Delhi District Court
State vs . Munni Etc. on 21 July, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 67/13)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0313752009
State Vs. Munni Etc.
FIR No. : 550/2008
U/s : 376/366A/372/373/109/323/34 IPC
P.S. : Rohini
State Vs. (1) Munni
w/o Sh. Yamin
r/o Nayi Ulla Road,
Basti Near City Railway Station,
P.S. Wazir Ganj, Kotwali,
Lucknow, UP.
(2) Nashrat @ Najrat
(since P.O.)
R/o New Para colony,
Rajaji Puram, Near Swarnim Public School,
PS Talkatora, Lucknow, UP
(3) Jane Jahan
(Since P.O.)
R/o New Para colony,
Rajaji Puram, Near Swarnim Public School,
PS Talkatora, Lucknow, UP
(4) Rishu @ Virender
S/o Late Vijender Lawrence,
r/o 194/19, Moti Masjid, Gola Ganj,
Lucknow, UP.
SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 1 of 28
2
( 5) Abdul Alim Mondal @ Sagar @ Babloo
(since P.O.)
r/o AA17, Har Govind Vihar,
IInd Floor, Sector - 4,
Rohini.
Permanent Address :
Village Chhota Byas Pur, Gazi Pada
Gram Panchayat Nairan, PS Mographat,
Distt. 24 Pargana, West Bengal
(6) Arjina @ Kumkum (since JCL)
W/o Sagar Mandal @ Babloo
r/o AA17, Har Govind Vihar,
IInd Floor, Sector - 4,
Rohini.
Permanent Address :
Subhash Gram Patwa,
P.S. Sunar Pur, Kolkata,
West Bengal.
Date of institution of case 25.10.2008
Date on which, case received by way of transfer in this court : 24.05.2013
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 21.07.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 21.07.2014
JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stated that the case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix is a victim of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. The information about this case was SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 2 of 28 3 passed on to the police by PW16 Smt. Manju Snehlata Hembrom, then Member, National Commission from Women, in whose protection the victim R was taken by an NGO. On inquiry, the victim R gave her statement Ex. PW1/A, wherein, she stated that she was residing in a jhuggie, near water tank, near City Railway Station, Lucknow , with her mother and brother and that about one month ago, her mother had brought her to Delhi and got her employed as a maid servant, with one Rajesh, whom her mother knew from before. Said Rajesh took R to Kota, Rajasthan and she worked at his house for about 15 days, after which, Rajesh again brought her to Delhi and left her with his friend Sagar for household work as Sagar's wife Kumkum @ Arjina was in family way. The victim R started working at the house of Sagar and Arjina @ Kumkum, however after about 10 days, Sagar made indecent proposal to victim R, who turned the same down. When, Arjina @ Kumkum was told about it by victim R, she (victim R) was threatened by Arjina @ Kumkum to abide by the wishes of her husband Sagar. Thereafter, said Sagar committed rape upon victim R, on more than one occasion, with the active abetment of his wife Arjina @ Kumkum. On 27.08.2008, when victim R was sent to fetch milk from the market, she managed to escape from the clutches of Sagar and Arjina @ Kumkum by taking help from a TSR driver, who took her to National Commission for Women.
On the basis of statement Ex. PW1/A, a case u/s 376/109/34 IPC was registered against accused Sagar and Arjina @ Kumkum (since juvenile) at PS Rohini. Investigations of the case were commenced. The victim was got medically examined at BSA hospital and the exhibits taken from her by the concerned doctor were seized by the IO. The IO also prepared the site plan of the place of incident at the pointing out of the victim and arrested Arjina @ Kumkum (since juvenile). The said Arjija @ Kumkum SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 3 of 28 4 was taken on PC remand by the IO. Efforts were made to search for her husband Abdul Alim Mondar @ Sagar @ Bablu, but without any results.
On 05.09.2008, IO got recorded the statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C, wherein she gave a different version of the incident claiming that her mother had left her father due to ill treatment and that her father had remarried her maternal aunt (Mami), who too passed away and that thereafter, her chacha Nazart handed her over to Munni and Rishu in presence of her chachi (name of chachi was not mentioned). Said Munni and Rishu told victim R that they were like her parents and brought her to Delhi, where they sold her to Rajesh, who in turn sold her to Kumkum, whose husband raped her thrice. The victim R stated that she wanted to return back to her house, but only to the house of maternal uncle (mama) with whom, her elder brother was already residing and not to the house of her father.
Pursuant to the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C made by victim R, investigations were commenced against the accused Munni, Rishu, Rajesh, Nasrat and Janejahan. The IO also recorded the supplementary statement dated 11.09.2008 of victim R, wherein she clarified that she had inadvertently mentioned in her complaint that her father had expired and that her father was very much alive. She gave name of her father as Yusuf. She also reiterated that her mother had left her father, due to ill treatment. She further stated that about two months ago, her chacha Nasrat @ Nazrat and chachi Janejahan had enticed her to go with them and that they sold her to Munni and Rishu, who were living near City Railway Station, Lucknow , for prostitution. She further stated that Rishu assured her that he was like her father (munhbola baap) and Munni and Rishu tried to force her into prostitution, for which, she (victim R) refused and after about 15 days, Munni and Rishu brought her to Railway Station, Delhi and SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 4 of 28 5 sold her to persons named Vinod and Rajesh. Out of the said two persons, accused Rajesh brought her to Delhi, took her photographs and went away. He returned back after about 15 days and sold her to Kumkum and Sagar. The victim alleged that her chacha Nasrat @ Nazrat, her chachi Janejahan, Munni, Rishu, Vinod, Rajesh, Kumkum and Rajesh had sold her repeatedly for the purposes of prostitution and prayed that action be taken against said persons.
Two other supplementary statements of the victim R were also recorded by the IO, which are dated 29.08.2008 and 20.09.2008 respectively. The statement of the victim dated 29.08.2008 is qua her own medical examination and arrest of accused Kumkum @ Arjina, since juvenile, while her supplementary statement dated 20.09.2008 is qua arrest of accused Munni. In the said statement, victim reiterated that Munni was the same lady, who had brought her to Delhi and sold her to Vinod and Rajesh.
During the course of investigations, the exhibits of the case were got sent to FSL. The IO also made efforts to search for accused Nasrat, Janejahan, Abdul Mondar @ Sagar, Rajesh, Rishu and Vinod, but could not trace them out and hence, proceedings to have them declared as proclaimed offenders, were initiated and charge sheet qua accused Munni and Arjina @ Kumkum (since juvenile) was filed in the court.
2. Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charges for the offence under Sections 373/323/376 IPC r/w Section 109 IPC was framed against accused Arjina @ Kumkum and charge for the offence u/s. 366A/373/372 IPC was framed against accused Munni, however, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the matter was listed for P.E. SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 5 of 28 6 In the meantime, accused Rishu was also arrested and his supplementary charge sheet was filed in the court on 16.07.2010. Charges for the offence u/s. 366 A/373/372/34 were framed against the accused Rishu @ Virender, however, he too pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. While the matter was at the stage of P.E and PW1 to PW4 stood examined, communication no. 95299569/Genl.1/Rohini/2012 dated 16.04.2012, was received, pursuant to which, a separate charge sheet in respect of accused Arjina @ Kumkum was prepared and she was sent for age inquiry and further inquiry, before concerned J.J.B. The subsequent proceedings in respect of juvenile Arjina @ Kumkum were conducted by concerned JJB.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses.
5. The PW1, Dr. N.K. Singh, was working as CMO on 28.08.2008 and he deposed that on that day, patient - victim child R was examined by him vide MLC Ex.PW1/A (hereinafter referred to as Ex. PW1/AA, since the complaint made by prosecutrix/victim has also been inadvertently exhibited as Ex. PW1/A) and that he referred patient to SR gyne for further examination.
6. The PW2, Sh. Jasbir Singh, deposed that in the month of July, 2008, he rented his house bearing no. AA17, situated at Hargovinder Vihar, Sector4, Rohini, to Sagar, husband of Kumkum (since JCL), at a monthly rent of Rs.2500/ and that no SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 6 of 28 7 rent agreement could be executed, since no proof of identity was given by said Sagar and Kumkum to him (PW2), despite repeated requests. He then deposed that after few days, Sagar and Kumkum (since JCL) left for Bengal and returned back after about 15 to 20 days to the rented premises and that later on, he (PW2) was called by the police to the PS, where he found Kumkum (since JCL) along with one girl 'Rekha' and that said 'Rekha' was residing in the rented premises with Kumkum, for doing work as maid servant.
7. The PW3, Dr. Rashmi Khatri, Specialist Gynae, was deputed in place of Dr. Pulkit, who had examined the victim child R vide MLC Ex.PW1/A. She deposed that as per the observations given by Dr. Pulkit on MLC Ex. PW1/AA, the hymen of victim R was found torn (old). The PW3 identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Pulkit on the MLC of victim child R.
8. The PW4, R is the victim child in the present case. Her testimony shall be discussed at length in the following paragraphs.
9. The PW5, Dr. A.K. Dewan, was the chairman of the medical board constituted for determination of the age of the victim R. He proved the report of the Medical Board as as Ex.PW5/A and the photocopies of the relevant Xrays as Ex.PW5/B (colly) and stated that estimated age of the victim R was found to be more than 14 years and less than 16 years as on the date of examination.
During his crossexamination, the PW5 deposed that whenever a patient was produced before them in the hospital, the parentage was required to be mentioned SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 7 of 28 8 in the particulars asked for on the documents i.e. the medical form, but in the present case, the name of the father / parents of the patient / victim was not mentioned.
10. The PW6, ASI Kuldeep Raj, was posted as duty officer at PS Rohini at the relevant time. He proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW6/A.
11. The PW7, W/HC Usha Rani, had joined the investigations of the present case with IO SI Mahavir Singh and deposed that she had taken the victim to BSA Hospital for her medical examination and after her medical examination, the concerned doctor had handed over the sealed pullanda, containing exhibits taken from victim, which she further handed over to IO. who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. The PW7 then deposed that on the same day, she went with the IO SI Mahavir Singh and victim R to the spot i.e. Sector4, Har Govind Vihar, Rohini, where, the IO prepared site plan at the instance of victim. The PW7 further deposed that thereafter, the statement of victim child R was recorded by the IO, who made endorsement thereupon and handed it over to Ct. Jaswant Singh for registration of case FIR. The PW7 further deposed that the IO searched for the accused persons and at the instance of victim, Arjina @ Kumkum (since JCL) was apprehended from her house and after interrogation, she was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and that her personal search was also conducted by PW7 and that thereafter IO prepared personal search memo Ex.PW7/B and that disclosure statement of Arjina was also recorded vide Ex.PW7/C. During the crossexamination, the PW7 deposed that she had taken the victim for her medical examination at about 12:45 AM on 30.08.2008 and that the SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 8 of 28 9 concerned doctor has asked from the victim about her father's name, who disclosed the same as Yusuf along with the alleged history.
12. The PW8, Yusuf, is the father of the victim child R. He deposed that in the year 2008, he was residing at new Para Colony, Rajaji Puram, near Swarnim Public School, PS Tal Katora, Lucknow , UP with his children Aslam, Reshma, Sahiba and Sehrool and that his wife had already expired. He then stated that his daughter R used to reside in village Than Gaon, in the house of her grandmother (mother of PW8) and that when he visited house of his mother (mother of PW8), after two months from the day, victim R started residing with his mother, he found that R was not at the said house and that on inquiry, PW8 was told by his mother, that Nasrat and Janejahan, brother and bhabhi in relation, respectively, of PW8 had taken R with them on the pretext of getting her treated for her ailment. The PW8 further deposed that at that time, victim R was aged about 14/15 years and that he did not allow his brother Nasrat and bhabhi Janejahan to visit his house as they were not having good habits. The PW8 then deposed that his daughter/victim R did not return back and that he searched for her for 2/3 months and thereafter, he settled down calmly in his house. He also deposed that about four months later, he met accused Nasrat and his wife/accused Janejahan and that he inquired about victim R from them and was assured by them that they would bring back R to PW8, however, both Nasrat and Janejahan absconded thereafter.
During the crossexamination of PW8, it was brought out that he had not disclosed in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C i.e. Ex. PW8/DA about the factum of victim R residing at Village Khan Gaon with her grandmother (mother of PW8) and about his visiting said village and finding victim R missing from there and being told by his mother SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 9 of 28 10 that victim R had been taken by Nasrat and Janejahan for her treatment. The PW8 admitted that he had not lodged any complaint in writing regarding missing of his daughter. He also termed it correct that his younger daughter Shahinoor, was involved in a trafficking case. He volunteered to state that her case had been decided in Lok adalat, after she confessed of her crime and that she was not a good girl.
13. The PW9, Ms. Rekha, the then learned MM, had conducted the proceedings u/s.164 CrPC and proved the same as Ex.PW1/B and Ex. PW9/A i.e. statement of victim child u/s.164 CrPC as Ex.PW1/B ; the application for supply of copy of said statement, filed by IO, as Ex. PW9/A.
14. The PW10, HC Geeta, had joined the investigation of the present case with IO SI Mahavir during the arrest of accused Munni and deposed regarding the same. She proved the personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Munni as Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B respectively.
15. The PW11, Ct. Jaswant, had joined the investigation of the case with IO SI Mahavir Singh and got the case FIR registered and deposed regarding the same.
16. The PW12, Inspr. Indira Vati Rathore, deposed that on 28.08.2008, an information was received from National Women Commission that one girl "R" had been brought by some social worker to them and that she (PW12) along with SI Mahavir Singh, I/C PP Vijay Vihar reached National Women Commission, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg where they met Smt. Manju Sneh Lata, who produced prosecutrix "R" before them SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 10 of 28 11 and that they made inquiry from "R" and brought her with them to PS. She further deposed that the victim "R" had pointed out at house no. AA17, 2 nd floor, Sector4, Hargovind Vihar, Delhi and stated that Kumkum and Sagar were residing there and that they met Kumkum there and returned back to Chowki.
17. The PW13, Ct. Dharam Pal, had joined the investigation of the case with HC Rajesh during the arrest of accused Rishu @ Virender. He deposed that on 04.02.2010 HC Rajesh received a secret information that accused Rishu @ Virender, could be apprehended / arrested from Lucknow and that after taking permission from senior officials, PW13 along with HC Rajesh and Ct. Subhash reached Lucknow and apprehended accused Rishu @ Virender from Chowk Choraha, Kamla Nehru Park at the instance of secret informer and thereafter interrogated and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/B.
18. The PW14, SI Anwar Khan, is the part investigating officer of the case. He deposed that on 05.02.2010 information was received from PS Vijay Vihar that accused Rishu @ Virender had been arrested by HC Rajesh and had been sent to JC. He further deposed that since the main challan against the other accused had already been filed in the Court, so he obtained the certified copy of the main challan and moved the application for issuance of the production warrant of accused Rishu @ Virender. He further deposed about the arrest of the accused Rishu @ Virender, vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A and about recording of the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW14/B. He further deposed about filing of supplementary charge sheet qua SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 11 of 28 12 accused Rishu @ Virender in the Court.
19. The PW15, SI Abhinav Pratap Singh, deposed that on 20.04.2008, he along with SI Mahavir Singh and L/Ct. Gita, Ct. Dilbagh, Ct. Surya Nath and victim R reached at Nabiulla Road, Bans Mandi, near City Railway Station, Lucknow, where "R" pointed towards a house stating that the said house belonged to accused Munni. He then deposed that they went inside the house and from there, at the instance of victim R, apprehended accused Munni and that at that time, victim told them that Munni was the same lady, who had sold her (victim R) to Rajesh and Vinod in Delhi. He further deposed that accused Munni was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and that her personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/A.
20. The PW16, Smt. Manju Snehlata Hembrom, deposed that on 28.08.2008 one social worker had brought a minor girl, aged about 14 - 15 years before her and that she made inquiries from the girl, who told PW16 that she was raped by one person at the instance of his wife, but she (PW16) did not recollect the name of either the husband or his wife being the matter of 5/6 years back. She then deposed that she telephonically informed the SHO of concerned PS and that the SHO and one IO from the said PS came in her office and after inquiry from the girl, they took her along with them for further action.
21. The PW17, SI Mahabir Singh, is the main investigating officer of the case. He deposed that on 28.08.08, PW12 Inspector Indrawati received an information regarding a girl from National Women Commission and that after receiving the said SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 12 of 28 13 information, PW12 called him at PS and took him to National Women Commission where they met Smt. Manju Snehlata Hembrom, member of NCW, who produced one girl i.e, the prosecutrix before them and Inspector Indrawati made inquires from the prosecutrix, who told that she was subjected to sexual assault by one Sagar (since PO) at the instance of his wife Kumkum (since JCL.). The PW17 then deposed that thereafter, they brought the prosecutrix with them and she identified the spot i.e. at AA17, second floor, Hargovind Vihar, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi, where the incident of rape with her took place and that thereafter she was taken to PP Vijay Vihar, where her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. The PW17 further deposed that thereafter the prosecutrix was taken to BSA hospital along with HC Usha Rani for her medical examination and that after her medical examination, they came back at PP where he (PW17) prepared rukka Ex.PW17/A on the intervening night of 2829.08.08 and handed it over to Ct. Jaswant for getting the case registered and that Ct. Jaswant went to the PS and got the case registered vide FIR No. 550/08 and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to PW17. He further deposed that HC Usha Rani produced one sealed pullanda with one sample seal and it were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW17/B. The PW17 further deposed that thereafter he along with prosecutrix and the staff went to the spot, where he prepared site plan Ex.PW17/C at the instance of prosecutrix. The PW17 then deposed about arrest of accused Arjina @ Kumkum (since JCL) and proved her arrest memo as Ex.PW1/C ; her personal search as Ex. PW1/B and her disclosure statement as Ex.PW7/C. He further deposed that thereafter accused was remanded to JC, while the prosecutrix was sent to Nari Niketan as an application was moved by him for recording her statement U/s 164 Cr.PC., which SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 13 of 28 14 was adjourned for 03.09.08.
He further deposed that on 01.09.08 he along with W/Ct. Geeta and the accused Kumkum (since JCL) reached at District 24, Pargana, South Kolkata and from there they went to village choto Byaspur Gazi, Gram Panchayat Nainai to the house of Abdul Jalil Mondal, father of Abdul Alim Mondal @ Sagar Mondal @ Bablu (since P.O.) and that from the said house, one photograph of accused Kumkum and Sagar Mondal Ex.PX and one election Icard Ex.PX1 of Abdul Alim Mondal were recovered at the instance of accused Kumkum and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that he got recorded statement of the prosecutrix Ex.PW1/B U/s 164 Cr.PC by moving application Ex.PW17/E and that he also obtained the copy of the statement U/s 164 Cr.PC vide application Ex.PW9/A. He further deposed that on 20.09.08, he along with prosecutrix and staff including lady Ct. Geeta went to Lucknow, UP, where they went to different places at the instance of prosecutrix, to trace her house as she was not in a position to point out her house due to immaturity and nervousness and also because she was illiterate and that after making great efforts, they reached the house of father of prosecutrix at New Para Colony and that he (PW17) informed the father of prosecutrix to get her released from Nari Niketan, Delhi, and that thereafter they went to PS Wazir Ganj Kotwali, Lucknow, and met SI Abhinav Pratap Singh, ICPP River Bank and in his presence accused Munni was arrested, at the instance of the prosecutrix, vide her arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and that the personal search of accused Munni was conducted by Ct. Geeta vide memo Ex.PW10/A and that he recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW10/B of accused Munni as per her narration. He further deposed that after completion of proceeding at Lucknow they came back Delhi and he got the bone age estimation test SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 14 of 28 15 of the prosecutrix got conducted vide order of the court on his application Ex.PW17/F and that the bone age test of the prosecutrix was conducted at BSA hospital vide report Ex.PW5/A & Ex.PZ. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses and also got initiated PO proceedings against the absconding accused persons and thereafter, charge sheet was filed against Kumkum and accused Munni in the court through SHO concerned and that Kumkum was found juvenile and was sent to JJB.
He further deposed that accused Rishu @ Virender was arrested by HC Rajesh of PS Vijay Vihar in a kalandara case vide his arrest memo Ex.PW13/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/B. He also proved kalandra prepared by HC Rajesh vide Ex.PW17/G by identifying handwriting and signatures of HC Rajesh.
During the crossexamination, the PW17 deposed that prosecutrix stated the name of her father as Rishu in her first statement and that later on she changed the name of her father in her later statement as Yusuf and that no other name was disclosed except these two names by the prosecutrix in her subsequent statements. He denied that prosecutrix did not name any other person except Kumkum & Sagar in her statement. He further deposed that the prosecutrix had named accused Rishu in her statement U/s 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate. He admitted that prosecutrix had never disclosed at any stage at any point of time that accused Rishu had committed rape upon her. He further deposed that he made enquiry from the victim as to for how much amount she was sold to accused Munni by her chacha and chachi, but victim could not tell the same to him and that he had enquired about the background of victim's family, but he did not come to know if any case of ITP Act was registered against the sister of prosecutrix. The PW17 denied that since he did not conduct SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 15 of 28 16 proper and fair investigation and that he was not aware of the said case. He also denied that the prosecutrix and her sister were indulging in extortion of money from innocent persons by falsely implicating them in various false cases. He further denied that the prosecutrix was tenant of the accused Munni or that there was a quarrel between them on account of non payment of rent.
22. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Munni and Rishu were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Munni further stated that the prosecutrix was a tenant in her house and that there was a dispute between them regarding nonpayment of rent of 2/3 months @ Rs. 500/ per month and that the rent was to be paid by Sh. Nasrat (uncle) and Smt. Jane Jahan (Aunt) of the prosecutrix. She further deposed that prosecutrix filed the present case against her at the instance of her uncle and aunt, when disputes arose between them, due to nonpayment of rent. Accused Rishu further confirmed that the prosecutrix was a tenant in the house of Munni and there was a dispute between Munni and the prosecutrix regarding nonpayment of the rent of 2/3 months @ Rs. 500/ per month and that when he intervened in the said matter, he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused Munni wished to lead evidence in her defence and examined herself as DW1 u/s 315 Cr.P.C.
23. The DW1/accused Munni deposed that Nashrat and Jane Jahan were her tenants and that prosecutrix R was their niece (bhatiji) and that all the three of them were residing in a room of her house at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/. She further SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 16 of 28 17 deposed that Nashrat and Jane Jahan gave rent for two/three months only and thereafter, they stopped paying rent and that whenever, she asked them to pay the rent, they used to quarrel with her, in the presence of mohalla people. She further stated that one day, they all left suddenly without informing her and without paying the due rent of about three months and that thereafter, she made efforts to search the said tenants, but all in vain and that after 4/5 months, police officials from Delhi, visited her at her house and took her to Delhi and that at that time, she came to know about the present case against her. She further deposed that in the PS, her signatures were forcibly obtained by the police on some blank papers and that she was falsely implicated in the present case by Nashrat and Jane Jahan, on account of quarrel due to nonpayment of rent.
During her crossexamination by learned Addl. PP, the witness showed her lack of knowledge about the date, month and year, from when the tenancy of Nashrat and Jane Jahan started in her house. She further stated that the house, where she was residing at Lucknow, was constructed on a land of Nazul (Waqf Board) and that there was no rent agreement executed between her (DW1) and Smt. Nashrat for her tenancy. She further stated that she did not lodge any complaint with the police about the quarrel and about nonpayment of rent by Nashart and that she did not get the verification of Nashrat done before giving him a room on rent and that she herself had inducted him as a tenant as his daughter was very ill and was weeping, when they came to her (DW1's) house. She further stated that she was not related to Nashrat and Jahe Jahan and that the prosecutrix R had also left her tenanted room with Nashrat and Jane Jahan. The witness termed it correct that prosecutrix R was very weak and sick at that time and was . well versed of the house hold work. She further stated that SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 17 of 28 18 Nushrat and Jane Jahan came at her house as tenant about 5/6 months prior to the registration of the present case, and that they did not bring any house hold articles with them, when they came to her house to live as tenant. The witness volunteered to state that there was only one bag (jholla) on the shoulder of Nashrat.
24. Arguments have been addressed by learned defence counsel for accused Munni and learned amicus curie for the accused Rishu as well as learned Additional PP for the State.
25. Learned Additional PP has contended that prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution and that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by examining the material witnesses namely prosecutrix R and other witnesses. It is stated that in view of the testimony of the prosecutrix no other evidence is required and has accordingly prayed that accused Munni and Rishu be convicted for the charged offences.
26. On the other hand, learned defence counsel for accused Munni and ld. Amicus Curie for accused Rishu, have contended that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and that there are serious lacunas and loopholes in the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that there are material contradiction in the statements made by the victim i.e u/s 161 Cr.P.C, u/s 164 Cr.P.C and the statement made by her before the court, which makes her testimony highly unbelievable and no reliance can be placed on her testimony. It is thus contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 18 of 28 19 reasonable doubt and it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of charged offences.
27. I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Addl. PP as well as learned Amicus Curie for the accused Rishu and learned counsel for accused Munni and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case.
28. In the present case, accused Munni and Rishu are alleged to have procured victim R, a minor aged about 14/15 years from their coaccused Nusrat and Janejahan, (both P.O.s), for consideration with intention that victim R be employed or used for the purposes of prostitution. It is also alleged that with this intent, they induced victim R to accompany them from Luknow to Delhi, knowing that the said victim R would be forced or seduced to have illicit intercourse and further passed on victim R to their associates/coaccused Rajesh and Vinod, for consideration.
29. In order to prove that victim R was a minor less than 16 years of age as on the date of commission of offence, the prosecution has relied upon the report Ex. PW5/A dated 12.09.2008 given by Medical Board, wherein the estimated age of the victim has been opined to be between more than 14 years and less than 16 years as on the date of examination. The matter was reported to the police on 29.08.2008 and in her complaint, victim R stated that she had been handed over to accused Sagar and his wife Kumkum (since juvenile) about 15 days prior to reporting of the matter to the police. The victim was examined within 15 days of the reporting the matter to the police. No SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 19 of 28 20 manipulation and / or addition / alteration has been pointed out in the report of Medical Board so as to create doubt regarding the opinion given qua the estimated age of the prosecutrix. Thus the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age as on the date of reporting of the matter to the police and as on the date of the commission of offence.
30. The next issue, which arises for consideration is whether, both accused Munni and Rishu were involved in trafficking the prosecutrix R for purposes of prostitution or not. The only material witness examined by the prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused Munni and Rishu, is the prosecutrix R, who was examined as PW4. In the relevant portion of her testimony as PW4, before the court, the prosecutrix deposed as under : "..... In the year, 2008 I was living with my grand mother and grand father at Thana, Thangaon in UP. From there about three years back my uncle (chacha) Nasrat and my aunt (chachi) Jane Jahan had brought me to Lucknow for touring purpose but had brought me to the house of Munni which was near to City Station, Lucknow and after taking money from Munni they left me with Munni and then my uncle and aunt left. In the house of Munni, besides Munni Rishu was also living. When my uncle and aunt had left the house of Munni they had not told me that they had taken money from Munni. Munni kept me in her house for about two months and during the said period Munni used to get me done all the house hold work of sweeping, cleaning of utensils and had also assured that she will get my treatment (Ilaj) done SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 20 of 28 21 as I was weak and sick. Thereafter Munni brought me to Delhi at the house of Rajesh and after taking money from Rajesh Munni left me there and went away. I stayed at the house of Rajesh for about two months and there I was forced to indulge in prostitution (dhanda karwate thai). Rajesh after keeping me for about two months in her house thereafter, he sold me to one Sagar and Kumkum and then Rajesh went away. Both Sagar and Kumkum were husband and wife. Sagar committed galat kam/ganda kam with me and his wife Kumkum had pressed my mouth. Ganda kam I mean that Sagar had opened the nara (cord) of my salvar and did the same act which is being done between husband and wife. At that time when I raised an alarm my mouth was pressed by Kumkum. I had stayed for about a week at the house of Sagar and Kumkum in total. On the next morning I had come out from their (Sagar and Kumkum) house for the purpose of bringing the milk and when I had come on the road where I met one taxi uncle. Taxi uncle I mean, who used to drive the tempo having half green and half yellow colour and used for ferrying the passengers. The taxi uncle took me to his house. In the house of taxi uncle one lady who used to teach the children came there, who telephoned one Mahila aunti. Mahila Aunti I mean who hears the grievances of the women. Mahila aunti made inquiries from me and thereafter she telephoned the police. Then police arrived there and I was accompanied the police and was taken to the police station. Police also made inquiries from me and then I was got medically examined by the police. At the time of my SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 21 of 28 22 medical examination doctor had also taken into possession my wearing clothes. My statement was also recorded by the police. ....." The witness identified her thumb impression on the said statement Ex. PW1/A made to the police and also on the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC as Ex.PW1/B. The witness further stated that she did not have her date of birth certificate and was unable to produce the same.
In reply to a leading question put by learned Addl. PP, the witness termed it correct that the tempo driver had taken her to the ladies of a commission. (National Commission from Women)
31. The complaint dated 29.08.2008 made by the prosecutrix i.e. Ex. PW1/A as well as her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C dated 05.09.2008 i.e. Ex. PW1/B, have already been reproduced at length hereinabove.
32. From the three statements made by the prosecutrix i.e. her complaint Ex. PW1/A, her complaint Ex. PW1/B and her testimony before the court as Ex. PW4, it is seen that prosecutrix has made material improvements and contradictions in each of her statements. In the first instance, there is considerable variations in the name of her father. In the complaint, the prosecutrix has mentioned name of her father as late Rishu, whereas in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, she has mentioned the name of her father as "Isup". In her supplementary statement dated 11.09.2008, the prosecutrix claims that name of her father is Yusuf and that she had mentioned in her complaint that her father had already expired and that his name was Rishu, as accused Rishu SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 22 of 28 23 used to tell her that he was just like her father and that as accused Kumkum (since juvenile) had told her (PW4/victim) that her father had expired, she aped the same. In her testimony as PW4, the victim states that name of her father is Mohd. Ishub. A specific question was put to prosecutrix during her crossexamination regarding name of her father and in response to the question, PW4 stated that she had only one father, whose name was Mohd. Ishub. The prosecution has produced one PW8 Yusuf as the father of the prosecutrix R, however, the discrepancy in the name of the father of the victim R does not stand clarified. Rather, the testimony of PW5 Dr. A.K. Diwan, member of the Medical Board reveals that even when, prosecutrix R appeared before the medical board for determination of her age, she did not give name of her father/parents. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why victim R wanted to conceal her correct parentage and create pseudo identity for herself and this by itself makes the court tread cautiously in relying upon her testimony.
33. Further, the manner in which, the prosecutrix introduced the name of accused Munni and Rishu also does not explained in the present case. In her complaint Ex. PW1/A, the victim R has neither named accused Munni or Rishu and claims that she was handed over to one Rajesh by her mother for household work and that said Rajesh got her employed with one Sagar, whose wife Kumkum was in family way and while, she was staying at the house of Kumkum and Sagar, she was raped by Sagar on more than one occasion, with the active connivance and involvement of his wife Kumkum.
34. In her subsequent statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C i.e. Ex. PW1/B, recorded on SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 23 of 28 24 05.09.2008, the victim claims that her real mother had left her father because of ill treatment and that her father remarried wife of her maternal uncle and that said wife eventually expired. She further stated that she had been handed over to Munni and Rishu by her chacha Nasrat and chachi (not named) and that Munni and Rishu told prosecutrix that they were just like her mother and father and thereafter, they brought her to Delhi, where they sold her to one Rajesh, who in turn sold her to Kumkum and that said Kumkum, got victim R raped by her husband thrice. In the said statement, the victim also stated categorically that she did not want to return back to her father's house.
35. It appears that the Investigating Officer made some efforts to seek clarifications from victim R by recording her supplementary statement dated 11.09.2008 (now marked as Mark PX for easy reference). In the said supplementary statement, the victim R claimed to have been enticed away by her chacha Nasrat @ Nazrat and chachi Jane Jahan about two months prior to the reporting of the matter to the police. She also claimed that her chacha Nasrat and chachi Jane Jahan had sold her for prostitution to Munni and Rishu and that Rishu became father like to her and that is why, she mentioned her father's name as Rishu in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. She also claimed that Rishu and Munni had influenced her to do some wrong acts, but she did not accede to their persuasions and that after 15 days, Munni and Rishu brought her to Delhi, where they handed her over to Vinod and Rajesh and that after about 15 days, Rajesh sold her to Kumkum and Sagar. Thus, in her supplementary statement mark PX, victim R tried to make out a graver role qua accused Munni and Rishu. She also introduced another accused Vinod. This gradual improvement in the version/statement made by SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 24 of 28 25 the prosecutrix does not stand explained at all.
36. In her testimony as PW4, the victim R does not state anything against accused Rishu, save and except that he was living with Munni. She also claimed that she had been brought to Luknow by her chacha Nasrat and chachi Jane Jahan for touring purpose, but was sold to Munni. The prosecutrix R could not give details of the alleged monetary transaction and claims that she was told about it by accused Munni. She however, could not elaborate why accused Munni had divulged such information to her. Further, the only allegations made by victim R against accused Munni, is that during her stay with Munni, accused Munni used to get her household work of sweeping and cleaning of utensils done from her and had promised to get victim R treated as she was weak and sick. The victim R then stated that Munni brought her to Delhi to the house of Rajesh, took money from him and left her. She again does not clarify about the quantum of monetary transactions or date thereof, or about the source from which, she came to know that she got information that there had been some kind of monetary transaction. The victim does not mention anything about Vinod, whose name she mentioned in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C i.e. Ex. PW1/B and her supplementary statement dated 11.09.2008 mark PX, in her testimony before the court.
37. The prosecutrix further stated that accused Rajesh kept her with him for two months and during that period, he forced her to indulge in prostitution and thereafter he sold her to Sagar and Kumkum. Surprisingly, the victim claims that Kumkum wife of accused Sagar, was an active participant in the act(s) of rape committed upon her by accused Sagar, which is quite unlikely. It is difficult to believe that a wife, who is SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 25 of 28 26 expecting a child, would encourage her husband let alone actively participate in sexual exploits by him. The manner of escape of prosecutrix from the house of accused Sagar and Kumkum is also fictional as victim claims that she managed to escape, when she was sent to fetch milk in the morning. If victim was going to fetch milk everyday and that too independently, then there is no explanation why she did not try to escape on an earlier occasion.
38. During her crossexamination, the victim termed it correct that till the time, she remained with accused Munni at her house, no galat kaam (wrong act) was committed with her. There is also contradictions in the manner, in which, victim R came to know that her uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan had taken money from accused Munni, since during her latter crossexamination, the victim states that she was told by accused Rajesh in Delhi about it.
39. Considering these contradictions in the testimony of victim R, it was desirable that there was some corroborations of her testimony by other witnesses. However, the testimony of PW8 Yusuf, alleged father of the victim creates further doubt about the prosecution case. In the first instance, the witness contradicts himself by stating that he was residing with his children Aslam, Reshma, Sahiba and Sahroor and that his wife had already expired. He then states that his daughter R used to residing in village Than Gaon, in the house of her grandmother, and that two months later (witness has not specified since when R was residing with his mother), when he went to visit his mother, he did not find R and was told that she had been taken by Nasrat, brother of PW8 and Jane Jahan, bhabhi in relation of PW8, who otherwise were not having good SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 26 of 28 27 habits. The PW8 has not clarified what he meant by Nasrat and Jane Jahan, "not having good habits". Surprisingly, no effort was made by PW8 Yusuf thereafter to lodge any complaint with the police for tracing out his missing daughter. Rather, he states that after searching for his daughter 2/3 months, he settled down calmly in his house. This conduct of PW8 Yusuf is against normal course of conduct of a father, whose minor daughter goes missing or is taken away by persons, whom he did not consider to be having "good habits". In fact, most of the facts, which have come out in testimony of PW8, do not find mention in his statement Ex. PW8/DA made to the police. In all the testimony of PW8 contradicts the testimony of PW4 victim R on several material points including the place, from where, she was taken away, if at all, by accused Nasrat and Jane Jahan and whether victim R was staying with her grandmother, mother of PW8 Yusuf, at that time.
40. Further, nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to show that any money exchanged hands between accused Munni and coaccused Nasrat and Jane Jahan and secondly between accused Munni and Rajesh. Admittedly, victim R has not witnessed any such exchange of money herself and her testimony in this regard is only hearsay as it is claimed to be based firstly on what was told to her by accused Munni and in the second instance by accused Rajesh. Even therein, there is contradiction, whether it was accused Munni or Rajesh, who told victim R about it. The prosecution is apparently relying upon only circumstantial evidence to allege that there was trafficking/sale of prosecutrix, however, the prosecution has miserably failed to link the chain of circumstantial evidence in this regard and the prosecutrix story is full of loopholes and contradictions and cannot be relied upon to draw a conclusion of SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 27 of 28 28 trafficking of the victim R by accused Munni and Rishu.
41. In the present case, I am of the considered opinion that testimony of prosecutrix is not reliable to draw conclusion of guilt of accused. I am supported in my view by judgment in a case cited as Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 14 SCC 534, wherein it has been held that : "The only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed."
42. Further, the testimony of other witnesses also does not correlate/support the testimony of the prosecutrix. The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused Munni and Rishu, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit both the accused Munni and Rishu, of the charged offence.
43. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat) (Today on 21.07.2014) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 28 of 28 29 FIR No. 09/2013 P.S. Bharat Nagar State Vs. Anil @ Kalu @ Thakur 21.02.2014 Present : Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC with counsel Sh. B.P. Singh, learned Amicus Curie.
Arguments heard.
Judgment shall be passed during the course of the day.
ASJ/NW01
Rohini/Delhi
21.02.2014
At 4:00 PM
Present: Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC with Amicus Curie.
Vide separate judgment announced today in the open Court, accused Anil @ Kalu @ Thakur has been convicted u/s. 341/363/354 IPC.
Be listed for arguments on the point of sentence on 22.02.2014.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 21.02.2014 SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 29 of 28 30 SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 30 of 28 31 XXXXX By Sh. S. B. Dinkar counsel for accused Munni.
I have not studied in any school. I cannot read and write Hindi. I am not aware as to whether any case under the immoral traffic act is pending in Lucknow court against my younger sister. Vol. only my father can tell about it. I am not aware that my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan were indulged in the immoral traffic activities. Vol. I had not seen them indulging in immoral activities. It is wrong to suggest that I was living on rent in the house of accused Munni. It is wrong to suggest that a quarrel had taken place between my uncle Nasrat, aunt Jane Jahan and accused Munni on the question of 'non payment of rent'. It is wrong to suggest that I was living in a jhopri belonging to accused Munni which was adjunct to the main house of accused Munni. It is wrong to suggest that the said jhopri was rented out to me by accused Munni. Vol. I was living as such (without rent) in the house of Munni. I had stated to the police in my statement that the money was paid by accused Munni to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan. (Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded).
Q For the first time when did you come to know that the accused Munni had paid money to your uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan?
Ans Accused Munni had herself told me.
I do not remember the date, month and year as to when Munni told me of giving money to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan. Munni had not told me SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 31 of 28 32 as to how much money she had paid to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan. Munni had not told me as to for what purpose money was paid by her to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan.
Q Did you ask either from your uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan or from Munni as for what purpose money has been paid by Munni?
Ans No. It is wrong to suggest that I had not asked from Munni the purpose of her paying money to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan as Munni had not told me about the payment of money to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan. It is wrong to suggest that in lieu of the non payment of the rent by my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan I was doing the house hold work of accused Munni. It is correct that till the time I remained with accused Munni or at her house no galat kam ( wrong act) was committed with me. It is wrong to suggest that during the period my father was a rickshaw pullar.
Q Today in your examination in chief you have deposed regarding your sale against money by Munni? Have you stated regarding the same in your statement U/s 164 Cr. PC Ex.PW1/B?
Ans Yes. I have stated so. (Confronted with the statement Ex.PW1/B where it is not so recorded but the factum of handing over (de diya) of me to Rishu and Munni is mentioned).
I had not lodged any complaint against my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 32 of 28 33 Jahan of my selling to accused Munni. It is wrong to suggest that I have wrongly named Munni at the instance of my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan on the basis of dispute of non payment of rent by my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan to Munni. It is wrong to suggest that Munni had not paid any money to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan and for this reason I had not lodged any complaint against my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan. Vol. money had been paid by Munni to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan.
I do not remember the date, month and year on which Munni had sold me in Delhi against money.
Q Where, whether at Delhi or at Lucknow did you come to know that your uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan had taken money from Munni? Ans I came to know about it from Rajesh in Delhi that money had been paid by Munni against my sale to my uncle Nasrat and aunt Jane Jahan. Q Who had asked you to go alongwith Rajesh, whether your mother or Munni?
Ans Munni had told me to go alongwith Rajesh.
I do not remember the date, time as to when Munni was arrested by the police. Munni was arrested from her house at Lucknow by the police.
I do not recollect as to for how many times I had given the statement to the police nor I remember the date and time when I gave statement to the police. It is wrong to suggest that my thumb impression were obtained by the police on blank sheet of papers. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 33 of 28 34 XXXX By Ms. Poonam Mahajan, counsel for accused Rishu and Amicus Curie for accused Arjina @ Kumkum.
I have only one father whose name is Mohd. Ishub. After about staying for about two months at the house of Rajesh I was taken to the house of Sagar and Kumkum. I do not know the address of Sagar and Kumkum.
Q Besides Reshma, do you have any other name? Ans No.
(Court observation : The witness nodded her head in the negative while answering this question).
Q Besides Mohd. Ishub does your father is having any other name?
Ans No. Q For how many times Sagar had committed galat kam upon you, till the time you remained in the house of Sagar and Kumkum? Ans Only once.
I had stated in my statement U/S 164 Cr. PC that sagar had committed 'galat kam' upon me only once. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW1/B where it is not so recorded).
I do not know the date, month and year on which the 'galat kam' was committed upon me by Sagar. I had told the whereabouts/address of Sagar and Kumkum to the police at the time of their arrest. I cannot tell the house number of SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 34 of 28 35 Sagar and Kumkum. I had been going regularly for fetching milk during my stay at the house of Sagar and Kumkum. I did not tell anyone where I used to go for fetching the milk that I have been sold to Sagar and Kumkum. It is correct that till the time I had been going for fetching the milk 'galat kam' had not been committed upon me by Sagar. I do not know the date, month and year on which the taxi uncle met me . I cannot tell the name of the Mahila aunti who had taken me to the memer of commission.
Q For how many times your mouth was pressed by Kumkum and on which date/s?
Ans Only once my mouth was pressed by Kumkum but I do not know the date.
I had stated in my statement U/S 164 Cr PC that my mouth was pressed once by Kumkum. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW1/B where it is not so recorded).
It is wrong to suggest that Sagar had not committed rape upon me or that Sagar had not committed rape upon me at the instance of Kumkum. It is wrong to suggest that I had put my thumb impression on the blank paper before the police. It is correct that the blue colour pajami (Ex. P-1) was given by me in the hospital at the time of my medical examination. No ladies shirt (kameej) and underwear were given by me in hospital at the time of my medical examination. Vol. Guttanna ( a big blumer which is worn under the pajami) was given by me in the hospital at the time of my medical examination.
SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 35 of 28 36 (Cross examination concluded). RO&AC (M.C.Gupta) ASJ-IV/Outer District/Rohini 13.03.2012 SC No. 67/2013 State Vs. Munni Etc. Page Nos. 36 of 28