Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/299537/2016 on 30 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-04/CENTRAL: DELHI
State v. Rakesh Beria
FIR No. 400/1998
P. S. : Sarai Rohilla
Date of institution of case : 29.05.2000
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 19.07.2016
Date of judgment : 30.07.2016
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 06.08.1998 b) Offence complained of : U/s 363/368/374/34 IPC c) Name of complainant : Sh.Ramdeen d) Name of accused no.1 : Rakesh Beria his parentage : s/o Sh. Kunwar Singh, local residence : Village Gopalpura, Shamshabad, Agra, U.P. Name of accused no.2 : Krishna her parentage : w/o Sh. Rakesh local residence : Village Gopalpura, Shamshabad, Agra, U.P. e) Plea of accused : Both pleaded not guilty f) Final order : Both accused convicted BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. The facts as per the chargesheet are that vide DD No.23A dated 07.08.1998 information was received at PS Sarai Rohilla regarding missing of children. Said DD marked to SI Arvind Kumar, who prepared a tehrir on the basis of statement of one Ramdeen. As per the statement of Ramdeen on FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 1/17 06.08.1998 in the afternoon hours his daughter Renu aged 05 years and his son Lal aged 03 years went missing and he reported the said fact on 07.08.1998 through call on number 100. As per Ramdeen, his son was found from Nirmal Chaya Complex, Jail Road, Delhi on 11.08.1998. However, his daughter was still untraceable. He suspected that his daughter had been kidnapped. Accordingly, the present case FIR was registered. Efforts were made by the IO to trace the missing girl but without any success and on 30.04.1999 an untrace report was filed before the court. Subsequently, information was received from the Agra police that on 14.01.2000 the missing girl was recovered from one Rakesh Beria from Shamshad, Agra, U.P. and he had been arrested in FIR No.Nil/2000, u/s 366A IPC. Thereupon, further investigation was conducted by SI Maninder Singh. Thereafter, Agra police produced the girl Renu before the court and her statement was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she made allegations of kidnapping, torture, wrongful confinement against Rakesh Beria and his wife Krishna. Thereafter the custody of the girl was given to her mother and the accused Rakesh Beria was arrested in the present case. The wife of Rakesh Beria i.e. Smt. Krishna surrendered before the court and was arrested. After conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 363/366A/368/34 IPC against accused Rakesh Beria and Krishna.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet and the documents filed along with the same, charge u/s 363/368/374/34 IPC was framed against both accused on 28.07.2004. Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and matter was listed for P.E.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses.
FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 2/17
A. PW1 HC Prem Singh was a formal witness being the duty officer
at PS Sarai Rohilla on 11.09.1998. He proved the registration of the FIR Ex.PW1/A and making of endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the rukka.
B. PW2 Lady Ct. Renu was also a formal witness and she deposed that on 31.03.2000 the accused Krishna was arrested by the IO in the present case and her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/A. Her disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW2/B and she was identified by her mother vide memo Ex.PW2/C. C. PW3 Ramdeen was the complainant. However, he was partly examined and thereafter matter was adjourned on number of occasions and the other witnesses were examined. However, when he was summoned again for completion of his examination he could not be traced. Efforts were made even through the office of DCP but still he was not traceable.
D. PW4 Bikha Ram was a resident of Shamshabad, Agra, U.P. This witness did not support the case of prosecution. He deposed that both accused are known to him being his neighbours. He deposed that around 8-10 years back one evening he was called by the police officials of PS Shamshabad and he was asked to sign one paper but as he was illiterate he put his thumb impression on the same. He also deposed that one witness of the present case Surender Kumar had written the said paper and he had read over the same to PW4. However, PW4 deposed that due to lapse of time he do not remember what was written on that paper. He further deposed that as per his memory police officials and Surender told him that they had recovered one girl. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for State. However, he deposed that he had never seen any girl by the name of Renu nor did he know her. He deposed that he did not see Renu even in the street in which he and accused FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 3/17 persons are residing. He denied that he informed Surender Kumar that accused persons were keeping a girl namely Renu in their house who was kidnapped by them from Delhi. He denied that he informed Surender that she was being harassed and tortured by the accused persons in their house. He denied that he also informed that girl Renu was still present in the house of accused persons at that time. He denied that he had been won over by the accused persons.
E. PW5 Surender Kumar was also a resident of Shamshabad, Agra, U.P. He deposed that around 07-08 years back police called PW Bikha Ram and him and they went to PS Shamshabad. The police asked him whether he knows Bikha Ram and PW5 told the police that he knows him being from the same locality. Thereafter, the police gave him one paper and one pen and told that there is some matter of one girl child. He told the police that he do not know about the case but police assured him that he would not be involved in that matter. Thereafter, PW5 wrote on the paper as per dictation of police officials. He identified the document mark X as the same. He further deposed that he had seen both accused persons earlier as they used to reside in the same locality. However, he denied having seen the prosecutrix or having knowledge about her. PW5 was cross examined by Ld. APP. Therein he deposed that distance between his house and the house of accused is about 300-350 meters. He deposed that he had come to the court along with PW4 Bikha Ram. However, he denied that mark X was not written by him on the dictation of police officials. He denied that prior to going to police station, Bikha Ram had informed him that accused persons had wrongfully confined the prosecutrix Renu who was kidnapped by them from Delhi. He denied that police arrested accused Rakesh in his presence and recovered the prosecutrix Renu in his presence. He denied that after some days of registration of FIR at Shamshabad PW4 Bikha Ram came to him and informed him that he was FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 4/17 going to withdraw the present FIR as he was being offered money. He further denied that he was deposing falsely being won over by the accused persons.
F. PW6 Sh. S. S. Handa, Retired Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dlehi deposed that on 18.01.2000 he was posted as a Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari Court and application Ex.PW6/A was moved before him for recording the statement of Ms. Renu D/o Ramdin u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He deposed that he recorded her statement vide proceedings Ex.PW2/B. He also exhibited the certificate Ex.PW6/C appended by him along with the said proceedings and deposed that on application Ex.PW6/D he supplied the copy of statement of the prosecutrix to the IO.
G. PW7 Ms. Renu was the girl reported to be missing. She deposed that accused Rakesh and Krishna had taken her to Agra from Hathi Park, Delhi which was near to her house. She stated that she do not remember the date, month or year as she has forgotten the same. She further deposed that both accused persons compelled her to do all the household chores like they used to make her wash the clothes, clean utensils, mop the floor etc. She also deposed that accused persons also used to beat her. She further deposed that her statement was recorded before the court earlier vide Ex.PW6/B. She deposed that accused persons used to send her for bringing milk and once she fell down with milk so accused persons beat her and while beating some other persons happened to see and some of them took her to police station. She narrated the incident to the public persons who took her to the police station. She further stated that accused persons also used to keep her confined in their house. She was cross examined at length by the Counsel for accused persons. However, she denied she was missing and was not taken away by the accused persons or she was tutored by her father to depose against the accused persons.
FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 5/17
H. PW8 HC Fakir Chand proved the disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A
of the accused Rakesh Beria recorded by Anil Kumar on 22.02.2000.
I. PW9 Retired SI Inspector Singh deposed that on 14.01.2000 he was posted as a Sub Inspector at PS Shamshabad, Agra U.P. and on that day one FIR u/s 366 mark A was registered and investigation was marked to him. He went to the house of Rakesh Beria and conducted a raid at his house and recovered one girl child namely Renu from his house.The accused Rakesh Beria was arrested and brought to the police station Shamshabad, Agra, U.P. The parentage of girl child was inquired and PW9 came to know that she was kidnapped from Sarai Rohilla area, Delhi. On 18.01.2000 the girl was taken to Sarai Rohillla police station and the mother of the child was called and she identified the girl Renu as her daughter. He handed over the custody of the girl to the police officials of Saria Rohilla and a memo Ex.PW9/A was prepared regarding the same. Thereafter, the statement of girl child was recorded in the court. During his cross examination he denied that girl child was recovered by him while she was wandering alone at a public place. He denied that accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case because they were not fulfilling his illegal demands.
J. PW10 Inspector Anil Kumar Pandey deposed that on 07.08.1998 he was posted at PS Sarai Rohilla as Sub Inspector. On that day he received DD No. 23A regarding missing of a girl namely Renu, aged 05 years and a boy namely Lal, 03 years. The boy Lala was found by police officials of PS Connaught Place on 11.08.1998 and was sent to Nirmal Chaya and then handed over to his father. PW1 kept the DD pending and finally recorded the statement of complainant on 11.09.1998 vide Ex.PW3/A. He recorded the rukka Ex.PW10/A and got the case registered. As per PW10 he made every FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 6/17 possible effort to trace the girl Renu but she could not be found and thereafter PW10 was transferred and case was handed over to MHC(R).
K. PW11 Ct. Mukesh deposed that on 11.09.1998 he was posted at PS Sarai Rohilla as a Constable. On that day duty officer handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him with direction that same be handed over to the IO. He did likewise and the IO recorded his statement. He further deposed that he along with IO went to PS Shamshabad, Agra and tried to search for accused Krishna but she could not be found and they returned to Delhi.
L. PW12 SI Prahalad Singh deposed that on 14.01.2000 he was posted at PS Shamshabad, Agra UP as a HC and was working as duty officer. He deposed that at about 06.55 pm he received one complaint mark X from Bikha and he registered an FIR Ex.PW12/A and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Inspector Singh for further action.
M. PW13 Inspector Maninder Singh deposed that on 18.01.2000 he was posted at PS Sarai Rohilla as SI. On that day investigation of the present FIR was marked to him as an information was received from PS Shamshabad UP Agra regarding the recovery of girl Renu and arrest of accused Rakesh Beria vide FIR No. Nil/2000 u/s 366A dated 14.01.2000. On that day SI Inspector Singh came to the PS Sarai Rohilla along with Renu and the mother of the Renu was called at PS Sarai Rohilla for her identification. The custody of the girl Renu was handed over to PW13 vide memo Ex.PW9/A. He further handed over the custody of the girl Renu to her mother vide memo Ex.PW13/A and thereafter statement of girl Renu was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Then PW13 made application for producing the accused Rakesh Beria and on 22.02.2000 he was produced before the present court and after taking FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 7/17 permission of the court PW13 interrogated the accused and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW13/A. Thereafter on 31.03.2000 accused Krishna also surrendered before the court and PW13 arrested her vide memo Ex.PW13/C. One day police custody remand of accused Krishna was taken and PW13 prepared the pointing out memo at her instance vide Ex.PW13/A. Thereafter, accused Krishna was sent to J/C and PW13 recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the chargesheet.
4. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and the incriminating circumstances were explained to the accused. In his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. accused Rakesh Beria stated that he do not know the alleged girl Renu and he never kidnapped said girl or her brother. He denied that he ever kept the said girl at her house at Shamshabad. He even claimed that he had never seen Delhi before the present case. He stated that he had never seen the girl before she appeared in the court. He deposed that the girl and the other witnesses have deposed falsely against him and he was framed in the present case. He stated that he was called by SI Inspector Singh who told him that he shall work at his house which was under construction and when the accused refused, said SI asked him to give Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000/- to him stating that if accused will not work he shall pay for other person who shall do the work. As per accused, when he did not fulfill his demand said SI told him that he will teach him such lesson that accused will remember for his whole life. Accused further stated he do not know as to why the girl has deposed against him.
In her examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. accused Krishna stated that her husband was taken to PS Shamshabad and when she went there the police also obtained her signatures on the blank papers. She stated that she had never seen the girl Renu prior to the court appearance in the present case. She stated that she do not know as to why FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 8/17 she has deposed against her. However, she claimed that all the allegations of PW Renu were false.
5. Both accused were offered an opportunity to lead defence evidence, however, they did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, arguments of both parties were heard. The Counsel for accused has argued that independent witnesses Bikha Ram and Surender have not supported the case of prosecution which shows that accused persons were falsely implicated on the basis of bogus documents. He further argued that at one point in her cross examination PW Renu has stated that she had first met Rakesh in PS in Agra. He has argued that same shows that allegations of PW Renu are completely false. He has further argued that even the complainant Ramdeen could not be examined and therefore even the complaint regarding missing of the alleged girl Renu has not been proved by the prosecution. He has argued that all these facts show that both accused are entitled for acquittal. On the other hand, Ld. APP has submitted that PW Bikha and Surender have turned hostile being the neighbours of the accused persons and their signed statements have not been denied by them. Ld. APP has further argued that PW Renu has given graphic details about the circumstances under which she was kept in the custody and there appears no reason for false implication of any of the accused by the said girl. Ld. APP has argued that court shall see the broad probabilities of the case and judge a case on the totality of the circumstances.
DECISION OF THE CASE AND REASONS THEREOF
6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved its case against both accused. The reasons for aforesaid conclusion are discussed in succeeding paras:
FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 9/17 A. It has been categorically proved that a report was lodged in the
P.S. Sarai Rohilla regarding missing of PW7 Renu and the present case FIR was registered on 11.09.1998 and she was untraceable till 14.01.2000 i.e. the whereabouts of the girl were not known for more than one year and four months. It is not disputed that girl was a minor when she went missing and even when she was recovered. The mere fact that father of the girl could not be examined does not disprove the fact that the girl was missing during the aforesaid period. The initial complaint has been proved by the first IO PW10 Inspector Anil Kumar. Even otherwise there is no other evidence to suggest that girl was with her family or her whereabouts were known to the family during said period. Now the main point of determination is how the girl went missing, where and under what circumstances she remained during the said period and how she was traced. PW7 i.e. the girl reported to be missing has specifically deposed against both accused that they had taken her from the Hathi Park, Delhi to Agra. The girl has made specific allegations against the accused persons regarding forcible work being taken from her. The girl even mentioned a specific incident when she went to take milk and same was got spilled by her and she was beaten by the accused persons and when some other persons saw her, they took her to the police station. Accordingly, she has explained as to how she went missing, where she was taken and how she reached the police station. She has also stated that she had narrated the facts to the public persons who took her to the police station. She has also alleged that accused persons used to keep her confined in their house. Counsel for accused has argued that the girl was tutored to depose against the accused persons. However, court sees no reason to believe the said argument. Though the girl was examined in the court in the year 2010 but she was examined u/s 164 Cr.P.C. immediately after she was traced. Here, the 164 Cr.P.C. statement is very crucial. Perusal of 164 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.PW6/B shows that the girl has given sufficient details that lend credibility to her allegations. She has FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 10/17 stated that accused Rakesh and Krishna had lifted her prior to Diwali and kept her at Shamshabad and they used to get household work done by her i.e. mopping, cleaning floor/utensils and they used to beat her severely and that she has got one injury on her hand. She even stated that a burn injury was caused to her on her hand using a chimta. Even the then Ld. MM, PW6 -Sh. S. S. Handa has observed in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement that "I have seen her left hand - it has got a burn healed injury". The girl also stated in her statement that she was confined by accused Rakesh and Krishna and she can identify them. She has also claimed that she can also identify the house and that even children Sandeep, Sonu, Dinesh and Dimple also lived there. Accordingly, from the aforesaid statement, it can be seen that a child cannot be tutored in such detail wherein the child can tell such facts as mentioned in said statement. Such details can be told only by a person who has actually undergone such circumstances. It is to be noted that none of the accused persons have alleged any enmity or even acquaintance with the parents of the girl Renu. Accordingly, there appears no reason with the parents of the girl Renu to tutor her to depose falsely against an unknown person. It is also to be noted that only the accused Rakesh Beria has claimed that SI Inspector Singh asked him for some favour and due to his refusal he was implicated in the present case. However, the accused Krishna has not come up with any explanation that may create a doubt as to why she was also named an accused in the present case.
B. PW7 has even stood the test of cross examination without any material contradiction, omission or falsehood. The Counsel for accused has argued that at one point PW7 Renu has deposed in her cross examination that she had first met Rakesh in PS in Agra. Accordingly, the Counsel has stressed on the said part of examination and has argued that same discredits the whole case of prosecution. I have considered the said argument. It is to be noted that girl Renu/PW7 was cross examined by Ld. APP in regard to the said aspect FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 11/17 and thereupon she confirmed that accused persons had taken her from Hathi Park, Delhi and since they lifted her from Hathi Park Delhi so question of meeting first time in Agra by the Rakesh cannot arise. Accordingly, said fact has been categorically explained. Moreover, the testimony of a witness has to be seen in its totality. Throughout her cross examination the girl has consistently deposed incriminating facts against the accused persons. She has given the details that she was lifted in the evening hours around 3.00 pm by two persons. She has deposed that accused persons came in the Hathi park by foot and they took her Agra by bus. She has also deposed that accused persons initially made her sit in a tempo at a Daya Basti along with her brother and thereafter they boarded the bus. She has stated that the bus was packed and it was around 05.00 pm when they made her sit in the bus. She has specifically deposed that she de-boarded the bus in Agra and it was night time and they took meal at agra after de-boarding the bus. She has specifically deposed accused persons kept her in their house for around one and a half year and apart from accused persons in their house one girl child and three children also resided. She even told that age of one of the children in the accused house was about 15 years. Nothing has come in the cross examination of the girl to suspect false implication of any of the accused. The Counsel has also argued the girl has not given sufficient details like the bus stand from where she boarded the bus, the route of the bus, the distance between Shamshad police station and house of the accused and the date when she was taken to police station in Agra. It is to be noted that testimony of PW7 has to be seen in the context that she was a girl aged around 05 years when she went missing and 07 years when she was traced out. A child of such age is not expected to have observation skills of a fully grown man especially to observe the names of bus stops, route of a bus, distance between one place to another and the dates. However, the child of such age is expected to know identification of persons, treatment meted out to him/her, the FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 12/17 difference between the day/night/evening/morning etc. and the child in question i.e. PW7 Renu has given sufficient details regarding said facts. The Counsel has further argued that in her cross examination the girl has deposed that she did not cry when she was allegedly taken from the Hathi park in the bus. He has argued that such conduct is inconsistent with the conduct of a kidnapped child. I have considered the said argument. A child of 05/06 years of age can be enticed or taken away by various means and the girl never stated that she was beaten or threatened by the accused persons at the time when she was taken by the accused persons with them from Hathi park. Accordingly, the mere fact that the girl did not cried while being taken away does not discredit her testimony. The Counsel has further argued that brother of PW Renu was never examined by the police and therefore same creates a doubt regarding the circumstances under which the girl was allegedly kidnapped. It is argued that omission of said child from prosecution witnesses is important as said child was also allegedly kidnapped with the girl Renu. I have considered the said submissions but same does not discredit the case of prosecution. It is to be noted that brother of girl Renu was aged about 03 years and was traced within 3-4 days of his missing but the girl Renu was not found along with him. A child of 03 years is too young to even know about his surroundings and a child of such age has limited capability to tell his experience. A child of such age has limited vocabulary and he can interact and relate to the persons with whom he is fimiliar i.e. his parents, siblings etc. Accordingly, the non-examination by IO of said child can be explained. Moreover, the IO was never questioned about the reasons for non examination of said child during the whole trial.
C. Another argument of the Counsel for accused is that the public witness Bikha Ram and Surender who allegedly got the zero FIR registered at PS Shamshabad have not supported the case of prosecution and therefore FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 13/17 the case of prosecution is on a shaky ground. I have considered the said argument in detail but I am of the opinion that there are number of facts and circumstances which suggest that said witnesses have turned hostile deliberately and have tried to conceal the actual facts from the court. The scrutiny of examination of PW4 Bikha Ram shows that he had admitted his thumb impression on the complaint which led to the registration of the Nil FIR. In the said complaint it is categorically mentioned that the girl Renu who tells herself daughter of Ramdeen from Hathi Park Delhi has been kidnapped by Rakesh Beria around nine months back and she is being continuously tortured. It is further mentioned in said complaint that said girl is being kept by Rakesh and his wife Krishna in their house under illegal confinement. Accordingly, there were categorical incriminating allegations against both the accused persons with specific details in the said complaint. In his examination in chief, PW4 has deposed that he do not know what was written on the said paper as he is illiterate. However, at the same time, he has also deposed that Surender Kumar had read over the said paper to him. This acknowledgement by PW4 is utmost important. Considering said acknowledgement, it is surprising as to why a person shall put his thumb impression on such complaint containing serious allegations, after being read over the same, unless such allegations were true. Though PW4 has denied the allegations having made by him or being the part of investigation, however, given the fact that he was a neighbour of the accused, and not a victim or affected party and not even related to the victim, and that he came for his deposition after about seven years, the chances of said witness turning hostile deliberately run high. Further even PW5 Surender Kumar has admitted that he has written the contents of complaint mark X. Though he has stated that he had written the contents as per the dictation of police officer but no such fact has been deposed by Bikha Ram in his testimony. Here, it is to be noted that as per PW5 the police had called Bikha and he also went along with him to the police FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 14/17 station. Thus, if contents of complaint were written by PW Surender on dictation of police, same fact would have been stated by PW Bhikha Ram also. Further, Surender Kumar deposed that Bikha Ram was known to him, being from the same locality. Thus, considering the circumstances, it is impossible to believe that Surender Kumar wrote such serious allegations on behalf of Bhikha and also signed as the writer of the document but the said allegations were false. It is to be noted that during his cross examination by Ld. APP he has deposed that distance between his house and house of accused is about 300-350 meters. Therefore, even the accused persons were not strangers to him. However, despite said circumstances, PW5 Surender Kumar who was the the writer of the complaint neither protested initially at the time of writing the complaint that false allegations were being made against his neighbour nor any subsequent complaint was made by him in any forum regarding false implication of the accused on a complaint written by him.
D. The Counsel for accused has further argued that there is no independent witness to the fact of alleged recovery of the girl from the premises of the accused. He has argued that there is not even a site plan of the premises of the accused. He has argued that PW9 retired SI Inspector Singh has deposed in his cross examination that he had prepared a site plan of said place but the same is not on the court file. Counsel has argued that PW9 even failed to tell whether any women police official accompanied him when he went to said premises. He has argued that PW9 in his cross examination also stated that he had recorded the statement of neighbours of the accused but on seeing the court file PW9 stated that he could not find any statement of neighbour of the accused. Likewise, PW9 deposed that he also inquired from the children in the locality and recorded their statements, but on seeing the court file he stated that he could not find any statement of children in the court file. Counsel has argued that PW9 also deposed he had prepared FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 15/17 the recovery memo of girl at Shamshabad, Agra but same is not on record. Counsel has argued that all these deficiencies in the statement of IO show that no proceedings whatsoever were done at the house of accused and both accused are falsely implicated in the present case by PW9 due to his ill-will against accused Rakesh Beria. I have considered the said argument of the Counsel. It is to be noted that said witness was examined after more than 11 years of the recovery of the girl. Accordingly, the evidence of said police official has to be judged considering the said lapse of time. In regard to the statement of neighbour, it is to be noted that statements of PW4 Bhikha and PW5 Surender respectively are on file and both of them were the neighbours of the accused persons. Though the site plan and statement of any other children from the locality is not on court record, however, the said fact does not discredit the case of prosecution in its entirety. As discussed in foregoing paras, the testimony of victim herself proves the culpability of both the accused persons. Moreover, it was the duty of the IO of the present case to obtain the complete case documents from the concerned PS of Shamshabad and if the IO of the present case failed to do the needful, the same do not go to the root of the matter as sufficient incriminating material has come against the accused persons otherwise. Here, it is also to be noted that in his cross examination, PW9 was not cross examined regarding the specific illegal demands made by him from the accused persons. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that any of the accused persons made any complaint against said IO for making illegal demands, subsequent threats by him or in regard to their false implication in the present case. Further there appears no reason as to why a missing girl will depose against anybody at the instance of a police official.
FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 16/17 In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case of prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, both accused Rakesh Beria and Krishna are convicted for the offence u/s 363/368/374/34 IPC as charged against them.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SACHIN SANGWAN)
TODAY ON 30th July, 2016 MM-04 (CENTRAL),
DELHI
FIR No. 400/1998 State v. Rakesh Beria Pages 17/17