Delhi District Court
State vs . Rani on 15 January, 2011
State vs. Rani
IN THE COURT OF SH DHARMENDER RANA
Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Delhi
State Vs. Rani
FIR N0. : 1155/99
U/S : 342/34 IPC
PS : Rajouri Garden
J U D G M E N T ;
a) Sl. No. of the case : 1591/2
b) Date of commission of offence: 17.12.1999
c) Date of institution of the case : 21.09.2000
d) Name of the complainant : SI Mukhtiyar Singh
e) Name & address of the : Rani
accused W/o Late Rebi
st
R/o B24, 1 floor,
Tagore Garden, New Delhi
f) Offence complained off : 342/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 15.01.2011
i) Final order : Convicted
j) Date of Judgment : 15.01.2011
FIR No. 1155/99 1
State vs. Rani
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.Briefly stated, accused Rani has been sent to face trial for offence U/s 342/34 IPC with the allegations that on 17.12.1999 at st unknown time, at House no. B24, 1 floor, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, accused Rani along with coaccused Rebi (since expired) wrongfully confined her daughter Bimla in a room. FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered and investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A formal charge U/s 342/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 05.04.2004 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the course of trial, accused Rebi got expired and vide order dated 08.10.2010, proceedings against accused Rebi stood abated. Hence, this trial is only against accused Rani.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses.
5. PW1; ASI Nirmaljeet Singh is the Duty Officer who has FIR No. 1155/99 2 State vs. Rani registered FIR Ex. PW1/A.
6. PW2; SI Mukhtiyar Singh is the complainant in the instant case. He has deposed against accused Rani that upon receipt of DD no. 12A, when he along with Ct. Satish and Lady Ct. Darshna reached at the house of accused persons, he found that accused persons have wrongfully confined their daughter Bimla in a room. He has seized the lock and key with which the said room was locked. He has proved Seizure memo Ex. PW2/A, Recovery memo of Bimla Ex. PW2/B, Rukka Ex. PW2/C, Site Plan Ex. PW2/D, Arrest memo of accused Rebi Ex. PW2/E and Arrest memo of accused Rani Ex. PW2/F, personal search memo of accused Rabi Ex. PW2/G, personal search memo of accused Rani Ex. PW2/H and duly identified the case property i.e Lock Ex. P1 and Key Ex. P2.
7. PW3; SI Naresh Kumar is the IO in the instant case. He has deposed that victim Bimla was shifted from mental asylum, IBHAS Institute to Nari Niketan, Nirmal Chhaya, Hari Nagar, Delhi. He carried out the investigations and filed the challan for judicial verdict.
FIR No. 1155/99 3
8. PW4; HC Satish Kumar is a police official who accompanied the IO and Lady Ct. Darshna to the house of accused persons. He has deposed that they found the daughter of accused persons namely Ms. Bimla confined in a room by the accused persons. He further deposed that IO carried out all the investigations in his presence.
9. P.E. was closed by the order of this Court dated 15.01.2011. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she has admitted the evidence led against her. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence in his favour.
10. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
11. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit FIR No. 1155/99 4 State vs. Rani of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
12. SI Mukhtiyar Singh (PW2) has categorically deposed that when he along with Ct. Satish and Lady Ct. Darshna reached at the house of accused persons, he found that accused persons have wrongfully confined their daughter Bimla in a room. He further deposed that Bimla had stated that she was wrongfully confined by her parents.
Further, the testimony of SI Mukhtiyar Singh (PW4) is amply corroborated by the testimony of H.C. Satish Kumar (PW4). He has categorically deposed that when they reached the house of accused persons, they heard crying of a lady. Thereafter, they found girl Bimla locked inside a room. H.C. Satish further deposed that Bimla stated to them that she has been confined by her parents. The testimony of HC Satish Kumar (PW4) has remained unchallanged and uncontroverted on record as the accused has opted not to crossexamine the witness.
13. Moreover, in her examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has herself admitted that she had confined her daughter FIR No. 1155/99 5 State vs. Rani as she was mentally retarded. It is submitted that at times Ms. Bimla turned violent and to avert any possibilities of any injury to anyone in the neighbourhood, victim Bimla was confined by the accused. The accused has argued that due to abject poverty they were not in a position to have arranged for adequate medical assistance to the victim Bimla.
However, in my considered opinion, mere poverty is no defence for wrongfully confining any mentally incapacitated person. Right to free movement is constitutional right provided to each and every citizen of this country irrespective of his or her mental capacity. The accused could have well sought the Government aid and assistance in providing medical facilities to the victim rather than opting to wrongfully confine her like animals.
14. Although victim Bimla had not been examined in the instant matter due to her mental incapacity. However, that by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as the case of the prosecution is sufficiently proved by the testimony of complainant SI Mukhtiyar Singh (PW4) amply corroborated by the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of HC Satish Kumar (PW4). FIR No. 1155/99 6
15. The defence has not been able to highlight any material contradiction in the testimony of SI Mukhtiyar Singh (PW4 ) despite elaborate crossexamination.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts Accused is accordingly held guilty for the charges U/s 342 IPC levelled against her.
Announced in the open court
on 15.01.2011 (Dharmender Rana)
MM/Delhi / 15.01.2011
FIR No. 1155/99 7
State vs. Rani
IN THE COURT OF SH DHARMENDER RANA
Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Delhi
State Vs. Rani
FIR N0. : 1155/99
U/S : 342/34 IPC
PS : Rajouri Garden
ORDERS ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
Arguments on the point of sentence heard. Ld. APP
submits that convict be summoned as per the provisions of law.
Convict submits that she is a poor widow of 60 years with no means of livelihood. She further submits that due to abject poverty she was not able to arrange the required medical treatment for her daughter/ victim in the instant case. She further submits that due to mental derangement, at times her daughter turned violent, therefore, she was kept in confinement so that she might not injure any neighbour or the family member. Convict prays for a lenient view.
The convict herein is in evening of her life with no means of livelihood. She is already suffered agony of long and protracted trial FIR No. 1155/99 8 State vs. Rani for 11 long years. Husband of convict has already expired during the course of trial.
Considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the convict, I am of the opinion that judicial imprisonment till rising of the Court along with fine of Rs.500/ shall subserve the ends of justice. ID 15 days S.I. Ordered accordingly. Fine paid. File be consigned to Record room.
Announced in the open court
on 15.01.2011 (Dharmender Rana)
MM/Delhi / 15.01.2011
FIR No. 1155/99 9