Delhi District Court
State vs Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc on 7 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Devanshu Sajlan, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 66028/2016
Unique Case ID -: DLWT020011112012
No.
FIR No. -: 245/2012
Police Station -: Tilak Nagar
Section(s) -: 323/34 IPC, 23/26 JJ Act
& 14 Child Labour Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
SUJEET KUMAR PATEL & ORS.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Ms. Kranti Kumari
1. Sujeet Kumar Patel
2. Ajay Sethi
2. Name of Accused :
3. M.L. Sethi
4. Malini Sethi
323/34 IPC, 23/26 JJ Act 2000 &
Offence complained of or 3/14 of The Child and Adolescent
3. :
proved Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986.
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 22.06.2012
6. Date of filing of chargesheet : 05.02.2013
7. Date of Reserving Order : 06.12.2023
8. Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Digitally signed
DEVANSHU by DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07
17:36:18 +0530
Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 1 of 17
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION-:
FACTUAL MATRIX:
1. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that between 2011 and 03.05.2012, at H.No. 20B/71B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar, the accused persons namely Ajay Sethi, Malini Sethi and M.L. Sethi were found procuring and employing a minor girl namely Kranti Kumari, aged about 14 years, as a domestic help, and were also found keeping her in bondage without paying her any salary. It is further alleged that the victim Kranti Kumari was placed at the above said house by a placement agency being run by the accused Sujeet Kumar Patel.
2. It is further alleged that during the aforesaid period, the accused persons namely Ajay Sethi and Malini Sethi used to beat up the victim Kranti Kumari. Further, both the said accused persons are alleged to have been cruel to the victim to cause her unnecessary mental/physical suffering. Accordingly, it is alleged that all the accused persons committed the offence punishable u/s 26 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("JJ Act, 2000")1 and section 3/14 of The Child and Adolescent Labour 1 The offence pertains to 2012, i.e., before the introduction of the 2015 Act. Accordingly, charge was framed under section 23 and 26 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and a of Children) Act, 2000. However, section 111(2) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act, 2015") specifically mentions that anything done, or any action taken under the said Acts (i.e., the previous Acts of 1986 and 2000) shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act (i.e., the 2015 Act). Therefore, while the charge has been framed under the provisions of the 2000 Act, the corresponding provisions under the 2015 Act will have to be analysed to decide the present case, i.e., section 75 and 79 of the 2015 Act. The said position is further fortified based on the reading of section 25 of the JJ Act, 2015, which states, "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:36:25 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 2 of 17 (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 ("Child Labour Act").
Further, it is alleged that the accused Ajay Sethi and Malini Sethi committed the offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC and 23 of the JJ Act 2000.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
3. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, all four accused persons were summoned to face trial.
4. On their appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge u/s 26, JJ Act 2000 and section 3/14 of the Child Labour Act was framed against all accused persons. Further, charge u/s 323/34 IPC and 23, JJ Act, 2000 was framed against accused Malini Sethi and Ajay Sethi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
5. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its proceedings in respect of a child alleged or found to be in conflict with law pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of this Act, shall be continued in that Board or court as if this Act had not been enacted.". Therefore, only those proceedings which pertain to a child in conflict with law shall continue under the old Act. The present case does not pertain to a child in conflict with law and hence, proceedings in the present case cannot continue under the JJ Act, 2000. Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:36:34 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 3 of 17 case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : SI Bimla PW-2 : Smt. Kranti Kumari PW-3 : SI Manoj Chahar PW-4 : Deshraj (record clerk, DDU Hospital) PW-5 : SI Manju Yadav PW-6 : Dr. Deep Shikha PW-7 : SI Rishali Yadav PW-8 : Ajay Rawal DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW-1/A : Seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A : Statement of victim Ex. PW-2/B : Statement of complainant before SDM Ex. PW-2/C : Medical examination report Ex. PW-3/A : Rukka Ex. PW-4/A : MLC No.8224 dated 03.05.2012 Ex. PW-7/A : Arrest memo of accused Ajay Sethi Ex. PW-7/B : Arrest memo of accused Sujeet Kumar Ex. PW-7/C : Personal search memo of accused Sujeet Ex. PW-7/D & : Arrest form of Ajay Sethi and Sujeet E Ex. PW-7/F : Disclosure of accused Ajay Sethi Ex. AD-2 : Endorsement on Rukka Ex. AD-1 : FIR STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE -
6. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons was recorded without oath under Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:36:42 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 4 of 17 Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. All four accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Sujeet Kumar Patel further stated that he wishes to lead DE. Thereafter, despite opportunity, the accused Sujeet Kumar Patel did not lead DE and closed his DE on 29.08.2023.
ARGUMENTS -
7. I have heard Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Kulbhushan Mehta and Sh. Manish Kumar Sachdeva, learned counsel for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
8. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that the testimony of the eye-witness/victim has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused have argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel have argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that the main witness Kranti Kumari has turned hostile. Further, it has been submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which renders their testimony doubtful.
Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN
SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07
17:36:49 +0530
Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 5 of 17
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE -
10. Firstly, section 323 IPC, i.e., causing simple hurt has been invoked against the accused Malini Sethi and Ajay Sethi. Section 319 IPC defines the offense of causing 'hurt' as whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. Further, punishment for causing simple hurt is prescribed in section 323 IPC and the ingredients of the same are: (i) Accused has caused hurt to the victim; (ii) the hurt caused was voluntary in nature; and (iii) the same offence is not covered under Section 334 of the IPC.
11. Further, relevant sections of the JJ Act, 2000 and the JJ Act, 2015 are reproduced below for reference:
Srl. JJ Act 2000 JJ Act 2015 No. 1. Section 23 Section 75 Whoever, having the actual charge of Whoever, having the actual charge or control over, a juvenile or the child, of, or control over, a child, assaults, assaults, abandons, exposes or abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or wilfully neglects the child or causes causes or procures him to be assaulted, or procures the child to be abandoned, exposed or neglected in a assaulted, abandoned, abused, manner likely to cause such juvenile exposed or neglected in a manner or the child unnecessary mental or likely to cause such child physical suffering shall be punishable unnecessary mental or physical with imprisonment for a term which suffering, shall be punishable with may extend to six months, or fine, or imprisonment for a term which may with both. extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both. 2. Section 26 Section 79 Exploitation of Juvenile or child Notwithstanding anything employee-whoever ostensibly contained in any law for the time procures a juvenile or the child for the being in force, whoever ostensibly purpose of any hazardous employment engages a child and keeps him in keeps him in bondage and withholds bondage for the purpose of his earnings or uses such earning for employment or withholds his Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:36:57 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 6 of 17 his own purpose shall be punishable earnings or uses such earning for with imprisonment for a term which his own purposes shall be may extend to three years also be punishable with rigorous liable to fine. imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees.
12. With respect to the term 'juvenile/child', it is pertinent to note that the definition clause of the JJ Act 2015 defines a "juvenile" or "child" as a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. So, in relation to the applicability of the JJ Act 2015, having regard to the definition, as indicated above, all human beings below the age of 18 years come within the sweep of children/juvenile.
13. The ingredients of section 23 of the JJ Act 2000 and section 75 of the JJ Act 2015 are similar in nature (except for the addition of the word 'abuses' in section 77 of the JJ Act 2015). The ingredients of section 75 of the JJ Act 2015 are culled out hereinafter based on the wording of the section as reproduced above: (i) it must be proved that a person was having the actual charge or control over a child; (ii) the said person must be proved to have assaulted, abandon, abuse, expose or willfully neglect the child or (iii) caused or procured him/her to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected; (iv) in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering.
14. The ingredients of section 26 of the JJ Act 2000 are different from the corresponding provision in the 2015 Act, i.e., section 79 of the JJ Act 2015. Under section 79 JJ Act, 2015, the term 'procures' has been replaced with 'engages and keeps'. Further, Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 7 of 17 under section 79 of the JJ Act 2015, the term 'hazardous employment' has been replaced by the term 'employment'. The ingredients of section 79 of the JJ Act 2015 are culled out hereinafter based on the wording of the section as reproduced above: (i) The employer engaged or kept the child for the purpose of employment; (ii) The employer kept him/her in bondage; (iii) The employer withheld his/her earnings or used such earning for his own purpose.
15. The accused persons have also been charged with section 3/14 of the Child Labour Act which punishes employment of any child for any purpose. Child has been defined under the said Act as a person below 14 years.
16. Therefore, the prosecution was required to satisfy the aforesaid ingredients to bring home the charge against the accused persons. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE -
17. The case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of the star witness, PW2 Kranti Kumari. Before dealing with her testimony, it is imperative to first deal with the question of the age of the said victim. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that it was held in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263 and Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:37:06 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 8 of 17 State v. Basir Ahmad, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5852 that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 should also be the basis for determining the age of a child who is the victim of a crime (apart from child in conflict with law) for there is hardly any difference insofar as the issue of minority is concerned between a child in conflict with law or a child who is the victim of a crime. Now, Rule 12 provides that the age of the child is required to be ascertained by adopting the first available options out of the number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). Accordingly, if the first option i.e. the Matriculation Certificate or equivalent certificate is available as per the first clause of Rule 12(3), it would have overriding effect on the options given in the subsequent clauses. In the absence of the said certificates, the second option shall be the Birth Certificate from the school first attended and, in its absence, the third option shall be the Birth Certificate given by the Corporation or a Municipal Authority or Panchayat. If none of these documents are available, then medical opinion may be sought for determination of the age of the child.
18. Considering the aforesaid rules, the material on record needs to be considered. It is pertinent to note that the victim Kranti Kumari deposed in her cross-examination that she did not have any document to prove her age. Further, in her testimony recorded on 31.07.2019, she deposed her age to be 25 years based on her Aadhar Card. Therefore, as per her testimony, she was major on the date of the incident (since the incident happened in 2012, i.e., 7 years prior to the date of deposition in which she stated her age to be 25 years). However, Aadhar Card is not a valid document regarding proof of Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:37:14 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 9 of 17 age in terms of Rule 12(3). Therefore, the medical record is required to be perused.
19. In this regard, Ex. PW2/C, i.e., the medical examination report is the relevant document in which the age of the victim was opined to be "above 14 years and below 16 years" based upon X-Ray of the victim. Therefore, it needs to be analyzed whether the said medical examination report can be accepted and if yes, whether the lower age needs to be accepted or the upper age. Firstly, it needs to be noted that it is a settled position of law that the ossification test is not a conclusive test for determination of age and that it is difficult to determine the exact age of a person on the basis of ossification test or any other medical test (see Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681, Jaya Mala v. Govt. of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 223). It was further specifically held in Jaya Mala (supra) that judicial notice can be taken that margin of error in age ascertained by the radiological examination is two years on either side. The same position was noted in Jyoti Prakash (supra) as well by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words, "[T]his Court in a number of judgments has held that the age determined by the doctors should be given flexibility of two years on either side."
20. The issue in relation to margin of error in medical tests was also answered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shweta Gulati v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10448 in the following manner:
13. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether, while determining the age of the victim, the benefit Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:37:23 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 10 of 17 of doubt in age estimated by the bone ossification test is to go to the accused or the victim.
14. The settled principle is that the ossification test is not conclusive of age determination. It is settled that it is difficult to determine the exact age of the person concerned on the basis of ossification test or other tests. The Supreme Court, in several decisions, has taken judicial notice of the fact that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side.
15. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the lower of the age or the higher of the age is to be taken. If benefit of doubt has to go to the accused then one would have to take the higher limit and if benefit of doubt has to go in favour of the prosecutrix then the lower of the two limits would have to be taken.
16. It is also settled position of law that benefit of doubt, other things being equal, at all stages goes in favour of the accused.
17. In the present case as no document of age was available, the age has been determined by the Child Welfare Committee as 17 years based on the ossification report. The bone ossification test report has estimated the age as 17 to 19 years. So applying the margin of error principle, of two years on either side, the age could be between 15 to 21 years. In the present case even if the margin of error is not taken on the higher side, the upper limit of the age estimated by the ossification test is 19 years.
21. Therefore, it was held in the aforesaid judgment that benefit of doubt at all stages goes in favour of the accused and since benefit of doubt must go to the accused, then one would have to take the higher limit of the two limits given in the ossification test. The said position of law was also recognized by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Kuldeep, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8459, wherein it was specifically observed that "Since this Court can add two years to the age of the prosecutrix, it is of the opinion that it would not be proper to assume and presume that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident. Consequently, while determining the age of the victim, the benefit of doubt in the Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:37:35 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 11 of 17 age estimated by the bone ossification test would have to go to the accused."
22. Basis the aforesaid discussion, the age of the victim Kranti Kumari is required to be taken as 18 years after adding the margin of error of 2 years to the upper limit (as already noted, Ex. PW2/C/medical record mentions the age of the victim to be between 14 and 16 years). Accordingly, on 17.08.2012 (date of her medical examination as per PW6 Dr. Deep Shikha), the victim is required to be presumed to be a major. Therefore, firstly, it is required to be noted that the offence under the Child Labour Act is clearly not made out since the child victim is required to be less than 14 years of age on the date of incident. Here, the date of incident is between 2011 to April 2012 and the victim was more than 14 years of age during the entire period. Hence, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted of the charge framed under Child Labour Act.
23. With respect to the offense under JJ Act 2015 as well, it is pertinent to note that an offense under section 75 and 79 JJ Act 2015 (erstwhile 23 and 26 JJ Act 2000) can only be made out if the victim is less than 18 years of age. However, based upon the aforesaid discussion, the victim's age is required to be taken as 18 years and hence, no offense under the JJ Act can be said to be made out on the date of age determination, i.e., 17.08.2012.
24. At the same time, it must be noted that victim Kranti Kumari deposed in her examination in chief that she came to Delhi in 2011 and was working at the house of the accused persons since then. Therefore, based on the said deposition, it can be ascertained that the victim worked at the house of the accused persons between Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:37:54 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 12 of 17 the age of 17-18 years and hence, the victim was a child during the said period. Accordingly, the other ingredients of the offense are required to be seen since the ingredient of age of the victim is satisfied in the present case.
25. With respect to the other ingredients, it is pertinent to note that the victim has not levelled any allegation regarding abuse, assault, or neglect in her examination in chief. She deposed in her examination in chief that she used to do household work at the house of the accused persons namely ML Sethi, Malini Sethi and Ajay Sethi (i.e., cleaning, sweeping, washing etc.). The only allegation she has levelled in her examination in chief is that the work was very heavy, and the accused persons used to scold her. She further deposed that she was not paid the money for her work and the same was collected by the accused Sujeet. 2 The victim was put a leading question by the Ld. APP, but she negatived the suggestion that the accused persons used to beat or abuse her. Therefore, the victim did not depose about any incident of beating up or abuse or assault.
26. Further, in her cross-examination, the victim supported the accused persons and deposed the following: (i) That she was paid a sum of Rs. 82,099, Rs. 16,900 and 70,1999 for working at the house of the accused persons; (ii) That she was never beaten up or abused by the accused persons; (iii) That her movement was never restricted by the accused persons and she was allowed to move out of the house as and when she desired; (iv) That she was treated very 2 However, the victim turned hostile in her cross-examination and deposed that she does not know the accused Sujeet and that she saw him for the first time at the Police Station.
Digitally signed byDEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:38:09 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 13 of 17 nicely by the accused persons and they used to take care of her food, clothes and other necessities of life. The said portion of her cross- examination is reproduced hereunder:
"It is correct that I was paid Rs. 82,099 and Rs. 16,900 through placement agency when I came to children home and the remaining amount of Rs. 70,199 was paid by ML Sethi in two installments...
... It is correct that accused persons namely ML Sethi, Malini Sethi and Ajay Sethi never beat and abused me. It is correct that [accused perons]... never beat me nor given any threat of any nature whatsoever. It is correct that I was allowed to move out of the home as and when the same was desired by me and my decision was never objected by accused no. 2, 3 and 4. It is also correct that my freedom was never objected by the accused persons ... It is also correct that I have left the house of the accused persons mainly on the ground that I used to miss my parents, brothers and sisters.
It is correct that during my tenure of employment with the accused persons from April 2011 till 03.05.2012, I was treated very nicely and they used to take care of my food, clothes and other necessities of life and I was not given any occasion to raise any objection about their behaviour towards me. It is also correct that I had not given any mental or physical suffering by the accused persons during my tenure of service in their house and I was always treated like their family members. It is correct that I was never employed in any occupation and workshop except as a housemaid."
27. In Kothakonda Aishwarya v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 33, proceedings under section 75 and 79 JJ Act 2015 were quashed since the juveniles, who were employed, had testified that they were working due to financial problems, and they did not speak about any assault by the accused or abandoning or any kind of physical or mental suffering. Similarly, in the case of Vikram Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2013 SCC OnLine Jhar 766, it was held that no offence is made out under Section 23 or Section 26 of the JJ Act 2000 as it was not the case of the prosecution that the girl was being forced to work in the house of the petitioner, Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:38:19 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 14 of 17 rather the circumstances appearing in the case were suggesting that that the girl was doing household work voluntarily. Similarly, in the present case, the victim has deposed that she was not kept in bondage and that she was free to go out as and when she wanted and that her movement was not restricted. Further, she has deposed that she was never beaten up or abused. As discussed above, for section 75 JJ Act 2015 to apply, the accused must be proved to have assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or willfully neglected the child in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering. However, in the present case, the victim has specifically deposed that she was not beaten up or abused in any manner. She has further deposed that she was never caused any mental or physical suffering by the accused persons. She has further deposed that the accused persons used to take care of her food and clothing and hence, it is evident that the victim was not abandoned or neglected in any manner. Therefore, the ingredients of section 75 JJ Act 2015 are not made out in the present case and the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the offense under section 75 JJ Act 2015 (erstwhile section 23 JJ Act 2000).
28. Further, as discussed above, for section 79 JJ Act 2015 to apply, it must be shown that the employer kept the child in bondage or that the employer withheld his/her earnings or used such earnings for his own purpose. However, in the present case, the victim has deposed that she was not kept in bondage and that she was free to go out as and when she wanted and that her movement was not restricted. Further, she has deposed that she was paid a sum of Rs. 82,099, Rs. 16,900 and 70,1999 for working at the house of Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:38:27 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 15 of 17 the accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved that the victim was kept in bondage or that her earnings were withheld. Therefore, the ingredients of section 79 JJ Act 2015 are not made out in the present case and the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the offense under section 79 JJ Act 2015 (erstwhile section 26 JJ Act 2000). Further, the ingredients of the offense under section 323 IPC are clearly not made out since the victim has deposed that she was never beaten up by the accused persons (and that she was only scolded). Therefore, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the offense under section 323/34 IPC.
29. Lastly, with respect to the accused Sujeet Kumar Patel, it is pertinent to note that the victim turned hostile qua the said accused during cross-examination. She deposed that she saw the said accused for the first time at the police station and that she had never met him before. Therefore, she did not support the version of the prosecution that the accused Sujeet Kumar was running a placement agency and that he had placed her at the house of the accused persons namely ML Sethi, Ajay Sethi and Malini Sethi. No other witness has been brought by the prosecution to prove that the accused Sujeet Kumar Patel was running the placement agency which placed the victim at the house of the accused persons. Accordingly, since the victim has turned hostile qua the role of the accused Sujeet Kumar Patel, he is entitled to be acquitted of the offense punishable u/s 79 of JJ Act, 2015 (erstwhile section 26 of JJ Act, 2000) and section 3/14 of the Child Labour Act.
Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:38:34 +0530 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 16 of 17 CONCLUSION -
30. Based on the above discussion, the accused persons Sujeet Kumar Patel, Ajay Sethi, M.L. Sethi and Malini Sethi are hereby acquitted for the offences under section 75/79 of JJ Act, 2015 (erstwhile section 23/26 JJ Act 2000), section 3/14 of Child Labour Act and section 323/34 IPC.
31. Bail Bonds accepted at the stage of trial are accepted for the purpose of section 437A CrPC.
Pronounced in open court on 07.02.2024 in presence of the accused persons.
This judgment contains 17 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed byDEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2024.02.07 17:38:42 +0530 (DEVANSHU SAJLAN) Metropolitan Magistrate - 07 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi/07.02.2024 Cr. Cases 66028/2016 State v. Sujeet Kumar Patel Etc. Page 17 of 17