Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Earlier, the charge-sheet u/s 363/365/366/368/343/34 IPC against six accused persons namely Om Prakash, Smt. Bakul, Smt. Hussan Ara, Mehtab Hussain, Arun Kumar and Babli Singh was filed for facing trial and vide order dated 09.02.1995, all the accused persons except accused Smt. Hussan Ara (since she had expired) were charged of commission of offences u/s 120-BIPC, 363 IPC r/w 120-B IPC, 366 IPC r/w 120-B IPC and 368 IPC r/w 120-B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. As per prosecution, this case FIR was registered on the complaint of one Salam s/o Salimuddin given by him in writing to ASI R.N. Tiwari on 17.12.1989 stating that he is residing in Jhuggi No. 513-DA, New Seema Puri, Delhi. His younger sister namely Marium aged about 15-16 years is missing from the house for the last about seven days and he had searched her on his own and he could not find any clue. Now he has doubt that his sister Marium was taken by someone after enticing her. His sister may be searched. On the said complaint, initially, an FIR u/s 363 IPC was registered and case was investigated by ASI R.N. Tiwari. During the course of investigation, IO could not find any clue of Marium Begum. On 22.12.1989, investigation was transferred to Special Staff, North-East District vide order of DCP North-East and investigation was handed over to SI Banwari Lal and on the same Marium Begum was got recovered from the house of her sister Sofia Begum, Jafrabad, Seelampur, and recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein Marium Begum stated that when she was going to her house, accused Bakul took her to her house after enticing her and Bakul and husband of Bakul confined her in their house and threatened her. On next morning, Smt. Bakul, her husband Om Prakash, Smt. Husan Ara, Mehtab forcibly took her in rickshaw to the house of Arun Kumar @ Thakur at Sunder Nagri for selling her and she was left from where she was confined for four days by Arun Kumar and his daughter Babli. On the basis of this statement, accused persons namely Om Prakash, Smt. Bakul, Smt. Husan Ara and Mehtab were arrested at the pointing out and instance of Marium Begum. On 23.12.1989, statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of Marium Begum was recorded by Sh. G.S. Gupta. She was got medically examined for determination of her age and her age was revealed above 18 years but less than 20 years. On 12.01.1990, accused Babli Singh was formally arrested as she was on anticipatory bail. During the course of investigation, complainant Salam had filed an application about threatening by Om Prakash, Bakul, Husan Ara and Mehtab Hussain on 10.01.1990 in the court of the then Ld. ASJ for cancellation of their bail. On 19.02.1990, their bail was cancelled. After completion of investigation, case u/s 363/365/366/368/343/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons for trial. The accused Bakul was charged for offence U/s 120-B IPC, U/s 363 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC, U/s 366 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC and U/s 368 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC and was separately charged for the offence U/s 174-A IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

10. The complaint Ex. PW7/F dt. 17.12.1989 was made by one Salam to the SHO PS Seemapuri, Delhi stating that his younger sister Marium aged 15/16 years was missing from house for the last 7 days. This complainant could not been examine by the prosecution as he was not traceable therefore the complaint could not be proved.

As per the report on the summons the complainant had gone to Bangladesh. He had not named any accused persons nor suspected any one. However, after investigation a charge-sheet u/s 363/365/366/368/343/34 IPC was filed by the prosecution against accused Om Prakash, Smt. Bakul, Smt. Husan Ara, Mehtab Hussan, Arun Kumar and Bali Singh. A charge U/s 120-B IPC, U/s 363 r/w section 120-B IPC, U/s 366 IPC r/w 120-B IPC and U/s 368 r/w section 120-B IPC was framed by my Ld. Predecessor against accused Om Prakash, Smt. Bakul, Mehtab Hussan and Babli Singh and after trial accused Arun Kumar, Babli and Mehtab were acquitted vide judgment dt. 18.08.1999. Accused Om Prakash, Bakul and Hussan Ara were declared proclaimed offender.

18. No independent witnesses has been examined by the prosecution. The complainant Salam could not be examined by the prosecution in the court as he was not available at the given address and had gone to Bangladesh. There are material contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW2. The testimony of PW2 does not inspire confidence and does not deserve to be believed. She had not been recovered from the house of any of the accused nor she was seen by any witness in the company of any of the accused during the relevant period. In the complaint there was no suspicion on the accused Bakul. It is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of PW2 Marium Begum and keeping in view the contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 the accused Bakul is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. She is accordingly acquitted for the offence U/s 120B IPC & 363, 366 and 368 IPC r/w Sec. 120B IPC.