Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Jubed on 16 December, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH PAWAN KUMAR, MM01,
SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State V/s. Mohd. Jubed
FIR No. 299/02
P.S. Lajpat Nagar
U/s 323/325 IPC and Section 41/44 of
Juvenile Justice Act.
1.Serial No. of the case : 410/2/14
2. Unique Identification No. : 02403R0359232003
3.Date of commission of offence : 05.09.2001
4.Name of the Complainant : SI Devender Yadav
5.Name of the accused, and : Mohd. Jubed
his parentage and residence S/o Sh. Mohd. Hussain
R/o Village Ladora P.S. Kudni
District Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
6.Date when reserved for judgment : 07.12.2015
7.Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 16.12.2015
8.Offence Complained of or proved :323/325 IPC and
Section 41/44 Juvenile
Justice Act.
9.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
10.Final Judgment : Acquitted
1. The accused persons Mohd. Jubed is facing the trial for commission of offences U/s 323/325 IPC and section 41/44 of Juvenile Justice Act. On 05.09.2001 one raid was conducted at a premise A11, Rumal Mohalla and eight children were rescued FIR No. 299/2002 State V/s Mohd. Jubed P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 1 of 6 2 from there. The children were working the job of embroidery in the factory. The children were medically examined and thereafter their statement were recorded. It is alleged that the accused was the owner of the factory in the aforesaid premise. The rescued children were found having injuries and the injuries were opined to be simple as well as grievous on different MLCs. It is alleged that the accused had employed the rescued children and he used to ill treat them and used to beat them. All the rescued children were handed over to their parents. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the present case FIR was registered and investigation was conducted.
2. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 323/325 IPC and section 41/44 of Juvenile Justice Act was filed by the IO and copy was supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Charge U/s 323/325 IPC and section 41/44 of Juvenile Justice Act was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined total six(6) witnesses.
PW1 Mohd. Izaz is one of the children and he deposed that 1112 years back one person namely Naresh brought him along with other children for the purpose of job and he employed in his factory at Lajpat Nagar. Later on they were FIR No. 299/2002 State V/s Mohd. Jubed P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 2 of 6 3 rescued by the police officials and he was brought back to his native place by his parents. The witness did not support the case of the prosecution and he was cross examined by Ld. APP.
PW4 Inspector Devender Yadav deposed that on 05.09.2001 information was given by Secretary All India Trade Union Congress regarding some child labour. On that day he had rescued 8 children from embroidery factory at premise A11 Rumal Muhalla, Garhi. The rescued children were produced before JJ board where they refused to avail the medical and legal aid. The children were medically examined and thereafter they were sent to juvenile home. He prepared the kalandra u/s 13/41/44 Juvenile Justice Act. He collected the results of the MLCs. On the MLC of the child Mohd. Phool Babu the Doctor gave the opinion grievous blunt. On 29.04.2002 he prepared the rukka Ex.PW4/A and got the FIR registered. After the registration of FIR the investigation was marked to SI Anil Kumar. SI Anil Kumar prepared the site plan at the instance of PW4.
PW2 Inspector Anil Kumar deposed that the investigation of this case was handed over to him after the registration of the FIR. The witness prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Devender Yadav. PW2 arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/A and PW2/B. PW5 Inspector Raj Pal Singh deposed that during the investigation he moved an application Ex.PW5/A and PW5/B before JJ board to provide the record of rescued children. He did not found the original MLC of the children from the JJ board. He collected the photocopies of the MLC from AIIMS Hospital.
FIR No. 299/2002State V/s Mohd. Jubed P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 3 of 6 4 During the investigation he sent HC Jagar Pal to the native place of the rescued children to record their statement. On completion of the charge sheet he prepared the charge sheet and filed in the court.
PW6 Retired SI Jagar Pal deposed that on the direction of SI Raj Pal, he went to village Ladora, District Mujaffarpur and inquired about the rescued children from the Gram Pradhan. He called the 5 children and their parents. He recorded the statement of those children u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also recorded the statement of remaining three children from Hazipur. He handed over the statement of the children to the IO.
PW 3 ASI Suresh Kumar was the Duty officer and he deposed that on 29.04.2002 he recorded the FIR on receiving the rukka given by Ct. Anil Kumar and sent by SI Devender. Copy of the FIR is Ex.PW3/A and the endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW5/B.
5. The accused person admitted the factum of the MLCs no. 80141/01 to 80148/01 in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, PE was closed and all the incriminating circumstances came in the evidence against the accused were put to him while recording his statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. The accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the materials available on record.
FIR No. 299/2002State V/s Mohd. Jubed P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 4 of 6 5
7. The case of the prosecution against the accused in brief is that he was operating the factory of embroidery at the premise A11, Rumal Muhalla, Garhi, New Delhi. There are allegations that he had employed number of minor children to do the work of embroidery and withheld their earning. There are also allegation that the accused had voluntarily caused the simple and grievous injuries to number of children. The children were rescued from the aforesaid premise by the police.
8. There is no evidence on record to establish that the aforesaid premise was used by the accused as a factory. The ownership documents of the said premise were not collected during the investigation. The owner of the said premise was not inquired or joined in the investigation to establish that the accused was the tenant of the said premise. PW2 and PW4 stated in the cross examination that no documentary evidence regarding the ownership or possession of the aforesaid premise was collected by them. During the investigation the accused was not found at the spot at the time of raid.
9. The rescued children were not examined by the prosecution. Only one child examined as PW1 and he did not support the case of the prosecution at all. He deposed that he along with other children was brought there by Naresh and he employed them in his factory at Lajpat Nagar. No other children could be examined by the prosecution despite availing ample opportunities.
FIR No. 299/2002State V/s Mohd. Jubed P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 5 of 6 6
10. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
11. So, keeping in view the above discussion and materials available on record, I am of the considered view that charges against the accused U/s 323/325/34 IPC are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Jubed is acquitted for the offences U/s 323/325 IPC and Section 41/44 of Juvenile Justice Act.
12. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court today (PAWAN KUMAR) on 16th December, 2015 MM01 (South East):Saket Courts:
16.12.2015 FIR No. 299/2002 State V/s Mohd. Jubed P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 6 of 6