Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Man Mohan on 30 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 93/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0816852007
State Vs. (1) Man Mohan
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o 71A, Village Dasghara,
Near Pusa Institute, Delhi
(2) Santosh Sharma
W/o Sh. Sudhir Sharma
R/o 85B, Kishan Kunj Extn.,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
(3) Preeti
W/o Vinod
R/o M157/158,
Shakurpur JJ Colony, Delhi
(4) Vinod
S/o Ram Chander Sahu
R/o Village Khutia Bishamberpur,
PS Masholia, Distt. Betia,
West Champaran
Also at:
M157/158,
Shakurpur JJ Colony, Delhi
FIR No.: 925/2007
Police Station: Saraswati Vihar
Under Sections: 342/344/506/376 IPC
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 1 of 133
Date of committal to sessions Court: 20.10.2008
Date on which orders were reserved: 1.11.2012
Date on which judgment pronounced:16.11.2012
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations of the prosecution, in the month of NovemberDecember 2006 at unknown time at House No. Z4344, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi the accused Man Mohan wrongfully confined the prosecutrix 'S' (name of the prosecutrix is being withheld as this is a case under Section 376 IPC) aged 15 years and thereafter committed rape upon her. It has also been alleged that the accused Man Mohan had committed criminal intimidation by threatening the prosecutrix 'S' aged 15 years. (2) In so far as the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma are concerned, the allegations against them are that four months prior to 13.8.2007 at unknown time at House No. M157/158, JJ colony, Shakurpur all the said accused in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped the newly born child of the prosecutrix 'S' and after kidnapping or abducting the newly born male child of the prosecutrix 'S' they secretly and wrongly confined it. Further, it has been alleged that the above accused told the prosecutrix 'S' that she had given birth to a dead baby but later on sold the new born baby to Smt. Veena for a sum of Rs.23,000/ and when the prosecutrix protested and raised an alarm they locked her in a room and also extended threats to her.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 2 of 133 BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(3) The case of the prosecution is that on 1.9.2007 in the night IBN7 News Channel telecasted a sting operation at House No. 157158, MBlock, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, which was the office of a placement agency running under the name and style of Adivasi Sewa Samiti. The Reporter Siddarth Gautam also informed the SHO Police Station Saraswati Vihar about the rape of a minor at House No. 157158, Shakurpur, Delhi, pursuant to the same WSI Raj Bala was called at the police station who along with Ct. Devender reached the aforesaid address where the prosecutrix 'S' met them. SI Raj Bala interrogated the prosecutrix 'S' and in her statement to the police the prosecutrix 'S' stated that she is a resident of Jharkhand and about 9 to 10 months ago when she was returning home at about 3:00 PM, one boy suddenly came in front of her and pulled her in the bushes by putting his hand on her mouth and committed rape upon her and also threatened her to kill her brothers if she disclosed this fact to anybody. According to the prosecutrix 'S', due to fear she did not disclose about the incident to anybody till but when her mensuration did not take place for about four months, she asked one lady of her village who told her that she was pregnant. She further told the police that about 45 months back she along with one Pallo came to Delhi in the office of Aadivasi Sewa Samiti at M157158, JJ Colony Shkarupur from where she was put in placement at Bali Nagar where she worked for about threefour months but thereafter she again came back to the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 3 of 133 placement office. The prosecutrix 'S' informed the police that on 13.8.2007 she gave birth to a child in the placement office and during the delivery she became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness, she was told by Vinod and his wife Preeti who were running the placement agency that she had given birth to a dead child but later on she came to know that her newly born baby was sold by Vinod and Preeti to one Santosh Sharma for Rs.23,000/ and they did not give her a single penny.
(4) On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, the present case FIR No. 925/07 was registered. During investigations the medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. The prosecutrix 'S' was sent to Nari Niketan. The accused Preeti was arrested 2.9.2007 and on 13.10.2007 the accused Vinod was arrested. On 26.10.2007 the prosecutrix 'S' was again interrogated in detail by WSI Raj Bala when the prosecutrix 'S' disclosed the complete details that she was raped by by the Driver of Sulekha Madam namely Man Mohan. Pursuant to the same on 29.10.2007 the accused Man Mohan was arrested and on 28.3.2008 the accused Santosh was arrested whereas the accused Veena was put in column No.2 of the charge sheet. After completion of investigations the charge sheet was filed against the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 4 of 133 CHARGES:
(5) Vide a detailed order dated 12.3.2010 the accused Veena was discharged by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. However, charges under Sections 342/376/506 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Man Mohan to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Further, charges under Sections 363/365/506/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh to which they pleaded not guilty.
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Five witnesses as under:
Public witnesses/ complainant:
(7) The Prosecutrix 'S' has been examined as PW1 who has deposed that she was residing at her village Karakhujria with her parents, two brothers and five sisters and came to Delhi in search of job with three other girls after which she was residing somewhere in Delhi, the name of the place she does not remember. According to the witness, being illiterate she does not remember any date, month and year but about four five years back she was working in the house of one Vijay Sir and one person namely Mohan was driver of Vijay Sir. She has testified that he (Mohan) committed rape forcibly on her person twice i.e. raped her first St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 5 of 133 time and thereafter after one and half month again. The witness has further deposed that since she became pregnant therefore she left the job without disclosing about the same to her employer Vijay Sir and went to Jharkhand. She has further deposed that she consulted one lady in her village who told her that she became pregnant but did not disclose this fact to her parents and again came to Delhi with a lady Pallo. According to the prosecutrix, Paalo took her to Shakurpur in the office of Preeti and Vinod (accused) after which she was employed at Bali Nagar through them. She has further testified that thereafter informed about the pregnancy to the house owner at Bali Nagar when about eight months have been passed on which she was asked to go to the house of Preeti and Vinod. The prosecutrix has also deposed that her male child was born in the house of Vinod at Shakurpur and both Vinod and Preeti asked her about her desire for giving the child to anybody after which Vinod and Preeti had given the child to somebody on the date of delivery. She has further deposed that after one month she was again employed to another house by Vinod and Preeti and she told the employer about her child on which they asked her as to where was her child on which she showed her inability to them about whereabouts of her child and then they (her employer) made a complaint to the police. According to her, the police came to her with some ladies and inquired. She has also deposed that initially she gave a statement under threat which was wrong and thereafter she was removed to Naari Niketan by the police. She has also proved that St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 6 of 133 once her statement was also recorded by Ld. Magistrate in Rohini Court.
According to the witness, she inquired from the accused about her child after delivery when disclosed to her that she gave birth to a dead child but later she came to know that the child was sold for Rs.30,000/ by Vinod and Preeti. PW1 prosecutrix 'S' has further deposed that a nurse (Daai) also disclosed to her that she gave birth to a male child which was sold by Vinod and Preeti. The witness has testified that she got custody of her male child through police from the person whom the child was sold by Preeti and Vinod without her consent. According to the prosecutrix, she did not receive any amount regarding the sale of her male child and the child was sold to one Veena or Meena she does not remember the exact name. The witness has further deposed that after committing the rape on her person, Man Mohan threatened her to kill if she told to anybody about the rape and further threatened her and asked her to leave the place. She has testified that the police obtained her thumb impressions on her statement Ex.PW1/A dated 02.09.07 and her another statement was recorded on 02.09.07 which is Ex.PW1/B bearing her thumb impression at point A. The witness has also proved her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C which is Ex.PW1/C. According to her, she was also taken to hospital for medical examination by the police officials and on the day of the incident, her age was about 15 years. She has correctly identified the accused Man Mohan in the court as the person who committed rape upon her and also identified accused Vinod and Preeti who sold her child. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 7 of 133 (8) This witness was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on some of the aspects. During her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP this witness has admitted that incident took place in the year 2007 and that she had come to Delhi two years ago prior to 2007. She has denied that she and her other village mate Virang met one agent at the railway station and has deposed that the agent employed her and Virang at the house of Kiran. The witness has admitted that Kiran got employed her at the house of Sulekha Madam; that she worked there for about 1 - 1½ years; that husband of Madam Sulekha was Vijay and the name of her son was Mudit and names of her daughters were Rupali and Geetika; that both the daughters of Sulekha were married and used to visit their mother; that weekly market on Friday was also near the house of Sulekha Madam; that Vijay, husband of Sulekha used to go to his shop daily; that accused Man Mohan used to drive van of Vijay and used to come to pick lunch and keys during lunch hours; that first time accused Man Mohan forcibly took her in the kitchen in the house of Sulekha and committed rape upon her by forcibly putting her on the floor; that at the time of rape accused Man Mohan shut her mouth by his hand due to which she could not raise an alarm; that prior to committing the rape he (Man Mohan) forcibly removed her clothes from her person; that after the first incident she did not allow accused Man Mohan to come inside for picking up lunch and keys and she used to deliver keys and lunch outside; that after about one and half month Vijay was admitted at St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 8 of 133 hospital and nobody was at home at that time accused Man Mohan came and again committed rape forcibly at drawing room; that after about two three months the mensuration did not take place and she told this fact to accused Man Mohan who threatened her and asked her to leave the job; that one day Sulekha asked her to buy Chole Bhature from the Friday Market and gave her Rs.100/ on which she purchased the Chole Bhature but the shop owner did not return her the balance amount and on this she returned to her house and told this fact to Sulekha Madam who scolded her after which she left her house in the morning and went to railway station and left for Ranchi. The witness has further admitted that at Ranchi police helped to get the bus for her village where she stayed for 2025 days and returned to Delhi along with Pallo; that in Delhi she came at Aadivassi Samiti from where the accused Vinod and Preeti got employed her at Bali Nagar; that landlady of house at Bali Nagar called Vinod and told him about her pregnancy and also asked him to send her to village; that when T.V. Persons came to the house of Vinod then she came to know that her child was sold for a sum of Rs.23,000/; that she had seen her child in the lap of Veena Madam; that her first statement was under threat from the accused persons about the incident of rape in the bushes; that she had given short statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM because nobody told her to narrate the entire incident before Ld. MM; that her male child was born on 13.08.2007 at Placement Agency, House No. M157158, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur; that Aadivassi St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 9 of 133 Samiti placement agency is being run by accused Vinod and Preeti; that later on she came to know that her male child was sold through one lady Santosh; that these facts could not be disclosed by her in her chief examination due to her illiteracy and lapse of time and at present the child name Hitesh, three years and nine months is with her.
(9) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons this witness has deposed that when she left for Ranchi she did not disclose anything to police persons who met her at railway station after leaving the house of Sulekha Madam on the incident of purchase of Bhaturas. She has further deposed that she did not disclose the incidents of forcible rape with her by accused Man Mohan to Sulekha Madam. She has admitted that she did not disclose the fact of stopping of her mensuration period to Madam Sulekh and states that she never disclosed the incident of rape to anybody at Ranchi and Delhi. The witness has also admitted that when Vinod was called and told that she can be removed to her village when she had stated that she would rather die but would not go to her village in this condition. She has denied the suggestion that Vinod brought her to Aadivassi Samiti at Shakurpur at her request and states that was brought to Aadivassi Samiti on the asking of Sangeeta Madam. The prosecutrix has admitted that she did not want to go to her village because she was unmarried and pregnant and did not want anybody to know about her pregnancy and incident. She has further admitted that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 10 of 133 26.10.2007 wherein she had stated that she did not want to keep the child after birth and this fact was told to Vinod. The witness has also admitted that she had stated to the police that one madam came to accused Vinod who asked her that if she wanted to keep the child or not on which she refused to keep the child after birth and has voluntarily explained that this happened prior to birth of the child. She has denied the suggestion that this was told by her to accused Vinod after the birth of the child. The witness was confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/DA wherein it has been recorded that she gave birth to a male child in the Samiti, one Madam came and Vinod asked her (witness) whether she wants to keep the child or not on which she refused and her child was given to that lady (Samiti Me Mujhe Beta Hua Tatha Madam Aayi Toh Vinod Bhaiya Ne Mujhse Puchha Ki Baccha Rakhna Chahti Hai Ya Nahi Jo Maine Bacha Rakhne Se Mana Kar Diya Aur Madam Ko Bacha De Diya). The prosecutrix 'S' has admitted that another statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 10.09.2007 which is Ex.PW1/DB wherein she had stated to the Investigating Officer that she did not want to go to her village and she had given her son with her sweet will and wanted some lady to keep the child who took her child. She has also admitted that on 03.09.2007 she was produced before Ld. MM Ms. Rekha where her statement was recorded by Ld. MM wherein she had stated that she did not want to keep the child and she had no objection if the child is given to Veena . The witness has further admitted that on 05.09.2007 again her St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 11 of 133 statement was recorded by Ld. MM wherein she had voluntarily given statement that child may be given to Veena . She has further admitted that on 14.09.2007 before Ld. MM again she made statement about the custody of her child. She was admitted that in her presence nobody had given or received the money for sale of her child. The witness has denied the suggestion that she stated the fact regarding the sale of her child for Rs.23,000/ at the instance of T.V. Persons and has voluntarily explained that this fact was told to her by Veena also. The prosecutrix 'S' has admitted that she did not state this fact before Ld. MM when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She has further admitted that she appeared before Ld. MM on six to seven occasions and she did not tell this fact to the Ld. MM. The witness has further admitted that during the delivery time accused Vinod looked after her and provided food and other things which she required at that time. She has testified that she has no complaints against Vinod and Preeti about her care. She has denied the suggestion that accused Vinod and Preeti never sold her male child to Veena for Rs.23,000/.
(10) The witness has further deposed that she is illiterate and never attended her school and has no proof of her date of birth. She has admitted that prior to appearing in witness box the Investigating Officer of the case explained her and read over her statement to her and that she had deposed as per her statement explained to her by the investigating Officer but has further voluntarily explained that she stated all true and St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 12 of 133 correct facts. She does not remember the day of week on 02.09.07. According to her, she did not state to police the fact regarding village incident of where she was raped by unknown persons in bushes. She has admitted that the statement dated 02.09.2007 is recorded after making inquiries from her and has voluntarily explained that she had given the incident of bushes to the police on the instructions of accused Man Mohan. She is unable to tell the address of Aadiwasi Seva Samiti situated in Delhi and states that the room where she gave birth to her male child might be having dimensions of 8 x 10 feet. She does not remember the date, month and year when she gave birth to a male child but states that it was a Friday. The witness has admitted that police case was registered after about one month when a dispute arose regarding sale of male child and the police complaint was lodged when she was again employed in a Kothi and explained all the facts to the employer. She has further deposed that she does not remember their names and the dates on which the Investigating Officer recorded her statement. According to the witness, she had put her thumb impressions on her recorded statement by the Investigating Officer and she put her thumb impressions on four/ five written pages. She has deposed that the Investigating Officer made inquiries from her within two three months of birth of her male child. According to the prosecutrix 'S' for the first time she stated the incident of rape to police officer at Shakur Pur and T.V. Persons inquired her only about how the born child was sold. She has also deposed that she did not St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 13 of 133 tell about the details of her family members to accused Man Mohan. She is not aware the name of husband of Pallo and states that she belong to her native place but only knew the address of her village. She has admitted that she does not remember the day, month and year when accused raped her. The witness has testified that she did not disclose the fact of rape to her employer Vijay, Sulekha and Kiran and prior to court she first disclose to police officials at Nari Niketan about the rape committed by accused Man Mohan with her at the house of Sulekha Madam. According to the witness, she does not remember the period with date, month and year when she had worked at the house of Madam Kiran and states that she was having a pregnancy of fourfive months at that time. She has also deposed that she does not remember the date, time and month when the accused Man Mohan was arrested by the police nor does she remember the name of the hospital where she was medically examined. The witness has testified that the doctor inquired her name, father's name and age from her and she put her thumb impressions on the MLC. According to the witness, she had came to the Court four/ five times for recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has admitted that she was given oath for deposing under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and states that she had stated all the facts regarding incident of this present case to Ld. MM. The prosecutrix 'S' had stated to the Ld. MM regarding the facts of rape. However, when confronted with her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C which is Ex.PW1/C the said fact was not found St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 14 of 133 recorded. She has also deposed that she does not remember whether she stated to Ld. MM that due to fear she gave wrong statement regarding rape at bushes at her village. She has denied the suggestion that she was not raped by accused Man Mohan or that she had to lodge this present complaint under the fear and pressure of police, cameraman/ media persons, Aadiwasi Sewa Samiti persons and her family members/relatives. She is unable to tell the name and addresses of persons who were helping her belonging to Aadiwasi Seva Samiti. According to her, she had not met her father for the last twothree years. (11) PW2 Smt. Pallo Sirka has deposed that she is former at Jharkhand. According to the witness she does not remember date, month and year but about five years back (from the date of her deposition in the Court) she brought the prosecutrix 'S' to Delhi for work in the kothis and they stayed in the house of Vinod in Delhi whom she has correctly identified in the court. She has further deposed that accused Vinod was running a placement agency and father of the prosecutrix 'S' asked her in Jharkhand to get help for obtaining the job on which she brought the prosecutrix 'S' in Delhi. According to the witness, the prosecutrix 'S' got a job in kothi through accused Vinod who gave her commission and after two three days she returned back to her native place at Jharkhand and after about one and a half month, Vinod telephoned her that prosecutrix 'S' is pregnant and asked her to get her back. She has testified that she came to Delhi for bringing the prosecutrix back but she (prosecutrix) St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 15 of 133 started weeping and asked her that her parents would kill her after seeing her in pregnant position on which she along with prosecutrix 'S' returned from railway station and went to the house of accused Vinod. She has further deposed that the prosecutrix 'S' further told her that after the birth of the child either she would throw away or give it to somebody and only thereafter she would visit the village. According to the witness, then she returned back alone to Jharkhand and accused Vinod telephoned her to Jharkhand that a police case is registered against him on which she came to Delhi alongwith Man Singh father of prosecutrix 'S'. She has testified that the prosecutrix 'S' was in Nari Niketan and accused Vinod was at his house and she met prosecutrix 'S' at Nari Niketan and at that time she was not having her child with her and police recorded her statement. (12) In her crossexamination, this witness has admitted that she stated to the police that when she came to Delhi on the information given by accused Vinod in respect of pregnancy of prosecutrix 'S' while taking her back at railway station, she told her that in case she be taken back to her village, then she would jump from the running train. According to her, she does not remember when her statement was recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely or that she is a tutored witness.
(13) PW12 Sunil Bhati has deposed that he is working in the IBN7 News Channel and doing a field job. He has proved that he had handed over the CD of a news report at police station Saraswati Vihar on St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 16 of 133 1.10.2007 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/A. This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons and hence, his testimony remained unassailed.
(14) PW13 Ms. Kiran Batra has deposed that she is a housewife residing at 36/18, East Patel Nagar, Delhi for the last 15 years with her family. According to her, one person/ aged used to come from Jharkhand at the house of one of her relative and provide domestic workers and the maid working in her house was also brought by him in the month of MarchApril 2006. She has deposed that the said person had brought two girls for placing them at domestic workers, one of them was prosecutrix 'S' and other was Virang. She has testified that while Virang was employed at her house, the prosecutrix 'S' was employed in the house of her friend Sulekha W/o Vijay R/o 4344, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. The witness has also deposed that after about one year i.e. in 2007 her friend Sulekha told her that prosecutrix 'S' had suddenly gone somewhere in the morning and did not return. She has identified the prosecutrix 'S' through her photograph Ex.PW13/A. (15) Leading questions were put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness Ms. Kiran Batra has admitted that the investigating officer had recorded her statement Ex.PW13/PX1 wherein she had told the Investigating Officer that the agent had come to her in the month of December 2005 and that it was on 14.4.2007 that her friend Sulekha had St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 17 of 133 called her up and told her that prosecutrix 'S' had gone away. She has voluntarily stated that on account of passage of time she does not recollect the exact date or month. This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and hence, her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(16) PW14 Smt. Sulekha has deposed that her husband is a businessman and she assist him in his work and Smt. Kiran is her friend who is residing in the same area. She has further deposed that she was in requirement of a domestic maid which fact she told to Kiran since some agent from Jharkhand used to come to the house of Kiran along with domestic workers/ maid. According to her, she does not recollect the month but it was in the year 2006 that the prosecutrix 'S' came to their house after being referred by Kiran and worked as a domestic maid for about one year. The witness has also deposed that her family comprised of herself, her husband and her son. During the day prosecutrix 'S' used to remain at home alone since she along with her husband used to go to the shop and her son used to go to college. According to the witness, Man Mohan a resident of village Todapur was her driver who used to come to her house during the day either to pick up some articles or for some work but Man Mohan had been removed from the services by her husband since they had closed their work for which he had kept him. She has testified that in April 2007 exact date she does not recollect it was either 14th or 15th the prosecutrix 'S' suddenly went away in the morning St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 18 of 133 without informing anybody and she informed Kiran about the same. She has testified that later it was Inspector Maan who informed her about the incident which had taken place. The witness has correctly identified the prosecutrix 'S' from her photograph Ex.PW13/A. (17) During her crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, this witness has deposed that she is not sure if her husband had got any police verification of prosecutrix 'S' done after she was employed at their house and has voluntarily added that she did not get any verification. According to the witness, her husband knew the house of Man Mohan and has voluntarily explained that he was residing near their house.
(18) PW15 Ms. Sangeeta Khanna has deposed that she is residing at G80, Bali Nagar, Delhi along with her joint family. She has deposed that initially they used to take domestic worker/ maid from one Kavita Domestic Placement Agency at Lajpat Nagar but since their contract with the agency had expired therefore they did not supply any maid to them. According to her, some known persons gave the number of Vinod (accused before the court) to her on which she contacted Vinod on phone and gave him her demand for maid servant. She has also deposed that Vinod assured her that he had a maid and would give to her within one or two days and after one or two days Vinod brought the prosecutrix 'S' whose photograph is Ex.PW13/A (correctly identified by the witness) at about 7:30 - 8:00 PM. The witness has also deposed that after settling St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 19 of 133 down the commission which was Rs.5,500/ and the salary Rs.1,500/ per month, Vinod left the prosecutrix 'S' at their house after doing the paper work. She has deposed that at the time when prosecutrix 'S' had come she was wearing a skirt blouse and therefore she asked her to change her dress. According to her, the prosecutrix 'S' was not having many clothes and therefore her (witness's) mother in law gave her some suits and the prosecutrix 'S' changed into them and started to work. The witness has testified that after one or two days she noticed from her body language and the way she was walking and sitting that there was something wrong with the prosecutrix 'S' and being suspicious she shared her suspicion with her mother in law and asked her to observe the prosecutrix 'S' and confirm if she was pregnant or not. She has deposed that her mother in law after observing the behaviour of prosecutrix 'S' felt that there was nothing wrong but after a few days she was again suspicious and on one occasion she followed the prosecutrix to her room and confronted her directly if she was pregnant. According to Ms. Sangeeta Khanna initially the prosecutrix 'S' denied but later she admitted the same and she (witness) was more confirmed after she (witness) touched the stomach of the prosecutrix 'S' and found that she was pregnant on which she immediately informed her mother in law who asked the prosecutrix S as to what had happened. This witness has further deposed that prosecutrix 'S' was very hesitant but later on disclosed to her that it was in the train when she was travelling to Delhi or going back which fact she (witness) St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 20 of 133 exactly does not recollect what she (prosecutrix) had said, that she had been raped. According to the witness, in the evening she disclosed this fact to her husband and on the next day they called up Vinod and informed him about the condition of the prosecutrix 'S' and requested him to change the maid. She has testified that the prosecutrix 'S' pleaded with her mother in law to permit her to stay in the house but they were hesitant to keep the prosecutrix under these circumstances. She has also deposed that the prosecutrix hardly stayed at their house for about one and a half month and was taken away by Vinod who replaced her with another maid. According to the witness, the prosecutrix 'S' was a very nice girl who always involved in her work and they had no complaints against her. She has deposed that her statement was recorded by the police later on. This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. counsels for the accused persons and hence, her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(19) PW16 Smt. Basanti Devi has deposed that she is residing at M202, Shakurpur, Delhi and is a midwife and also a social worker. According to the witness, she knew Vinod the accused before this Court (correctly identified by the witness) as he was her tenant and he had taken three rooms on rent on the third floor in the same premises where she is staying from where he was running a placement agency under the name and style of Pooja Placement Agency. The witness has also deposed that she had asked him (Vinod) to vacate her house because she did not like his conduct since the girls whom he used to get for purposes of placement St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 21 of 133 were kept in the tenanted rooms and if they refused to work at a particular place, he used to beat them. She has further deposed that on 13th of August, year she does not recollect, but about 45 years back Vinod came to her between 1011 AM and called her being aware that she was a mid wife by saying that some girl in the placement agency was pregnant and was about to deliver a child. The witness has testified that she went there and saw the accused Preeti (whom she has correctly identified in the Court) the wife of accused Vinod sitting along with the prosecutrix S. According to the witness, when she reached there the child had already been delivered and Preeti was having the child with her. She has also deposed that she saw that the girl who had given birth to the child herself appeared to be a minor and she told Vinod to rush the girl to the hospital and she immediately gave a bath to the child and handed over the child to the mother and also asked mother to give feed to the child and told Vinod to give food to the mother after which she returned back to her house. She has testified that in the evening she again went to the house of Vinod to see the condition of the mother and the child and there she found the accused Santosh (whom the witness has correctly identified by pointing out in the Court) smiling. This witness has further deposed that she (Santosh) stated that God had been very kind and now she has to deliver this child at Kanpur on which she (witness) was shocked and thought to herself that the child was born to prosecutrix 'S' then why the child was to be delivered to somebody else at Kanpur. According to Smt. Basanti St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 22 of 133 Devi, she asked Santosh why the child was to be delivered at Kanpur on which Santosh stated that one of her relative was childless and she has to deliver the child to her relative. The witness has further deposed that thereafter she returned to her house and on next day she again went to the house of Vinod in the evening to checkup the prosecutrix 'S' and her child and she saw three ladies coming towards the house of Vinod from the side of the park carrying a towel with them and in her presence the acused Preeti and Vinod handed over the child of prosecutrix 'S' to Santosh and other two ladies. According to her, she got suspicious and asked the prosecutrix 'S' that her child was given to the said ladies and if she wanted the child to be given to them on this the prosecutrix 'S' told her that she did not want to give her child to them, after which she came back to her house. PW16 has also deposed that thereafter Vinod and Preeti came to her for getting her signatures on some documents for purposes of preparing the birth certificate of the child and they gave her Rs.2,000/ as her fee for the labour she had put in during the delivery of the child and gave her an address of Uttam Nagar stating that she should give the name of mother in the said documents which name she did not recollect. According to this witness, the name of mother and father which she was told to put in the documents was something else and when she refused to comply they (accused Vinod and Preeti) kept on pressurizing her on telephone to mention the details of the parents as provided by them in the documents. She has testified that they also told her that since she St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 23 of 133 was a Daie/ midwife she could take whatever money she wanted but she should get prepared the Janampatri/ birth certificate of the child on the details provided by them. The witness has further deposed that she understood the entire game of these persons and informed one NGO whose name she does not recollect, about whatever was happening. She has further deposed that the said NGO started its proceedings and after some days one child was recovered from Uttam Nagar and she was shown the child which she identified as the child of prosecutrix 'S' and that her statement was recorded.
(20) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused the witness has deposed that her statement was recorded by the police and that she had told the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW16/DX1 that the newly born child was given to lady against the wishes of prosecutrix 'S'. However, when confronted with her stated Ex.PW16/DX1 the said fact was not found recorded but but it has been mentioned that she did not inquire whether child was given to other lady with her consent or Vinod had given the child forcibly nor the prosecutrix 'S' disclosed anything to her. She has further admitted that she had told Vinod if he had to give the child to somebody he should have given it to her as she is also childless. She has denied the suggestion that prosecutrix 'S' had told her that she was giving the child voluntarily with her own free consent to Veena W/o Ram Lal. She has also denied that Santosh is a social worker in an NGO Nari Utthan and has voluntarily St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 24 of 133 stated that she is not aware of it since Santosh was never known to her previously. The witness has also denied that she named Santosh because of her professional illwill since she is also a social worker of the area and has voluntarily explained that how can there be an illwill if Santosh was not known to her previously. She is unable to tell the date, month or time when Vinod had beaten the girls of placement agency and has voluntarily added that she has nothing to do with the same. She has denied the suggestion that since the prosecutrix 'S' did not give the child to her which she wanted to adopt, therefore she has falsely implicated accused Vinod and his wife Preeti. .
(21) PW17 Sh. Siddarth Gautam has deposed that presently he is employed as a Consultant with KPMG Consultancy and previously he was working with CNN IBN as Senior Correspondent Special Investigations Team. According to him, he had received a call from a source working with one of the NGOs "HAQ" and he was asked to get in touch with Smt. Basanti on which he spoke to Smt. Basanti on phone who narrated the entire story regarding the sale of an infant child against the wishes of the mother. The witness has testified that they reached the house of Basanti on the address given by her along with his female Reporter Ms. Seema Pasha and met Basanti at her house where she told them about the placement agency of Vinod and how they were selling children. He has deposed that they acted as a fly on the wall to expose the racket of baby selling and approached the wife of Vinod namely Preeti on St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 25 of 133 the given address and posed as couple wanting to adopt a baby. He has further deposed that at that time Basanti was also with them and Preeti told them that it was possible and they could arrange for a child and after this conversation they were sure that there was something fishy happening in the guise of placement agency. According to the witness, the entire conversation was recorded on a hidden camera which recording is in the form of a CD and the transcript of the story which was aired is Ex.PW17/A. The CD was played in the Court and the witness has correctly identified the same as the story which was aired by the CNN IBN & IBN7, which CD is Ex.PW17/B. He has further deposed that thereafter they informed the Delhi Police about the entire case incident and they pointed out the place where they had gone to meet Preeti and where they had spoken to her about the child. He has testified that the location was raided by the police in his presence and the persons present in the placement agency were taken to the police station who told the police that child had been handed over by them to some other persons, while the mother of the child i.e. prosecutrix 'S' was crying while she was in the placement agency. According to the witness, the police also interrogated these persons from the placement agency with regard to the whereabouts of the child in their presence and Preeti along with other persons disclosed to the police the whereabouts of the child after which they accompanied the police to the address given by Preeti and others and from the given address the child was recovered. He has deposed that the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 26 of 133 said recovery of the child was also recorded and is a part of the CD and the transcript. He has correctly identified the accused Preeti in the Court. (22) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that they did not ask prosecutrix 'S' if the child was given by her with her consent or not and has voluntarily explained that job of the reporter is to report the corruption and not act as an investigating agency. He has testified that the video recording would reflect the condition of prosecutrix 'S' who appeared scared during the entire operation. According to the witness, he was a part of the Editing Team and the final programmed was aired only after it was edited and properly sequenced. He has also deposed that police never asked for the unedited recording, therefore they never gave it to them and has voluntarily added that what was given to the police was the aired copy of the programme. He has denied the suggestion that the CD placed on record is manipulated or tampered only to suit the requirement of the programme. He has further denied the suggestion that it was for this reason that the unedited recording chip has not been given to the police and has voluntarily explained that it was never asked, therefore they never gave it to the police.
(23) PW18 Sh. Vijay Kumar has deposed that he is a businessman and deals in cosmetics and is having his shop at Patel Nagar. According to him, in the year 2006 and 2007 prosecutrix 'S' was working as a domestic help in his house and was sent to their house by Kiran the friend St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 27 of 133 of his wife. The witness has further deposed that in the month of October 2007 police had come to him for investigation in connection with his driver Man Mohan (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) who used to drive his van on which he told the police that Man Mohan was no longer working with him and had now left the services. He has deposed that he was asked to call Man Mohan and therefore he sent one of his employees to the house of Man Mohan and called him after which police interrogated Man Mohan in his presence at his house. According to the witness, Man Mohan disclosed to the police that he had done galat kaam/ committed rape upon prosecutrix 'S' who was also employed with them and pursuant to the aforesaid, Man Mohan was arrested. He has proved the disclosure statement of the accused Man Mohan which is Ex.PW18/A and thereafter the accused Man Mohan was arrested vide memo Ex.PW18/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW18/C. (24) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, this witness has deposed that he had not got the police verification of prosecutrix 'S' done. He has further deposed that accused Man Mohan was working with him at his shop for a very long time and was also residing near his house whereas prosecutrix 'S' worked at his residence for about one and a half year i.e. till April 2007. According to the witness, during this period he had no suspicion either on prosecutrix 'S' or on Man Mohan nor he St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 28 of 133 noticed anything abnormal in their behaviour. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Man Mohan had not made any disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the case or that he is making a false deposition at the instance of the Investigating Officer. |The witness has further denied that all the documents were prepared in the police station or that he signed on the same on the directions of the Investigating Officer.
(25) PW19 Sh. Avinash has deposed that he is residing at M157158, Shakurpur, Delhi since 1983 which house is in the name of his father namely Masih Daas. According to the witness, his father had given two rooms to one Benjamin who was running a placement agency from the said room under the name and style of Adivasi Sewa Samiti and Benjamin remained in the premises for about one year. He has further deposed that Benjeman and his wife used to give rent to them and when Benjamin and his family used to go to their village, Vinod and his wife namely Preeti both accused before this court (correctly identified by the witness) used to reside there. According to the witness, in the year 2007 Benjamin and his wife had gone to their native village for fourfive months and during this period Vinod and Preeti resided there and the rent was given by them. The witness has testified that a large number of girls used to come and Vinod used to put them on placement within one or two days. He has further testified that Benjamin returned to Delhi on 14.8.2007 and during this period when Vinod was residing there, one girl St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 29 of 133 who was pregnant had also come and stayed there along with Vinod and his family. he has correctly identified the prosecutrix 'S' from her photograph which is Ex.PW13/A. (26) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel this witness has deposed that he has never witnessed Vinod or his family physically assaulting any girl or troubling her.
Medical witnesses:
(27) PW6 Dr. Sanjay has deposed that on 02.09.2007 Dr. Jagdeep, JR was working in BJRM hospital under supervision of Dr. Manideepa.
According to the witness, Dr. Jagdeep examined the prosecutrix 'S' daughter of Mansi aged about 18 years, female with alleged history of rape about nineten months back vide MLC Ex.PW6/A bearing the signatures of Dr. Jagdeep at point A and bearing the name of Dr. Manideepa at point B. He has deposed that the patient was referred to SR Gynae for further examination and the patient prosecutrix 'S' was again brought to the said hospital by the police and Dr. Jagdeep examined her vide ME register Ex.PW6/B. (28) The witness has also deposed that on 30.10.2007 he was working as CMO at the aforesaid hospital and Dr. Subhash was working as Junior Resident under his supervision and on that day Dr. Subhash examined the patient Man Mohan S/o Satbir Singh aged about 26 years male brought by the police for his medical examination vide MLC St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 30 of 133 Ex.PW6/C. He has proved the opinion of Dr. Subhash regarding capability of doing sexual act which is at point C according to which there is nothing to suggest that the patient is incapable of doing sexual assault. (29) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels this witness has admitted that he does not have any personal knowledge of the case and he has deposing on the basis of the documentary record. He is unable to tell if the prosecutrix 'S' was accompanied by any relative or not and has voluntarily explained that no name of relative is reflected in the MLC.
(30) PW7 Dr. Shipra Rampal has deposed that on 28.09.2007 she was working as junior specialist Radiology at BJRM Hospital and on that day she examined the XRay plate of prosecutrix 'S' with alleged history of rape. According to the witness, the estimated bone age of the prosecutrix 'S' is between 1819 years and her detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW 7/A. (31) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied that there is a variation of two years on either side and has voluntarily explained that there can be variation of about six months. (32) PW8 Dr. Shakuntala has deposed that on 02.09.2007 Dr. Gangotri was working as Senior Resident Gynae at BJRM Hospital, who has left the services from the hospital. She has further deposed that on the aforesaid date Dr. Gangotri examined the prosecutrix 'S' daughter of St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 31 of 133 Maan Singh, aged about 18 years, female brought by police for medical examination with alleged history of rape about nineten months back vide MLC Ex.PW8/A and the findings of Dr. Gangotri on the said MLC is at point C and bearing the signatures of Dr. Gangotri at point D. She has further deposed that as per history prosecutrix 'S' had delivered a live baby boy about 21 days back. This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused and hence, her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Forensic witnesses:
(33) PW11 Dr. A. K. Shrivastav Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini has deposed that on 30.10.2007 three blood samples were collected in their office i.e. first blood sample was of Man Mohan Kumar vide identification form No.1; blood sample of male baby was taken vide identification form no.2 and blood sample was also taken from prosecutrix 'S' vide identification form no.3 and the aforesaid samples were marked Ex.1, 2 and 3 respectively. According to the witness, and DNA from Ex.1 to Ex.3 were isolated and DNA finger printing profile were prepared and STR analysis was used on each sample. He has proved that data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype Software and after examination of the aforesaid exhibits he concluded that the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided was sufficient to conclude that the 'Ex.1' (Man Mohan Kumar) and St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 32 of 133 'Ex.3' (Prosecutrix S) are biological parents of 'Ex.2' (male baby) and his detailed report to this effect is Ex.PW11/A. This witness has further proved that Genotype table annexure1 is Ex.PW11/B bearing his signatures at point A and identification forms of Man Mohan Kumar, prosecutrix 'S' and baby boy are Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D and Ex.PW11/E respectively bearing his signatures at point A. The has testified that the aforesaid report was forwarded to the SHO Police Station Saraswati Vihar vide covering letter Ex.PW1/F bearing the signature of Dr. Madhulika Sharma on behalf of Director, FSL at point A. (34) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsels this has witness admitted that the forwarding letter Ex.PW11/F does not have the seal of Dr. Madhulika Sharma under her signature.
Police/ official witnesses:
(35) PW3 ASI Jagbir Singh is a formal witness being the Duty Officer (DD Writer) who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/1 (under Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 01.09.2007 he was posted as Head Constable at police station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and that on that day he was working as duty officer from 4:00 PM to 12:00 AM (midnight) and on receipt of an oral information about rape, the SHO had directed him to call SI Rajbala and accordingly he informed SI Rajbala who reached the police station. He has proved St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 33 of 133 having recorded DD No. 39A at about 11.55 PM to this effect which DD is Ex.PW3/A and recorded her arrival in the police station and thereafter as per the directions of the SHO proceeded to the place of occurrence i.e. H. No. M157158, Shakur Pur, J.J. Colony, Delhi along with Const.
Devender (36) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused, this witness has denied that there was no information and the DD has been made antidatedly only to create evidence. (37) PW4 ASI Ashok Kumar is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer and has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 (under Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 02.09.2007 he was posted at police station Saraswati Vihar Delhi as Duty Officer from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and at about 10.05 AM SI Rajbala handed over to him a ruqqa in Hindi for registration of the FIR. According to the witness, thereafter SI Rajbala left the police station with lady Head Constable Thampa and Const. Devender with victim prosecutrix 'S' for inspection of the spot. He has proved that on the basis of the said ruqqa he registered the FIR of the present case copy of which is Ex.PW4/A and also made an endorsement on the ruqqa which is Ex.PW4/B. He has testified that the investigations of the case was entrusted to SI R.K. Mann under the order of SHO Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi on which he handed over the case to SI R.K. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 34 of 133 Mann. This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsels and hence, his testimony remained unassailed.
(38) PW5 HC Narender Kumar has deposed that on 02.09.2007 he was working as MHC(M) at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day SI Raj Bala, the Investigating Officer of this case had deposited one pullanda containing exhibits of the prosecutrix prosecutrix 'S' duly sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital along with sample seal and that he received the same vide entry No. 3937 of register No. 19. According to him, on 30.10.2007 SI Raj Bala had deposited the sealed parcel containing exhibits of accused Man Mohan along with sample seal duly sealed with the seal of MS BJRM hospital and that he received the same vide entry No. 4038 of register No. 19. He has testified that on 19.12.2007 SI Raj Bala had deposited one CD of IBN7 channel in a sealed parcel having the seal of RB which he received vide entry No.4111 of register No. 19. He has placed on record the copies of aforesaid entries which are Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively. He has also proved that no tampering was done while the aforesaid exhibits remained in his possession. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels this witness has denied the suggestion that the entries in the Register No.19 and 21 have been manipulated by him on the instructions of the Investigating Officer.
(39) PW9 Lady Ct. Kamlesh is a formal witness who had conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix 'S' and has been St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 35 of 133 examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions under Section 296 Cr.P.C.). She has deposed that on 01.09.2007 she was posted at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi and was called to police station Saraswati Vihar. According to the witness, upon reaching there she went to BJRM hospital with SI Rajbala for the medical examination of the prosecutrix 'S' and after her medical examination, the doctor handed over to her one slide contained vaginal swab, MLC No. 22216, E. No. 72138 mentioned on the pullanda sealed with the seal of BJRM and one sample seal which she handed over to SI Rajbala who in turn seized the same vide memo Ex.PW9/A. She was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons and hence, her testimony remained unassailed.
(40) PW10 ASI Harbir Singh is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer and has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that in the intervening night of 01.09.2007 and 02.09.2007 he was posted as Head Constable at P.S. Saraswati Vihar and was working as duty officer from 12 AM (midnight) to 8 AM. According to him, at about 1.40 AM Const. Devender handed over to him a ruqqa sent by SI Rajbala for registration of FIR on the basis of which he registered FIR No. Zero/2 u/s 376/506 IPC which is Ex.PW2/A. He has proved his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW2/B and has deposed that after registration of St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 36 of 133 the FIR he handed over the original ruqqa as well as the copy of FIR to Const. Devender. This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons and hence, his testimony remained unassailed. (41) PW20 HC Rajender Singh has deposed that on 13.10.2007 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day he along with SI R.K. Mann reached the house No. 164, JJ Colony, Shakurpur Delhi where one Vinod Kumar met them. According to the witness, Vinod was interrogated by SI R.K. Mann and thereafter the accused was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW20/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW20/C. The witness has also deposed that the accused was taken to Bhagwan Mahavir hospital for medical examination and thereafter the accused was produced before the court. This witness has correctly identified accused Vinod Kumar in the court. (42) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he did not make any separate departure entry when he left the police station and has voluntarily explained that he was with the Investigating Officer who must have made the entry. He has also deposed that he does not recollect the time, he reached near the house of the accused and has voluntarily added that the accused was arrested at 12:30 PM and they reached there about one hour prior to this. The witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer did not join any public person St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 37 of 133 in the investigations when they went to the house of the accused Vinod. He has admitted that the area where Vinod stays is a residential area with some shops a little away from the house of Vinod. According to the witness, he had seen the Investigating Officer making inquiries from the neighbours but he is unable to tell if he was asking them to join the proceedings or interrogating them. He has further testified that he also did not make any separate arrival entry in the police station and has voluntarily explained that the Investigating Officer must have made the same. He has denied the suggestion that all documentation regarding the arrest of the accused Vinod was done in the police station which he signed on the instructions of the senior officers.
(43) PW21 Ct. Narendra Kumar has deposed that on 30.10.2007 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day on the directions of WSI Raj Bala he took accused Man Mohan from the lock up of Police Station Saraswati Vihar to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination. According to the witness after medical examination he collected MLC, blood sample in sealed condition with sample seal from the hospital and thereafter he along with accused reached FSL, Rohini for DNA Test. He has deposed that SI Raj Bala met him there along with other police officials and he handed over the above said MLC, blood sample and sample seal to SI Raj Bala who seized the blood sample and sample seal vide memo Ex.PW21/A. According to him, WHC Thampa, prosecutrix 'S', one child with a lady Sonia and one medical attendant met St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 38 of 133 at the FSL Rohini with SI Raj Bala and accused Man Mohan, child and prosecutrix 'S' were produced before the FSL, Rohini officials for DNA Test. He has testified that the prosecutrix 'S' was sent to Nari Niketan with WHC Thampa and thereafter he along with SI Raj Bala reached at Rohini court with accused Man Mohan who was sent to judicial custody. He has correctly identified the accused Man Mohan in the court. (44) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel this witness has denied the suggestion that blood sample of accused Man Mohan was not taken in his presence. He has further deposed that the doctor did not take his signatures on the blood sample of accused Man Mohan which he taken and sealed. He has denied the suggestion that after the blood sample was handed over to him by doctor was tampered with.
(45) PW22 ASI P.S. Tampha has deposed that on 02.09.2007 she was posted as a Head Constable at police station Saraswati Vihar and on that day she had joined the investigations along with ASI Raj Bala and Ct. Devender and on that day they went to the house No. 157158, JJ colony Shakurpur where they met Preeti W/o Vinod and SI Raj Bala interrogated Preeti. She has also deposed that in the meanwhile Insp. R.K. Maan also reached the spot and interrogated Preeti after which Preeti was arrested vide memo Ex.PW22/A; her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW22/B and disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 39 of 133 memo Ex.PW22/C after which they returned to the police station where her statement was recorded.
(46) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel this witness has deposed that she did not make any separate departure entry when she left the police station and has voluntarily explained that she was with the Investigating Officer ASI Raj Bala who made the entry. She has further deposed that she does not recollect the time, but it was around 10 AM in the morning when they reached the house of the accused. She also does not recollect if any public person was joined in the investigations by the Investigating Officer. She has admitted that the accused Preeti did not offer any resistance but has denied that accused Preeti did not make any disclosure statement or that the same was recorded by the Investigating Officer of her own. She has also denied the suggestion that all documentation regarding the arrest of the accused Preeti was done in the police station which she signed on the instructions of the senior officers. (47) PW23 HC Devender Singh has deposed that on 02.09.2007 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day he along with WSI Raj Bala and WHC Thampa reached H.No. M157, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi where they saw many public persons gathered. According to the witness, one Preeti met them there who was interrogated by WSI Raj Bala and meanwhile SI R.K. Maan reached the spot who directed him to control the public persons. He has further deposed that SI R. K. Maan and SI Raj Bala were inside the room whereas he was St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 40 of 133 controlling the public persons outside the room and he dispersed the public persons and after one and a half hours he went to the police station alongwith SI R K Maan, SI Raj Bala and HC Thampa. The witness has further deposed that on 29.10.2007 he again joined the investigations with WSI Raj Bala and SI R. K. Maan and reached house No. Z43,44, West Patel Nagar, Delhi where the house owner Vijay Kumar met them who called the accused Man Mohan there. According to him, the accused Man Mohan was interrogated by WSI Raj Bala on which he confessed that he had committed rape on the prosecutrix 'S' after which the accused was arrested by WSI Raj Bala and his personal search was taken and the disclosure statement was recorded by WSI Raj Bala and thereafter accused Man Mohan was taken to the police station. He has also deposed that on the directions of the Investigating Officer he along with Ct. Rajender took accused Man Mohan to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for medical examination and after his medical examination he was kept in the lock up. He has correctly identified the accused Man Mohan in the court. (48) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels this witness has deposed that on both the days when he joined the investigations, he did not make any separate departure or arrival entries and has voluntarily stated that all entries were made by the investigating officer. He has admitted that the area where Preeti resides is a residential area and that when they went to her house public persons had collected but he is unable to tell if Investigating Officer had joined any public St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 41 of 133 person in the investigations. He has admitted that the place where Man Mohan used to reside with his owner is a residential area and public had also collected at his house when they reached there but he is unable tell if the Investigating Officer had joined any public persons in the investigations. The witness has also admitted that the accused Preeti and the accused Man Mohan did not resist or run away when they apprehended them. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement had been made by accused Preeti and Man Mohan or that the Investigating Officer recorded the same of his own and it is for this reason they do not bear his signatures. He has further denied the suggestion that all documentation was done while sitting in the police station or that he has signed the documents at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (49) PW24 SI R.K. Maan has deposed that on 02.09.2007 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day after registration of the FIR No.925/07, investigations were handed over to him pursuant to which he reached at the place of the incident M157158, JJ colony, Shakurpur where SI Raj Bala, W/HC Tampha, prosecutrix 'S' and Ct. Devender met him. He has further deposed that SI Raj Bala told about the facts to him and many public persons had already gathered there on which he directed Ct. Devender to control the public persons and disperse them. He has proved that he interrogated Preeti and thereafter arrested the accused Preeti vide memo Ex.PW22/A; her personal search was taken through W/SI Raj Bala vide memo Ex.PW22/B and he recorded St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 42 of 133 disclosure statement of Preeti which is Ex.PW22/C in detail. According to the witness, thereafter they returned back to the police station where Veena met him and she produced one male child i.e. son of prosecutrix 'S' aged about 20 days only before him. He has proved having prepared the documents in respect of possession taken by him of the child aged about 20 days vide Ex.PW24/A and interrogated Veena on which she disclosed that she had received the child from Santosh who charged Rs.15,000/ as Nursing home charges and Rs.8,000/ as diet money of the mother of the child. The witness has further deposed that the prosecutrix 'S', child and accused Preeti were produced before the court and the child was handed over to Veena for one day and Preeti was send to judicial custody and the prosecutrix 'S' was sent to Nari Niketan. He has testified that he moved an application for recording of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix 'S' which was fixed for 06.09.2007 and on that day statement of prosecutrix 'S' was recorded by Ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and he obtained the copy of the same.
(50) He has testified that on 01.10.2007 Sunil Bhatti of IBN7 network handed over one VCD to him and he saw the contents of the VCD and prepared the transcription of the VCD and the same was taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and transcription of the same is Ex.PW17/A running into seven pages. The witness has also deposed that on 13.10.2007 he arrested accused Vinod Kumar vide St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 43 of 133 memo Ex.PW20/A, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW20/B and his disclosure statement was recorded by him vide Ex.PW20/C. According to him, Mann Singh father of prosecutrix 'S' and Pallo Sirka, agent who brought prosecutrix 'S' to Delhi were called from Jharkhand and he recorded their statements. He has deposed that thereafter investigations were handed over to W/SI Raj Bala by the directions of the higher officers. According to SI R.K. Maan, on 27.10.2007 he along with SI Raj Bala and Ct. Devender reached at Z4344, West Patel Nagar, Delhi where Vijay Kumar the owner of the house met them who informed that Man Mohan was his driver but he had left the services. The witness has testified that on 29.10.2007 Vijay Kumar produced Man Mohan before them after which the accused Man Mohan was interrogated by SI Raj Bala and thereafter he was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/B, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW18/C and his disclosure statement was recorded by SI Raj Bala vide Ex.PW18/A. According to him, on 19.12.2007 SI Raj Bala sealed the above said VCD with the seal of RB and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW24/B. He has proved that during his investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses. He has correctly identified the accused Vinod, accused Preeti and accused Man Mohan in the court. He has also identified one CD which is Ex.PW17/B. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 44 of 133 (51) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that the investigations of this case remained with him for about 25 days and during this time he got recorded the statement of the prosecutrix 'S' under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has admitted that the prosecutrix 'S' had told in her complaint (on which the present case was registered) that she was raped in Jharkhand and not in Delhi. According to him, the prosecutrix 'S' got her statement recorded after the interference by the pressmedia and not before that. He has admitted that the prosecutrix 'S' did not disclose any fact regarding rape in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The witness has testified that he himself did not arrest the accused Man Mohan and has voluntarily explained that he was present at the time of arrest of the accused. He has also deposed that information regarding arrest of the accused Man Mohan was given to his father but he does not recollect by which mode. According to SI R.K. Maan during the period the investigations of this case remained with him, the prosecutrix 'S' did not make any complaint to him except the first complaint. He has admitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix 'S' had stated to the Ld. MM that she did not want to keep the child and she had given the child to one Madam of her own will. The witness has also admitted that the prosecutrix 'S' did not allege anything against any person including the accused in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 6.9.2007. He has denied the suggestion that he had fabricated the disclosure statement of the accused Preeti or that she did not given St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 45 of 133 any disclosure statement to him. According to him, he made inquiries from the landlord of accused Vinod who was residing on the ground floor but he (the landlord) was not aware anything about the child. He has denied the suggestion that the VCD is fabricated and edited with intention to extract money from the accused persons.
(52) PW25 WSI Raj Bala has deposed that on 01.09.2007 she was posted at SubDivision Ashok Vihar, CIC Cases and on that day she received a call from SHO Police Station Saraswati Vihar on which she reached the police station where she was told by the SHO that an information had been received from one Sidharth Gautam of IBN7 Channel regarding rape of a minor at H.No. 157158, Shakurpur, Delhi. According to her after making an entry vide DD No.39/A vide Ex.PW3/A in rozanamacha at 11.55PM (midnight) she along with Ct. Devender reached the above address where she met prosecutrix 'S' who appeared to be around 1516 years of age. Witness has further deposed that she interrogated the prosecutrix 'S' and recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/B. She has proved having prepared the a tehrir and after making an endorsement vide Ex.PW25/A, she handed over the same to Ct. Devender for taking the same to the police station for registration of FIR. Witness has also deposed that she also called for a lady constable and after some time Ct. Kamlesh reached the spot on which she handed over the prosecutrix 'S' to her with directions to take her to the BJRM St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 46 of 133 Hospital for getting her medical examination conducted. According to her, after medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted Ct. Kamlesh returned to the spot. She has further stated that Ct. Devender also returned at the spot with FIR bearing no. 02/2007. According to her no further investigation was conducted on this rukka Ex.PW25/A. Witness has also deposed that thereafter on the directions of the senior officer she returned back to the police station and in the police station the prosecutrix 'S' was again interrogated and she recorded her detail statement which is Ex.PW1/A and made her endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW25/B which she handed over to the Duty Officer. According to the witness, meanwhile she along with prosecutrix 'S' and the police staff comprising of WHC Thampa and Ct. Devender reached H.No. 157158, Shakurpur JJ Colony, Delhi where they met Preeti and while she was interrogating Preeti, SI R K Maan came there with the copy of FIR bearing No.925/07 (present FIR) as the investigations had been marked to him. She has testified that SI R.K. Maan also interrogated Preeti and thereafter the accused Preeti was arrested vide memo Ex.PW22/A, her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW22/B and her disclosure statement was recorded by SI R. K. Maan vide Ex.PW22/C. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they came back to the police station where they met Veena who was having the child of prosecutrix 'S' of about 20 days old, on which SI RK Maan prepared the recovery memo St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 47 of 133 of the child which is Ex.PW24/A and thereafter she was relieved from the police station.
(53) SI Raj Bala has further deposed that on 22.10.2007 on the direction of the Investigating Officer SI R. K. Maan she went to BJRM Hospital from there she collected the ossification report of the prosecutrix prosecutrix 'S' and handed over the same to the investigating officer SI R. K. Maan. According to her, on 26.10.2007 investigations of this case was marked to her and on the direction of SHO she went to Nirmal Chhaya, Nari Niketan where after taking permission from the Superintendent, she further interrogated the prosecutrix 'S' wherein she disclosed that she had also worked in some kothi at Delhi but she was unable to give the address but knew the names of the family members and the location of the area. Witness has testified that on the basis of the indications given by prosecutrix 'S' they located the said kothi as WZ43, West Patel Nagar, Delhi which address they could find out from the voter list as prosecutrix 'S' was aware of the names of all the family members. She has deposed that in her statement prosecutrix 'S' disclosed that it was Man Mohan the driver who had committed rape on her pursuant to which she had conceived and the child was born. According to the witness, on 27.10.2007 she along with SI R K. Maan went to the above address at West Patel Nagar where the owner Vijay Kumar told them that prosecutrix 'S' had worked with them and Man Mohan was their driver. She has deposed that she along with SI R.K. Maan interrogated the owner St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 48 of 133 Sh. Vijay, his wife Sulekha and her friend Kiran whose statements were recorded and Vijay Kumar was directed to produce Man Mohan in the police station. She has further deposed that on 29.10.2007 she along with SI R. K. Maan and Ct. Devender went to WZ43 West Patel Nagar, Delhi where they met Sh. Vijay Kumar who produced before them a boy whom he identified as Man Mohan who was their driver. She has testified that they interrogated Man Mohan who disclosed his involvement with prosecutrix 'S' which disclosure is Ex.PW18/A after which the accused Man Mohan was arrested vide memo Ex.PW18/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW18/C. Witness has also deposed that thereafter on the pointing out of accused Man Mohan, the site plan Ex.PW25/C was prepared and she along with SI R K Maan, Ct. Devender and accused returned back to the police station. According to her, on the directions of the Investigating Officer Ct. Devender took Man Mohan to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for his medical examination after which the accused Man Mohan was brought back to the police station and put in the lockup. According to her, on 30.10.2007 on her direction Ct. Narender went to lock up at Police Station Saraswati Vihar from where he took accused Man Mohan to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination and she directed Ct. Narender to meet her at FSL Rohini along with the accused where his blood sample was to be taken for purposes of DNA finger printing while she along with WHC Thampa went to Nirmal St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 49 of 133 Chhaya where after taking permission from Supdt. they brought prosecutrix 'S' with two care takers to FSL Rohini for her blood sample for purposes of DNA finger printing. The witness has testified that Sonia daughter Veena had already brought the child of prosecutrix 'S' at the FSL Rohini and Ct. Narender also brought accused Man Mohan at FSL Rohini and handed over blood samples in sealed condition with sample seal to her which she seized vide memo Ex.PW21/A. The Investigating Officer has further deposed that accused Man Mohan, Prosecutrix 'S' and the child of the prosecutrix 'S' were produced before the FSL Officials for DNA Finger printing and she called Abhilash Verghese, Technician from Hans Raj Hospital, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi for taking the blood sample for the DNA Test as the technician was not available at the FSL Rohini, Delhi. The witness has further deposed that Abhilash Verghese took the blood samples from the accused Man Mohan, victim/ prosecutrix 'S' and the child of prosecutrix 'S' in her presence and in the presence of the FSL officials including Dr. A. K. Srivastava and after the blood samples were taken she took the accused to Rohini Court and produced him before the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate while WHC Thampa took the prosecutrix back to Nirmal Chhaya. The witness has also deposed that she thereafter collected the DNA Test Report and meanwhile she followed up the court proceedings. According to her, she found one CD with the case file and she sealed the same in a cloth pulllanda in the presence of SI R. K. Maan on 19.12.2007 and seized the same vide memo St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 50 of 133 Ex.PW24/B. SI Raj Bala has further deposed that she thereafter deposited the same in the Malkhana and during her investigation she recorded the statements of various witness and after completion of investigation she submitted charge sheet against accused Man Mohan, Preeti and Vinod.
(54) According to SI Raj Bala, on 28.03.2008 accused Santosh was arrested vide Ex.PW25/D, her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW25/E and her disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW25/F but accused Santosh refused to sign the disclosure statement. She has deposed that after completion of the the subsequent investigations she submitted supplementary charge sheet against accused Santosh Sharma. She has correctly identified all the accused i.e. Man Mohan, Santosh, Preeti and Vinod in the court and has also identified the CD which is Ex.PW17/B. (55) In her cross examination, the witness has deposed that when she received the case file for investigations, the statement of prosecutrix 'S' which had been recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was already on the file. She has admitted that in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix 'S' did not allege anything against the accused persons. She has also admitted that prosecutrix 'S' stated in her statement Ex.PW1/C that she gave her child to one Madam of her own. The witness has denied the suggestion that disclosure statement of accused Preeti was fabricated St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 51 of 133 by SI R.K. Mann or that the CD has been fabricated or edited. She has also denied the suggestion that she did not conduct the investigations honestly or that accused Man Mohan has been falsely implicated in the present case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(56) After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Man Mohan has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, he has nothing to do with the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix has falsely deposed against him at the instance of the Investigating Officer as in her statement before the Ld. MM she has not stated anything against him. He has denied having made any disclosure statement to the police.
(57) The accused Santosh Sharma has denied the various allegations against her and has similarly stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated and she has nothing to do with the alleged incident.
(58) The accused Preeti and Vinod have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. According to them, they were not aware of the pregnancy of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix had herself anded over her child to the somebody with her free will and St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 52 of 133 consent.
(59) The accused have not examined any witness in their defence despite having granted opportunity in this regard.
FINDINGS:
(60) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused persons:
(61) In so far as the identity of the accused Vinod and Preeti are concerned they are the owner of the placement agency through which agency the prosecutrix 'S' was employed at various places. The main accused i.e. Man Mohan is the driver of the employer who allegedly made physical relations with the prosecutrix 'S' as a result of which she conceived and a child was born. He has been correctly identified by the prosecutrix 'S' in the Court. Accused Santosh Sharma is the one who was instrumental in the transfer/ trafficking of the infant child of the prosecutrix 'S' which she took from Preeti and Vinod. I may observe that Preeti and Vinod have been both caught on the camera in the sting operation carried by a news channel CD of which has been placed on record as Ex.PW17/B. In addition to the CD, Basanti Devi (PW16) who St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 53 of 133 was the previous landlady of Vinod and Preeti where they were running their placement agency has identified them. She is also working as a midwife and had been called at the time of birth of child of prosecutrix 'S' and had seen Santosh Sharma in the placement agency of Vinod and Preeti and had also seen her along with two other ladies when the child was handed over them by Vinod and Preeti. She has identified Santosh Sharma in the Court. Even otherwise, all the accused do not dispute their identity as such. Therefore, I hereby hold that the identity of all the accused Man Mohan, Santosh Sharma, Preeti and Vinod stands established.
Age of the prosecutrix:
(62) There is no authentic date of birth proof of the prosecutrix.
Initially it was alleged that the prosecutrix was a minor on which the Investigating Officer had got conducted the ossification test/ age determination test of the prosecutrix. The ossification test report Ex.PW7/A which has been duly proved by PW7 Dr. Shipra Rampal shows that her estimated as on 28.9.2007 was 1819 years thereby establishing that on the date of incident of alleged rape i.e. in November December 2006 the prosecutrix 'S' was around 1718 years i.e. a major or at least at the verge of attaining majority and was a major at the time of birth of the child.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 54 of 133 Medical evidence:
(63) Dr. Sanjay (PW6) and Dr. Shakuntala (PW8) have proved the MLCs of the accused Man Mohan and that of the prosecutrix which evidence is compatible to the prosecution case. The MLC of the prosecutrix which is Ex.PW6/A shows that she had given the alleged history of sexual assault about 10 months back and had told the doctor that she had delivered a live baby boy 21 days back vaginally at the office and the baby was not with her. According to the prosecutrix she had achieved menarche only two years back. In view of the above, I hold that the medical evidence is compatible to the prosecution version of rape and of the prosecutrix 'S' conceiving after the said incident and giving birth to the child thereafter.
Forensic Evidence:
(64) The case of the prosecution is that the child born by the prosecutrix 'S' which child was a subject matter of alleged sale/ trafficking, was in fact fathered by the accused Man Mohan which allegations he denied. It is in this background that in order to confirm the paternity the samples of the accused Man Mohan, prosecutrix 'S' and the child were taken for purposes of DNA examination. Dr. A.K. Shrivastav (PW11), Assistant Director (Biology) DNA Unit, FSL, Rohini has proved that on 30.10.2007 three blood samples were collected in their office i.e. first sample was of accused Man Mohan, second was of the male baby St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 55 of 133 child and of the prosecutrix 'S' from which DNA were isolated and DNA Finger Printing profile were prepared. The STR analysis was used on each sample and data was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype software on the basis of which Dr. A.K. Shrivastav vide his report Ex.PW11/A concluded that the accused Man Mohan and the prosecutrix 'S' are the biological parents of the male child. The report given by Dr. A.K. Shrivastav is admissible in evidence perse but he has himself appeared in the Court and proved the same which evidence has gone unrebutted. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same and I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused Man Mohan that he had fathered the child of the prosecutrix 'S' stands conclusively established and proved.
Accused Vinod and Preeti are running the placement agency:
(65) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Vinod and Preeti are running a placement agency under the name of style of "Aadivasi Sewa Samiti". This aspect they have not been disputed and also stands established from the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' (PW1);
Smt. Pallo (PW2); Smt. Sangeeta Khanna (PW15); Basanti Devi (PW16) and Siddarth Gautam (PW17). It also stands established from the testimony of Avinash (PW19) that he had given his house bearing No. M157/158, Shakurpur, Delhi to one Benjamin who was running a St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 56 of 133 placement agency under the name and style of Aadivasi Sewa Samiti and remained in the premises for one year. In the year 2007 Benjamin and his family went to their native village for about 45 months and it was Vinod and Preeti who came and started residing there. Avinash (PW19) has specifically deposed that a large number of girls used to come and Vinod used to put them on placement within one or two days and during the said period when Vinod was residing there, one girl who was pregnant had also come and stayed there along with Vinod and his family. He has identified the prosecutrix 'S' as the girl who had stayed with the accused Vinod and Preeti.
(66) Further, it is evident from the testimony of Basanti Devi (PW16) that initially the accused Vinod and Preeti were staying in her house where they were running the placement agency but they had to vacate the said house as Basanti had objected to the activities going on in the placement agency. Thereafter they had left the house of Basanti Devi and shifted to the house of Benjamin at M157/158, Shakurpur, Delhi (which is the place where the prosecutrix had given the birth to the child). (67) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that the accused Vinod and Preeti were running the placement agency under the name and style of Aadivasi Sewa Samiti through which the prosecutrix 'S' was put on employment at various places.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 57 of 133 Why Basanti is a reliable witness:
(68) Smt. Basanti Devi (PW16) aged about 65 years is a midwife/ Daie by profession. It is not disputed that Smt. Basanti Devi is residing in the same area in same block where the accused Vinod and Preeti were running the placement agency. Previously Vinod and Preeti were tenants under her and were running their placement agency from her premises but according to Basanti Devi being unhappy with the happening in the agency she had asked them to vacate her house after which they shifted to another premises in the same area. This aspect has not been disputed by the accused. It has also come on record and not disputed by the accused that the prosecutrix 'S' had delivered the child at the placement agency run by Vinod and Preeti from premises No. M157158, Shakurpur, JJ Colony, Delhi (which was initially being run by Benjamin). She has specifically deposed that the accused Vinod had called her stating that a young girl in the placement agency was about to deliver a child and hence he asked her for help in this regard. On coming to know of the same she went to the office of the accused Vinod and Preeti where she found that the prosecutrix 'S' had already delivered a child which child was in the hands of accused Preeti at that time. Basanti Devi has explained that she was shocked to see the mother herself appeared to be a minor and that a child was born to another child. She thereafter gave bath to the new born child and asked Vinod to shift the mother i.e. the prosecutrix 'S' and the child to hospital (when she noticed the mother herself to be young) after St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 58 of 133 which she returned home. According to Basanti Devi, in the evening she again went to the placement agency to inquire about the status of the newly born child. This conduct of Basanti Devi is only natural and any woman/ midwife in her position would have done the same. It was then (in the evening) when she had gone to the placement agency to inquire about the health of the mother and child that she found the accused Santosh Sharma present in the placement agency with accused Vinod and Preeti. Basanti has specifically deposed that in her presence Santosh Sharma (whom she has correctly identified in the Court) was saying that God had been very kind and she had to deliver this child at Kanpur. On this Basanti Devi thought to herself that if the child was born to prosecutrix 'S' then why should the child be delivered to somebody else at Kanpur. According to Smt. Basanti Devi, she also asked Santosh why the child was to be delivered at Kanpur on which Santosh stated that one of her relative was childless and she had to deliver the child to her relative.
She has further explained that on the next day evening when she went to the house of Vinod in the evening to inquire about the health of the prosecutrix 'S' and her child that she saw three ladies coming towards the house of Vinod from the side of the park carrying a towel with them one of whom was Santosh Sharma and in her presence the accused Preeti and Vinod handed over the child of prosecutrix 'S' (which child was hardly one day old at that time) to Santosh and other two ladies. Basanti Devi has specifically deposed that she asked the prosecutrix 'S' if St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 59 of 133 she was ready and willing to part with the child the prosecutrix 'S' confided in her that she did not want to given her child to anybody. Basanti Devi has further explained that later the accused Vinod again contacted her and started pressurizing her to execute documents relating to the birth of the child showing the child to be of some other persons who were residing at Uttam Nagar (not of the prosecutrix 'S') on which she (Basanti) became suspicious and immediately passed on this information to an NGO who then took up the matter at their level. (69) Here, I may observe that as per the existing rules and guidelines of the GNCT of Delhi all hospitals are required to inform the Registrar, Birth and Death about the birth of a child in the hospital. Further, in case of any birth of child at home, the said information has to be given to Anaganwari or where any midwife/ Daie has facilitated the birth of the child, the said information is required to be given to the competent officer/ Registrar Birth & Death by such Daie/ midwife in the duly prescribed form giving the details of the birth of the child. This explains why Vinod and Preeti were pressurizing Basanti Devi a professional Daie/ midwife for preparation of papers in the name of some other person residing at Uttam Nagar and not in the name of the prosecutrix 'S'. It is this act of Vinod and Preeti which establishes their dishonest intent and their designs in wanting to pass off the child of the prosecutrix 'S' as that of some other person.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 60 of 133 (70) Basanti Devi (PW16) has been very specific and categorical in her testimony and has stood her grounds in the Court. She had participated in the sting operation and her presence has been establishes in the CD which is Ex.PW17/B which presence in the office of the placement agency of Vinod and Preeti cannot be denied. Under the given circumstances, when the oral testimony of Basanti Devi finds corroboration from the testimony of Siddarth Gautam an independent witness/ reporter who had conducted the sting operation, the onus to disprove her testimony therefore shifted upon the accused who were required to controvert the same which has not been done. Basanti Devi has categorically identified the accused Santosh Sharma as the lady who had along with two other ladies had come to the office of the placement agency run by Vinod & Preeti and has proved that it was in her presence that the child of the prosecutrix 'S' was handed over by Preeti to her (Santosh Sharma) which she in turn handed it over to Veena. It is only Basanti Devi who is a living link in the entire chain of sequence of events leading to the recovery of the child from the possession of Smt. Veena. Her testimony is reliable, truthful and convincing because it explains as to how the child ultimately reached to Veena from whose possession it was finally recovered.
(71) It is vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused Santosh Sharma is a social worker and there was a professional rivalry between Basanti Devi and Santosh Sharma on account of which St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 61 of 133 the accused Santosh Sharma has been falsely implicated in the present case. I may observe that the allegations made in this regard are totally vague and have not been substantiated. It was necessary for the defence to have brought on record the material to prove the existence of a professional rivalry between Basanti Devi and Santosh Sharma which has not been done. It has also not been shown that Basanti Devi is attached to some NGO or had acted at the behest or on the tutoring of some other organization and had hence falsely implicated the accused Santosh Sharma. Rather, on the contrary when a specific suggestion in this regard was put to the witness Basanti she not only categorically denied the same but she also explained that she was never known to Santosh Sharma previously and hence there there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused Santosh Sharma.
(72) I hold that Basanti Devi (PW16) is a truthful and credible witness whose present at the spot has been established from the CD of the sting operation Ex.PW17/B and is also not controverted by the accused. Further, Siddarth Gautam (PW17) the Senior Correspondent of IBN CNN News Channel who had participated in the sting operation, has independently confirmed her presence at the spot and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
Consent of the prosecutrix:
(73) The entire case of the prosecutrix rests on the aspect of the consent of the prosecutrix 'S' firstly at the time of commission of the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 62 of 133 offence of rape and thereafter at the time when the child was allegedly given in adoption.
(74) It is writ large that the accused Man Mohan in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the incident and also having made any physical relations with the prosecutrix. His lies have been nailed by the DNA Finger Printing Report which conclusively establish that he i.e. Man Mohan is the person who had fathered the child of the prosecutrix 'S'.
(75) The question now is whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the said physical relations with the accused Man Mohan. In this regard I may observe that the facts of the case speak for itself. (76) Firstly it is evident that the prosecutrix 'S' comes from a remote/ tribal area of Jharkhand and her family comprises of parents, five sisters and one brother who are living in a state of abject poverty and it is for this reason that in order to assist her parents that she came to Delhi to earn livelihood and to help her father in meeting his ends. She appears to be a simple village girl with a conservative approach who is attached to her family.
(77) Secondly it has been established from the ossification test report that the age of the prosecutrix 'S' at the time of the alleged incident of rape was around 17 to 18 years.
(78) Thirdly it is also evident from the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' that though she has at various places contradicted herself at various St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 63 of 133 time with regard to the manner in which the offence of rape has been committed on her but I may observe that a valid explanation is forthcoming for the same. Initially she had told her employer that she had been rape in a train while on her way to Delhi by an unknown person.
Thereafter soon after the sting operation was conducted she told the police that the offence of rape was committed by an unknown person in the bushes. However, both these aspects have been found to be factually incorrect. It was only after the joint sting operation conducted by the members of an NGO and the representative of the News Channel was duly aired pursuant to which the issue regarding the custody of the child of the prosecutrix 'S' was mentioned before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Delhi High Court that the Investigating Agency apparently got to work. The record reveals that only after the prosecutrix was removed from the influence of the accused and sent to Nari Niketan and was provided professional counselling that she slowly and gradually opened up and revealed the correct and complete facts and in her statement made to the Police thereafter she disclosed the name of the accused Man Mohan as the person who had committed rape on her without her consent. It is only then that the accused Man Mohan could be apprehended and the paternity test of the child could be conducted. The DNA Finger Printing Report establishes that the accused Man Mohan had fathered the child of the prosecutrix 'S' and what the prosecutrix 'S' stated later was correct. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 64 of 133 (79) Fourthly it is evident from the aforesaid that initially the prosecutrix has been in fact trying to conceal the identity of the person who had fathered her child despite being aware of the same. The prosecutrix in this regard has given an explanation for the same. She has explained that after having come to know of her pregnancy she disclosed the fact to accused Man Mohan who thereafter threatened her and compelled her to leave her job and go away. She has explained that it was in this background that she had gone away and was concealing this aspect and did not disclose the name of the offender either to the employer or to the police. This explanation is natural, probable and convincing and explains why she had initially concealed the identity of accused Man Mohan.
(80) Fifthly the lack of consent of the prosecutrix is also evident from the testimony of the prosecutrix who has explained that she had been raped twice by the accused Man Mohan and after the first incident she had stopped the entry of accused Man Mohan in the house of her employer. It stands established from the testimony of Smt. Kiran (PW13), Smt. Sulekha (PW14) and Vijay Kumar (PW18) that the prosecutrix 'S' was employed at the house of Vijay Kumar where Man Mohan was working as driver. It has been established that throughout the day there were many occasions when it was only the prosecutrix who used to be at home alone. The accused Man Mohan who used to pick up the lunch for the employer Vijay Kumar, taking advantage of the situation made St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 65 of 133 physical relations with the prosecutrix 'S' without her consent. The prosecutrix 'S' has explained that after the first incident she had stopped the entry of the accused Man Mohan inside the house and used to hand over the lunch to the accused outside but on one occasion when Vijay Kumar was admitted in the hospital and nobody was at home at that time accused Man Mohan came and again committed rape forcibly in drawing room. This act of the prosecutrix 'S' in stopping the accused Man Mohan from coming inside the house establishes the fact that she was not a consenting party.
(81) Sixthly the lack of consent on the part of the prosecutrix is also evident from the fact that after she left her employer Vijay Kumar and went back to her village and came to know there that she had conceived, she was just not ready to face her family in the village in this condition out of shame and fear of social ostracization. It is in this background that she came back to Delhi along with Pallo. Her testimony in this regard finds due corroboration from the testimony of Smt. Pallo (PW16). This court cannot ignore the harsh realities of rural areas particularly of tribal area of Central India which include Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andra Pradesh etc. where unwed mothers and rape victims are looked down upon and their families socially ostracized. The prosecutrix 'S' has explained to the Court that it is out of this fear that when she went back to her village after the incident of rape and came to know of the fact St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 66 of 133 of her pregnancy that she did not reach to her residence and rather chose to come back along with Pallo from the railway station (a fact which has been corroborated by Pallo). This explanation given by the prosecutrix 'S' is convincing and believable and reflects the lack of her consent. (82) Lastly it is not the defence of the accused Man Mohan that she was into a consensual relationship with him. Rather, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has denied the entire incident. Under the given circumstances, the onus of disproving and controverting the allegations made by the prosecutrix 'S' and also the DNA finger Printing Report shifts upon the accused Man Mohan which onus he has failed to discharge. Assuming what Man Mohan has stated is correct and if he was not into a consensual relation with the prosecutrix 'S', how then does he explain the paternity of the child 'H' born from the prosecutrix 'S' whom he had fathered. This being the background I hereby hold that the entire conduct of Man Mohan is highly dubious. There is no reason to doubt and disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' that she did not consent and that rape was committed on her by accused Man Mohan because it is writ large that Man Mohan first sexually exploited the prosecutrix 'S' and after coming to know of her pregnancy threatened her and compelled her to leave her job and it is on account of his threats that the prosecutrix not only left her employment but also did not disclose his name to anybody at the initial stages of investigations.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 67 of 133 (83) Coming next to the consent of the prosecutrix at the time when her child was allegedly given in adoption by Vinod and Preeti through Santosh Sharma. The case of the defence is that the prosecutrix herself was not ready and willing to keep the child and had consented to give the same away by the accused. I may observe that the question of consent in circumstances narrated as aforesaid does not arise. It is the Fundamental Constitutional right of every child to be in under the care and custody of the natural mother soon after his birth. Under no circumstances can a child be taken away from the mother within a day of his birth. The circumstances of the case speak for itself. Any consent obtained under threat, inducement, enticement or allurement is tainted and cannot be taken to be a valid consent. It is not disputed that the prosecutrix 'S' was a migrant domestic worker having a large family living in abject poverty. The prosecutrix being a victim of sexual abuse and unwed mother who could not have faced her family and villagers, was allured and induced into parting with the custody of her newly born child. Adoption can only be done in accordance with the existing law of the land and not otherwise. New born babies cannot be taken away from their natural mothers for reasons of poverty and given away to other persons only because the mothers have been made to feel that they are not in a position to bring up the child. Assuming what the accused are saying is correct and that the prosecutrix 'S' was not ready and willing to keep the child, then under these circumstances what it is that prevented Vinod, St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 68 of 133 Preeti and Santosh Sharma from informing her family or for dealing with the child in accordance with the established legal procedures. The manner in which the child was hurriedly taken away within a day of his birth speaks volumes of the manner in which the consent of the prosecutrix 'S' if any was taken. However, I may observe that the prosecutrix 'S' in her testimony before the Court has deposed that she did not consent and it is writ large from the testimony of Basanti Devi (PW16) that when she inquired from the prosecutrix 'S' if the child was given with her consent, she (prosecutrix 'S') had refused. It is evident that there was no valid consent on the part of the prosecutrix and any consent which the accused claim was only under pressure and not a free consent as contemplated under law. It is also evident that after the child who was recovered pursuant to the sting operation with the intervention of the police is now in the custody and care of the prosecutrix 'S' and it is she who is bringing up the child. Had the child been given away consensually by the prosecutrix 'S' she would not have taken the child back into her folds.
(84) This being the background, I hereby hold that there was lack of consent on the part of the prosecutrix both at the time of the alleged act of rape by the accused Man Mohan and also at the time when her child was taken away from her and given under adoption (contrary and in violation of the existing statutory law of the land) to someone else which child was St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 69 of 133 later on got recovered with the joint efforts of the police, NGO and the Media Personnel's. I may further hold that the fact that the child is now with the prosecutrix 'S' who herself bringing up the child with all love and affection, actually confirms that when the child was taken away it was not by her free consent.
Allegations against the accused Man Mohan:
(85) The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix 'S' is totally illiterate and had come from Jharkhand to Delhi along with three other girls in order to seek employment. She was put in employment through the placement agency of Vinod and Preeti in the house of Vijay Kumar (PW18) at West Patel Nagar. There accused Man Mohan was also working as a driver of Vijay Kumar (PW18). According to the prosecutrix 'S' (PW1) the accused Man Mohan had forcibly committed rape upon her on two occasions. Initially he committed rape on her inside the house when her employers were not at home and later again after about one and half months finding an opportunity he committed rape upon her after which incident she left the job and went back to Jharkhand.
According to the prosecutrix, having missed her monthly cycles she went back to Jharkhand and met Pallo (a lady from her village) who after examining her told her that she had become pregnant. On coming to know of the same, she out of shame and fear did not go back to her house nor disclosed this fact to anybody and again came back to Delhi with the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 70 of 133 said lady Pallo who took her to the office of Vinod and Preeti from where she was again employed at Bali Nagar. It is there that the prosecutrix 'S' disclosed about her pregnancy to her employer and hardly worked there for some time. However, when the employer came to know of her medical condition she was sent back to the placement agency of Preeti and Vinod where she stayed till the birth of the child. It is alleged that when the child was born the accused Vinod and Preeti asked her about her desire for giving the child and thereafter the child which was hardly one day old was given to Santosh Sharma and two ladies who had come with her.
(86) The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S', forensic report and the electronic record of the sting operation carried out by the news channel with regard to the sale of the child, CD of which has been placed on record and the report of the Correspondent who had carried out the sting operation. Coming first to the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S', the relevant portion of her testimony is as under:
"...... I was residing at my village Karakhujria with my parents, two brothers and five sisters. I came to Delhi in search of job with three other girls. I was residing somewhere in Delhi, the name of place I do not remember. I am illiterate. I do not remember any date, month and year. About four five years back, I was working in the house of Vijay Sir. The name of place I do not remember. One St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 71 of 133 person namely Mohan was driver of Vijay Sir. He committed rape forcibly on my person two times.
He raped me first time and thereafter after one and half month again. Since I became pregnant then I left the job without disclosing to my employer Vijay Sir and went to Jharkhand. I asked one lady in my village and she told me that I became pregnant. I did not disclose this fact to my parents and I again came to Delhi with a lady Pallo. Pallo took me to Shakurpur in the office of Preeti and Vinod Sir.
Then I was employed at Bali Nagar through them.
I told about the pregnancy to the house owner at Bali Nagar when about eight months have been passed then I was asked to go to the house of Preeti and Vinod. My male child was born in the house of Vinod at Shakurpur. Vinod and Preeti asked me about my desire for giving the child to anybody. Vinod and Preeti had given the child to somebody on the date of delivery. After one month I again employed to another house by Vinod and Preeti. I told the employer about my child and they asked me as to where is my child. I showed my inability to them about whereabouts of my child.
Then they made a complaint to the police. Police came to me with some ladies and enquired.
Initially I gave a statement under threat which was wrong. Thereafter, I was removed to Naari Niketan by the police. Once my statement was also recorded by Ld. Magistrate in Rohini Court. I enquired about my child after delivery then Vinod disclosed to me that I gave birth to a dead child. I came to know that the child was sold for Rs.
30,000/ by Vinod and Preeti.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 72 of 133 A nurse (Daai) also disclosed to me that I gave birth to a male child which was sold by Vinod and Preeti. I got custody of my male child through police from the person whom the child was sold by Preeti and Vinod. The child was not sold with my consent. I did not receive any amount regarding the sale of my male child. Child was sold to one Veena or Meena I do not remember the exact name.
After committing the rape on my person, Manmohan threatened me to kill if I told to anybody about the rape and he further threatened me to leave the place. Police obtained my thumb impression on my statement. My statement is Ex.PW1/A dated 2.9.2007 bearing my thumb impression at point A. My another statement dated 2.9.2007 is Ex.PW1/B bearing my thumb impression at point A. At this stage, one sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of the Court is produced.
Same is opened by breaking the seal. It found contained one statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Witness identifies her thumb impression at point A on Ex.PW1/C. I was also taken to hospital for medical examination by the police officials. On the day of incident, my age was about 15 years. I identify accused Manmohan present in the court today who committed rape upon my person. I also identify accused Vinod and Preeti present in the Court today who sold my child....."
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 73 of 133 (87) The prosecutrix was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State where she has admitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2007 and that she had come to Delhi two years prior to the year 2007. She has admitted that an agent got her and Virang employed at the house of Kiran and Kiran got employed her at the house of Sulekha where she worked for about one to one and a half years and Sh. Vijay Kumar is the husband of Sulekha Madam. She has further admitted that the couple had one son Mudit and two married daughters Rupali and Geetika who used to visit their mother. The prosecutrix 'S' has also admitted that there was a weekly market near the house of Sulekha and that Vijay Kumar (husband of Sulekha) used to go to his shop daily and accused Man Mohan who used to drive the van of Vijay Kumar, used to come to pick lunch and keys during lunch hours. She has also admitted that for the first time the accused Man Mohan forcibly took her in the kitchen in the house of Sulekha and committed rape by forcibly putting her on the floor and at that time accused Man Mohan shut her mouth with his hand due to which reason she could not raise the alarm. The prosecutrix 'S' has further admitted that the accused Man Mohan forcibly removed her clothes and after this incident she did not allow the accused Man Mohan to come inside for picking up the lunch and keys and she used to deliver the same outside. She has also admitted that after one and a half month Vijay Kumar was admitted in the hospital and there was nobody at home when the accused Man Mohan came and again committed rape upon her in St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 74 of 133 drawing room. She has further admitted that about twothree months the mensuration did not take place and she disclosed this fact to accused Man Mohan who threatened her to leave the job. The prosecutrix has admitted that one day Sulekha asked her to buy Chole Bhature from the Friday Market and gave Rs.100/ to her on which she purchased the Chole Bhature but the shop owner did not return the balance amount and she returned to house and told the said fact to Sulekha who scolded her and thereafter she left the house of Sulekha in the morning and went to Railway Station and left for Ranchi. She has admitted that she stayed at Ranchi for about 2025 days and thereafter returned to Delhi along with Paalo and came at Aadivaasi Samiti where accused Vinod and Preeti got employed at Bali Nagar. She has also admitted that the landlady of the house at Bali Nagar called Vinod and told him about her pregnancy and also asked him to send her to village. She admits that when the TV persons came to the house of Vinod then she came to know that her child was sold for a sum of Rs.23,000/. She has admitted that she had seen her child in the lap of Veena madam. She has also stated that her first statement was made under the threat from the accused persons about the incident of rape in the bushes. She has also admitted that she had given her short statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM because nobody told her to narrate the entire incident. The prosecutrix has admitted that her male child was born on 13.8.2007 at Placement Agency, House No. M157158, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur which placement St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 75 of 133 agency is being run by the accused Vinod and Preeti and she later came to know that her child was sold to one lady namely Santosh. Presently her child 'H' is with her.
(88) The prosecutrix 'S' has been crossexamined at length wherein she has explained that she never disclosed about the incident of rape to anybody at Ranchi or at Delhi or to Sulekha Madam or Sangeeta when she again came back and was got employed by Vinod. She has admitted that when Vinod was called and asked that she be removed to village, she refused to go saying that she did not want to go to her village in this condition. She has denied the suggestion the Vinod brought her to Aadivaasi Samiti at Shakurpur at her request and has stated that she was brought to Aadivaasi Samiti on the asking of Sangeeta. She has explained that she did not want to go to her village because she was unmarried and pregnant and did not want anybody to know about her pregnancy and the incident. She has admitted that in her statement she had told the police that one Madam came to accused Vinod and he asked her (prosecutrix) if she wanted to keep the child or not and she refused to keep the child after birth and states that this happened prior to the birth of the child. She has denied that she was asked after the birth of the child if she wanted to keep the same or not. She has been confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/DA wherein it was recorded that after the birth of the child that she was asked about the same. The prosecutrix has also admitted her another statement recorded on 10.9.2007 which is Ex.PW1/DB wherein St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 76 of 133 she had told the Investigating Officer that she did not want to go to her village and she had given her son with her sweet will and wanted some lady to keep the child. She has also admitted that on 3.9.2007 she was produced before the Ld. MM where her statement was recorded and she stated that she did not want to keep the child and has no objection if the child was given to Veena . She has further admitted that on 5.9.2007 again her statement was recorded by the Ld. MM and that she had voluntarily gave the statement that child may be given to Veena . The prosecutrix 'S' has also admitted that on 14.9.2007 she again made a statement before the Ld. MM about the custody of her child and that in her presence nobody give and receive the money for sale of her child. She has denied that she had made false statement under the pressure and fear of the police and media personnel's and have falsely implicated the accused.
(89) Smt. Pallo (PW2) aged about 30 years belongs to Jharkhand, is the one who had brought the prosecutrix 'S' for working in Kothies on the asking of her father. According to her, they stayed in the house of Vinod who is running a placement agency because the prosecutrix 'S' wanted to get a job in Delhi. She has corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' to the extent that after leaving the prosecutrix 'S' at Delhi, she returned to her native village and after about one and a half month Vinod telephoned her that the prosecutrix 'S' was pregnant and asked her to take her back but when she (Pallo) came Delhi the prosecutrix started weeping St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 77 of 133 and asked her that her parents would kill her after seeing her in pregnant position. Smt. Pallo has further stated that she along with the prosecutrix 'S' returned from Railway Station and went to the house of accused Vinod. According to Pallo, it was at that time that the prosecutrix told her that after the birth of the child either she will throw away or to give it to somebody and it is only thereafter that she would visit the village. She has stated that thereafter she had returned back to Jharkhand and later came to know that a case was registered on which she along with the father of the prosecutrix came to Delhi and met the prosecutrix at Nari Niketan and at that time she was not having her child with her.
(90) Further, Ms. Kiran Batra (PW13) has corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' to the effect that one agent who used to provide domestic workers, came to her in the month of December 2005 and had provided two girls i.e. the prosecutrix 'S' and Virang for placing them as domestic workers. According to her, while Virang was employed at her house, the prosecutrix 'S' was employed in the house of her friend Sulekha W/o Vijay Kumar and on 14.4.2007 Sulekha called her up telling her that the prosecutrix 'S' had gone away.
(91) The testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' also finds due corroboration from the testimony of Vijay Kumar (PW18) in whose house the prosecutrix was working as domestic help. Vijay Kumar has deposed St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 78 of 133 that the prosecutrix 'S' had been sent to their house by Smt. Kiran the friend of his wife. He has admitted that the accused Man Mohan was his driver and states that it was he who had called Man Mohan from his house when the police came to him and Man Mohan was interrogated in his presence when he disclosed to the police that he had done Galat Kaam/ rape upon the prosecutrix 'S'.
(92) Similarly Smt. Sangeeta Khanna (PW15) with whom the prosecutrix 'S' was employed through the placement agency of Vinod and Preeti, has proved that the prosecutrix 'S' was employed at her house on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/. She has stated that from her body language and physique (physical condition) she noticed that there was something wrong with her and shared her suspicion with her mother in law.
According to the witness, she questioned the prosecutrix and confronted her and it was then that initially the prosecutrix denied that she was pregnant but later on confirmed that she was pregnant, which fact she (witness) immediately told to her mother in law. Smt. Sangeeta Khanna has further deposed that initially the prosecutrix 'S' was hesitant but later she disclosed that it was in the train when she was travelling that she was raped on which she (witness) disclosed to her husband about the same. On the next day they called Vinod and informed him about the condition of the prosecutrix 'S' and the prosecutrix pleaded with her mother in law to permit her to say in the house but they were hesitant in keeping the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 79 of 133 prosecutrix in their house. She has stated that the prosecutrix was a nice girl and they had no complainants against her. Here, I may note that whatever the prosecutrix might have told to her employer regarding the place or time when she had been raped becomes immaterial since the fact that the child was fathered by the accused Man Mohan stands established from the DNA Report and it was he who in fact had committed rape upon her.
(93) Before coming to the evaluation of the evidence on merits, it is necessary to briefly discuss the guiding principles of law as laid down by the various Courts as regards reliability of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. I may observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Biram Lal reported in 2005 AIR (SC) 2327 has observed that:
"........It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix. If the court is satisfied that the evidence of prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded. In appropriate cases , the Court may look for corroboration from independent sources or from the circumstances of the case before recording an order of conviction. In the instant case the allegations were that the accused during night entered the prosecutrix room and committed rape on her, the evidence of the prosecution St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 80 of 133 was found worthy of credit and implicitly reliable....."
(94) In the year 2006 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha Ram reported in AIR 2006 SC 381 had observed that:
"...... The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault and to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is settled law that corroboration is a condition for Judicial Reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix and is not a requirement of law but a guidance of Prudence under the given circumstances. Even minor contradiction or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be a ground for throwing out, an otherwise reliable prosecution case...."
(95) It was further observed by the Hon'ble Court that:
"..... No girl of self respect and dignity who is conscious of her chastity having expectations of married life and livelihood would accuse falsely against any other person of rape, much less against her father, sacrificing thereby her chastity and also expose the entire family to shame and at the risk of condemnation and ostracization by the society. It is unthinkable to suggest that the mother would go to the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 81 of 133 extent of inventing a story of sexual assault of her own daughter and tutor her to narrate a story of sexual assault against a person who is no other than her husband and father of girl, at the risk of bringing down their social status and spoil their reputation in the society as well as family circle to which they belong to....."
(96) Further, in the case of Vishnu Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2006 AIR (SC) 508 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"..... In the traditional nonpermissive bounds of society of India, no girl or woman of selfrespect and dignity would depose falsely implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardizing her future prospect of getting married with suitable match. Not only she would be sacrificing her future prospect of getting married and having family life, but also would invite the wrath of being ostracized and outcast from the society she belongs to and also from her family circle. From the statement of the prosecutrix, it was revealed that the accused induced her to a hotel by creating an impression that his wife was admitted in the hospital and that he would see her first and then drop the prosecutrix at her residence whereas, in fact, she was not admitted in the hospital. On the pretext of going to Hospital, he took her to a hotel, took her inside a room, closed the door of the room, threatened her to finish her if she shouted and then forcibly ravished her sexually. A clear case of rape, as defined under Section 375 Clause third of IPC was found established against the accused...."
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 82 of 133 (97) Also in the case of Bharwada Boginbhai Hirji Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1) it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complaints of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. (98) From the testimonies of the various witnesses Firstly it stands established that the prosecutrix 'S' is totally illiterate and belongs to poor family of Jharkhand and had come to Delhi to seek employment. (99) Secondly where ever the prosecutrix 'S' was employed, the employers had no complaints against her and there is nothing to suggest that she was promiscuous in her behaviour or conduct at any point of time.
(100) Thirdly it is evident from the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' (PW1) that she did not want to go home as she was unmarried and pregnancy and did not want to show her face to her parents in the village in such condition which facts find due corroboration the testimony of Smt. Pallo (PW2).
(101) Fourthly according to the prosecutrix 'S' after the first incident she did not permit the accused Man Mohan to enter the house St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 83 of 133 again and always used to handover the keys and lunch to the accused outside, which reflects the lack of consent on the part of the prosecutrix 'S'.
(102) Lastly it was only after the incident that the prosecutrix 'S' was medically examined and her ossification test was got conducted when she was found to be 1819 years of age. However, it is writ large that at the time when she conceived, she must have been below 18 years of age. (103) In view of my detail findings as herein above holding that the prosecutrix 'S' was never a consenting party and that the accused Man Mohan had forcibly committed rape on her on two occasions without her consent (which findings are not being repeated for the sake of brevity), I hereby hold that the fact that the DNA of the child matches with the DNA of the accused Man Mohan belies his claims and confirms that the accused Man Mohan is telling a lie and that he exploited the poor prosecutrix 'S' a young girl of tender and impressionable age, by taking advantage of her social background and financial insecurities. (104) There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' qua the accused Man Mohan of having raped her forcibly in the house of Vijay Kumar (PW18) first in the kitchen by forcibly putting on the floor and by putting his hand on her mouth and on the second occasion in the drawing room and having threatened her, for which the accused Man Mohan is held guilty of the offence under Section 342, 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 84 of 133 Joint sting operation carried out by CNN IBN7 and NGO and the allegations against the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma:
(105) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Vinod and Preeti are running a placement agency wherein girls from poor areas are brought and subjected to sexual exploitation after which the child born from the unwed mother are sold in the market for a consideration. (106) In respect of the aforesaid a sting operation had been carried by a news channel CNN IBN7 on the basis of a secret information received. The most important witness to prove the sting operation is Siddarth Gautam (PW17) who was working as Senior Correspondent, Special Investigations Team with CNN IBN. According to the witness, he received a call from a source working with one of the NGOs 'HAQ' and was asked to get in touch with Smt. Basanti on which he spoke to Basanti on telephone and she narrated the entire story regarding sale of an infant child against the wishes of the mother. He has deposed that he along with a female reporter Ms. Seemi Pasha reached the house of Smt. Basanti who told them about the placement agency of Vinod after which they approached the wife of Vinod namely Preeti and posed as couple wanting to adopt a baby on which Vinod and Preeti promised that they arrange for a child and it was then that they were sure that something fishy was happening in the guise of the placement agency. The witness has proved that the entire conversation was recorded on a hidden camera which recording has been placed on record in the form of CD and the transcript St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 85 of 133 of the same is Ex.PW17/A and the CD is Ex.PW17/B. He has proved that they informed the police about the entire incident and pointed out the place where they had gone to meet Preeti and had spoken to her about the child. Thereafter the location was raided by the police and the persons present in the placement agency were taken to the police station. PW17 has proved that they had told the police that the child had been handed over to some other persons and during this period the mother of the child was crying. According to him, thereafter on the disclosure of accused Preeti the whereabouts of the child were known and they accompanied the police to the address given by Preeti from where the child was recovered. (107) In his crossexamination the witness has confirmed that he did not ask the prosecutrix 'S' if the child was given by her with her consent or not. He has stated that the final programme was aired only after it was edited and properly sequenced and the unedited recording was never given to the police since it was never asked. According to him, the aired copy of the programme was given to the police. He has denied that the CD placed on record is manipulated or tampered only to suit the requirement of the programme.
(108) Smt. Basanti (PW16) who is aged about 65 years is a midwife and also a social worker. She is the one who informed the NGO about the sale of the child through the placement agency of Vinod and Preeti. She has identified the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh and also the prosecutrix 'S' in the Court. According to her, on 13.8.2007 she was St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 86 of 133 called from her house at about 1011 AM on the ground that a girl in the placement agency was pregnant and was about to deliver a child and when she went there, she saw the accused Preeti wife of accused Vinod sitting there along with the prosecutrix 'S' and the child had already been delivered. She has deposed that the girl who had given birth to the child was herself a minor and she told Vinod to rush the girl to Hospital after which she immediately gave a bath to the child and handed over the child to the mother and asked the mother to give feed to the child and thereafter she returned to her house. Smt. Basanti has testified that thereafter in the evening she again went to the house of accused Vinod to see the condition of the mother and child, where she found the accused Santosh sitting and smiling and stated that God had been very kind and now she will deliver this child at Kanpur. According to the witness, when she heard this she was very shocked and thought to herself that if the child was born to the prosecutrix 'S' then why the child was to be delivered at Kanpur. On this she asked the said lady (accused Santosh Sharma) as to why the child was to be delivered at Kanpur on which Santosh stated that one of her relative is childless and she has to deliver the child to her relative. Smt. Basanti has stated that thereafter she returned back to her house and on the next day in the evening she again went to the house of Vinod to inquire about the health of the prosecutrix 'S' and her child, when she saw three ladies i.e. accused St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 87 of 133 Santosh Sharma along with two other ladies coming towards the house of Vinod from the side of park carrying a towel with them and in her presence the accused Preeti and Vinod handed over the child of the prosecutrix 'S' to Santosh and other two ladies on which she got suspicious and asked the prosecutrix 'S' why the child was given to said ladies and if she was not willing to keep the child on which the prosecutrix 'S' told her that she did not want to give her child to anybody. According to Smt. Basanti, she again came back to her house and thereafter the accused Vinod and Preeti came to her for obtaining her signatures on some documents for purpose of preparing the birth certificate of the child and also gave Rs.2,000/ to her as her fee for the labour she had put in during the delivery of the child and also gave her an address of Uttam Nagar stating that she should give the name of mother in the said documents which name the witness was unable to disclose in the Court not having recollected the same but she (Basanti Devi) has clarified that the name of mother and father was something else. She has further stated that when she refused to comply they kept on pressurizing her on telephone to mention the details of the parents as provided by them in the documents and also told her that since she was a Daie/ mid wife she could take whatever money she wanted but she should get prepare the Janampatri/ birth certificate of the child as per the details provided by them. According to Basanti, she she understood the entire game and she St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 88 of 133 thereafter informed the NGO. I have already observed that Basanti Devi is a reliable witness. She has provided a valid explanation as to how the information had reached the NGO and also the News Channel who conducted the sting operation.
(109) Basanti Devi (PW16) has also proved that after the child was recovered from Uttam Nagar, she was shown the said child which child she identified as that of the prosecutrix 'S'. The relevant portion of the statement of Smt. Basanti (PW16) is as under:
"......... I am residing at the aforementioned address and I am a midwife. I am also a social worker. I know Vinod the accused before this Court (correctly identified by the witness) as he was my tenant. He had taken three rooms on rent on the third floor in the same premises where I am staying from where he was running a placement agency in the name and style of Pooja Placement Agency. I had asked him to vacate my house because I did not like his conduct since the girls whom he used to get for purposes of placement were kept in the tenanted rooms and if they refused to work at a particular place, he used to beat them.
Vinod knew that I am a midwife. On 13th of August, year I do not recollect, but about 45 years back Vinod came to me between 1011 AM and called me saying that some girl in the placement agency was pregnant and was about to deliver a child. I went there and saw Preeti (accused correctly identified by the witness) the wife of accused Vinod was sitting there along with the girl namely 'S'. When I reached there the child had St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 89 of 133 already been delivered and Preeti was having the child with her. I saw that the girl who had given birth to the child herself appeared to be a minor. I told Vinod to rush the girl to the hospital. I immediately gave a bath to the child and handed over the child to the mother and also asked mother to give feed to the child and told Vinod to give food to the mother. Thereafter I returned back to my house. In the evening I again went to the house of Vinod to see the condition of the mother and the child. There I found the lady sitting in the Court (At this stage the witness has pointed out towards Santosh) who came to the premises of Vinod smiling. She stated that God had been very kind and now I have to deliver this child at Kanpur. I was shocked. I thought to myself that the child was born to 'S' then why the child was to be delivered to somebody else at Kanpur. I asked this lady (Santosh) why the child was to be delivered at Kanpur. On this the lady (Santosh) stated that one of her relative was childless and she has to deliver the child to her relative. I returned to my house. Next day I again went to the house of Vinod in the evening to checkup 'S' and her child. I saw three ladies coming towards the house of Vinod from the side of the park. They were carrying a towel with them. In my presence Preeti and Vinod handed over the child of 'S' to Santosh and other two ladies. I got suspicious. I asked the mother 'S' that her child was being to these ladies, does she want the child to be given to them. 'S' told me that she did not want to give her child to them. I came back to my house thereafter. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 90 of 133 Thereafter Vinod and Preeti came to me for getting my signatures on some documents for purposes of preparing the birth certificate of the child. They gave me Rs.2,000/ as my fee for the labour I had put in during the delivery of the child and gave me an address of Uttam Nagar stating that I should give the name of mother in the said documents which name I am not recollecting at present. The name of mother and father was something else.
When I refused to comply they kept on pressurizing me on telephone to mention the details of the parents as provided by them in the documents.
They also told me that since I was a Daie/ mid wife I could take whatever money I wanted but I should get prepared the Janampatri/ birth certificate of the child on the details provided by them. I understood the entire game of these persons. I informed one NGO whose name I do not recollect, about whatever was happening. It appears that NGO started its proceedings. After some days one child was recovered from Uttam Nagar and I was shown the child which I identified as the child of 'S'. My statement was recorded....."
(110) In her crossexamination she has stated that she had told the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the new born child was given to lady against the wishes of the prosecutrix but when confronted with her statement Ex.PW16/DX1 the said fact was not found recorded but it has been recorded that she did not inquire whether the child was given to other lady with her consent or Vinod had given the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 91 of 133 child forcibly nor the prosecutrix disclosed anything to her. She has admitted that she had told the accused Vinod that if he had to give the child to somebody he should have given it to her as she was also childless. She has denied that Santosh is a social worker in an NGO Nari Utthan Samiti and has voluntarily stated that she is not aware of the background of Santosh. Smt. Basanti has further denied that since the prosecutrix 'S' did not give the child to her which she wanted to adopt, hence she has falsely implicated the accused Vinod and his wife Preeti. (111) Before analyzing the evidence on merits, I may observe that the testimony of Siddarth Gautam (PW17) is a primary piece of evidence and is backed by the visuals of whatever had transpired in the form of CD (which electronic record i.e. CD is the secondary evidence) which has been placed on record. The CD has been duly played in the Court transcript of which is Ex.PW17/A. It is writ large that during the conversation which took place regarding the sale/ purchase of the child there was a hobnobbing between Preeti and the witness Siddarth Gautam (PW17) and the female correspondent who had posed as husband and wife, wherein Preeti is seen claiming that on a previous occasion they had charged Rs.10,000/ for the child. The presence of the accused Vinod and Preeti at the time when the conversation had taken place is reflected from the CD. Further, the presence of Basanti who had taken them (correspondents) to that place is also established and so is the presence of St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 92 of 133 the prosecutrix 'S' established during the time this conversation was taking place.
(112) The arguments put forward by the Ld. Defence Counsel are two folds firstly that the child had been given in adoption by the prosecutrix 'S' with her own consent and secondly that there was no sale consideration or exchange of money which take place for the same nor there is any evidence to show that the child had been sold to Santosh which allegations are on the basis of mere assumptions. I have considered the submissions made before me and at the very outset I may observe that the background in which the child was born i.e. being born out of the incident of rape of the prosecutrix 'S' to an unwed mother, shows the mental and psychological status of the mother who as per the material on record has just attained majority. She is totally illiterate, comes from a extremely poor family from a village of Jharkhand and naturally being taken by surprise by the circumstances of her pregnancy she was initially not ready and willing to accept the child (being an unwed mother) for the fear of social ostracization and it is writ large that the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma cashed upon this helpless condition of the prosecutrix 'S'. According to the prosecutrix 'S' the fact that whether she wanted the child or not was asked to her prior to the birth of the child whereas according to the defence of the accused Vinod and Preeti, the prosecutrix 'S' did not want the child and wanting to give the child in adoption which was after the birth of the child. I may observe St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 93 of 133 that there is no reason to disbelieve what has been stated by the prosecutrix 'S'. Had it been the case that she did not want the child, Smt. Basanti who had come to her would have noticed this fact specifically when she asked the prosecutrix 'S' to give feed to the child. As already observed by this Court that the prosecutrix 'S' was a victim of circumstances and hence the possibility of her being in a state of extreme depression and isolation cannot be ruled out and hence any consent given by her in such a situation is not a free consent as contemplated under law.
I may observe that the circumstances of the case speak for themselves. On the one hand the prosecutrix 'S' who was a minor at the time of the incident, being an unwed mother with a background of abject poverty and having no place to go nor having any resources to bring up the child and was not in a position to object or resist when Vinod and Preeti handed over the custody of the child to Santosh Sharma by pretending that this was the best alternative available to her. She has denied the suggestion that the child was not sold and given in adoption with her consent. She has stood by her version that Basanti had told her that the child had been sold for Rs.23,000/ but here I may observe that neither the prosecutrix 'S' nor Basanti Devi (PW16) have actually witnessed the transaction of sale of the child. The investigations are also totally lacking on this aspect of sale and the only aspect which stands established is the transfer of custody of child/ trafficking of the child from the placement agency to the possession of Smt. Veena from whom the child was ultimately recovered St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 94 of 133 in which Santosh Sharma acted as a facilitator.
(113) There is a specific procedure for adoption of child which has been prescribed by the State and any adoption which takes place has to be in accordance with the established legal procedures. Smt. Basanti (PW16) in her testimony has explained that she had seen the accused Santosh along with two ladies in the house of Vinod and Preeti and taking them away the child of the prosecutrix 'S'. The manner in which the child has been handed over to the accused Santosh within a couple of days of his birth, is highly improper and against all existing statutory norms. It is the Fundamental/ Constitutional Right of a new born child has to be under the care and custody of his own mother. How is it that the child of the prosecutrix 'S' reached the hands of accused Santosh Sharma and ultimately to Smt. Veena who according to Basanti had stated in her present that the child had to be sent to Kanpur? What is this kind of a procedure of adoption of the child which is going on in gross violation of the existing statutory law of the land? No explanation is forthcoming for the same. These are the facts which were in the best knowledge of the accused persons and should have been explained by the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh which they failed to do. On her part the prosecutrix 'S' has deposed that the child is now with her. I am informed that the prosecutrix 'S' has now employed with the CWG and she herself is bringing up her child independently. Had it been so that the prosecutrix 'S' never wanted to keep the child from the very inception and intended to St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 95 of 133 give it in adoption, I am sure that she would have never taken it back. This confirms that the prosecutrix 'S' never consented to give her child to anybody and her consent, if any, was tainted.
(114) Coming now to the aspect of the sting operation, I may observe that recently Investigative Journalism/ Sting Journalism has come under a severe criticism. However, there are large number of instances where it is only on account of Investigative Journalism/ Sting Journalism that loopholes in the Systems are exposed. The present case is one such instance of positive Journalism which is an eye opener regarding the condition of domestic helps/ workers employed at various houses through the agents and this sting operation has brought to light the market of sale/ purchase of newly born children particularly where unwed mothers/ victims of rape belonging to poor families are allured and induced to part with the possession of their newly born children for the fear of social stigmatization/ ostracization which children are then sold/ trafficked like mere commodities. The role played by the workers of the NGO are also worth appreciating. It may be noted that the detail investigations in the present case were conducted only after the custody proceedings were brought to the notice of Hon'ble Chief Justice, Delhi High Court and it was then that a detail statement of the prosecutrix 'S' was recorded wherein she explained the circumstances as to how she became pregnant and delivered the child which child was thereafter trafficked within a day of his birth and was recovered from the possession of Veena (discharged St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 96 of 133 accused) about 20 days later. Accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma are all a part of the chain which connects ultimately to the recovery of the child from the possession of Veena. If the prosecutrix 'S' was united with her newly born child, it was only on account of the exposé (i.e. to bringing a scandal, crime etc, to public notice) conducted by young Reporters of CNN IBN News Channel wherein this scandal/ crime of sale/ trafficking of newly born children of unwed mothers belonging to poor families in violation of existing statutory norms was brought to public notice. Sting Journalism has its own risk and in the Courts of Law the evidence so connected with the operation/ exposé has to be carefully scrutinized and analyzed just as any other piece of evidence and only after it has been found to be authentic and credible can it be relied upon. In the present case, the witnesses who had actually participated in the Sting Operation have deposed in the Court and corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' and it is this which has assisted this court in arriving at the truth or else in cases of trafficking the evidence is most of the times hard to get. This sting operation has exposed the plight of the rape victims and unwed mothers who are made to part with the custody of their new born children under the fear of social stigmatization and ostracization. It also exposes the role of the owners of the placement agencies and other so called social workers who do not hesitate to cash upon the disadvantageous status of these victims in the said process and in gross violation of the existing statutory laws the children are trafficked St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 97 of 133 like mere commodities. Of course in the story which has been aired by the channel the entire incident has been sensationalized. Allegations have also been made that the domestic workers are by design subjected to rape and sexual abuse. However, in the Court the evidence on this aspect is totally lacking. In case of the prosecutrix, she had been sexually abused at the place of her employment and there is nothing on record to show that the officials of the placement agency had anything to do with the same.
(115) In view of the above I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh of having kidnapped the newly born male child of the prosecutrix 'S' and of having secretly confined the said child which offences have been committed in an organized manner, for which reason I hold the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh guilty of the offence under Section 363 read with Section 365 Indian Penal Code.
(116) Further, keeping in view the allegations made by the prosecutrix that she had been threatened, a charge under Section 506/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma but it is evident from the evidence on record in the form of testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' that there are no such instances of threat. Rather, the case in hand is of simple pressure caused to the prosecutrix 'S' an unwed mother as a result of which she did not object to the handing over of her new born child by Vinod and Preeti to Santosh St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 98 of 133 Sharma. In this background the provisions of Section 506 Indian Penal Code do not substantiated and proved. The accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma are acquitted of the charge under Section 506 Indian Penal Code.
The accused Santosh Sharma is a facilitator:
(117) The present case pertains to trafficking of a newly born child from the prosecutrix 'S' an unwed mother who is a rape victim. The incident of rape took place at the house of her employer where she was employed through the placement agency and the accused was none else but the driver of the owner/ employer. As already observed herein above, it is the witness Basanti Devi (PW16) who has connected the accused Santosh Sharma with the alleged offence. She has identified the accused Santosh Sharma as the lady whom she had seen sitting along with Preeti and Vinod on 13th of August i.e. the same day evening when the child was born and to whom the child was handed over by Preeti in her presence.
She has specifically identified the accused Santosh Sharma as the lady who had come along with two other ladies on the next day and to whom the child of the prosecutrix 'S' had been handed over by Preeti and Vinod in her presence.
(118) It may be noted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the child of the prosecutrix 'S' was recovered from the possession of the Veena. Both the Investigating Officers i.e. Inspector R.K. Maan St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 99 of 133 (PW24) and WSI Raj Bala (PW25) have specifically deposed that after the arrest of the accused they came to know that the child of the prosecutrix 'S' was with Veena after which they contacted Veena and asked her to bring to child to the Police Station. It was then that Veena produced the child in the Police Station after which the child was handed over to the custody of his natural mother i.e. the prosecutrix (and continues to be under her care and protection till date). (119) I may observe that in cases of human trafficking particularly of children, the players are mostly hidden. There is little or most of the time no direct evidence in such cases since the acts are mostly done in a shroud of secrecy. How the child of the prosecutrix 'S' reached the hands of Veena has only been explained by Basanti Devi (PW16). There is no other explanation forthcoming for the same and I find no reason to disbelieve Basanti Devi (PW16) when she states that it was Santosh Sharma who brought the ladies to the placement agency and the custody of the child was handed over to them. There is no history of any dispute or animosity between Basanti Devi or the accused Santosh Sharma and hence no reason to disbelieve Basanti Devi. In the crossexamination of Basanti Devi (PW16) a vague suggestion was made to her regarding professional rivalry but no evidence was led by the accused to prove and substantiate the said allegation. There is no direct evidence of sale/ purchase of the child except the statement of Basanti Devi (PW16) which confirms that a one day old child of the prosecutrix 'S' had been handed St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 100 of 133 over to the accused Santosh Sharma and two other ladies who had come along with her. This explains how the child reached the hands of Veena (discharged accused) who is neither related the prosecutrix nor as any connection with her.
(120) It is only Basanti Devi (PW16) who has come up with this explanation and has provided an essential link between the owners of the placement agency Vinod & Preeti in whose office the child was born and Veena (discharged accused) from whom the child was ultimately recovered. Basanti Devi (PW16) has explained that it was through the accused Santosh Sharma that the trafficking / transfer of the child from the placement agency to the house of Veena could be facilitated. The only place where a newly born child is required to be is with the natural mother. A day old child cannot under any circumstances be separated from his natural mother and handed over to a stranger. This act is in complete violation of the statutory law of the land and the various guidelines and policies of the Government of India relating to health and welfare of mother and the child. Any adoption or transfer of custody of a new born child can only be done in accordance with the procedure established by law. The manner in which the whole thing has been executed secretly and in gross violation of the existing legal provisions, proves that not all was well. There was a lack of a valid legal consent on the part of the prosecutrix 'S' (her consent if any being tainted on account of allurement/ inducement). Further, the minute the child was taken and St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 101 of 133 handed over by accused Vinod and Preeti to Santosh Sharma and the other two ladies who had come with her and was thereafter confined to a house/ place not within the knowledge or reach of the prosecutrix 'S', the ingredients of the provisions of both Section 363 and 365 Indian Penal Code stand satisfied.
(121) It has been proved that the 20 days old child 'H' (who was taken when he was a day old) of the prosecutrix 'S' was recovered from the possession of Veena (discharged accused). Whether the transfer/ trafficking of the child was on account of monetary consideration or otherwise is an aspect which is immaterial under the given circumstances. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the harsh realities as they exist today. Young mothers/ victims of sexual abuse and rape on account of abject poverty and also fearing of social ostracization by virtue of their disadvantageous position, are allured, induced and compelled to part with the custody of their newly born children. It is this exploitation of one human being in a disadvantageous position by another human being which the law seeks to prevent. No person can be permitted to take advantage of the lacunas as they exist in the existing statutory law. In our Country as also in many other, the laws relating to trafficking and seeking to prevent exploitations is yet to take shape but that does not mean that till it actually happens the Courts of law are helpless. The offenders, of course, can be proceeded against under the ordinary and general law of the land. The fact that there is nothing on record to establish that the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 102 of 133 mother/ prosecutrix 'S' was aware of the final destination of her child, it is therefore writ large that the child had been in fact not only concealed from his mother (natural/ lawful guardian) but also from law (the transfer/ adoption of the child if any not being in accordance with the procedure of law).
(122) Veena (discharged accused) was the last straw in the entire episode. The investigations conducted in the present case are highly non professional, halfhearted and shoddy and are in the nature of cover up. After Veena was discharged, least to say, no attempt was made either by the Prosecution to challenge the said discharge order nor any attempt was made by the Investigating Agency to collect further material/ evidence against her or investigate on the aspect as to how the child had reached her hands. The possibility of this being a deliberate act cannot be ruled out specifically in view of the disclosure statement of Veena who during her interrogation had told the police that she had got the child from Tis Hazari Courts and one Advocate Ms. Kavita was to prepare the documents with regard to adoption of the child. If this is so then where are these papers. Least to say, investigations were required to be conducted on the aforesaid aspects which either have not been conducted or if conducted, the outcome of the same appears to have been concealed for obvious reasons. If what has been stated by Veena is correct then it is a serious matter that the members of the Bar should be indulging into and involved into these illegal activities relating to trafficking/ sale/ transfer of St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 103 of 133 custody of children in violation of the existing norms and the statutory law. It is writ large that only after the issue relating to custody of the child was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Delhi High Court that the Investigating Agency was compelled to act but I am pained to observe that whatever was done thereafter was only in the nature of a cover up.
(123) In so far as the accused Santosh Sharma is concerned, she is stated to be a social worker but does that mean that she has the right to take the law into her hands and twist/ break the same with impunity on the pretext of social welfare. Had it not been for the accused Santosh Sharma, who had first facilitated, the child of the prosecutrix 'S' would not have reached the hands of Veena (discharged accused). The newly born child who is hardly a day old under the law of the land is required to be with the natural mother, was removed from the custody of his natural mother and in gross violation of the existing statutory law of the land, was handed over to Veena without information to the competent authorities and wrongfully confined at the house of Veena till such time of his recovery. As already observed herein above the accused Santosh Sharma is guilty of the offence under Section 363 read with 365 Indian Penal Code.
Common intention:
(124) The case of the prosecution is that after the prosecutrix 'S' had conceived and given birth to the child, it was in pursuance to their St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 104 of 133 common intention that the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma induced the prosecutrix 'S' in parting with the custody of her newly born child to Veena (discharged accused). Now, it has to be seen whether Section 34 Indian Penal Code is attracted or not.
(125) Section 34 IPC has been enacted on the principal of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be if prearranged or on the spur of the moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 105 of 133 Punjab reported in AIR 1997 (1) SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential elements for application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The Section does not say "the common intentions of all" nor does it say "an intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.
(126) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it has been established and also not disputed that the accused Vinod and Preeti are running a placement agency and that the prosecutrix 'S' an unwed mother/ rape victim had delivered the child at their placement agency. It has also been established from the testimony of Basanti Devi (PW16) a midwife / Daie by profession, that she was persuaded and pressurized by the accused Vinod and Preeti to prepare the papers regarding the birth of the child in the name of some other person (other than the natural mother) who were residing at Uttam Nagar. This was something which Basanti Devi found to be unusual and suspicious and she hence reported the matter to an NGO (Haq) pursuant to which a sting operation was conducted leading to the apprehension and arrest of St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 106 of 133 various accused in the case and recovery of the child. The circumstances of the case speak for themselves and the manner in which the sequence of events have transformed, establish the common intention shared by the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma to transfer the custody of the newly born child of the prosecutrix 'S' to Smt. Veena in violation of the existing statutory provisions and the established procedure of law. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the accused Vinod, Preeti and Shatosh Sharma had shared common intention and had acted in consortium to commit the above offence.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(127) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 107 of 133
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(128) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses, medical and forensic evidence on record, the following aspects stands established:
➢ That the prosecutrix 'S' (aged about 1718 years at the time of the incident) belongs to a very poor family of Jharkhand and had come to Delhi two years prior to the year 2007 for getting a job. ➢ That initially she got employment as domestic worker in the house of Smt. Sulekha W/o Vijay Kumar at 4344, West Patel Nagar, Delhi through one Smt. Kiran and the accused Man Mohan was working as the driver of Vijay Kumar.
➢ That the accused Man Mohan committed rape on the
prosecutrix 'S' on two occasions.
➢ That first time accused Man Mohan forcibly took her in
the kitchen in the house of Sulekha and committed rape upon her St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 108 of 133 by forcibly putting her on the floor and shutting her mouth by his hand due to which she could not raise an alarm.
➢ That after the first incident the prosecutrix 'S' did not allow the accused Man Mohan to come inside for picking up lunch and keys and she used to deliver keys and lunch outside.
➢ That after about one and half month Vijay Kumar was admitted at hospital and nobody was at home at that time accused Man Mohan came and again committed rape forcibly at drawing room.
➢ That after about two three months her mensuration did not take place and she told this fact to accused Man Mohan who threatened her and asked her to leave the job.
➢ That one day Sulekha asked her to buy Chole Bhature from the Friday Market and gave her Rs.100/ on which she purchased the Chole Bhature but the shop owner did not return her the balance amount and on this she returned to her house and told this fact to Sulekha who scolded her after which she left her house in the morning and went to railway station and left for Ranchi. ➢ That the prosecutrix 'S' went to her village where she stayed for some days but could not face her family in a pregnant condition and hence she returned to Delhi along with Pallo a resident of the same village as that of the prosecutrix 'S'. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 109 of 133 ➢ That in Delhi the prosecutrix 'S' came at Aadivassi Samiti, House No. M157/158, JJ Colony, Shakurpur from where the accused Vinod and Preeti got her employed at Bali Nagar in the house of Ms. Sangeeta Khanna at G80, Bali Nagar, Delhi. ➢ That Smt. Sangeeta Khanna observed the prosecutrix 'S' and found that the prosecutrix was pregnant after which she called Vinod and told him about her pregnancy and also asked him to send the prosecutrix 'S' to village.
➢ That thereafter accused Vinod took the prosecutrix 'S' to his placement agency and called up Pallo to take the prosecutrix 'S' back to the village at Jharkhand.
➢ That Smt. Pallo came to Delhi for bringing the prosecutrix back but she (prosecutrix) started weeping and told her that she will not go to her village since she was pregnant and hence thereafter went to the house of accused Vinod.
➢ That on 13.8.2007 a male child was born to the
prosecutrix 'S' at Placement Agency, House No. M157/158, JJ
colony, Shakurpur which was being run by the accused Vinod and Preeti.
➢ That the accused Vinod called Smt. Basanti Devi a mid wife and also a social worker in the area, on the pretext that some girl in the placement agency was pregnant and was about to deliver a child St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 110 of 133 ➢ That when Smt. Basanti reached there, the child had already been delivered and Preeti the wife of accused Vinod was having the child with her.
➢ That Smt. Basanti told Vinod to rush the prosecutrix 'S' to the hospital while she gave a bath to the child and handed over the child to the mother and also asked mother to give feed to the child and told Vinod to give food to the mother after which she returned back to her house.
➢ That in the evening Smt. Basanti again went to the house of accused Vinod to inquire about the condition of the mother and the child where she found the accused Santosh sitting who stated that God had been very kind and now she had to deliver this child at Kanpur.
➢ That Smt. Basanti Devi asked Santosh why the child was to be delivered at Kanpur on which Santosh stated that one of her relative was childless and she has to deliver the child to her relative.
➢ That on next day Smt. Basanti again went to the house of Vinod in the evening to check on the prosecutrix 'S' and her child where she saw three ladies coming towards the house of Vinod from the side of the park carrying a towel with them and in her presence the accused Preeti and Vinod handed over the child of prosecutrix 'S' to Santosh and the other two ladies. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 111 of 133 ➢ That Smt. Basanti got suspicious and asked the prosecutrix 'S' that her child was given to the said ladies and if she wanted the child to be given to them on this the prosecutrix 'S' told her that she did not want to give her child to them.
➢ That thereafter Vinod and Preeti came to the house of Smt. Basanti for getting her signatures on some documents for purposes of preparing the birth certificate of the child and they gave her Rs. 2,000/ as her fee for the labour she had put in during the delivery of the child and gave her an address of Uttam Nagar stating that she (Basanti Devi) should give the name of mother in the said documents.
➢ That Smt. Basanti Devi refused to comply on which the accused Vinod and Preeti kept on pressurizing her on telephone to mention the details of the parents as provided by them in the documents.
➢ That Smt. Basanti Devi understood the entire game of those persons and informed one NGO about whatever was happening.
➢ That the NGO Haq started its proceedings and informed Sh. Siddarth Gautam the Senior Correspondent Special Investigations Team of CNN IBN and was asked to get in touch with Smt. Basanti Devi.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 112 of 133 ➢ That Sh. Siddarth Gautam spoke to Smt. Basanti on phone who narrated the entire story regarding the sale of an infant child against the wishes of the mother on which they reached the house of Basanti on the address given by her along with his female Reporter Ms. Seema Pasha and met Basanti at her house where she told them about the placement agency of Vinod and how they were selling children.
➢ That they (Siddarth Gautam and Ms. Seema Pasha) approached the wife of Vinod namely Preeti on the given address along with Basanti and posed as couple wanting to adopt a baby. ➢ That Preeti told them that it was possible and they could arrange for a child and after this conversation they were sure that there was something fishy happening in the guise of placement agency.
➢ That the entire conversation was recorded on a hidden camera and the story was aired.
➢ That thereafter they informed the Delhi Police about the entire case incident and the present case was registered. ➢ That the location was raided by the police and the persons present in the placement agency were taken to the police station who told the police that child had been handed over by them to some other persons, while the mother of the child i.e. prosecutrix 'S' was crying while she was in the placement agency. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 113 of 133 ➢ That the police also interrogated these persons from the placement agency with regard to the whereabouts of the child in their presence and Preeti along with other persons disclosed to the police the whereabouts of the child after which they accompanied the police to the address given by Preeti and from the given address the child was recovered which child was then handed back to the prosecutrix 'S' his natural mother.
(129) The medical and forensic evidence (i.e. DNA Finger Printing Report) on record is compatible to the prosecution case and it has been conclusively establishes that the accused Man Mohan is the biological father of the child born from the prosecutrix 'S' thereby conclusively connect the accused Man Mohan with the offence of rape. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' qua the accused Man Mohan of having raped her forcibly in the house of Vijay Kumar first in the kitchen by forcibly putting on the floor and by putting his hand on her mouth and on the second occasion in the drawing room and having threatened her. It also stands established that by exploiting the disadvantageous position of the prosecutrix 'S' her newly born child was taken away from her possession and subjected to trafficking i.e. handed over to Veena (discharged accused) by the accused Preeti and Vinod through the accused Santosh Sharma.
(130) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 114 of 133 investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (131) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (132) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Man Mohan of having wrongfully confined the prosecutrix 'S'; having committing rape upon the prosecutrix 'S' and of having criminally threatening her for which he is hereby held guilty of the offence under Sections 342, 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. Further, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 115 of 133 substantiate the allegations against the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh of having kidnapped the newly born male child of the prosecutrix 'S'; having secretly and wrongfully confined the child of the prosecutrix 'S' for which they are held guilty of the offence under Section 363 and 365/34 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma are acquitted of the charge under Section 506/34 Indian Penal Code.
(133) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 22.11.2012.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 16.11.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHNI St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 116 of 133
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II (NORTHWEST) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 93/2011 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0816852007 State Vs. (1) Man Mohan S/o Sh. Satbir Singh R/o 71A, Village Dasghara, Near Pusa Institute, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Santosh Sharma W/o Sh. Sudhir Sharma R/o 85B, Kishan Kunj Extn., Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Preeti W/o Vinod R/o M157/158, Shakurpur JJ Colony, Delhi (Convicted) (4) Vinod S/o Ram Chander Sahu R/o Village Khutia Bishamberpur, PS Masholia, Distt. Betia, West Champaran Also at:
M157/158, Shakurpur JJ Colony, Delhi (Convicted) St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 117 of 133 FIR No.: 925/2007 Police Station: Saraswati Vihar Under Sections: 342/344/506/376 IPC Date of conviction: 16.11.2012 Arguments concluded on: 27.11.2012 Date of sentence: 30.11.2012 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
All the for convicts in judicial custody with Ms. Kavita Kapil and Sh. Abhishek Kaushik Advocates.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
The present case relates to a young girl 'S' aged about 1718 years at the time of the incident, belonging to a very poor family of Jharkhand and had come to Delhi for her livelihood. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.9.2007 in the night IBN7 News Channel telecasted a sting operation at House No. 157158, MBlock, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, which was the office of a placement agency running under the name and style of Adivasi Sewa Samiti. The Reporter Siddarth Gautam informed the SHO Police Station Saraswati Vihar about the rape of the prosecutrix at House No. 157158, Shakurpur, Delhi, pursuant to which WSI Raj Bala was called at the police station who along with Ct. St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 118 of 133 Devender reached the aforesaid address where the prosecutrix 'S' met them. SI Raj Bala interrogated the prosecutrix 'S' and in her statement to the police the prosecutrix 'S' stated that she is a resident of Jharkhand and about 9 to 10 months ago when she was returning home at about 3:00 PM, one boy suddenly came in front of her and pulled her in the bushes by putting his hand on her mouth and committed rape upon her and also threatened her to kill her brothers if she disclosed this fact to anybody. According to the prosecutrix 'S', due to fear she did not disclose about the incident to anybody till but when her mensuration did not take place for about four months, she asked one lady of her village who told her that she was pregnant. Out of shame and fear of social ostracization the prosecutrix 'S' did not go to her family and instead returned back to Delhi along with Pallo and came to the office of Aadivasi Sewa Samiti at M157158, JJ Colony Shkarupur from where she was put in placement at Bali Nagar where she worked for sometime but on account of her medical condition she was again sent back to the placement office. The prosecutrix 'S' informed the police that on 13.8.2007 she gave birth to a child in the placement office and during the delivery she became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness, she was told by Vinod and his wife Preeti who were running the placement agency informed her that she had given birth to a dead child but later on she came to know that her newly born baby was sold by Vinod and Preeti to one Santosh Sharma for Rs.23,000/ and they did not give her a single St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 119 of 133 penny.
On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, the present case FIR No. 925/07 was registered. During investigations the medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. The prosecutrix 'S' was sent to Nari Niketan. The accused Preeti was arrested 2.9.2007 and on 13.10.2007 the accused Vinod was arrested. On 26.10.2007 the prosecutrix 'S' was again interrogated in detail by WSI Raj Bala when the prosecutrix 'S' disclosed the complete details that she was raped by by the Driver of Sulekha Madam namely Man Mohan. Pursuant to the same on 29.10.2007 the accused Man Mohan was arrested.
The prosecutrix 'S' appeared before the Court and made specific allegations against the accused persons in her testimony. On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses including the prosecutrix 'S', her employers, the midwife Basanti Devi, the Senior Correspondent of CNN IBN Siddarth Gautam, the testimonies of other witnesses, medical, forensic and other circumstantial evidence on record this Court vide order dated 16.11.2012 held the accused Man Mohan guilty of the offence under Section 342, 376 and 506 IPC and the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma have been held guilty of the offence under Section 363 read with 365/34 Indian Penal Code. This Court has observed that it stood established that the prosecutrix 'S' (aged about 1718 years at the time of the incident) belongs to a very poor family of St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 120 of 133 Jharkhand and had come to Delhi two years prior to the year 2007 for getting a job; that initially she got employment as domestic worker in the house of Smt. Sulekha W/o Vijay Kumar at 4344, West Patel Nagar, Delhi through one Smt. Kiran and the accused Man Mohan was working as the driver of Vijay Kumar; that the accused Man Mohan committed rape on the prosecutrix 'S' on two occasions; that first time accused Man Mohan forcibly took her in the kitchen in the house of Sulekha and committed rape upon her by forcibly putting her on the floor and shutting her mouth by his hand due to which she could not raise an alarm; that after the first incident the prosecutrix 'S' did not allow the accused Man Mohan to come inside for picking up lunch and keys and she used to deliver keys and lunch outside; that after about one and half month Vijay Kumar was admitted at hospital and nobody was at home at that time accused Man Mohan came and again committed rape forcibly at drawing room; that after about two three months her mensuration did not take place and she told this fact to accused Man Mohan who threatened her and asked her to leave the job; that one day Sulekha asked her to buy Chole Bhature from the Friday Market and gave her Rs.100/ on which she purchased the Chole Bhature but the shop owner did not return her the balance amount and on this she returned to her house and told this fact to Sulekha who scolded her after which she left her house in the morning and went to railway station and left for Ranchi; that the prosecutrix 'S' went to her village where she stayed for some days but could not face her St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 121 of 133 family in a pregnant condition and hence she returned to Delhi along with Pallo a resident of the same village as that of the prosecutrix 'S'; that in Delhi the prosecutrix 'S' came at Aadivassi Samiti, House No. M157/158, JJ Colony, Shakurpur from where the accused Vinod and Preeti got her employed at Bali Nagar in the house of Ms. Sangeeta Khanna at G80, Bali Nagar, Delhi; that Smt. Sangeeta Khanna observed the prosecutrix 'S' and found that the prosecutrix was pregnant after which she called Vinod and told him about her pregnancy and also asked him to send the prosecutrix 'S' to village; that thereafter accused Vinod took the prosecutrix 'S' to his placement agency and called up Pallo to take the prosecutrix 'S' back to the village at Jharkhand; that Smt. Pallo came to Delhi for bringing the prosecutrix back but she (prosecutrix) started weeping and told her that she will not go to her village since she was pregnant and hence thereafter went to the house of accused Vinod; that on 13.8.2007 a male child was born to the prosecutrix 'S' at Placement Agency, House No. M157/158, JJ colony, Shakurpur which was being run by the accused Vinod and Preeti; that the accused Vinod called Smt. Basanti Devi a midwife and also a social worker in the area, on the pretext that some girl in the placement agency was pregnant and was about to deliver a child; that when Smt. Basanti reached there, the child had already been delivered and Preeti the wife of accused Vinod was having the child with her; that Smt. Basanti told Vinod to rush the prosecutrix 'S' to the hospital while she gave a bath to the child and St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 122 of 133 handed over the child to the mother and also asked mother to give feed to the child and told Vinod to give food to the mother after which she returned back to her house; that in the evening Smt. Basanti again went to the house of accused Vinod to inquire about the condition of the mother and the child where she found the accused Santosh sitting who stated that God had been very kind and now she had to deliver this child at Kanpur; that Smt. Basanti Devi asked Santosh why the child was to be delivered at Kanpur on which Santosh stated that one of her relative was childless and she has to deliver the child to her relative; that on next day Smt. Basanti again went to the house of Vinod in the evening to check on the prosecutrix 'S' and her child where she saw three ladies coming towards the house of Vinod from the side of the park carrying a towel with them and in her presence the accused Preeti and Vinod handed over the child of prosecutrix 'S' to Santosh and other two ladies; that Smt. Basanti got suspicious and asked the prosecutrix 'S' that her child was given to the said ladies and if she wanted the child to be given to them on this the prosecutrix 'S' told her that she did not want to give her child to them; that thereafter Vinod and Preeti came to the house of Smt. Basanti for getting her signatures on some documents for purposes of preparing the birth certificate of the child and they gave her Rs.2,000/ as her fee for the labour she had put in during the delivery of the child and gave her an address of Uttam Nagar stating that she (Basanti Devi) should give the name of mother in the said documents; that Smt. Basnati Devi refused to St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 123 of 133 comply on which the accused Vinod and Preeti kept on pressurizing her on telephone to mention the details of the parents as provided by them in the documents; that Smt. Basanti Devi understood the entire game of those persons and informed one NGO about whatever was happening; that the NGO Haq started its proceedings and informed Sh. Siddarth Gautam the Senior Correspondent Special Investigations Team of CNN IBN and was asked to get in touch with Smt. Basanti Devi; that Sh. Siddarth Gautam spoke to Smt. Basanti on phone who narrated the entire story regarding the sale of an infant child against the wishes of the mother on which they reached the house of Basanti on the address given by her along with his female Reporter Ms. Seema Pasha and met Basanti at her house where she told them about the placement agency of Vinod and how they were selling children; that they (Siddarth Gautam and Ms. Seema Pasha) approached the wife of Vinod namely Preeti on the given address along with Basanti and posed as couple wanting to adopt a baby; that Preeti told them that it was possible and they could arrange for a child and after this conversation they were sure that there was something fishy happening in the guise of placement agency; that the entire conversation was recorded on a hidden camera and the story was aired; that thereafter they informed the Delhi Police about the entire case incident and the present case was registered; that the location was raided by the police and the persons present in the placement agency were taken to the police station who told the police that child had been handed over by them to St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 124 of 133 some other persons, while the mother of the child i.e. prosecutrix 'S' was crying while she was in the placement agency; that the police also interrogated these persons from the placement agency with regard to the whereabouts of the child in their presence and Preeti along with other persons disclosed to the police the whereabouts of the child after which they accompanied the police to the address given by Preeti and from the given address the child was recovered which child was then handed back to the prosecutrix her natural mother.
It has also been observed that the medical and forensic evidence (i.e. DNA Finger Printing Report) on record is compatible to the prosecution case and it has been conclusively established that the accused Man Mohan is the biological father of the child born from the prosecutrix 'S' thereby conclusively connect the accused Man Mohan with the offence of rape. It has been held that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' qua the accused Man Mohan of having raped her forcibly in the house of Vijay Kumar first in the kitchen by forcibly putting on the floor and by putting his hand on her mouth and on the second occasion in the drawing room and having threatened her. In view of the above the accused Man Mohan has been held guilty of the offence under Sections 342, 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code. Further, it has been held that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Vinod, Preeti and Santosh of having kidnapped the newly born male child of the prosecutrix 'S' and having St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 125 of 133 secretly and wrongfully confined the child of the prosecutrix 'S' for which they have been held guilty of the offence under Section 363 read with 365/34 Indian Penal Code.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Man Mohan is aged about 33 years having a family comprising of aged parents, three young unmarried sisters, wife and a 1 ½ years old daughter. Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that the convict Man Mohan has no previous involvements. It is argued that the convict is the sole bread earner of his joint family and has already remained in judicial custody for more than one year. He requests that a lenient view be taken against him The convicts Vinod (aged 26 years) and Preeti (aged 24 years) are husband and wife. They have a family comprising of aged parents, two children one aged 6 years and another aged about 1 ½ years. Ld. Counsel for the convicts Vinod and Preeti has vehemently argued that both the convicts are first time offenders and have no criminal cases against them. It is argued that any harsh view would not only detrimental to the convicts but also to the future of their minor children. He requests that a lenient view be taken against them.
The convict Santosh Sharma is stated to be aged 56 years having a family comprising of three children i.e. one son and daughter who are doctors by profession and third is a professional Executive. It is St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 126 of 133 argued that the convict Santosh Sharma is highly educated being M.A., B. Ed. and is the General Secretary of an NGO Naari Utthan Society. Ld. Counsel for the convict had argued that the convict also runs an Old Age Home and looking after 50 old aged ladies who are down trodden and disabled and except the convict there is nobody to take care of the old aged disabled ladies. He has pointed out that the convict has no other criminal case against her and is a first time offender. He requests that a lenient view be taken against her.
On the other hand Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has prayed for a stern view against all the convicts keeping in view the nature of allegations involved.
I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that recently Investigative Journalism/ Sting Journalism has come under a severe criticism. But there are large number of instances where it is only on account of Investigative Journalism/ Sting Journalism that loopholes in the Systems are exposed. The present case is one such instance of positive Journalism which is an eye opener regarding the condition of domestic helps/ workers employed at various houses through the agents and this sting operation has brought to light the market of sale/ purchase of newly born children particularly where unwed mothers/ victims of rape belonging to poor families are allured and induced to part with the possession of their newly born children for the fear of social stigmatization/ ostracization which children are then sold/ trafficked like St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 127 of 133 mere commodities. The role played by the workers of the NGO are also worth appreciating. It may be noted that the detail investigations in the present case were conducted only after the custody proceedings were brought to the notice of Hon'ble Chief Justice, Delhi High Court and it was then that a detail statement of the prosecutrix 'S' was recorded wherein she explained the circumstances as to how she became pregnant and delivered the child which child was thereafter trafficked within hardly 20 days of his birth and was recovered from the possession of Beena (discharged accused). Convicts Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma are all a part of the chain which connects ultimately to the recovery of the child from the possession of Beena. If the prosecutrix 'S' was united with her newly born child, it was only on account of the exposé (i.e. to bringing a scandal, crime etc, to public notice) conducted by young Reporters of CNN IBN News Channel wherein this scandal/ crime of sale/ trafficking of newly born children of unwed mothers belonging to poor families in violation of existing statutory norms was brought to public notice. Sting Journalism has its own risk and in the Courts of Law the evidence so connected with the operation/ exposé has to be carefully scrutinized and analyzed just as any other piece of evidence and only after it has been found to be authentic and credible can it be relied upon. In the present case, the witnesses who had actually participated in the Sting Operation have deposed in the Court and corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' and it is this which has assisted this court in arriving at the St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 128 of 133 truth or else in cases of trafficking the evidence is most of the times hard to get.
Coming first to the convict Man Mohan. The only mitigating factor is that the convict is a young man having a family and has no previous involvement. The aggravating factors are that he had exploited the poor prosecutrix 'S' a young girl of tender and impressionable age, by taking advantage of her social background and financial insecurities. First he sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and thereafter threatened her not to disclose the offence to anybody. As if this was not enough, he after having come to know that a child had been born to the prosecutrix on account of his shameful act, continued to plead his innocence and even disowned the child after its birth and also during trial despite the DNA Finger Printing Report conclusively establishing him to be the father of the child. Man Mohan is lease repentant of his act. After being booked in the present case when he was released on bail, he has now got married to some other lady from whom he has fathered a baby child. It is this conduct of the convict Man Mohan which is highly condemnable and unpardonable for which he deserves no mercy. I hereby award the following sentence to the convict Man Mohan:
1. For the offence under Section 342 IPC the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year.
2. For the offence under Section 376 IPC the convict is sentenced to St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 129 of 133 Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten years and fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One lac). In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months. The entire fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rs. One lac) if recovered, shall be given to the prosecutrix 'S' as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. for using the said amount for welfare of the child 'H' fathered by the convict.
3. For the offence under Section 506 IPC the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
In so far as the convicts Vinod, Preeti and Santosh Sharma are concerned, I award the following sentence to them:
1. For the offence under Section 363 read with 365 IPC the convicts are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three years each and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/ each. In default of payment of fine the convicts shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days each.
Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial, as per rules.
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 130 of 133 Coming now to the aspect of compensation to the victim. During the course of arguments on sentence, this Court had directed the prosecution to place on record the details of the rehabilitation package given to the prosecutrix 'S' by the government. Pursuant to the aforesaid this Court has been informed by the Investigating Officer that with the intervention of the Social Welfare Department the prosecutrix 'S' is presently employed as House Aunty in Bal Niketan, Nirmal Chaya Complex and is withdrawing a salary of Rs.6,422/ per month and is also studying there. The Investigating Officer has however clarified that this is a temporary job and the prosecutrix 'S' can be removed from there without any notice. Further, the child 'H' has been admitted in Village Cottage Home, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi since 17.5.2012. This court is further informed that no compensation has been given to the prosecutrix 'S' or her child 'H' by the GNCT of Delhi.
In the present case the prosecutrix 'S' was a migrant domestic worker and was raped at the time when she was on employment through a placement agency pursuant to which incident she had conceived and given birth to a child 'H' which child was subjected to trafficking. It is in cases like these which the Ministry of Women and Child development needs to target for Restorative Justice so that necessary support is provided to the victim. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again observed that the subordinate Courts trying the offences of sexual assault have the jurisdiction to award the compensation to the victims being an St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 131 of 133 offence against the basic human right and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been so observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmed and Justice Kuldip Singh (Ref: Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs. Subhra Chakraborty reported in AIR 1996 SC 922) that the jurisdiction to pay compensation (interim and final) has to be treated to be a part of the over all jurisdiction of the Courts trying the offences of rape which is an offence against basic human rights as also the Fundamental Rights of Personal Liberty and Life.
Therefore in order to provide Restorative and Compensatory Justice to the victim i.e. prosecutrix 'S' and her child 'H' who require rehabilitation, I hereby direct the GNCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary (Home) to grant a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rs. Two Lacs) to the victim 'S' D/o Sh. Maan Singh presently residing at Bal Niketan, Nirmal Chaya Complex, Jail Road, Delhi out of which Rs. One lac shall be released in the name of the prosecutrix 'S' and the remaining amount of Rs. One Lac in the name of her child 'H'. The said amount shall be used for her welfare and rehabilitation of both the mother and the child under the supervision of Welfare Officer so nominated by the Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Women and Child Development [Ref.: Hari Kishan & State of Haryana Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 and Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs. Subhra Chakraborty reported in AIR 1996 SC 922].
St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 132 of 133 A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi; Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi; Principal Secretary (Social Welfare), GNCT of Delhi and Director, Department of Social Welfare (Women and Child Development), GNCT of Delhi for information and necessary action under intimation to this Court.
The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and another be attached along with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 30.11.2012 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI St. Vs. Man Mohan Etc., FIR No. 925/07, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 133 of 133