BHAWNA GARG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 23.11.2002, the complainant Hari Ram came to police post Jharoda and made a complaint that his daughter aged 17 years had left the house on 10.09.2002 to give coaching in Gali No. 44 of Sant Nagar, but had not returned home. He further stated that he had been trying to locate her with relatives and persons known to him, but could find no trace of his daughter. He also stated that since the matter was related to his daughter, he had been trying to locate her of his own. The complainant further stated that on 21.11.2002, his daughter called up her maternal uncle Brijesh Kumar on telephone and informed him that a boy named Bittoo had taken her with him by inducing her and now he along with another boy Shahid and other persons wanted to force her to do bad things and are beating her. She further informed him that she was in the flats near bus stop of route No. 212 in Nand Nagri. The complainant also stated that in search of her daughter, they went to Nand Nagri and came to know that she was in MS Building, Sahibabad. Reaching there, they showed her photograph to the Chowkidar and enquired from him about her. The Chowkidar informed them that he had seen his daughter in H -2 flats. The Chowkidar also expressed doubts regarding character of the persons living in that flat which at that time was closed. Later, those persons called them up and assured to send his daughter back. He also stated that on 23.11.2002, they had lodged a report in this regard at Police Station Timar Pur, but in order to avoid the bad name in the society had reported only the missing report of his daughter. He further stated that on that day, they had caught hold of a boy named Shahid, who was trying to escape after vacating the flat. Shahid promised to take them to his daughter, but his daughter had not returned. The complainant suspected that Bittoo, Shahid and their associates had concealed his daughter. Shahid was produced by him before the police officer, who recorded the complaint. On the aforesaid complaint, FIR under Section 365/34 of IPC was registered at the Police Station and the investigation was handed over to SI Mahavir Singh.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 9.2.2003, the prosecutrix was recovered from House No.1/151, Ramesh Nagar. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix alleged that Kajal @ Shalu who had been their tenant and used to visit their house, called her from the tuition centre where she had gone to give coaching and took her to Gurudwara, Ashok Vihar where she had called her husband Hemant Garg @ Bittoo. Kajal left, leaving her at Gurudwara on the pretext that she would be coming back shortly. Thereafter, her husband Hemant came there in an Indica car, which was being driven by one Momin. Hemant 's second wife Bhawna and Sarla, mother -in -law of Hemant was also present in the car. Hemant asked her to sit in the car. Presuming that Kajal was inside, she boarded the car. However, Kajal was not in the car, whereupon she asked them to stop the car, but they did not do so. The car was taken to Ghantaghar bus terminus etc. and in the night they reached Tri Nagar where those persons were residing as tenants. She further stated that in the house, Bittoo asked others to keep a check on her, lest she runs away. She further stated that next day, the appellant - Usha came to Tri Nagar house. After some time, she was made to wear jeans and Usha took her to Rajdhani Enclave, Rani Bagh in her car. One person named Ashiq came to the said house whereupon she was sent out. After some time, she was brought back to Tri Nagar. Next day, she was again taken to Rajdhani Enclave, Rani Bagh where Ashiq misbehaved with her and when she told other persons about misbehavior, she was beaten by them and told that she had been brought there for that very purpose and if she resisted, she would be beaten and left at G.B. Road (red -light area of Delhi), after taking money for her. She further alleged that for 4 -5 days she was taken to the aforesaid house and forced to do 'bad acts '. Ashiq and a number of other persons committed 'bad acts ' with her against her wish. Thereafter, vacating the Tri Nagar house, those persons shifted the prosecutrix to Sector -15 of Rohini. She also alleged that Shahid, father of Bittoo knew that she was being forced to do such acts, but he did nothing in the matter. Thereafter, those persons shifted to a house in Shalimar Garden. There also, she was forced to do 'bad acts '. One day, the appellants - Hemant and Sarla took her to Nand Nagri to the house of her sister. In the night, she was sent to another place in Nand Nagri along with a passport dealer. When she narrated the matter to the dealer, he made her call her maternal uncle. However, in the night, she was sent to Sunder Nagri. She also alleged that as she tried to escape from there, she was caught and taken to Shalimar Garden where she was beaten. In the night, she was sent to Shahranpur in the company of Bhavna, Sarla etc. There they came to know that Shahid had been arrested by the police. She was then taken to a house in Ghaziabad where they lived there for about one and a half month. Then she was brought to the house of their another relative in Shahdara. After 7 -10 days, they came back to Ramesh Nagar where they lived for 2 -3 weeks. They again returned to Shahdara where they lived for one and a half weeks and then came back to Ramesh Nagar on 9.2.2003, when the police recovered her.

(3.) ON 3.7.2004, the appellant - Shahid was charged with offence punishable under Sections 120B/368/376/109/506 of IPC on the allegations that he along with his co -accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy wrongfully confined or concealed the prosecutrix in a house in Sector -15, Rohini knowing that she had been kidnapped or abducted and he had also instigated Ashiq and other persons to have forcible intercourse with her, besides threatening to kill her. Appellant - Hemant @ Bittoo and Neelam were also charged under Section 120B/366A/368/323/506 -I/372/376/109 of IPC on the allegation that they along with their co -accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy they had induced the prosecutrix aged 17 years, to go from Gali no.44, Sant Nagar knowing that she might be or knowing that it was likely that she would be forced or induced to illicit intercourse, with Ashiq and others and had taken her to different places, wrongfully confining and concealing or knowing that she had been kidnapped or abducted and they had also beaten her, criminally intimidated her and had either told to hire or sold her to their co -accused Usha with the intention that she would be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with Ashiq and others. They were also charged for instigating Ashiq to have forcible intercourse with the prosecutrix.