Delhi District Court
State vs Poonam Sharma Etc on 18 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN GOEL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI State Vs Poonam Sharma etc FIR No. 235/12 PS. Swaroop Nagar U/s. 23 of JJ(care & Protection of Children Act r/w section 3/14 of The Child Labour(Prohibition & Regulation) Act and 374 IPC Case no.5282333/2016 JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 07.11.2012
Of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Ms. Anita
d/o Sh.Sumra
R/o Village Tarakkuttu,
Jharkhand.
3) The name & parentage : 1.Poonam Sharma
w/o Sh.
Of accused r/o .
2. Mohit Sharma
s/o Sh.
4) Offence complained of : 23 of JJ(care & Protection of
Children Act r/w section 3/14 of
The Child Labour(Prohibition &
Regulation) Act and 374 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 1/9
7) The date of such order : 25.10.2019
Date of Institution : 16.08.2013
Judgment reserved on : 18.11.2019
Judgment announced on : 18.11.2019
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.11.2012 at house no.B 141/2, Gali no.10, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Swaroop Nagar, Delhi both accused Poonam Sharma and Mohit Sharma engaged one minor girl child namely Anita, aged about 14 years as domestic help and did not allow her to leave the place and caused her mental and physical sufferings and both accused persons compelled the minor child to labour against her will. Thereafter, both accused voluntarily unlawfully compelled the child Kumari Anita to labour against her will. An FIR was registered and investigation was done in this case and then chargesheet u/s 23 Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act r/w Section 3/14 of the Child Labour Prohibition & regulation Act and 374 IPC was filed. Both accused were summoned. They were supplied the documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 2/9
2. Thereafter, charge was framed upon both the accused on 12.05.2014 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Matter was listed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution examined following witnesses :
4. PW1 HC Virender was examined. He deposed that on 07.11.2012 he received rukka handed over to him by SI Govind. He registered the FIR based on the said rukka. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW2/B.
5. Ct Pankaj was examined as PW2 and part of the raiding party. He stated that on 06.11.2012 he alongwith W/Ct Sunita and one Ms. Divya Rawat from NGO namely Shakti Vahini. At the instance of Md. Divya Rawat they rescued one minor girl namely Anita from the house of the accused S.S. Sharma, Mohit Sharma and Poonam Sharma i.,e House no. B141/2, Gali no.10, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. Divya Rawat did counseling. W/Ct Sunita got medically examined the girl namely Anita at BJRM hospital. The girl was admitted to Child Care Home at Kashmere Gate. In this regard, IO recorded his statement. Witness correctly identified both the accused persons.
FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 3/9
6. PW 3 Ms. Divya Rawat is Intervention Officer at NGO namely Shakti Vahini. She stated that on 06.11.2012 she got an information through mail regarding one minor girl had been employe as a domestic help in the house at Swaroop Nagar and thereafter she went to PS Swaroop Nagar and moved an application for assistance of police officials in rescuing the minor girl child employed as domestic help. The same is Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter she alongwith SI Govind, Ct Pankaj and W/Ct Sunita went to the house i.e House no. B141/2, Gali no.10, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. They entered the house and found one minor girl namely Anita was preparing rotis. Thereafter she did counseling to the girl. The girl told that she belongs to village Trakutu Bihar. Thereafter they took her to PS Swaroop Nagar. Witness stated that she can not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. Witness went hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. After lengthy cross examination witness failed to identify the accused persons.
7. Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary was examined as PW4. He deposed that he has been deputed by MS BJRM hospital to depose regarding the MLC no.51081. The MLC was prepared by Dr.Rahul who had left the hospital and he can identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Rahul as he had worked with him.
On 04.12.2012 patient Anita aged about 14 years female was brought in casualty for the bone age estimation. Patient was examined by FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 4/9 Dr.Rahul and referred to radiologist for bone age estimation. The above MLC is Ex.PW4/A. The above MLC was made under the supervision of Dr.Mohit. His name is written at point B.
8. Dr. Shipra Ramphal was examined as PW 5. He deposed that 04.12.2012 patient Anita vide MLC no.5108/12 was examined physically, dentally and radiologically for estimation of age by medical board. After examination the estimation age of patient Anita was found to be between 1214 years as on 04.12.2012. The detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW5/A.
09. Dr. Abhilash K.K was examined as PW6. He deposed that on 04.12.2012 one patient Anita, vide MLC no.5108/12, was examined physically, dentally and radiologically for estimation of age by medical board. After examination the estimation age of patient Anita was found to be between 1214 years as on 04.12.2012. The detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW5/A.
10. SI Govind was examined as PW 7. He deposed that on 04.12.2012 one letter for assistance in rescuing a minor girl from domestic help was received by SHO Swaroop Nagar moved by one Divya Rawat from Shakti Vahani. Thereafter he alongwith Divya Rawat and other staff of Shakati Vahina and other police official i.e one lady Ct Sunita and one Ct FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 5/9 Pankaj went to the house no.141/2, Gali no.10, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi where a girl namely Anita was found working as domestic help whose age was about 1314 years. The said girl was taken into custody by the concerned police officials of the Shakti Vahini and the rescue child was admitted in Kilkari an NGO with the permission of CWC. Thereafter the said rescued girl was produced before CWC on 07.11.2012 and he recorded the statement of the victim child which is Ex.Pw7/A. By direction of CWC the said girl child was admitted in Nirmal Chhaya. He collected the report from the concerned persons from Shakti Vahini. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW7/B and got the FIR registered through concerned Duty Officer. He went to the house of the accused and same was found locked. He got conducted the ossification test of the victim child. The age of the victim girl was estimated as between 1214 years. He had formally arrested the accused namely Mohit Sharma and Poonam Sharma Vide memos Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D. He recorded the statement of PW's. Witness correctly identified the accused persons.
11. Separate statement of both accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 10.12.2018. Both accused stated that they do not wish to lead defence evidence in this case. Hence DE stands closed.
12. Thereafter the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 6/9
13. Final arguments were advanced by both the parties.
14. The case of the prosecution is that victim Anita was employed as a domestic help by the accused persons. They also caused mental and physical sufferings to the victim and forced her to labour against her will. Accused persons have been charged under section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 r/w section 3/14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986. They are also charged under section 374 IPC. In order to prove the charge prosecution has following facts: (1) The victim was child as on the date of commission. (2) The victim was employed as a domestic help by the accused persons.
Point 1, in order to prove the age of the victim. Prosecution has examined three witnesses PW4 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, PW5 Dr. Shipra Rampal and PW6 Dr. Abhilash K.K. The above mentioned witnesses has examined Ex.PW5/A, which is the medical examination done of the victim wherein her dentally and radiologically examination was conducted and it was established that the age of victim on the date of examination was between 1214 years. In view of the medical report Ex.PW5/A the prosecution has been able to proved the fact that the victim was minor on the date of commission of offence.
FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 7/9 Point 2,Prosecution has also to prove that the victim was employed as a domestic help by the accused persons. In the present case noone was present at the time when accused persons had employed the victim. The victim was the only person who would have proved the fact that she was employed as a domestic help by the accused persons, however, the prosecution has failed to examine victim as a witness in the present case despite opportunity. The prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e. PW2 Ct. Pankaj, PW3 Ms. Divya rawat and PW7 SI Govind Singh who were present at the time when the victim was recovered from the house the accused persons. PW2 had stated that in his evidence that they had rescued the victim at the instance of PW3 Ms. Divya Rawat from the house of the accused persons, however, in his entire evidence he has not stated that fact that the victim was working as a domestic help at the house of the accused persons. PW7 was also examined in his evidence, he stated that victim was found working as a domestic help at the house of the accused persons. However he has not stated the facts from which he has drawn the inference that she was working as a domestic help.
15. PW3 in her evidence stated that they went inside the house of the accused on 06.11.2012 and found victim preparing roti and on the basis of this it is claimed that victim was employed as a domestic help in the house of the accused persons. The fact that victim was preparing roti at the house of the accused persons, an inference can not be drawn as she was FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 8/9 working as a domestic help as same may have been prepared by the victim for herself. The victim if had been examined in the court, would have stated the fact that whether the work she was doing was at the instance of the accused persons as domestic help or the same for her own. when it is proved by prosection the same were prepared at the instance of someone as a servant only then it is an offence. Moreover, the prosecution has not brought on record any salary statement or any evidence to show that victim was employed as a servant by the accused persons. In that case prosecution has not been able to prove that accused persons has employed the victim as a domestic servant and forced her to do labour against her will. The prosecution has also not been proved that she was given unnecessarily mental and physical sufferings by the accused persons.
In view of these, prosecution has failed to proved that the victim was working as a domestic servant in the house of the accused persons. Hence, accused persons are given the benefit of doubts and accordingly accused Poonam Sharma and Mohit Sharma are acquitted for the charge levelled against them. Digitally signed by ARUN ARUN GOEL GOEL Date:
2019.11.18 15:53:34 +0530 Announced in open court (ARUN GOEL) on 18th day of November 2019 MM7/North District Rohini Courts/ Delhi FIR No.235/12 State Vs Poonam Sharma & ors 9/9