inform anything about the alleged incident.
10.2. PW6 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:50:45 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 12 of 42 no.1. In her cross-examination, the witness deposed that the victim was aged about 16 years old when she came to Delhi to work, though conceded that she had never seen her age, birth or educational certificates. She conceded that she was not present at the time when the victim allegedly asked the accused no.1 for work, nor did the victim inform the witness that she had informed the accused no.1 that she is below 18 years of age. The witness denied having given any statement to the police earlier regarding the alleged beating and denied the suggestion that she never met the victim in the year 2016 for her to inform anything about the alleged incident.
11. Birsa Oraon, teacher at NUMS Gadri Toli, Bharno, District Gumla, Jharkhand was examined as PW7 by the prosecution. She tendered the register regarding age proof of the victim which records her date of birth to be 01.01.1999. Copy of the said register was exhibited as Ex. PW7/A (OSR).
11.1. PW7 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3. In her cross-examination, PW7 deposed that she was responsible for maintaining the record of age register of the students and she was summoned for giving testimony regarding the age of the victim. The witness denied the suggestions - that the record which she had brought was manipulated or that there was no any authenticity of the aforesaid register; or that the victim was a major; or that she was deposing falsely.
11.2. PW6 was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1. In her cross-examination, the witness deposed that she has worked as a teacher and was well aware of the admission Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:50:50 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 13 of 42 procedure of the students in her school. The witness testified that she had entered the date of birth of the victim in the aforesaid register (Ex. PW7/A (OSR)) as 01.01.1999 as told by her parents and conceded that she had entered the said date of birth on the oral submissions of the parents of the victim.
12. ASI Vijay Pal Singh, PIS No.28960809 was examined as PW8 by the prosecution. He deposed that on 03.02.2013, while he was posted as a Constable at PS Ranjit Nagar, IO SI Kamlesh Kumar joined him in the investigation into DD No.21A. Thereafter, they went to the spot, i.e. Pushpa Gol Chakkar near Axis Bank ATM where they met the victim who told the IO that she hails from Jharkhand and the owner of the property had thrown her out of the house. She also told them that the owner used to beat her, however, she did not know the address of the house. Thereafter, the IO called at the PS to call for a W/Ct. pursuant to which W/Ct. Sunita reached the spot whereafter, the witness deposed that he was discharged.
12.1. PW8 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, PW8 deposed that IO may have received call from the NGO but he did not receive any call. He further deposed that he did not accompany the W/Ct. for medical of the victim as he was discharged at that point of time. The witness denied the suggestions - that the age of the victim was not 15 years old; or that the victim had not told the IO that she was ousted from the house after giving beatings to her or; or that he was deposing falsely.
12.2. PW8 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:50:56 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 14 of 42 no.1. In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that he had stated the age of the victim was around 15 years old, on the basis of the conversation held between the IO and the victim, wherein the girl told the IO that she was 15 years old. The witness admitted that he did not verify the age of the victim and had made the statement on the basis of aforesaid hearsay.
13. W/HC Sunita, PIS No.28062370, was examined as PW9 by the prosecution. She deposed that on 03.02.2013, while she was posted as a Constable in PS Ranjit Nagar, IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar called her to the spot, i.e. Pusa Road Gol Chakkar near Axis Bank ATM. And upon the directions of the IO, she took the victim to Lady Harding Hospital for her medical examination. Thereafter, she handed over the custody of the victim to Nirmal Chhaya whereupon, she along with IO took the victim to Tis Hazari Court where IO/SI Kamlesh moved an application for recording her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After that, the witness again handed over the custody of the victim to Nirmal Chhaya. After a few days, she along with the IO brought the victim from the Nirmal Chhaya to PS Patel Nagar, however, the victim did not recognize the area near PS Patel Nagar. Then, she was taken to PS Patel Nagar where she identified the area as well as the house she was working at. In the house, the victim identified the accused no.2 in the presence of the witness who identified the former in her dock identification before this Court. The witness testified that they left after the IO made inquiry from the aforesaid accused and returned to the PS. The custody of the victim was again handed over to the authority at Nirmal Chhaya.
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:51:01
+0530
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 15 of 42 13.1. PW9 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3. In her cross-examination, PW9 deposed that she had accompanied IO along with the victim to the house of the accused. The flat of the accused was situated on the third floor where along with the accused no.2, one more lady was present. The witness denied the suggestion that she had not visited the house of the accused persons and did not go up to the third floor of the building. The witness however did not recall if she had met the father-in-law of the accused no.2 on the road side. The witness denied the suggestions - that she had inquired from her father-in-law so she did not go up to the flat of the accused; or that she deposing falsely.
13.2. No cross-examination of PW9 was conducted on behalf of the accused no.1 despite opportunity.
14. Retd. ASI Kare Lal was examined as PW10 by the prosecution. PW10 deposed that on 07.02.2013, while he was posted as a Constable at PS Ranjit Nagar, he went to the village of the victim situated in Gumla, Jharkhand vide DD No.66B upon the directions of IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar. The witness deposed that he first went to the local police station and secured police staff for his help. Upon reaching the house of the victim, the witness deposed that he met her father who told him about the victim and that she was studying in a school. Thereafter, on 10.02.2013, the witness along with the father of the victim and the local police staff went to the said school and obtained record of the victim regarding her date of birth from its Head Master/in-charge. As per record, the victim's date of birth was 01.01.1991. Thereafter, the witness along with victim's father, her maternal uncle namely, Sh. Rajesh Kumar and the Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:51:06 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 16 of 42 documents of her date of birth provided by the school, returned to Delhi and handed over the record to the 1O.
14.1. PW10 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1. In his cross-examination, PW10 deposed that he went to the village of the victim at the behest of the IO and no permission from the Court was obtained for the purpose of age verification of the victim as well the procurement of certificate of the DOB from the school attended by the victim. The witness testified that he learnt about the school attended by the victim only after he reached her home. The witness denied the suggestions - that he never visited district Gamla and never met the victim's father; or that he does not know the correct name of the district as well as the victim's father because neither did he travel there nor did he meet him.
14.2. The accused no.2 and 3 adopted the cross-examination of PW10 conducted at the behest of the co-accused no.1.
15. Sh. Govind Ram was examined as PW11 by the prosecution who pleaded ignorance about the facts entailed in the present case FIR.
15.1. The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as he had not disclosed the complete facts. In his cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness deposed that a person called Sh. Sunil Tikki was residing as a tenant in his building in the year 2013. The witness denied the suggestion that no person by that name resided at that address. The witness was then confronted with his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:51:12 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 17 of 42 1973 (Mark PW11/X) from point A to A1 where it is so recorded.
15.2. PW11 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused no.1. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there were around 17/18 tenants residing at A-11, Zamrudpur, GK-1, New Delhi. During the period 2013-15, the witness deposed that he did not execute any rent agreement with any of his tenants because small rooms were rented out to the persons belonging a very meagre income group. Nor did the witness issue any rent receipts to anyone, including but not limited to Sunil. The witness conceded that Sh. Sunil Tikka/Tikri was residing in his premises as a tenant during the period 2013-15.
15.3. PW11 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused no.2 and 3 despite opportunity.
16. Tulsi Oraon was examined as PW12 by the prosecution who did not say anything in her examination-in-chief.
16.1. PW12 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as the witness did not disclose anything. In her cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness deposed that she is a permanent resident of district Gumla in Jharkhand and has been residing in Delhi for the past 10-15 years and working as a labourer. The witness conceded that she is friends with the accused no.1. She identified the accused no.1 in his dock identification. The witness also conceded that the victim was working in the house of the accused no.1 and that he had told her that the victim would be placed/employed somewhere in Patel Nagar. The witness admitted that she did not see her thereafter.
Digitally signed by Akriti MahendruAkriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:51:18 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 18 of 42 16.2. PW12 was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1. In her cross-examination, PW12 deposed that on one of her visits to the house of the accused no.1, she had met the victim where she told her that she wanted to get placed somewhere as she was searching for a job of housemaid/housekeeping and when the witness asked her about her age and her experience, the victim told her that she was about 18 years old and had an experience of around a year or so of working as a housemaid. Although, the witness deposed that she could not find any suitable job for the victim, however, the accused no.1 later informed her about the victim's placement as a housemaid in Patel Nagar. The witness testified that even after her placement in Patel Nagar, she continued to talk to the victim and in none of their conversations, did the victim ever disclose any violence or ill-treatment meted out to her at the behest of the family where she was working. The witness categorically deposed that the whereabouts of the victim, of her job, of her location, etc. were all known to her family as she even told the witness that she used to send money to her parents. The witness deposed that the victim's parents were well known to her.
16.3. The accused no.2 and 3 adopted the cross-examination of PW12 conducted at the behest of the co-accused no.1.
17. Surender Pal Singh, an advocate by profession, and owner of property No. A-29, Chhatarpur Extension, New Delhi was examined by the prosecution as PW13. He deposed that a lady namely Smt. Ranjana Rai along with her children was residing as tenant in the aforesaid property. On an uncertain day, the witness deposed that Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:51:23 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 19 of 42 police officials of PS Ranjit Nagar visited the aforesaid premises and inquired about the accused no.1 if he was residing at this address as a tenant or not. The witness deposed that he answered in the negative as he did not know anything about the accused no.1. He deposed that he knew neither any person by the name of Rohit nor any placement agency by the name of 'Rohit Placement Agency'.
17.1. PW13 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1. In his cross-examination, PW13 deposed that he had bought the property no.A-29, Chhatarpur Extension, New Delhi in the year 2008 and Smt. Ranjana Rai remained his tenant in the premises till 2013-2014, though pleaded ignorance as who was residing therein prior to the year 2008. The witness testified that a rent agreement was executed with Smt. Ranjana Rai for the year 2008-2009 and none ever after. The witness deposed that he did not give any copy of the rent agreement to the police at the time of recording of his statement which was not even on record. The witness further deposed that Smt. Ranjana Rai used to pay rent in cash and no rent receipt was issued to her. The witness admitted that there was nothing on record to prove that Smt. Ranjana Rai was his tenant, however, volunteered that he has the rent agreement as aforesaid. The witness denied the suggestions - that since he did not maintain any record, did not receive rent in his bank account and did not issue any rent receipts that is why he is denying that the accused no.1 was his tenant; or that since the accused no.1 got implicated in the present case FIR and the witness did not want to get embroiled in any legal complication is why he was denying him as a tenant conveniently; or that the accused no.1 was his tenant in the aforesaid premises who ran his business for around six years from that Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:51:29 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 20 of 42 premises.
17.2. The accused no.2 and 3 did not cross-examine PW13 despite opportunity.
18. IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar, PIS No.16100147, was examined by the prosecution as PW14. He deposed that on 03.02.2013, while he was posted as an SI at PS Ranjit Nagar, he was on emergency duty when he received DD No.21A from the duty officer. Thereafter, the witness deposed that he along with Ct. Vijay Pal went to the spot, i.e. near Axis Bank ATM, Pusa roundabout, South Patel Nagar. At the spot, an unidentified minor girl met the witness. Upon inquiry, she disclosed her name and informed him that she was working as maid in a house which she left because of the beatings meted out to her by the ladies of the house. Thereafter, the witness called W/Ct. Sunita at the spot and sent the victim to LHMC Hospital for her medical examination. After her medical examination, victim's custody was handed over to Children's Home Nirmal Chaya Parisar. On next day, the witness testified that the victim was produced before the Child Welfare Committee whose members counselled and recorded the victim's statement. And upon the directions of CWC, the victim was produced before them on the subsequent day too. The committee then handed over the victim's statement and gave direction to SHO for registration of the present case FIR. The custody of the victim was again handed over to Children's Home. On the same day, the witness deposed that he prepared a rukka upon the victim's statement upon which the present case FIR was registered and its investigation was handed over to him. The rukka (Ex. PW1/A) from point X to X1 bears the signature of the witness at point B. The witness then got Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:51:36 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 21 of 42 victim's statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Ld. MM And at the instance of the victim, the house where she was working was identified as the house no.7/20, East Patel Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, the witness made inquiry from the house owner Sh. Kawal Kumar Dhingra who disclosed that the victim was employed by them through the accused no.1 whom he called to his house. The accused no.1 reached there and was interrogated by the witness. The witness recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW4/C bearing signature of the witness at point B. Thereafter, the witness deposed that he arrested the accused no.1 vide memo Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, the witness seized the documents of agreements and payments done at the time of hiring of victim as a maid vide memo Ex. PW14/A bearing his signature at point A. The witness deposed that the accused no.1 refused to join the TIP proceedings. Nevertheless, the witness then obtained the signature / handwriting of the accused no.1 after permission from the Court. On 11.03.2013, the witness deposed that he went to the house no.7/20 East Patel Nagar, Delhi and made inquiries from the accused no.2 and 3 after which they both were arrested in the presence of W/Ct. Kilwanti vide memos Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D both bearing signatures of the witness at points B. The disclosure statements of both the accused no.2 and 3 (Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively) was recorded by the witness bearing his signatures at points B. After their medical examination, the accused no.2 and 3 were produced before the court and after grant of permission to subject them to TIP, both the accused were sent to J/C. During their TIP proceedings, both these accused persons were correctly identified by the victim. The witness testified that he sent notice to the first school attended by the Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:51:41 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 22 of 42 victim for her age proof and after obtaining its reply, tagged it with the case file. The witness tendered notice as Ex. PW14/B bearing his signature at point A. The witness then sent the sample handwriting and signature along with question documents to FSL Rohini, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the chargesheet and filed the FSL Report in the court after obtaining it from FSL Rohini. The witness identified all the accused persons in their dock identification before this Court.
18.1. PW14 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, PW14, inter alia, deposed that the investigation of the present case FIR had been with him since its inception. The witness deposed that he made inquiries from the victim 4-5 times during his investigation, however, could not tell if the victim had any fresh injuries on her body or not when he met her for the first time. The witness denied the suggestion that he lodged the present case FIR against the accused persons at the instance of Head of NGO Ms. Meena Sehdev. The witness could not say if the dues to the victim were paid by the accused persons before CWC or not. The witness denied the suggestion that he was totally in consultation with the NGO before CWC too. The witness admitted that when he met the victim for the first time, she stated that she did not know the name nor the address of the accused no.2 and 3. The witness admitted that during his investigation, he had collected documents / receipts acknowledging payments made towards salary of the victim to the accused no.1. The witness conceded that he had not placed on record any birth certificate of the victim, though denied the suggestion that it has not been so placed on record because the victim was a major at the time. The witness denied the Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:51:49 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 23 of 42 suggestions - that he had pressurized the accused no.3 to sign on plain paper which was later on converted into her disclosure statement; or that the accused no.2 had straightaway refused to sign her disclosure statement because it contained incorrect contents. The witness admitted that the the accused no.2 had refused to sign her disclosure statement (Ex. PW3/A). The witness conceded that he did not make any inquiry from the neighbours of the accused no.2 and 3 but denied the suggestion that it was not so done as it would have adversely effected the case of the prosecution. the witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
18.2. PW14 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1. In his cross-examination, PW14, inter alia, deposed that initially in the investigation, victim had disclosed her age to be 15 years old, however, gave no document in support thereof. The witness deposed that he took victim's statement at her face value, for she appeared like any other 15 year olds. The witness denied the suggestion that he arrested the accused no.1 with mala fide intention.
In response to the query how the witness verified the registration of the placement agency run by the accused no.1, the witness deposed that at first, he verified it online then from the O/o SDM Jamrudhpur, Delhi, however, found no such record. The witness could not point out the communication letter purportedly sent to the SDM seeking verification of registration of placement agency from the record. The witness denied the suggestions - that he did not verify anything which explains the absence of documents; or that he prepared the chargesheet on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The witness admitted that no medical was conducted on the victim for determination of her age. The witness further deposed that the school Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:52:14 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 24 of 42 certificate was issued by Nav Utkramit Madhya Vidhyalaya, Gadritoli, Bharni, Dist. Gumla, Jharkhand, however, he did not obtain victim's birth certificate from the Municipal Corporation or Village Panchayat/Sarpanch. The witness denied the suggestion that when she approached the accused no.1 to be employed in Delhi, victim was 18.5 years old. The witness admitted that he did not verify if the victim had already worked with some other family for around a year. The witness testified that he had recorded the statements of the parents of the victim in which they have denied having received any remuneration from the accused no.1 on behalf of the victim. The witness denied that he was deposing falsely.
19. Sh. Jagpal Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW15. He deposed that in the year 2013, he saw that a girl aged about 12-13 years was lying unconscious near Hotel Siddharth roundabout. The witness deposed that he was coming on his auto when he, and the passenger plying in his auto, helped the girl and took her to a tea stall. The witness deposed that he gave her some water, snacks and tea. Thereafter, the witness deposed that upon query raised by him, she informed him that she works as a maid in a house at Patel Nagar. The witness deposed that she had injuries on both her hands, neck and leg and when he asked about them, she told him that the owner had thrashed her before evicting her. The passenger who was with the witness called the PCR from his mobile phone. The police reached the spot in 10-15 minutes whereupon the custody of the girl was handed over to them and the witness along with the passenger left the spot. 1-1.5 hours later, the witness received a call from PS Ranjit Nagar in connection with the incident.
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:52:20
+0530
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 25 of 42 19.1. Ld. APP for the State sought leave to cross-examine PW15 as he was not disclosing complete facts. In his cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW15, inter alia, deposed that he does not remember that the abovesaid incident transpired on 03.02.2013 due to a considerable lapse of time. However, the witness denied the suggestion that he was sitting at Laxmi properties near the tea stall when he saw the victim. The witness was then confronted with point A to Al in his statement (Mark PW15/X) recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which he denied having told the police. The witness did not remember if the girl had disclosed her name as 'P' owing to a considerable lapse of time. The witness denied the suggestion that he made a call to the women helpline number from the spot and denied having said so in his statement Mark PW15/X from point B to B1.
19.2. PW15 was cross-examined summarily by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, PW15, inter alia, deposed that he had not given any statement to the police but inquired from him regarding the incident only telephonically. The witness denied the suggestions - that the girl was found sitting near the ATM and the tea stall; or that the girl did not fall unconscious as he had not taken her to the tea stall or offered her tea and snacks. The witness deposed that he could tell her age from her physical appearance but denied the suggestion that she had not told him that her employer had beaten her and ousted her from the house. The witness further denied the suggestions - that he had not seen the injuries upon the body of the girl; or that he was deposing falsely 19.3. PW15 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused no.1 Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:52:26 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 26 of 42 despite opportunity.
20. During trial, statement of one Ms. Kesar Parveen, Member CWC-1, Office at Nirmal Chaya Complex, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi was recorded by this Court who deposed that she is working as a Member at Child Welfare Committee-1 since 20.06.2022 but failed to divulge the whereabouts of Ms. Charu Makkar, Ms. Karuna Nagar and Sh. Satender Bedi, the erstwhile members of CWC, as their tenure had completed.
21. Since, the accused persons admitted the genuineness and veracity of - FIR bearing no.20/13 dated 05.02.2013 PS Ranjit Nagar (Ex. A1); Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Ex. A2); DD No.21A dated 03.02.2013 (Ex. A3); Statement dated 12.02.2013 under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the victim recorded by Ms. Geetanjali, the then Ld. M.M. (Ex. A4); TIP proceedings dated 13.03.2013 of the accused no.3 and 2 before Sh. Samar Vishal, the then Ld. M.M. (Ex. A5 and Ex. A6, respectively); TIP proceedings dated 19.03.2013 of the accused Rohit Kumar Bhagat before Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma, the then Ld. M.M. (Ex. A7) under section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 on 20.09.2022, the examination of PWs concerned for proving the aforesaid documents was thereby dispensed with.
22. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 02.07.2024 and the accused persons examined in the exercise of power under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 13.08.2024. The accused persons pleaded innocence, false implication and denied all Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:52:32 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 27 of 42 the allegations levelled against them.
22.1. The accused no.2 and 3 specifically stated 'P' was employed at their house through a placement agency. After two days, she said that she did not want to work and wanted to return to her village.
Accused no.3 called the placement agency whereafter the accused no.1 came and took her away. 4-5 days later, 'P' returned to their house and expressed willingness to work. She resumed domestic work but again in January 2013, she ram away from their house, though returned 2-3 hours later without any explanation. And again on 03.02.2013, while she was cleaning the balcony, she ran away from the adjacent house without any information. The accused claimed that they had informed these facts to the police verbally. They further replied that they had given her a very cordial atmosphere and never ill-treated her or beat her as is now imputed. They, however, chose not to adduce any evidence in their defence.
22.2. The accused no.1 submitted that the girl 'P' was brought by her mama for a job at his placement agency. Her mama told him that she was 18 plus years old. Every month, the accused submitted that, he transferred the money to her father. The witness at first expressed willingness to adduce DE, however, withdrew that request vide order dated 24.09.2024.
23. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of all the accused as well as by the Ld. APP for the State with equal vehemence.
24. The Ld. APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:52:37 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 28 of 42 persons inasmuch as not only their identity but also the instances of cruelty inflicted by them upon the victim 'P' have been proven on record. Qua accused no.1, the Ld. APP argued that the record would manifest that he had actual charge of or control over the victim 'P' who, by reason of placing her under the employment of his co- accused no.2 and 3, exposed her to be assaulted and neglected in a manner which caused the victim unnecessary mental and physical suffering whereas, qua accused no.2 and 3, the Ld. APP contended that the evidence brought on record during trial is clinching against them both that they, having direct control over her, assaulted and neglected her in a manner which inflicted unnecessary mental and physical suffering upon the victim and therefore, a finding of guilt deserves to be returned against all the accused in the instant case FIR.
25. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the all the accused that they are victims of a larger conspiracy to implicate them in the present case FIR, for admittedly, the victim had come to Delhi seeking work after disappearing from her home and not only misrepresented about her actual age, assuming not admitting that she was a minor (or a child within the definition of section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000), sans permission from her family but also never complained about the imputed mental and physical abuse to anyone until she fled from the house of the accused no.2 and 3. The Ld. Counsels argued that the benefit of the gaping contradictions as well as admissions which emerge from the testimony of the victim (PW1) must inure in favour of the accused and prayed that they all be acquitted in the present case FIR.
Digitally signed by AkritiMahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:52:49 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 29 of 42
26. Before sifting and weighing the competing submissions in the adumbral of evidence tendered on record, it is deemed germane to reproduce the applicable provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, namely:
(Section 2 (f) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:-
f) "Committee" means a Child Welfare Committee constituted under section 29;
Section 2 (g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:-
(g) "competent authority" means in relation to children in need of care and protection a Committee and in relation to juveniles in conflict with law a Board;
Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:-
(k) "juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteen year of age;
Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:-
23 . Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child.-
"Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults,abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes orprocures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed o neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both"
Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:52:56 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 30 of 42 Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 49 . Presumption and determination of age.-
(1) Where it appears to a competent authority that person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be.
(2) No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person in respect of whom the order has been made is not a juvenile or the child, and the age recorded by the competent authority to be the age of person so brought before it, shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.
(Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860)
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common inten- tion.--
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in fur- therance of the common intention of all, each of such per- sons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
27. In this backdrop, this Court shall test if the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused or not in the adumbral of events as they emerged from the testimonies of witnesses cited, documents tendered and/or evidence generally tendered on record, to wit:
27.1. In order to prove its case, it is rather incumbent upon the prosecution to establish - (a) whether the victim is a child within the Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:53:02 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 31 of 42 meaning of section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 entitled to protection envisaged the provisions thereof?; (b) whether the accused are liable to be convicted under section 23 thereof for inflicting unnecessary mental and physical suffering upon the victim in the manner imputed?
28. Speaking of 22.1.(a) (supra) - whether the victim is a child within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 entitled to protection envisaged the provisions thereof? It is profitable to note that the victim was produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) during investigation, however, in spite of being a 'competent authority' by dint of section 2 (g) thereof, the statutory mandate of holding an age inquiry of the victim in terms of section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was not conducted in the instant case, not to mention that the CWC abdicated its statutory obligation of recording a finding as to whether the victim was a child or not by stating her age as nearly as may be.
29.1. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that no child should be denied the care and protection envisaged by salutary provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 merely because of the remiss of CWC to record a finding as to whether the victim was a child or not, more so when the charge under section 23 thereof hinges on that finding. That said, this Court shall endeavour to return the aforesaid finding by stating her age of the victim as nearly as may be.
29.2. Apropos of the age of the victim, the prosecution, on the one Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:53:07 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 32 of 42 hand, has invoked the register of the school first attended by the victim (Ex. PW7/A (OSR)) duly certified by its Principal indicating the date of birth of the former as 01.01.1999 whereas, the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1, on the other hand, has pressed into service the documents of agreements and payments done at the time of hiring of victim as a maid seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW14/A as well as the admission of the victim in her cross- examination that she has informed the accused no.1 that she was more than 18 years old when she met him for the first time to disprove the credibility of Ex. PW7/A (OSR) by further contending that the age mentioned therein is based merely on the say-so of the victim's parents without any documentary verification.
29.3. At this juncture, it is germane to recount the procedure for age determination, as stipulated by Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 which reads as under:
"12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age. (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.
(2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or, as the case may be, the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearances or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:53:16 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 33 of 42 seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause
(a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.
(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.
(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7-A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law."
Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:53:24 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 34 of 42 29.4. Having given a careful consideration to the competing pleas read in juxtaposition to the above cited provision, this Court is of the considered opinion that between the two sets of documents, to wit -
Ex. PW7/A (OSR), on the one hand and Ex. PW14/A, on the other, the law recognises the former and not the latter which is no more than a self-serving statement; not even the admission of the victim that she informed the accused no.1 that she was older than 18 years of age when she met him in connection with her proposed employment with the accused no.2 and 3 would be considered evidence of her age. Moreover, none of the accused has contested that NUMS Gadri Toli, Bharno, District Gumla, Jharkhand is not the first school attended by the victim. The plea on behalf of the accused no.1 that Ex. PW7/A (OSR) cannot be relied upon for determining the age of the victim de hors a certificate from municipality/village panchayat or bone ossification test does not hold water either, for Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 is unambiguous not only with respect to the order of precedence but also stipulates the contingency for seeking medical opinion too. There is no gainsaying that the certificate issued by the school first attended by the victim, i.e. Ex. PW7/A (OSR), takes precedence over every other document and in the absence of any cogent reason to disbelieve it, it suffices the legal requirement for returning the age of the victim which is thence, declared as around 13 years old in June/July 2012, i.e. when she was employed at the house of the accused no.2 and 3 by the accused no.1. Hence, the victim was a child within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 aged about 14 years old at the time of registration of the instant case FIR .
Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:53:30 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 35 of 42
30. Speaking of 22.1.(b) (supra) - having declared the victim as a child within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, this Court shall proceed to examine whether the accused are liable to be convicted under section 23 thereof for inflicting unnecessary mental and physical suffering upon the victim in the manner imputed?
30.1. Section 23 was enacted to uphold the dignity and rights of every child.
30.2. This Court shall first deal with the charges against the accused no.2 and 3.
31. The victim was employed as a domestic help at the residence of the accused no.2 and 3 by the accused no.1 at a monthly pay of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only). During her stint at their residence, which lasted for almost five months, the victim deposed that she used to work from 6:00 A.M. till 11:00 P.M. without any privacy as no separate room was provided to her. The victim imputed that she was scolded and physically abused by her employers inspite of her performing all the household chores as they repeatedly complained about both the quality of her work as well as her efficiency in completing it. One day, the victim deposed, the accused no.2 caught her by the hair, however, when the former started crying, the latter picked up a bat and threatened to beat her with that. The accused no.3, as the victim alleged, had also beaten her with the bat and scolded her on the issue of mopping the floor after which the victim ran away from their house. The victim alleged that she was provided food in a quantity which did not satiate her hunger. This Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:53:36 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 36 of 42 testimony of the victim has remained both consistent and uncontroverted on all material aspects, barring a few minor aberrations with respect to the period for which she had worked at their house and the time when she fled their house, not only with her previous versions but also stands fortified in her cross-examination on behalf of the accused no.2 and 3 inasmuch as she reiterated the mental and physical assault by both of them. In fact, the victim has categorically testified that she was beaten up a number of times by the accused no.3, though could not recall the exact dates/ days/ times on which such beatings were given to her. The witness even volunteered an instance where, pursuant to a beating, blood oozed out of her head. The witness also complained that she was locked up alone many a times in the house by the accused no.2 and 3.
32. It is equally noteworthy that the MLC of the victim, though lacked a fresh injury, nonetheless, indicated old injury wounds and in the absence of any suggestion on behalf of the accused no.2 and 3 either in the cross-examination or any explanation in their defence for their presence on the body of the victim deserves to be construed as a testament of physical assault upon her body.
33. The Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3 harped on the admission of the victim not only to the fact that the accused no.2 got the victim medically treated for the boil she had developed and regularly changed her bandage but also took the victim to the market and bought her new clothes as well as other provisions to demonstrate the care and protection given to her, however, these stray incidents does not absolve them both of the repeated incidents of assault, abandonment and neglect which the victim has uniformly Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29 16:53:42 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 37 of 42 deposed before this Court, cohering with her previous statements, including but not limited to her statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The admission of the victim that she did not ever report these instances either to the accused no.1 or to her fufa whenever the accused no.1 visited the house of the accused no.2 and 3 to collect her salary does not ipso facto disprove the imputations levelled by her against the accused no.2 and 3 either, much less when no question asking the reason therefor on their behalf was put to the victim in her cross- examination.
34. Moreover, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that this a case entailing victimisation of a child aged about 13 years old by the accused no.2 and 3; given her tender age, social, financial and educational background, victim's testimony cannot thus be evaluated on the touchstone of mathematical precision, for it would defeat as much the intent and purpose behind enacting the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as the ends of justice. Therefore, to contend that she did not leave the house of the accused no.2 and 3 when the blood oozed out of her head until the day she actually did rather runs counterintuitive to the defence of the accused, for, on the one hand, it is not easy for a child who has left her home and her hearth to earn a livelihood at such a tender age to sacrifice her only foreseeable source of income to stand up for herself until the saturation point is reached which, in this case, was the beating given to her with a bat by the accused no.3, as deposed by the victim, on the other hand, it is an admission of occurrence of the incident deposed per se because no suggestion was given to the victim that no such incident took place either.
Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:53:47 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 38 of 42 35 The blithe omission of the accused no.2 and 3 to call upon any of the family members of their's dwelling under the same roof or any other relative or neighbor into the witness stand who could have either disproved the version of the victim or proven that the former treated the latter with kid gloves or as their own daughter only reinforces the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the victim has admitted that she received 30-40,000/- after the registration of the instant case FIR and yet, she has deposed plumb against the accused no.2 and 3 which begs the question - what could possibly be the surviving motive of the victim to depose against them inspite of receiving the hush money but justice?
36. Before parting, this Court reminisces the following enunciation rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as 'Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra', reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, on the perils of exaggerated devotion to the cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law reads as infra:
"...The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:53:52 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 39 of 42 justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person lightheartedly as a learned author has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated 'persons' and more severe punishment for those who are found guilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that "a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent." In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing enhance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents..."
37. Having said that, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the accused no.2 and 3 are guilty of assaulting, abandoning and neglecting the victim in the manner which has ensued unnecessary mental and physical suffering upon her within the meaning of section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. However, since no evidence has come forth that they did so in furtherance to their common intention, the charge under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is anyhow not a substantive offence, is not made out against them.
38. Insofar as the accused no.1 is concerned, it is profitable to heed to the salient admissions in the cross-examination of the victim conducted at his behest, delineated infra:
38.1. The victim, accompanied by her fufa, visited the office of the Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:53:59 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 40 of 42 accused no.1, and they informed latter that the victim has an experience of one year at household work, not to mention that she was 18 years old;
38.2. The accused no.1 got her the employment after believing that she was 18 years old;
38.3. the accused no.1 used to visit the house of the accused no.2 every month as much to collect her salary as to enquire about her well-being and that she never complained to the accused no.1 about the imputed treatment meted out to her at the behest of the accused no.2 or her mother-in-law, the accused no.3;
38.3. every time the accused no.1 visited her at the house of the accused no.2 and 3, he facilitated her conversation with her fufa using his personal mobile phone and in none of those conversations, did she ever complain about the alleged treatment meted out to her or the behaviour of the accused no.2 or 3 to her fufa;
39 Conjoint reading of the foregoing reproduced admissions would evince that it is nobody's case that the accused no.1 got her employed at the house knowing full well that the imputed treatment would be met to her or even let her be subjected to it inspite of learning about it, for, admittedly, the victim raised no complaint whatsoever either with the accused no.1 or with her fufa with whom she conversed every month. In the absence of any clear and distinct evidence unequivocally indicating knowledge of the accused no.1 to the physical and mental sufferings hereto fore proven to undergone by the victim at the behest of the accused no.2 and 3, the said Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29 16:54:04 +0530 State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 41 of 42 accused no.1 cannot be saddled with the charge under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, much less when the nature of employment in which the victim was engaged is nowhere proscribed by the provisions of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 either even though the age of the victim has been determined as under 14 years at the time of commencement of her employment, assuming not admitting that the accused no.1 was misled into believing the victim to be above 18 years of age. The accused no.1 is hereby, acquitted of the charge under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Announced in open court Digitally
signed by
on this 29th day of April 2025 Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
(This judgment contains 42 pages Mahendru Date:
and each page is signed by me) 2025.04.29
16:54:10
+0530
(Akriti Mahendru)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
(West)/THC/Delhi
29.04.2025.
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 42 of 42