Delhi District Court
State vs . Jasbir on 28 July, 2010
State Vs. Jasbir
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNENA SHARMA, M.M., MAHILA COURT (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR NO.: 248/06
P.S.: Vivek Vihar
U/Section 363/342 IPC
STATE VS. JASBIR
JUDGMENT:
1. Date of commission of : 12.6.2006
offence
2. Name of complainant : Shri Gagan Arora,
S/o Shri Satpal Arora,
E116, Jhilmil Colony, near Vivek
Vihar, Police Station, Delhi95
3. Name of the accused, his : Jasbir Singh, S/o Shri Inder Singh
parentage and address R/o E96, Jhilmil Colony, Shahdara,
Delhi
4.Offence complained of : U/s 363/342 IPC
5. The date of order : 28.7.2010
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. The final order : Convicted
Reserved for judgment : 28.7.2010
Date of judgment : 28.7.2010
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In this case accused Jasbir Singh, S/o Shri Inder Singh was facing trial on the allegations that on 112.6.2006 at about 07:30 pm at E116, Jhilmil Colony when the children of the locality were playing in the park, accused took away four year old daughter of the complainant to his shop and when the complainant was informed about the same by the locality people, he rushed to shop of the accused and found his daughter sitting in lap of the accused and the accused was caressing her. The complainant took away his daughter from the accused and reported the matter to the police at PS Vivek Vihar wherein, his statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded by the IO 1 State Vs. Jasbir who prepared the rukka Ex. PW3/B and got FIR Ex. PW3/A registered.
2. After completion of the investigation IO filed the charge sheet before this court on 04.6.2001.
3. Vide order dated 02.4.2007 charge for the offence punishable u/s 363/342/354 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined five witnesses namely Savitri Grover, Gagan Arora (complainant), SI Phool Singh, Shri Deepak Kumar and Inspector Tarkeshwer. But out of five witnesses, only three witnesses Savitri Grover, Gagan Arora and Shri DeepakKumar are the material witnesses who have been examined as PW1, PW2 and PW4 respectively. PW3 is the duty officer who proved on record the FIR and rukka as Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B respectively. PW5 is the investigating officer who recorded the statement of the complainant in the police station on 12.6.2006 and got the FIR registered through Ct. Jitender. After registration of FIR, he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant as Ex. PW5/B and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/C and carried his personal search vide Ex. PW2/D. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed the charge sheet before the court.
5. After completion of investigation, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and same was denied by the accused as incorrect and he came up with the plea that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case.
6. I have heard ld. APP and accused and also carefully perused the entire material on record.
7. PW1 Savitri Grover in her examination in chief deposed that she did not remember the date, time and month of alleged incident. As per her version, on the date of alleged incident she was inside her house and after hearing some noise, she came out from the house and she was informed by the persons who had gathered there that one boy had molested one minor girl and had taken her with him. She deposed that she could not identify said person due to her old age and lapse of time. At that stage, witness was declared hostile and ld. APP crossexamined her with the 2 State Vs. Jasbir permission of court. In the crossexamination, PW1 deposed that she could not say as to whether the accused present in the court was found doing obscene acts towards daughter of Gagan Arora. She deposed further that she could not say as to whether the accused had been handed over to police by locality people. She further deposed that she could not tell as to whether or not the accused was found indulging in similar activities against other girl as well. She denied the suggestion that the accused was found doing obscene act with daughter of Gagan Arora inside his shop and was handed over to police. She denied the suggestion that the accused was a womaniser and had earlier also committed such type of acts with other girls including her grand daughter. On being confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. PC, denied the suggestion that she had made any such statement to the IO. She denied the suggestion that she had concealed the true facts in order to save the accused or that she was deposing falsely.
8. PW2, Shri Gagan Arora is the star witness of prosecution case. As per his version, on 12.6.2006, when his daughter was playing in the park, accused had taken his daughter by enticing her to give money and toys. He deposed that he had been informed in that regard by the children of their locality. After receiving said information, he went to the shop of the accused where accused had kept his daughter. On seeing his daughter, he snatched his daughter from the accused and made a complaint Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at point 'A' to the police. He deposed further that site plan Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point B was prepared at his instance by the IO. He further deposed that IO had also arrested the accused and got their personal search conducted vide Ex. PW2/C to Ex. PW2/D respectively.
9. In his crossexamination, PW2 admitted the suggestion that the accused had been residing in his locality and had also been running a shop of cold drinks and he used to visit his (accused) house and shop. He deposed further that he (PW2) used to purchase cold drinks from accused on credit. He deposed further that he had been informed by the locality people that his daughter had been taken away by the accused. He further deposed that he could not tell the name of locality people by whom he had been so informed. He deposed further that he had not seen accused 3 State Vs. Jasbir committing any offence nor he had visited his shop. He deposed further that he had given his statement to the police under pressure of locality people. He deposed further that he had not been informed by the police as to what was written in the document which were got signed by him. He deposed further that he had been asked by the police official to sign on the papers and accordingly he had put his signatures on the same. He further deposed that at the time of signing of papers, the papers were blank. He deposed further that accused had not done any such act prior to the date of incident. He deposed further that when he had gone to shop of the accused his daughter had not been carrying any toys or money in her hand. He further deposed that his daughter had not told him abut said incident. He denied the suggestion that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case. He deposed further that accused was not arrested in his presence. He denied the suggestion he was deposing falsely.
10. Shri Deepak Kapoor is another public witness examined in this case as PW4. In his examination in chief, he deposed that about 2 to 2 ½ years back at the fateful day, he had been told by his neighbour Gagan Arora that his daughter had been taken away in a dark street by the accused Jasbir who happened to their neighbour and some outrageous act had been perpetrated on his daughter. PW4 further deposed that all said thing had been told by Gagan Arora in the presence of other neighbours. Thereafter, he (PW4)along with other neighbours went to PS Vivek Vihar where a complaint was lodged by the complainant Gagan Arora. He deposed that police had made enquiries from him.
11. From the careful perusal of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that none of the witnesses has supported the prosecution case. Careful perusal of the testimony of the complainant shows that in his examination in chief he supported the prosecution story to some extent by deposing that after being informed by the locality people, regarding his daughter being taken away by accused, he had visited the accused on his shop where he found his daughter and took away his daughter from the accused. But in crossexamination, accused took a somursalt by deposing that he had been visiting the shop of the accused and had given the statement to the police under pressure of locality people and was not knowing the 4 State Vs. Jasbir contents of the documents which were got signed by the police officials. It is pertinent to mention here that even in his examination in chief, the complainant failed to attribute any outrageous act to the accused which were allegedly committed by him to his daughter. The deposition of PW2 with regard to her daughter being kidnapped by accused is also a hearsay evidence. As per his version, he was informed by the locality people that the accused had taken away his daughter by enticing her to give money and toys. In his crossexamination, he deposed that had not seen his daughter carrying any money or toys with her when he took her daughter from the accused. Beside the complainant, the other public witnesses examined in this case also failed to give any direct evidence for proving the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence. Even PW1 in her crossexamination categorically denied the suggestion that the accused was found indulging in any obscene act with the daughter of the complainant inside his shop. She denied the suggestion that the accused was a womanish.
12. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I feel no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted in case FIR No. 248/06, PS Vivek Vihar. Bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled and discharged. Documents, if any, lying on record be returned back after cancellation of endorsement. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SUNENA SHARMA) Dated: 28.7.2010 M.M./Mahila Court (E) 5 State Vs. Jasbir . 6 State Vs. Jasbir 7