Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/429873/2016 on 29 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS.PURVA SAREEN,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja
FIR No.141/12
PS Dwarka Sector 23
U/s 344/374/34 IPC & 23/26 JJ Act
JUDGMENT
Date of institution of case : 28.05.2016
Date of Commission of Offence : Unknown
Name of the complainant : Master Santosh
Name & address of the accused : (i) Kuldeep Singh Juneja S/o A. P. Juneja
(ii) Mandeep Kaur Juneja W/o K. S. Juneja
Both R/o H.No.C-707, Plot No.14, Dream
Apartment, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 344/374/34 IPC & 23/26 JJ Act
Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted U/s 344/374/34 IPC & 26 JJ Act
Convicted U/s 23 JJ Act
Date of reserve for judgment : 25.06.2018
Date of announcing of judgment : 29.06.2018
By virtue of this judgment I propose to dispose off the case U/s 344/374/34 IPC & 23/26 JJ Act filed against the accused Kuldeep Singh Juneja and Mandeep Kaur Juneja.
In brief the case of prosecution is as under:-
1) That on unknown time at Flat No.C-202, Plot No.14, Dream Apartment, Sector 22, Dwarka accused persons namely Kuldeep Singh Juneja and Mandeep Kaur wrongfully confined their servant Santosh and during that State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 1 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 period compelled him to work against his will and having control over him willfully neglected him and withheld his earnings and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 344/374/34 IPC and 23/26 JJ Act.
2) Charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the court. Accused Kuldeep Singh Juneja and Mandeep Kaur were summoned. They made an appearance before the court. Documents were supplied to accused persons and arguments were heard on the point of charge. Prima facie charge under section U/s 344/374/34 IPC and 23/26 JJ Act was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as under :-
(I) PW1 Sanjay Kumar deposed before the court that he worked with Bachpan Bachao Andolan. On 05.09.2012, he was at the office of Bachpan Bachao Andolan at L-6, Kalkaji, New Delhi when he received information regarding one child namely Santosh Kumar who had come to their office.
He was told that he had to be taken to Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Nirmal Chaya Complex, Jail Road, New Delhi. He took the child to the office of (CWC), Nirmal Chaya Complex, Jail Road, New Delhi. There the child talked to the Chairperson. Statement of the child was recorded by the Chairperson. Thereafter, CWC handed over an order to him and told him to take the said order and go to the police station to meet the SHO. On the next day i.e. on 06.09.2012, he went to PS, Dwarka, Sector-23 to meet the SHO. He met the SHO, who deputed Sanjay Kumar to investigate the matter. He alongwith IO Sanjay Kumar and the child went to Flat No-C-202, Plot No-14, Dwarka Sector-22, New Delhi. There the IO talked to the State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 2 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 person. He did not go inside. Thereafter, they returned to the PS. IO told him to leave the child in his custody for getting conducted the medical examination and thereafter be brought the child to Nirmal Chaya. He had given statement to the police.
In his cross examination by learned APP for the state, it was admitted by witness that Ex.PW3/DX1 bore his signature at point A. He did not remember if Ex.PW3/DX2 was the order given to him by the Chairperson on 05.09.2012 to take to the SHO for getting lodged the FIR.
In his cross examination by learned defence counsel, witness could not tell if Santosh was accompanied by anybody when he came to the office of Bachpan Bachao Andolan. He did not ask him if he had come with anybody. Nobody was there with Santosh when he came to the office. He did not write the age of Santosh on any document. He did not arrange or ask for any document for age verification of Santosh. Witness did not remember if Santosh told him about Purnima placement agency or any other placement agency or whether Santosh told him as to how he had got a job in the accused persons home. Witness did not remember if he ever asked Santosh about the same. Witness admitted that he had never met the accused persons. He did not know if Bachpan Bachao Andolan organization got any grant or any other interest in CWC. Witness denied that the child Santosh was not a minor when he came to the office of Bachpan Bacho Andolan.
(II) PW2 Santosh Lohra deposed before the court that he was born in Jharkhand. When he was 12-13 years old, he came to Delhi. He used to do work of sweeping, cooking food etc. at many places in Delhi. Then he started working in Dwarka. He did not remember the exact address. He did not remember the name of his employer. He was made to do all the State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 3 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 household work but his employers used to give him beatings. His salary was Rs. 3500/- but he was never given any money. He was harassed and lot of scolding was given to him. He worked there for one year and once he ran away from that place.
Accused Kuldeep Singh Juneja was correctly identified by the witness before the Court. Identity of accused Mandeep was not disputed Witness further states that he ran away to Pawal Chacha. They took him to some media person who told him that they would get him wages. He was then brought to PS in Dwarka where police persons recorded his statement and he was brought to Court where his statement was recorded.
In his cross examination by learned defence counsel, it was stated by witness that he had come from Jharkhand to Delhi with his Bua for studies but he started working. He also stayed with her at Sangam Vihar, Delhi. Witness admitted that he had applied in one placement agency at Sangam Vihar for domestic work.
Witness admitted his signatures on Ex.PW2/DX1. The form was filled by the placement agency. His salary was fixed at Rs.3500/- by the placement agency. Witness denied that the placement agency had told him that they would give money directly to his family members but he did not go to the placement agency when he did not receive salary. He had come to work at place of accused persons through placement agency "Poornima placement agency" Sangam Vihar. Witness did not know the age which he had told to the placement agency. He admitted that he had worked in many houses before applying in placement agency. He had received two phone calls from his parents in Jharkand during the time he worked at the accused person's home but he never spoke to his bua or chacha on phone. Witness denied that he regularly spoke to his chacha on phone. Witness stated that State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 4 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 he did not visit the hospital in which birth of son of accused Kuldeep had taken place but he had gone to Hapur Gurudwara alongwith accused Kuldeep. Witness could not say whether accused had made payments to the placement agencies. He could only tell that was not paid by the accused nor by the placement agencies. He used to come down to purchase household articles from the shop within the complex. He only went once to relative of the family of accused. He deposed that he had studied till class 5th, name of school being Kapudi Bangla. Witness admitted that he had received his payment when he had approached the media persons. He had received a sum of Rs.1.5 Lakhs. He worked as cook in Bangalore for about 10-12 days thereafter. Witness further stated that he resided with the accused persons as their child and sometimes they also used to show same affection as their own children. He had not taken any money when he had left the home of accused persons. Witness admitted that compromise took place in Child welfare committee with accused persons. (III) PW3 ASI Suresh Kumar was duty officer who proved the FIR vide memo Ex.PW3/A and endorsement vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He also brought certificate u/s 65B IE Act Ex.PW3/C. Accused persons did not prefer to cross examine the witness. (IV) PW4 Ct. Manoj Kumar deposed before the court that on 18.09.2012 he joined the investigation of present case along with SI Sanjay and Constable Kavita and reached at Sector 22, Dwarka where IO interrogated the accused persons. Accused Kuldeep Singh was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively.
In his cross examination by learned defence counsel, witness stated that he did not remember the exact address in Dwarka Sector 22.
State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 5 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 (V) PW5 Ct. Kavita deposed before the court that on 18.09.2012 she joined the investigation of present case along with SI Sanjay and Constable Manoj and they reached at Sector 22, Dwarka where IO interrogated the accused persons. Accused Mandeep Kaur was arrested and her personal search was conducted by her vide memo Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B respectively.
In her cross examination by learned defence counsel, witness stated that she did not remember the exact address in Dwarka Sector 22. (VI) PW6 Sarita Kunal brought the record of child Santosh with order of the Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee, Nirmal Chhaya Complex and proved the same vide memo Ex.P1.
In her cross examination by learned counsel for accused persons, it was stated by witness that she had no personal knowledge about the present case. The contents of the said documents were not recorded in her presence.
(VII) PW7 Sanjay Kumar deposed before the court that on 06.09.2012 complainant Santosh alongwith one person from NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan namely Sanjay came at PS. Complainant gave his statement which was recorded by him and Sanjay gave one order of CWC dated 05.09.2012 containing directions to register FIR in the present case. He prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to duty officer for getting the case registered. After that he took copy of FIR and rukka and alongwith Santosh and Bachpan Bachao Andolan worker Sanjay Kumar and Ct. Radhey Shyam proceeded to the spot i.e. Flat No. C 202, plot no. 14, Dream Apartment, Sector 22 Dwarka. At the spot, there was a lock on the flat and at the instance of the complainant, he prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW3/DX1. Accused persons were not found. He got conducted the medical of the complainant Santosh. Thereafter, he took the complainant to State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 6 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 Don Bosco Palam where he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. They left the complainant at Don Bosco for the night and thereafter he recorded the statement of Sanjay Kumar. On 07.09.2012 complainant was presented before CWC and his statement was recorded and thereafter, on 12.09.2012 the statement u/s 164 CrPC of the complainant was recorded and his relatives were also informed. On 18.09.2012, he arrested both accused persons. He recorded the statement of Ct. Manoj and Ct. Kavita. Thereafter, he searched for person Kamal through whom the child had allegedly been placed with accused persons but he could not be found. On 01.10.2012, one member of child line Rajesh handed over one transfer certificate which he told was handed over to him by the sister of the complainant Sumti. The same was seized. On 30.07.2013, he handed over the case file as he was transferred.
In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused persons, it was stated by witness that he did not visit the school of the complainant to verify the record. He did not verify the document submitted by the complainant in the school in support of his age proof. Witness admitted that he did not know about the documents which the complainant had filed in school for his age proof. He had not verified the fact that till when the complainant had attended the school. He did not know who had brought the School Leaving certificate of complainant from school, however, the same was procured after registration of FIR. Witness admitted that he had not verified the educational qualification of the complainant from the school. He did not record the statement of parents of the complainant. He did not verify the fact from his parents whether he came to Delhi with or without their consent. Witness admitted that he had not traced the address of Delhi of the bua of the complainant and had not taken the statement of chacha of State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 7 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 complainant. He got verified the address of the placement service but there was no office of any placement service at the given address. Witness admitted that the complainant mentioned in his complaint that he got the present job with the help of one person. However, he did not give any details about the person. He tried to find out the said person but could not find him. He did not record the statement of chairperson of CWC Ms. Anita Tiwari who had passed the orders dated 07.09.2012. He had collected the school leaving certificate of the complainant from Don Bosco. Don Bosco stated that they had collected the school leaving certificate from his sister Sumiti. He had not included the name of Sumiti in list of witnesses. He did not have any knowledge about the settlement of this case with CWC or making of any payment either to CWC or to the complainant. He could not trace the owner of Purnima Placement Service.
(VIII) PW8 SI Bikramjeet deposed before the court that on 07.12.2015 case file of present case was handed over to him and after perusal, he prepared charge sheet. He met the accused once during the time the file was with him. Thereafter, he filed the charge sheet before the Court.
In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused persons, it was stated by witness that he did not record any statement. He tried to find out the placement agency during investigation but did not get any clue.
4) Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused persons under section 313 CrPC were recorded to which accused persons preferred to lead defence evidence. In their defence evidence, accused persons produced four witnesses as under :-
(I) Kuldeep Singh Juneja, accused examined himself as DW1 and stated before the court that in the month of June 2011, they hired a domestic State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 8 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 servant namely Santosh through Purnima Placement Agency. The owner of agency brought the boy to their place for the same. His relatives also came along. The salary was fixed for Rs.3500/- per month and it was decided that the agency executive will come and take the salary every month and sent to the boy's family. The boy was living in their house in very homely atmosphere like their own child and used to help with domestic household work. His parents used to call and his relatives in Delhi who were his Bhua and chacha also came to meet him 4-5 times in one year. His salary was always taken by the placement agency and he told that he sent the same to his family in village. They all used to love him like their own child and took very good care of him. None of them ever beat him or scolded him for any mistakes or anything. He used to go down in society premises and also to nearby market if any work required all alone by himself. They used to take him anywhere they went like relatives, malls and gurdwaras. They never forced him to do anything which he did not want to do. He was very happy in their house. They never left him alone in the house or forced him to stay with them. He came to their house and stayed with them with his own and his family's will and they never complained to them about him being kept in their house. His age when they hired him through the placement service was told to be 15 years and the same was written on the Bio Data form given by the placement service. They confirmed the same with him and his relatives and they agreed to it. In July 2012, he went to market to bring something and did not come back. They called up the placement agency and his relatives informing them the same. A month later, he alongwith SI Sanjay from Dwarka Police station and staff from Bachpan Bachao Andolan came to their house. They were informed by SI Sanjay that the NGO has registered a complaint against them on behalf of Santosh saying that they State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 9 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 did not pay salary and kept him in their house forcefully. Then the matter went to Child Welfare committee and they were asked to pay Rs.1,20,000/-
approximately against his salary to him which they paid to his account.
In his cross examination by learned APP for the State, witness stated that he used to give Rs. 3500/- in cash to Kamal from Purnima Placement Agency. He had deposited all the receipts in CWC. He did not inform the police about the disappearance of Santosh. His family and agency had assured them that they will take care of the matter. He did do not remember the exact date on which Santosh disappeared. SI Sanjay and Santosh came to their house after about one and half month of the disappearance of Santosh. Witness denied that he and co accused gave beatings to the child Santosh or behave in a cruel manner towards him or withheld his earnings from him. He further denied that the child Santosh was harassed and scolded or wrongfully confined and never allowed to go out of the house.
(II) DW2 Navpreet Singh Bhatia deposed before the court that he had referred the services of Purnima Placement Agency to his brother in law Kuldeep Singh Juneja. They had also procured the services of domestic servant through this agency. The agent of agency had assured them that the child Santosh was 15 years of age. Whenever Kuldeep used to go out for family occasions, the child Santosh used to accompany him and no cruelty was ever done by Kuldeep or his wife or any other family member against the child Santosh nor was he ever kept confined to the house. He used to go to the home of the accused persons and he had never seen that there was any sort of restriction on the movement of Santosh. The agent from Purnima Placement agency used to take the salary of servants. Salary of Santosh was Rs.3500/- per month.
State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 10 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 In his cross examination by learned APP for the state, witness stated that he used to give Rs.3500/- in cash to Kamal from Purnima Placement Agency. He used to handover all the receipts to the accused Kuldeep. Witness denied that the accused persons gave beatings to the child Santosh or behaved in a cruel manner towards him or withheld his earnings. He further denied that the child Santosh was harassed and scolded or wrongfully confined and never allowed to go out of the house.
(III) DW3 Raj Kumar Saini deposed before the court that he was residing in the same society as Kuldeep Singh Juneja and was known to him for the last 10 years. They are family friends and used to attend community functions in the society as well as functions in their family and used to visit each other's family/households. Kuldeep Juneja was having a servant by the name of Santosh in the year 2011-12 who was around 15-16 years of age at that time. He came to know from Kuldeep Singh that Santosh had been hired through some agency/bureau. He had seen Santosh many times alone and also with family members of Kuldeep Singh in the household of Kuldeep Singh as well as in local shopping areas. He never heard of or never came to know about any misbehaviour or manhandling of Santosh by Kuldeep Singh or his family. It never came to his knowledge if Santosh was not paid his salary neither Santosh ever told him about the same. Santosh never complained to him that he was not allowed to meet or talk to his parents or he was not allowed to go to meet them. Sometime in the year 2012, he came to know that without informing anyone, Santosh had fled the home of Kuldeep Singh. He also came to know that one Child Welfare Committee in Delhi had taken up the case of Santosh and Kuldeep Singh settled the matter by paying the settlement amount to Santosh as decided State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 11 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 by the Child Welfare Committee. However, he also came to know that an FIR had been lodged in the matter.
In his cross examination by learned APP for the state, witness admitted that he never came to know that Santosh had or had not been paid salary but he worked at the house of accused persons. Witness denied that Santosh was never paid salary of Rs.3500/- and worked at the house of accused persons. Witness admitted that Santosh come to his home sometimes along with accused persons on the pretext of assisting the accused, i.e. for carrying some goods and articles to his house and as accused persons house was situated in different block of the same society. Witness denied that Santosh was harassed and scolded or wrongfully confined and never allowed to go outside the house. He used to meet accused persons every two-three days even after fleeing away of Santosh.
(IV) DW4 Sushil Kumar deposed before the court that he was driver by profession with driver association. Kuldeep Singh was known to him for the last 7 years as he used to drive his car on behalf of driver association. One Santosh was working in his house. He also used to meet Santosh. He always lived in healthy environment and used to wear good cloths. He also accompanied the family members of Kuldeep Singh whenever he took them in car. Sometimes he alone accompanied him in his car whenever he used to go for any work of Kuldeep Singh. He never complained to him about anything regarding any assault or non payment of salary etc by the family of Kuldeep Singh. Santosh was very familiar and close to him. He used to share his personal emotions with him. Kuldeep Singh and his family was well known to him and they did not misbehave with Santosh. Santosh never complained to him that he was not allowed to meet or talk with his parents State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 12 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 and relatives in Delhi. He came to know that Santosh had fled away from the house and a case was filed.
In his cross examination by learned APP for the State, witness stated that he had no personal relation with Santosh as he only used to open the door when he visited the house of accused for driving the car. He had not seen accused persons giving salary or any wages to Santosh. He used to record his departure and arrival entries whenever customers requires any driver. Witness admitted that Santosh had cordial relations with him and he never told him that he was fleeing away. Witness denied that he had cordial relation with the accused or he had never seen Santosh wearing good cloths and in good condition. Witness further denied that accused persons gave beatings to the child Santosh and behaved in cruel manner and withheld his earnings from him and he was harassed and scolded or wrongfully confined and never allowed to go out of the house.
5) Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard and record was perused.
6) It has been argued by learned APP for the state that accused persons should be convicted and accordingly punished as they have employed a juvenile in contravention of Juvenile Justice Act and the Constitution of India and also wrongfully confined him and forced him to do compulsory labour against his will which has been duly proved by complainant, victim and other witnesses in their evidence before the Court and all accusations have been duly proved by witnesses. The documents placed on record by the prosecution also show that the accused persons have committed above said offences and therefore they should be convicted and punished State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 13 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 accordingly.
7) On the other hand, learned counsel for accused persons has argued in detail and also furnished written arguments for both the accused persons. He has argued that FIR was lodged on 06.09.2012 and charge sheet was filed after expiration of limitation period. Although, condonation of delay application was allowed by learned Predecessor but there was nothing on record to proceed against the accused persons. He has further argued that Rs.1.5 lacs have already paid by accused persons to the victim and matter had been duly settled. Therefore, there is no reason to convict the accused persons when they have compensated the victim adequately enough. He also pointed out several contradictions in the statement of witnesses and also argued that it was an admitted fact that victim was above 14 years of age and no offence under juvenile justice act is made out against accused persons. The constitution itself under Article 24 prohibits employment of child under 14 years of age in hazardous work but domestic work is not hazardous and as the victim was above 14 years of age, there was no statutory inhabitation qua his employment. He also argued that no specific date and time was provided by the victim as to when the accused persons beat him up or harassed him which is required to prove the offences under IPC. He also stated in his arguments that victim was kept nicely by the accused persons like their own child and was even given the same affection as a child should get. Moreover, victim had come to work voluntarily and there was no compulsory labour extracted from him against his will and therefore, no section under which accused persons have been charge sheeted, is made out.
State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 14 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23
8) I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the State and learned counsel for accused persons. After hearing the arguments and going though the evidence and documents on record, I have come to the following observations:-
The accused persons Kuldeep Singh Juneja and Mandeep Kaur have been charge sheeted under section U/s 344/374/34 IPC & 23/26 JJ Act for employing a minor for the purpose of hazardous employment and withholding his earnings and also for wrongful confinement and unlawful compulsory labour against will of the victim. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed against accused persons under above sections.
9) Hereinafter I shall discuss all the sections with respective ingredients.
10)Section 344 IPC defined as "whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days, or more, shall be ...".
11) The main ingredients of section 344 IPC are (i) victim should be wrongfully confined (ii) he should be confined for more than ten days.
12)Wrongful confinement is defined in the section 340 IPC as "whoever wrongfully restrains any person such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.
13) In the case at hand, there is no such allegation upon the accused persons that they had wrongfully confined the victim or restricted his movement from State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 15 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 the house. In his cross examination, specific question was put to the victim regarding his period of stay in the house of accused persons. He stated in his cross examination in the court that he had gone to Hapur Gurudwara with accused persons where he stayed for one week. He further stated that he had resided with accused persons like their child and sometimes they gave the same affection to him as their own child. He also stated that he used to come down to purchase household articles in the society complex and even visited relatives of the accused persons once along with accused persons. All these facts show that there was no restrain in employment of the victim and no wrongful confinement rather he was kept properly and was given all the comforts in the house of the accused persons. It has been stated by DW3 Raj Kumar Saini in his cross examination by learned APP for the state that victim Santosh used to come to his house along with accused persons on the pretext of carrying goods and articles. There is no allegation of wrongful confinement by the victim against the accused persons. Hence, both the accused persons are acquitted for the offence u/s 344 IPC.
14) The second section under which accused persons have been charge sheeted is section 374 IPC which states that "whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be ...".
15) The main ingredients of the Section 374 IPC are (i) the person should be compelled to do unlawful labour (ii) unlawful labour should be done against the will of that person.
16) In the case at hand nothing has come on record to show that the victim State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 16 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 was made to work against his will. Victim himself stated in his statement before the court that he had himself come to Delhi and used to do the work of sweeping and cooking etc at many places in Delhi. He had himself filled up the form which is Ex.PW2/DX1 and same was filled by placement agency and bore his photo and signature showing that he had himself applied in placement agency to do household work. He had worked through Purnima Placement Agency, Sangam Vihar and had worked at many houses before applying in placement agency shows that there was no compulsion or unlawful labour extracted from him against his will and he had voluntarily joined services of the accused persons after applying in a placement agency. The victim admitted his signature in the form filled for the placement agency by him which shows his voluntariness. Therefore, Section 374 IPC for unlawful compulsory labour is also not made out against accused persons and both the accused persons are acquitted under this section also.
17) Now, I come to the section 26 Juvenile Justice Act which reads as "whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earning or use such earnings for his own purpose, shall be ...".
The main ingredients to be satisfied before a person is convicted under said Section are (i) the person should be a juvenile or child (ii) he should be employed for the purpose of any hazardous employment (iii) he should be kept in bondage (iv) his earnings should be withheld or used by accused person for his own purpose.
18) In the case at hand, none of the above ingredients is satisfied except that State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 17 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 the victim was a juvenile. The domestic work cannot be included in hazardous employment nor victim was kept in bondage. The only fact that his earnings were withheld is not combined with second and third ingredients of above section. Thereafter, merely the fact that victim was a juvenile and his earnings were withheld does not bring the oportion of Section 26 of JJ Act. For section 26 JJ Act to be satisfied, all four requirement should be fulfilled and in the present case victim was under
domestic employment and was not in bondage. Hence, the accused persons cannot be convicted u/s 26 of JJ Act. As far as withholding of his earning is concerned, victim himself stated that he did not know whether it was agreed by placement agency that his earning would be given to his family members. He also stated in his cross examination that it might be possible that his relative kept the wages for his work he was doing there. He also admitted that Rs.1.5 lacs had been given to him and that could have been for his salary also. Keeping in view the above facts, both the accused persons are acquitted for the offence u/s 26 JJ Act as all four ingredients of section is not satisfied.
19) Now I shall discuss Section 23 JJ Act which states that "whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposed or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be ...".
The main ingredients of Section 23 JJ Act are (i) accused should have actual control or charge over a juvenile or child (ii) there should be assault, abandon, expose or willful neglect of the juvenile (iii) and such an State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 18 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 act should cause mental or physical suffering to the victim.
20) In the present case, it has been stated by victim/juvenile that he was forcibly made to work and beaten up a number of times by the accused persons. It is argued that he has not expressly stated that when and where and by whom he was beaten up or if he received any injury due to those beatings or not. He also stated that there was lot of scoldings given by accused persons to him but again he has not stated that who had scolded him. Victim has not stated any specific incident or date when he was scolded. He had just made a general statement that he used to do all household work and his employer used to given him beatings. He stated before Child Welfare Committee that he used to work from 7 am to 12 pm in the night and he was scolded many times and beaten up by Kiran and her husband. Kiran is alias for accused Mandeep Kaur. Although, there is no medical on record and no complaint filed by juvenile but there are allegations that he was assaulted, willfully neglected which caused him unnecessary mental and physical suffering and he was forced to run away from the house without any remuneration and only with Rs.20/- in his pocket, suddenly and without telling anyone.
21) In my considered opinion, section 23 JJ Act has been duly proved as victim was a juvenile and his willful neglect has been duly proved by statement of victim himself.
In Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (1957 SCR 981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court is Court had divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two categories they State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 19 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 pose little difficulty but in the case of the third category of witnesses, corroboration would be required. It is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely :
(i) Wholly reliable.
(ii) Wholly unreliable.
(iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
22)In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses.
Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.'
23)Vadivelu Thevar case (supra) was referred to with approval in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 20 FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23 logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act'). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time- honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."
24) The statement of Santosh who is the victim has expressly stated in the Court about the assaults, neglects and withholding which are sufficient to convict the accused persons u/s 23 JJ Act.
25)Hence, keeping in view of above, accused persons namely Kuldeep Singh Juneja and Mandeep Kaur stand acquitted for the offence U/s 344/374/34 IPC & 26 JJ Act. However, accused persons namely Kuldeep Singh Juneja and Mandeep Kaur stand convicted for the offence U/s 23 JJ Act.
26) To come up for arguments on the point of sentence on 06.07.2018.
Announced in the open court (PURVA SAREEN)
on 29th June 2018 ACMM/SOUTH, DWARKA COURT
NEW DELHI
Digitally signed
by PURVA
PURVA SAREEN
SAREEN Date:
2018.07.03
15:09:15 +0530
State v. Kuldeep Singh Juneja Page 21
FIR No.141/12, PS Dwarka Sector 23