Ved Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 4081 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           RESERVED ON : 27th FEBRUARY, 2015
                           DECIDED ON : 21st MAY, 2015

+                       CRL.A. 596/2012

      VED PAL                                          ..... Appellant

                        Through :    Mr.Yogesh Swaroop, Advocate
                                     with Mr.Dushyant Swaroop &
                                     Mr.B.K.Roy, Advocates.


                        VERSUS



      STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)                    ..... Respondent

                        Through :    Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant - Ved Pal impugns a judgment dated

13.03.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 44/11

arising out of FIR No. 97/10 PS Timarpur by which he was held guilty for

committing offences punishable under Sections 342/368/376 IPC. By an

order dated 15.03.2012, he was awarded RI for one year with fine

`1,000/- under Section 342 IPC; SI for seven years with fine ` 10,000/-

each under Section 368 and 376 IPC. The sentences were to operate

concurrently.

2. Simpy, Daljeet, Ranjana, Shakila and Ved Pal (the appellant)

were arrested and sent for trial for committing various offences under

Sections 365/366/368/370/376/493/498/120B IPC. The instant FIR was

lodged on the complaint of PW-1 (Aruna) on 18.04.2010 at PS Timarpur.

Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The

prosecutrix / victim 'X' (assumed name) was recovered at appellant's

residence at his village Ludhana, Distt. Jind. 'X' was medically examined;

she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of

the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the above referred

accused persons. Many accused persons could not be arrested during

investigation.

3. Perusal of the Trial Court record reveals that charges under

Sections 365/366/376 IPC against Simpy, Ranjana and Shakila @ Munni;

under Sections 370/368 IPC against Daljeet and Ved Pal and under

Section 120B IPC against Simpy, Daljeet, Ranjana, Shakila @ Munni and

Ved Pal were framed. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to

establish its case. In 313 statement, the contesting accused persons denied

their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. After

hearing the rival contention of the parties and appreciating the evidence

on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted Simpy,

Daljeet, Ranjana and Shakila @ Munni of all the charges. Ved Pal was

acquitted of the charge under Section 370 IPC but was convicted under

Sections 342/368/376 IPC. It is relevant to note that State did not

challenge the acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, Ved Pal has filed

the instant appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file minutely. Appellant's conviction is primarily based

upon the testimonies of PW-1 (Aruna) and PW-2 'X'. It is alleged that 'X'

was sold for a sum of `1,60,000/- by Ranjana and Simpy to one 'Langra'.

The said 'Langra' further sold 'X' to Ved Pal (the appellant). Shabnam

had introduced 'X' to Simpy and Rajana. As observed above, the

prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence to prove its case against

remaining accused persons. No evidence emerged on record if any

payment of `1,60,000/- was paid, and if so, to whom. It is also not on

record as to when the said payment was given and who received it. 'X'

aged about 28 years was married to one Veeru with whom she had

strained relations. Admittedly, 'X' was introduced by one Shabnam,

Shakila's sister to Simpy and Ranjana, to the knowledge of PW-1 (Aruna)

when she (Shabnam) promised to get a job for 'X' for `5,000/- per month.

PW-1 (Aruna) and PW-2 (X) categorically failed to identify Simpy and

Ranjana in the Court and completely exonerated them. PW-1 (Aruna) did

not meet 'Langra' to whom X's custody was handed over by the said

ladies for a sum of `1,60,000/-. 'Langra' could not be arrested during

investigation. PW-2 'X' disclosed that Ved Pal and Daljeet took her from

the residence of 'Langra' to their village. She was not aware if any

payment was made to 'Langra' by Ved Pal or Daljeet. Nothing is on

record to show if at any stage 'X' raised alarm or declined to go along

with Ved Pal and Daljeet.

5. Admitted position is that 'X' lived at the residence of Ved

Pal for about five months. At no stage, she lodged any complaint with

anyone about her alleged illegal confinement there. PW-1 (Aruna) did not

attempt to contact her for long five months. She allegedly picked up a

quarrel with Shabnam and Shakila for not providing her X's contact

number. However, she did not lodge any complaint with the police to find

out X's whereabouts. She admitted in her statement that Shabnam took

her to the appellant's house in the village and she met him, his two

brothers and one old lady there; she also met 'X' there. It is alleged that

when she requested the appellant and his family members to allow her to

take 'X' with her, they picked up a quarrel and asked them to pay

`1,60,000/- first and then to take away 'X'. She, her sister and Shabnam

came back to Delhi. However, neither at the appellant's village nor at

Delhi PW-1 lodged any complaint soon after return. In the instant

complaint Ex.PW-1/A which is a typed complaint in English, PW-1

(Aruna) did not reveal if she had met 'X' at the appellant's village 4 or 5

days before. She feigned ignorance about X's whereabouts and urged the

police to trace her. The delay in lodging the complaint has remained

unexplained.

6. It has come on record that 'X' lived with the appellant in his

house in the village for number of months. She used to do household work

during her stay there. She even used to go in agricultural fields. When

PW-1 (Aruna) along with Shabnam and her sister went at appellant's

house, she was available there. Even after PW-1's return to Delhi after

visiting her, she continued to stay there without any objection. It was

claimed that a marriage had taken place with the appellant. In her

statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 'X' did not state if she was forcibly

raped against her wishes by Ved Pal, Daljeet and one Sadhu. However, in

her Court statement, she made vital improvements and implicated Daljeet

and Sadhu for committing rape upon her. In the cross-examination, she

admitted that she had not stated in her statement (Ex.PW-2/DA) that Ved

Pal and Daljeet had brought her from the residence of 'Langra'. She

admitted that during her stay with the appellant, she used to perform all

household chores which were commonly performed by women in the

village. At no stage, 'X' lodged complaint with the police for her forcible

detention against her wishes. It appears that X's stay with the appellant at

his residence was with her free consent and was never objected to by her

and her sister PW-1 (Aruna). The appellant himself seems to be a victim

when on the pretext to perform marriage he was allegedly forced to pay a

certain amount. It is unclear to whom the amount was paid. It appears that

the appellant was fleeced by the ladies to exploit him on the false promise

of marriage with 'X'. Nothing is on record to show if during her stay 'X'

was ever maltreated or beaten. In the MLC (Ex.PW-16/A), no external

visible injuries were found on her person. The appellant lived at his native

place with his family members including ladies. It cannot be inferred from

the circumstances brought on record that 'X' was kept there against her

wishes forcibly or was sexually assaulted.

7. Appellant's conviction based upon the wavering testimonies

of PW-1 (Aruna) and PW-2 (X) cannot be sustained, especially when both

of them have opted to give clean chit to Simpy and Ranjana. It smacks of

some nexus among 'X', her sister and the said ladies to trap innocent

ones.

8. In the light of above discussion, the appeal is allowed.

Conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court are set aside. The

appellant be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other

criminal case.

9. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the

order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for

information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 21, 2015 / tr