Delhi District Court
State vs Oyenka Emmuneal on 25 August, 2017
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAIL JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. : 48/16
STATE
versus
1. Oyenka Emmuneal
r/o RZF-1/49, 3rd Floor, Mahavir Enclave
Palam, New Delhi.
2. Fatima
w/o Oyenka Emmanual
r/o RZF-1/49, 3rd Floor, Mahavir Enclave
Palam, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 1337/15
Offence U/S : 120B/370/344/
323/406 IPC
Police Station :Tilak Nagar
DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE
AFTER COMMITTAL: 12/04/2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:25/08//2017
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Oyenka Emmuneal and Fatima have been charge sheeted by Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the commission of offence under sections 120B/370/344/323/406 IPC of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that before coming to India, both accused persons told the
-:: Page 1 of 6 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity) that they will help her in getting a job in India. But lateron, when she came to India on 16/04/15, she came to know that she had been brought to India for prostitution. The prosecutrix refused to do prostitution but she was forced to do so by both accused persons. Accused persons had beaten her up with iron socket wire and electric iron. She was confined by accused persons for a month. Her passport was also taken by accused persons forcibly. Prosecutrix-complainant lodged the complaint against both accused persons. Thereafter, present FIR was registered against the accused persons.
2. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 05/02/2014, charge for offences under section 120B/370/344/323/406 IPC was framed against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses in all.
4. PW-1 is the prosecutrix. (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity) The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that in the month of April, 2015, she came to India from Nigeria for the purpose of visiting India. Accused Fatima is her aunt and she is the wife of accused Oyenka. Witness has further deposed that she resided with her sister Dorrice at Shahpura, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. She came to Delhi with her Master card but the same was not working. Even her sister Dorrice was not having money with her. She
-:: Page 2 of 6 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
met with aunt Fatima and asked her to lend a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. At that time, she had handed over her passport to her aunt, accused Fatima with the promise that when she will return the money to her, witness will take back her passport. After 1-2 months of taking money from accused Fatima , she had to go back to her country, therefore, witness asked accused fatima to return her passport, but she refused to return the passport of witness and demanded her money back from witness. As witness was desperate for going back to her country & because she was not having money , she was looking for the ways to get her passport back, for that purpose, she visited Patiala House courts and met an Advocate, who advised her to go to PS Tilak Nagar and made a complaint against the present accused persons to the effect that she wanted to go back to her country but accused persons are holding her passport and they are not returning her passport . Then, she went to PS Tilak Nagar & made a complaint before police that accused persons are having her passport & are not returning her passport. Police asked her to wait for sometime and then police took her to the house of accused persons. She was expecting that police will help her in getting her passport, however, instead of returning her passport , police had arrested the accused persons. Later on she thought that police will release the accused persons as she was only interested to get her passport back from the accused persons. Since the accused persons were arrested
-:: Page 3 of 6 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
and produced before the court, she also went to the court there her statement was recorded by the Ld. Court. Witness has further deposed that she told the court that she does not want the accused persons to go to jail and she does not want to pursue the case and she only wanted that her passport should be given back to her. Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by ld. Magistrate, which is Ex. PW1/A and till today she has not received her passport back. This witness has been declared hostile by Ld Additional P.P. But even in cross-examination conducted by Ld Additional P.P, she has not supported case of the prosecution.
5. PW-2 is SI Renuka. She is IO of the case. She has deposed that on 12.09.2015, complainant (prosecutrix) gave a written complaint . Prosecutrix was medically examined at DDU hospital. After the medical examination, she inquired from the prosecutrix and thereafter she made her endorsement on the written complaint of prosecutrix, which is Ex. PW2/A & get the case registered. After registration of the FIR, further investigation was assigned to her. Thereafter, accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D and Ex. PW2/E. Thereafter, she had recorded their disclosure statement, which are Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. She also prepared the personal search of accused persons, which are Ex. PW2/F and Ex. PW2/G. The passport of complainant/prosecutrix was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/H. Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by Ld MM, which is Ex. PW2/K. After
-:: Page 4 of 6 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned court. The original passport of complainant/prosecutrix is Ex. PX.
6. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein they have denied the allegations. They have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons had stated that they do not want to lead evidence in defense.
8. I have heard arguments from Sh Surender Singh , Ld counsels for accused as well as from Sh Subhash Chauhan, Ld Additional P.P for the State.
9. In the present case, the prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution and has turned hostile & has stated that she had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from accused Fatima and in lieu of this, her passport was taken by the accused Fatima. After two months of this incident, she wanted to go back to her nation and asked accused Fatima to return her passport but she did not return the same. Accordingly she made a complaint against the accused persons. This witness has been declared hostile by Ld Additional P.P. But in cross examination, she has denied the suggestion that she has compromised the matter with the accused persons. Prosecutrix has not stated in evidence that accused persons have entered into a criminal conspiracy to force the prosecutrix in prostitution or that prosecutrix was brought to India on the pretext that job will be provided to her or that
-:: Page 5 of 6 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
prosecutrix was forced by accused persons to do the prostitution by giving her beating and by giving her electric shock and also poured on her chilly pepper in warm water and her body was also burnt with electric iron or that she was confined for one month or that accused persons used to give beatings to her or that both accused persons had taken the mobile phone of the prosecutrix. Nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution for proving the case of prosecution, against the accused persons.
10. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence accused persons are acquitted for the offences under section 120 B/370/344/323/406 IPC. Their personal bonds are extended for further six months u/s. 437-A Cr.P.C on same terms and conditions.
11. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN) this 25th August, 2017. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-:: Page 6 of 6 ::-