Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Kumar on 29 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE
PRESIDED BY: MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
Cr.C. No. 68571/2016
FIR No.20/2013
PS: Ranjit Nagar
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors.
CNR No. DLWT02-002836-2013
JUDGMENT
a) ID. No. of the case : 68571/2016
b) Name of the : Ms. Promila Kumari
Complainant/ Informant.
c) Name of the Accused, : 1. Rohit Kumar Bhagat S/o
his/her parentage Sh. Chunniya Bhagat
2. Beena Dhingra W/o Sh.
Kawal Kumar Dhingra
3. Shweta Dhingra W/o Sh.
Amit Dhingra.
d) Offences complained : 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care
of and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 r/w section 34 of
IPC
e) Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order. : Accused Rohit Kumar is ac-
quitted. Accused Beena
Dhingra and Shweta Dhin-
gra are convicted of the of-
fence u/s 23 of JS Act.
f) Date of such order. : 29.04.2025.
g) Date of institution. : 01.11.2013
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:49:35
+0530
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 1 of 42
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the prosecution
emanating from the case FIR no.20/2013 registered under section
23/26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 at PS Ranjit Nagar.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is
that, on 03.02.2013, pursuant to DD no.21A, police found the victim
(‘P’) aged about 15 years near Axis Bank ATM, Pusa roundabout,
South Patel Nagar, Delhi. In her statement, the victim disclosed that
she hails from Jharkhand where her parents resides. She was brought
to Delhi by a fellow villager, namely Rohit Kumar Bhagat (arrayed
as accused No.1), who got her employed as a domestic help at a
residence, address of which the victim did not know. However,
Chachi (Aunty) there, whose name also the victim did not know,
used to beat her when she did not perform the chores properly
because of which she had left that house and reached at the ATM on
foot where she was discovered. In this backdrop, the case FIR was
registered and the imputed offences investigated into. Upon
completion of investigation, final report in the form of chargesheet
under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was
forwarded to this Court arraying the accused Rohit Kumar Bhagat
(hereinafter referred to as “the accused no.1”) for commission of
offence under section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with
section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 whereas, the accused Shweta Dhingra and the accused
Beena Dhingra (hereinafter referred to as “the accused no.2 and 3”,
respectively) were indicted for commision of offences under section
370A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 23 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:49:43 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 2 of 42
3. After taking cognizance of the offences complained of in the
instant case FIR, the accused were summoned vide order dated
01.11.2013. Pursuant to their appearance, copies of the charge-sheets
along with accompanying documents were supplied to the accused
persons in compliance of the provisions of section 207 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since offences under sections 370 and
370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed vide order dated 12.11.2013.
However, vide order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Court of Sh. V.
K. Bansal, the then Ld. ASJ (Fast Track Court), West District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, the accused persons were discharged of the
offences under sections 370 and 370A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Accordingly, the instant case FIR was remanded back to this
Court. Thereafter, upon hearing the prosecution as well as the
defence and after perusal of the material available on record, charge
under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 was framed against the accused no.1 whereas,
charges under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 were framed against the accused no.2 and 3 vide order
dated 19.08.2014. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the case against the accused persons, prosecution
examined as many as 15 witnesses in its favour.
5. The victim (‘P’) was examined as PW1 by the prosecution.
She deposed that she came to Delhi in the year 2012 to work along
with a friend of her fufa, however, she remembered neither the date
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:49:48 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 3 of 42
nor the month in which she had come to Delhi nor the name of the
name of the friend of her fufa. The witness deposed that after she
arrived in Delhi, she stayed awhile at the house of a relative of her
fufa situated at a place called ‘Chandan Holan’. Thereafter, the
witness testified that she got employed in a house belonging to one
Smt. Shweta at Patel Nagar by one Rohit. The witness identified
both the accused no.1 and the accused no.2 during their dock
identification before this Court and testified that Smt. Shweta resided
there along with her husband, two sons and her mother-in-law.
There, the witness deposed that, she performed household chores,
viz. brooming/mopping; washing utensils, cooking, dusting, etc.
Explaining her routine in that house, the witness deposed that she
used to get up at about 6:00 A.M. everyday and worked until about
11:00 P.M while eating at different intervals during the starting at
10/11:00 A.M., again at around 01:00 P.M., at around 07.00 P.M. and
finally at around 11:00 P.M., though complained about its quantity as
her hunger remained unsatisfied. PW1 deposed that no separate
room was provided to her in the house. And her monthly pay / salary
was Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). She deposed that she
worked in the house for about 1½ months (i.e. 45 days) without pay
as her salary remains unpaid. The victim testified that her employers
scolded and beat her inspite of her performing all the household
chores as they used to tell her that she was not doing her work
properly and speedily like one day, the accused no.2 caught her by
her hair, however, when the former started crying, the latter picked
up a bat and threatened the victim that should she cry, beatings will
be given to her by that bat. The witness deposed that the accused
no.3, the mother-in-law of the accused no.2, had also beaten her with
the bat after scolding her on the issue of mopping the floor after
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:49:54 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 4 of 42
which the witness ran away from that house at about 11:00 P.M. The
witness testified she was denied food that day. After running away
from the house, the witness deposed that she reached a shop situated
at Chandan Holan and told the shopkeeper that she had run away
from the house of her employer. A policeman met her there to whom
she narrated the entire story. The policeman then took her to the
police station, then to the hospital followed by Nirmal Chayya.
Statement of the witness was recorded by the police vide Ex. PW1/A
bearing her signature at point A as well as before the Court under
section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide Ex.
PW1/B bearing her signatures at points A and B. The witness further
testified that she had not told anything to the accused no.1 regarding
the behaviour of the accused no.2 and 3 or the treatment meted out to
her at their behest.
5.1. PW1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the
accused no.2 and 3. In her cross examination, PW1, inter alia,
testified that she had come to Delhi by train without informing her
family members as she was angry with them, though disposed that
she had informed her fufa that she wanted to work in Delhi. She
deposed that she had never left her house before coming to Delhi.
Her bua informed her that a friend of her fufa is coming to Delhi
from Ranchi so she went to Ranchi by bus and from there, arrived in
Delhi along with that friend of her fufa. The witness denied the
suggestion that the friend of her fufa got her employed at some other
house from where she had run away before sending her to be
employed at the house of the accused no.2 and instead, claimed that
she stayed at the house of her fufa’s friend for about 2-3 days only
before coming under the employment of the accused no.2 at her
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:50:00
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 5 of 42
house. The witness denied the suggestion that she had worked at the
house of the accused no.2 for about 6 months but deposed that she
used to address the accused no.2 as ‘bhabhi’ whereas, the accused
no.3 as ‘mummy’. The witness conceded that she used to get the
same food which the accused no.2 and her family members ate. The
witness also conceded that during her employment she was afflicted
with a boil (foda) for the treatment of which, she taken to the doctor
three/four times by the accused no.2 and that the latter used to
change its dressing two/three times a day which led to its recovery,
according to the doctor. The witness even conceded that the accused
no.2 used to provide her clothes and cater to her other requirements
after purchasing the same from the market. And while the witness
admitted that the accused no.2 used to take her along whenever she
went to the market, the former volunteered that the latter would lock
her up alone in the house whenever she went to a party and denied
the suggestion that the witness was never locked up alone in the
house either by the accused no.2 or by the accused no.3. The witness
categorically testified that she was beaten up a number of times by
the mother-in-law of the accused no.2, i.e. by the accused no.3,
though could not recall the exact dates/ days/ times on which such
beatings were given to the victim. The witness denied the suggestion
that she was never beaten up either by the accused no.2 or by the
accused no.3 since they treated her like their own daughter. The
witness not only denied the suggestion that she was treated well by
the accused persons and used to get good food from them but instead
volunteered the incident where after one beating, blood oozed out
from her head, though admitted that she did not run after that
beating. The witness conceded that the accused no.1 had asked her to
work in the house of the accused no.2 for a complete year and was
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:50:05
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 6 of 42
not supposed to run away as she had done earlier, not to mention that
it was decided that her salary would be paid to the accused no.1. The
witness admitted having received an amount of Rs.30-40,000/- since
the registration of the present case FIR, though denied the suggestion
that she was deposing falsely; or that the accused no.2 never beat her
by pulling her hair.
5.2. PW1 was also cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused no.1. In her cross-examination, PW1, inter alia,
testified that she was not employed in any house before her
employment in the house of the accused no.2. The witness conceded
that when she, accompanied by her fufa, visited the office of the
accused no.1, they had informed the latter that the former has an
experience of one year at household work, not to mention that she
was 18 years old. The witness conceded that the accused no.1 got her
the employment after believing that she was 18 years old. The
witness further conceded that the accused no.1 used to visit the
house of the accused no.2 every month as much to collect her salary
as to enquire about her well-being and that she never complained to
the accused no.1 about the imputed treatment meted out to her at the
behest of the accused no.2 or her mother-in-law, the accused no.3.
The witness admitted that whenever the accused no.1 visited her at
the house of the accused no.2, he facilitated her conversation with
her fufa using his personal mobile phone and in none of the those
conversations, did the witness ever complain about the alleged
treatment meted out to her or the behaviour of the accused no.2 or
her mother-in-law, the accused no.3 to her fufa. The witness deposed
that she had left the house of the accused no.2 at about 07:00 A.M.
The witness stated that she knew how to call using a telephone but
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:50:10 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 7 of 42
since the accused no.2 had taken away the slip on which she had
written the phone numbers of her relatives, she could not call any
one of them. The witness deposed that the police had come to the
Axis Bank ATM at 04:00 P.M. the day next. The witness volunteered
that she ran away from the house of the accused no.2 on an earlier
occasion no less at which point of time she came in contact with Ms.
Meena Sachdev, however denied the suggestion that between 07:00
A.M., the day on which she had left the house of the accused no.2 till
04:00 P.M. the day next, Ms. Meena Sachdev remained in contact
with her and continued to guide her. The witness admitted that she
had informed police that she worked in the house of the accused no.2
for about 1½ months when actually speaking, she had worked there
for 05 months. The witness failed to recall whether she started
working for the accused no.2 in her house on 09.09.2012 and once
again denied the suggestions – that she was not beaten up in the
house of the accused no.2; and that she was deposing falsely.
6. Sh. Jogi Ram, father of the victim was examined as PW2 by
the prosecution. He deposed that he is a farmer having five daughters
and three sons. He deposed that the victim is aged about 18 years old
as on the date of his deposition in the instant case FIR which was
recorded before this Court on 30.06.2015. The witness could not tell
the date, the month or the year in which the victim had come to
Delhi, not even how many years ago was it that she came to Delhi or
after how long did she return to Jharkhand from Delhi. The witness
could not depose where all the victim had stayed whilst she was in
Delhi, only that she ran away from his house to come to Delhi.
6.1. PW2 was cross-examined summarily by Ld. Counsel for the
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:50:15
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 8 of 42
accused no.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, PW2 denied the
suggestion that he had scolded the victim because of which she had
run away from her house and come to Delhi, however, volunteered
that the victim was not interested in studies because of which she left
her school and came to Delhi, instead.
6.2. PW2 was also cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the
accused no.1. In his cross-examination, PW2 testified that he had not
lodged missing person’s report after his daughter ran away from the
home as he had come to know the whereabout of his daughter after
the officials of Delhi Police had reached his house in his village. The
witness however denied the suggestions – that he was aware about
the whereabouts of the victim and he was deposing falsely; or that
since September, 2012 till February, 2013 he received money sent by
the accused no.1; or that initially he may not be aware of the
whereabout of the victim but later on, victim’s fufa had informed
him that the victim was in Delhi. The witness deposed that victim’s
fufa had deposited money in the bank but he had not received it from
the bank. The name of victim’s fufa was Sh. Goindi Kumar.
7. Ct. Rohit, PIS No.3319, was examined by the prosecution as
PW3. He deposed that on 11.03.2013, while he was posted as a
Constable in PS Ranjit Nagar, he along with W/Ct. Khilwanti and
IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar went to the house of the accused no.2 and 3,
both of them identified by the witness during their dock
identification before this Court. He testified that upon interrogation
of the accused persons, IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar recorded their
disclosure statements vide Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B, respectively,
both bearing his signatures at points A. The accused no.2 and 3 were
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:50:27
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 9 of 42
arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D, respectively,
both bearing his signatures at points A. At the instance of the IO,
W/Ct. Khilwanti conducted the personal search of them both vide
personal search memos Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F, both bearing his
signatures at points A. Thereafter, the witness deposed that the
custody of both the aforesaid accused was handed over to Ct.
Khilwanti and the information of their arrest was given to Sh. K. K.
Dhingra. The accused were brought to the PS and after making the
relevant DD entry in the roznamcha, both of them were taken to
LHMC Hospital by him and W/Ct. Khilwanti for their medical
examination after which, both of them were produced before the
Court.
7.1. PW3 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons
despite opportunity.
8. Ct. Manoj, PIS No. 611, was examined by the prosecution as
PW4. He deposed that on 14.02.2013, while he was posted as a
Constable in PS Ranjit Nagar, he along with IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar
went to house no.A-29 in Chattarpur Ext., Delhi in search of the
accused no.1 where where they were informed that no person by that
name resided there, much less runs any placement agency there. The
same day, the witness testified that, they visited the house no.A-29 in
Chattarpur, Delhi where they received a similar reply from the
persons found residing there. On 02.03.2013, however, the witness
deposed that he along with IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar apprehended the
accused no.1 from the residence of the other co-accused, i.e. from
house no.7/20, IIIrd Floor, East Patel Nagar, Delhi. The witness
identified the accused no.1 in his dock identification as the person
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:50:32 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 10 of 42
apprehended by them on 02.03.2013 at the aforesaid address in East
Patel Nagar. After interrogation, the witness deposed that the IO
arrested and personally searched the accused no.1 vide memos Ex.
PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, respectively, both bearing his signatures at
points A. IO then recorded the disclosure statement of the accused
no.1 vide Ex. PW4/C, bearing signature of the witness at point A.
And after his medical examination, the accused no.1 was taken to the
PS.8.1. PW4 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused
persons despite opportunity.
9. Sh. Rajesh Kumar was examined as PW5 by the prosecution.
He deposed that he is a resident of Ranchi, Jharkhand and engaged in
agricultural work in his village. PW2 is his brother-in-law (Jija)
whereas, the victim (‘P’) is his niece. The witness deposed that
although, he does not remember the exact date, but it was in the year
2013, when the victim went missing as PW2 had informed him about
it. Thereafter, the witness deposed that they searched her to the best
of their ability but in vain. However, after a few days, PW2 informed
him that the victim has been found in Delhi and some police officials
had come to inform him about that. Thereafter, the witness deposed
that he along with PW2 came to Delhi and went to PS Ranjit Nagar,
Delhi where they found the victim who had left her home because of
some argument with her father (PW2) but he didn’t know much
about the circumstances in which she reached Delhi. The police
officials then handed over the custody of the victim to them and
recorded his statement.
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:50:39
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 11 of 42
9.1. PW5 was cross-examined summarily by the Ld. Counsel for
the accused no.2 and 3. In his cross examination, PW5 conceded that
he is not aware of the circumstances in which the victim came to
Delhi or even, who brought her to Delhi.
9.2. The accused no.1 adopted the aforesaid cross-examination of
the witness conducted at the behest of his co-accused.
10. Ms. Fulmani Bada, bua of the victim, was examined by the
prosecution as PW6. She deposed that she hails from Jharkhand
however shifted to Delhi to work in the year 2008. She further
deposed that the victim had come to Delhi to find work as a maid.
The accused no.1 provided her work in a house located in Patel
Nagar, Delhi. The witness identified the accused no.1 in his dock
identification conducted before this Court. In the year 2014, the
victim was given money for the work she had done. In the summer
of 2016, the victim informed her that she was beaten up by the
persons that she used to work for and even denied food by them.
10.1. PW6 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
no.2 and 3. In her cross-examination, PW6 deposed that she had
neither seen the house where the victim used to work in Patel Nagar
nor has personal knowledge as to by whom was the victim allegedly
beaten. The witness denied having given any statement to the police
earlier regarding the alleged beating and denied the suggestion that
she never met the victim in the year 2016 for her to inform anything
about the alleged incident.
10.2. PW6 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:50:45
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 12 of 42
no.1. In her cross-examination, the witness deposed that the victim
was aged about 16 years old when she came to Delhi to work,
though conceded that she had never seen her age, birth or
educational certificates. She conceded that she was not present at the
time when the victim allegedly asked the accused no.1 for work, nor
did the victim inform the witness that she had informed the accused
no.1 that she is below 18 years of age. The witness denied having
given any statement to the police earlier regarding the alleged
beating and denied the suggestion that she never met the victim in
the year 2016 for her to inform anything about the alleged incident.
11. Birsa Oraon, teacher at NUMS Gadri Toli, Bharno, District
Gumla, Jharkhand was examined as PW7 by the prosecution. She
tendered the register regarding age proof of the victim which records
her date of birth to be 01.01.1999. Copy of the said register was
exhibited as Ex. PW7/A (OSR).
11.1. PW7 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
no.2 and 3. In her cross-examination, PW7 deposed that she was
responsible for maintaining the record of age register of the students
and she was summoned for giving testimony regarding the age of the
victim. The witness denied the suggestions – that the record which
she had brought was manipulated or that there was no any
authenticity of the aforesaid register; or that the victim was a major;
or that she was deposing falsely.
11.2. PW6 was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
accused no.1. In her cross-examination, the witness deposed that she
has worked as a teacher and was well aware of the admission
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:50:50
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 13 of 42
procedure of the students in her school. The witness testified that she
had entered the date of birth of the victim in the aforesaid register
(Ex. PW7/A (OSR)) as 01.01.1999 as told by her parents and
conceded that she had entered the said date of birth on the oral
submissions of the parents of the victim.
12. ASI Vijay Pal Singh, PIS No.28960809 was examined as PW8
by the prosecution. He deposed that on 03.02.2013, while he was
posted as a Constable at PS Ranjit Nagar, IO SI Kamlesh Kumar
joined him in the investigation into DD No.21A. Thereafter, they
went to the spot, i.e. Pushpa Gol Chakkar near Axis Bank ATM
where they met the victim who told the IO that she hails from
Jharkhand and the owner of the property had thrown her out of the
house. She also told them that the owner used to beat her, however,
she did not know the address of the house. Thereafter, the IO called
at the PS to call for a W/Ct. pursuant to which W/Ct. Sunita reached
the spot whereafter, the witness deposed that he was discharged.
12.1. PW8 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
no.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, PW8 deposed that IO may have
received call from the NGO but he did not receive any call. He
further deposed that he did not accompany the W/Ct. for medical of
the victim as he was discharged at that point of time. The witness
denied the suggestions – that the age of the victim was not 15 years
old; or that the victim had not told the IO that she was ousted from
the house after giving beatings to her or; or that he was deposing
falsely.
12.2. PW8 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:50:56
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 14 of 42
no.1. In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that he had
stated the age of the victim was around 15 years old, on the basis of
the conversation held between the IO and the victim, wherein the girl
told the IO that she was 15 years old. The witness admitted that he
did not verify the age of the victim and had made the statement on
the basis of aforesaid hearsay.
13. W/HC Sunita, PIS No.28062370, was examined as PW9 by
the prosecution. She deposed that on 03.02.2013, while she was
posted as a Constable in PS Ranjit Nagar, IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar
called her to the spot, i.e. Pusa Road Gol Chakkar near Axis Bank
ATM. And upon the directions of the IO, she took the victim to Lady
Harding Hospital for her medical examination. Thereafter, she
handed over the custody of the victim to Nirmal Chhaya whereupon,
she along with IO took the victim to Tis Hazari Court where IO/SI
Kamlesh moved an application for recording her statement under
section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After that, the
witness again handed over the custody of the victim to Nirmal
Chhaya. After a few days, she along with the IO brought the victim
from the Nirmal Chhaya to PS Patel Nagar, however, the victim did
not recognize the area near PS Patel Nagar. Then, she was taken to
PS Patel Nagar where she identified the area as well as the house she
was working at. In the house, the victim identified the accused no.2
in the presence of the witness who identified the former in her dock
identification before this Court. The witness testified that they left
after the IO made inquiry from the aforesaid accused and returned to
the PS. The custody of the victim was again handed over to the
authority at Nirmal Chhaya.
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:51:01
+0530
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 15 of 42
13.1. PW9 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
no.2 and 3. In her cross-examination, PW9 deposed that she had
accompanied IO along with the victim to the house of the accused.
The flat of the accused was situated on the third floor where along
with the accused no.2, one more lady was present. The witness
denied the suggestion that she had not visited the house of the
accused persons and did not go up to the third floor of the building.
The witness however did not recall if she had met the father-in-law
of the accused no.2 on the road side. The witness denied the
suggestions – that she had inquired from her father-in-law so she did
not go up to the flat of the accused; or that she deposing falsely.
13.2. No cross-examination of PW9 was conducted on behalf of the
accused no.1 despite opportunity.
14. Retd. ASI Kare Lal was examined as PW10 by the
prosecution. PW10 deposed that on 07.02.2013, while he was posted
as a Constable at PS Ranjit Nagar, he went to the village of the
victim situated in Gumla, Jharkhand vide DD No.66B upon the
directions of IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar. The witness deposed that he
first went to the local police station and secured police staff for his
help. Upon reaching the house of the victim, the witness deposed
that he met her father who told him about the victim and that she was
studying in a school. Thereafter, on 10.02.2013, the witness along
with the father of the victim and the local police staff went to the
said school and obtained record of the victim regarding her date of
birth from its Head Master/in-charge. As per record, the victim’s date
of birth was 01.01.1991. Thereafter, the witness along with victim’s
father, her maternal uncle namely, Sh. Rajesh Kumar and the
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:51:06 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 16 of 42
documents of her date of birth provided by the school, returned to
Delhi and handed over the record to the 1O.
14.1. PW10 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused
no.1. In his cross-examination, PW10 deposed that he went to the
village of the victim at the behest of the IO and no permission from
the Court was obtained for the purpose of age verification of the
victim as well the procurement of certificate of the DOB from the
school attended by the victim. The witness testified that he learnt
about the school attended by the victim only after he reached her
home. The witness denied the suggestions – that he never visited
district Gamla and never met the victim’s father; or that he does not
know the correct name of the district as well as the victim’s father
because neither did he travel there nor did he meet him.
14.2. The accused no.2 and 3 adopted the cross-examination of
PW10 conducted at the behest of the co-accused no.1.
15. Sh. Govind Ram was examined as PW11 by the prosecution
who pleaded ignorance about the facts entailed in the present case
FIR.
15.1. The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State
as he had not disclosed the complete facts. In his cross-examination
by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness deposed that a person called
Sh. Sunil Tikki was residing as a tenant in his building in the year
2013. The witness denied the suggestion that no person by that name
resided at that address. The witness was then confronted with his
statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:51:12
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 17 of 42
1973 (Mark PW11/X) from point A to A1 where it is so recorded.
15.2. PW11 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused no.1. In
his cross-examination, he deposed that there were around 17/18
tenants residing at A-11, Zamrudpur, GK-1, New Delhi. During the
period 2013-15, the witness deposed that he did not execute any rent
agreement with any of his tenants because small rooms were rented
out to the persons belonging a very meagre income group. Nor did
the witness issue any rent receipts to anyone, including but not
limited to Sunil. The witness conceded that Sh. Sunil Tikka/Tikri
was residing in his premises as a tenant during the period 2013-15.
15.3. PW11 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused no.2
and 3 despite opportunity.
16. Tulsi Oraon was examined as PW12 by the prosecution who
did not say anything in her examination-in-chief.
16.1. PW12 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as the
witness did not disclose anything. In her cross-examination by the
Ld. APP for the State, the witness deposed that she is a permanent
resident of district Gumla in Jharkhand and has been residing in
Delhi for the past 10-15 years and working as a labourer. The
witness conceded that she is friends with the accused no.1. She
identified the accused no.1 in his dock identification. The witness
also conceded that the victim was working in the house of the
accused no.1 and that he had told her that the victim would be
placed/employed somewhere in Patel Nagar. The witness admitted
that she did not see her thereafter.
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:51:18
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 18 of 42
16.2. PW12 was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
accused no.1. In her cross-examination, PW12 deposed that on one
of her visits to the house of the accused no.1, she had met the victim
where she told her that she wanted to get placed somewhere as she
was searching for a job of housemaid/housekeeping and when the
witness asked her about her age and her experience, the victim told
her that she was about 18 years old and had an experience of around
a year or so of working as a housemaid. Although, the witness
deposed that she could not find any suitable job for the victim,
however, the accused no.1 later informed her about the victim’s
placement as a housemaid in Patel Nagar. The witness testified that
even after her placement in Patel Nagar, she continued to talk to the
victim and in none of their conversations, did the victim ever
disclose any violence or ill-treatment meted out to her at the behest
of the family where she was working. The witness categorically
deposed that the whereabouts of the victim, of her job, of her
location, etc. were all known to her family as she even told the
witness that she used to send money to her parents. The witness
deposed that the victim’s parents were well known to her.
16.3. The accused no.2 and 3 adopted the cross-examination of
PW12 conducted at the behest of the co-accused no.1.
17. Surender Pal Singh, an advocate by profession, and owner of
property No. A-29, Chhatarpur Extension, New Delhi was examined
by the prosecution as PW13. He deposed that a lady namely Smt.
Ranjana Rai along with her children was residing as tenant in the
aforesaid property. On an uncertain day, the witness deposed that
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:51:23
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 19 of 42
police officials of PS Ranjit Nagar visited the aforesaid premises and
inquired about the accused no.1 if he was residing at this address as a
tenant or not. The witness deposed that he answered in the negative
as he did not know anything about the accused no.1. He deposed that
he knew neither any person by the name of Rohit nor any placement
agency by the name of ‘Rohit Placement Agency’.
17.1. PW13 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
no.1. In his cross-examination, PW13 deposed that he had bought the
property no.A-29, Chhatarpur Extension, New Delhi in the year
2008 and Smt. Ranjana Rai remained his tenant in the premises till
2013-2014, though pleaded ignorance as who was residing therein
prior to the year 2008. The witness testified that a rent agreement
was executed with Smt. Ranjana Rai for the year 2008-2009 and
none ever after. The witness deposed that he did not give any copy of
the rent agreement to the police at the time of recording of his
statement which was not even on record. The witness further
deposed that Smt. Ranjana Rai used to pay rent in cash and no rent
receipt was issued to her. The witness admitted that there was
nothing on record to prove that Smt. Ranjana Rai was his tenant,
however, volunteered that he has the rent agreement as aforesaid.
The witness denied the suggestions – that since he did not maintain
any record, did not receive rent in his bank account and did not issue
any rent receipts that is why he is denying that the accused no.1 was
his tenant; or that since the accused no.1 got implicated in the
present case FIR and the witness did not want to get embroiled in
any legal complication is why he was denying him as a tenant
conveniently; or that the accused no.1 was his tenant in the aforesaid
premises who ran his business for around six years from that
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:51:29 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 20 of 42
premises.
17.2. The accused no.2 and 3 did not cross-examine PW13 despite
opportunity.
18. IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar, PIS No.16100147, was examined by
the prosecution as PW14. He deposed that on 03.02.2013, while he
was posted as an SI at PS Ranjit Nagar, he was on emergency duty
when he received DD No.21A from the duty officer. Thereafter, the
witness deposed that he along with Ct. Vijay Pal went to the spot, i.e.
near Axis Bank ATM, Pusa roundabout, South Patel Nagar. At the
spot, an unidentified minor girl met the witness. Upon inquiry, she
disclosed her name and informed him that she was working as maid
in a house which she left because of the beatings meted out to her by
the ladies of the house. Thereafter, the witness called W/Ct. Sunita at
the spot and sent the victim to LHMC Hospital for her medical
examination. After her medical examination, victim’s custody was
handed over to Children’s Home Nirmal Chaya Parisar. On next day,
the witness testified that the victim was produced before the Child
Welfare Committee whose members counselled and recorded the
victim’s statement. And upon the directions of CWC, the victim was
produced before them on the subsequent day too. The committee
then handed over the victim’s statement and gave direction to SHO
for registration of the present case FIR. The custody of the victim
was again handed over to Children’s Home. On the same day, the
witness deposed that he prepared a rukka upon the victim’s statement
upon which the present case FIR was registered and its investigation
was handed over to him. The rukka (Ex. PW1/A) from point X to X1
bears the signature of the witness at point B. The witness then got
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:51:36
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 21 of 42
victim’s statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Ld. MM And at the instance of
the victim, the house where she was working was identified as the
house no.7/20, East Patel Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, the witness made
inquiry from the house owner Sh. Kawal Kumar Dhingra who
disclosed that the victim was employed by them through the accused
no.1 whom he called to his house. The accused no.1 reached there
and was interrogated by the witness. The witness recorded his
disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW4/C bearing signature of the
witness at point B. Thereafter, the witness deposed that he arrested
the accused no.1 vide memo Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at
point B. Thereafter, the witness seized the documents of agreements
and payments done at the time of hiring of victim as a maid vide
memo Ex. PW14/A bearing his signature at point A. The witness
deposed that the accused no.1 refused to join the TIP proceedings.
Nevertheless, the witness then obtained the signature / handwriting
of the accused no.1 after permission from the Court. On 11.03.2013,
the witness deposed that he went to the house no.7/20 East Patel
Nagar, Delhi and made inquiries from the accused no.2 and 3 after
which they both were arrested in the presence of W/Ct. Kilwanti
vide memos Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D both bearing signatures of
the witness at points B. The disclosure statements of both the
accused no.2 and 3 (Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively) was
recorded by the witness bearing his signatures at points B. After their
medical examination, the accused no.2 and 3 were produced before
the court and after grant of permission to subject them to TIP, both
the accused were sent to J/C. During their TIP proceedings, both
these accused persons were correctly identified by the victim. The
witness testified that he sent notice to the first school attended by the
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:51:41
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 22 of 42
victim for her age proof and after obtaining its reply, tagged it with
the case file. The witness tendered notice as Ex. PW14/B bearing his
signature at point A. The witness then sent the sample handwriting
and signature along with question documents to FSL Rohini,
recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the chargesheet and
filed the FSL Report in the court after obtaining it from FSL Rohini.
The witness identified all the accused persons in their dock
identification before this Court.
18.1. PW14 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
no.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, PW14, inter alia, deposed that
the investigation of the present case FIR had been with him since its
inception. The witness deposed that he made inquiries from the
victim 4-5 times during his investigation, however, could not tell if
the victim had any fresh injuries on her body or not when he met her
for the first time. The witness denied the suggestion that he lodged
the present case FIR against the accused persons at the instance of
Head of NGO Ms. Meena Sehdev. The witness could not say if the
dues to the victim were paid by the accused persons before CWC or
not. The witness denied the suggestion that he was totally in
consultation with the NGO before CWC too. The witness admitted
that when he met the victim for the first time, she stated that she did
not know the name nor the address of the accused no.2 and 3. The
witness admitted that during his investigation, he had collected
documents / receipts acknowledging payments made towards salary
of the victim to the accused no.1. The witness conceded that he had
not placed on record any birth certificate of the victim, though
denied the suggestion that it has not been so placed on record
because the victim was a major at the time. The witness denied the
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:51:49
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 23 of 42
suggestions – that he had pressurized the accused no.3 to sign on
plain paper which was later on converted into her disclosure
statement; or that the accused no.2 had straightaway refused to sign
her disclosure statement because it contained incorrect contents. The
witness admitted that the the accused no.2 had refused to sign her
disclosure statement (Ex. PW3/A). The witness conceded that he did
not make any inquiry from the neighbours of the accused no.2 and 3
but denied the suggestion that it was not so done as it would have
adversely effected the case of the prosecution. the witness denied the
suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
18.2. PW14 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused
no.1. In his cross-examination, PW14, inter alia, deposed that
initially in the investigation, victim had disclosed her age to be 15
years old, however, gave no document in support thereof. The
witness deposed that he took victim’s statement at her face value, for
she appeared like any other 15 year olds. The witness denied the
suggestion that he arrested the accused no.1 with mala fide intention.
In response to the query how the witness verified the registration of
the placement agency run by the accused no.1, the witness deposed
that at first, he verified it online then from the O/o SDM Jamrudhpur,
Delhi, however, found no such record. The witness could not point
out the communication letter purportedly sent to the SDM seeking
verification of registration of placement agency from the record. The
witness denied the suggestions – that he did not verify anything
which explains the absence of documents; or that he prepared the
chargesheet on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The witness
admitted that no medical was conducted on the victim for
determination of her age. The witness further deposed that the school
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:52:14 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 24 of 42
certificate was issued by Nav Utkramit Madhya Vidhyalaya,
Gadritoli, Bharni, Dist. Gumla, Jharkhand, however, he did not
obtain victim’s birth certificate from the Municipal Corporation or
Village Panchayat/Sarpanch. The witness denied the suggestion that
when she approached the accused no.1 to be employed in Delhi,
victim was 18.5 years old. The witness admitted that he did not
verify if the victim had already worked with some other family for
around a year. The witness testified that he had recorded the
statements of the parents of the victim in which they have denied
having received any remuneration from the accused no.1 on behalf
of the victim. The witness denied that he was deposing falsely.
19. Sh. Jagpal Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW15.
He deposed that in the year 2013, he saw that a girl aged about 12-13
years was lying unconscious near Hotel Siddharth roundabout. The
witness deposed that he was coming on his auto when he, and the
passenger plying in his auto, helped the girl and took her to a tea
stall. The witness deposed that he gave her some water, snacks and
tea. Thereafter, the witness deposed that upon query raised by him,
she informed him that she works as a maid in a house at Patel Nagar.
The witness deposed that she had injuries on both her hands, neck
and leg and when he asked about them, she told him that the owner
had thrashed her before evicting her. The passenger who was with
the witness called the PCR from his mobile phone. The police
reached the spot in 10-15 minutes whereupon the custody of the girl
was handed over to them and the witness along with the passenger
left the spot. 1-1.5 hours later, the witness received a call from PS
Ranjit Nagar in connection with the incident.
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:52:20
+0530
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 25 of 42
19.1. Ld. APP for the State sought leave to cross-examine PW15 as
he was not disclosing complete facts. In his cross-examination by the
Ld. APP for the State, PW15, inter alia, deposed that he does not
remember that the abovesaid incident transpired on 03.02.2013 due
to a considerable lapse of time. However, the witness denied the
suggestion that he was sitting at Laxmi properties near the tea stall
when he saw the victim. The witness was then confronted with point
A to Al in his statement (Mark PW15/X) recorded under section 161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which he denied having
told the police. The witness did not remember if the girl had
disclosed her name as ‘P’ owing to a considerable lapse of time. The
witness denied the suggestion that he made a call to the women
helpline number from the spot and denied having said so in his
statement Mark PW15/X from point B to B1.
19.2. PW15 was cross-examined summarily by the Ld. Counsel for
the accused no.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, PW15, inter alia,
deposed that he had not given any statement to the police but
inquired from him regarding the incident only telephonically. The
witness denied the suggestions – that the girl was found sitting near
the ATM and the tea stall; or that the girl did not fall unconscious as
he had not taken her to the tea stall or offered her tea and snacks. The
witness deposed that he could tell her age from her physical
appearance but denied the suggestion that she had not told him that
her employer had beaten her and ousted her from the house. The
witness further denied the suggestions – that he had not seen the
injuries upon the body of the girl; or that he was deposing falsely
19.3. PW15 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused no.1
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:52:26 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 26 of 42
despite opportunity.
20. During trial, statement of one Ms. Kesar Parveen, Member
CWC-1, Office at Nirmal Chaya Complex, Jail Road, Hari Nagar,
Delhi was recorded by this Court who deposed that she is working as
a Member at Child Welfare Committee-1 since 20.06.2022 but failed
to divulge the whereabouts of Ms. Charu Makkar, Ms. Karuna Nagar
and Sh. Satender Bedi, the erstwhile members of CWC, as their
tenure had completed.
21. Since, the accused persons admitted the genuineness and
veracity of – FIR bearing no.20/13 dated 05.02.2013 PS Ranjit Nagar
(Ex. A1); Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (Ex. A2); DD No.21A dated 03.02.2013 (Ex. A3); Statement
dated 12.02.2013 under section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 of the victim recorded by Ms. Geetanjali, the then
Ld. M.M. (Ex. A4); TIP proceedings dated 13.03.2013 of the
accused no.3 and 2 before Sh. Samar Vishal, the then Ld. M.M. (Ex.
A5 and Ex. A6, respectively); TIP proceedings dated 19.03.2013 of
the accused Rohit Kumar Bhagat before Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma,
the then Ld. M.M. (Ex. A7) under section 294 of the Code of
Criminal procedure, 1973 on 20.09.2022, the examination of PWs
concerned for proving the aforesaid documents was thereby
dispensed with.
22. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 02.07.2024 and the
accused persons examined in the exercise of power under section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 13.08.2024. The
accused persons pleaded innocence, false implication and denied all
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:52:32 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 27 of 42
the allegations levelled against them.
22.1. The accused no.2 and 3 specifically stated ‘P’ was employed
at their house through a placement agency. After two days, she said
that she did not want to work and wanted to return to her village.
Accused no.3 called the placement agency whereafter the accused
no.1 came and took her away. 4-5 days later, ‘P’ returned to their
house and expressed willingness to work. She resumed domestic
work but again in January 2013, she ram away from their house,
though returned 2-3 hours later without any explanation. And again
on 03.02.2013, while she was cleaning the balcony, she ran away
from the adjacent house without any information. The accused
claimed that they had informed these facts to the police verbally.
They further replied that they had given her a very cordial
atmosphere and never ill-treated her or beat her as is now imputed.
They, however, chose not to adduce any evidence in their defence.
22.2. The accused no.1 submitted that the girl ‘P’ was brought by
her mama for a job at his placement agency. Her mama told him that
she was 18 plus years old. Every month, the accused submitted that,
he transferred the money to her father. The witness at first expressed
willingness to adduce DE, however, withdrew that request vide order
dated 24.09.2024.
23. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of all the accused as
well as by the Ld. APP for the State with equal vehemence.
24. The Ld. APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has
proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:52:37
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 28 of 42
persons inasmuch as not only their identity but also the instances of
cruelty inflicted by them upon the victim ‘P’ have been proven on
record. Qua accused no.1, the Ld. APP argued that the record would
manifest that he had actual charge of or control over the victim ‘P’
who, by reason of placing her under the employment of his co-
accused no.2 and 3, exposed her to be assaulted and neglected in a
manner which caused the victim unnecessary mental and physical
suffering whereas, qua accused no.2 and 3, the Ld. APP contended
that the evidence brought on record during trial is clinching against
them both that they, having direct control over her, assaulted and
neglected her in a manner which inflicted unnecessary mental and
physical suffering upon the victim and therefore, a finding of guilt
deserves to be returned against all the accused in the instant case
FIR.
25. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the all the accused
that they are victims of a larger conspiracy to implicate them in the
present case FIR, for admittedly, the victim had come to Delhi
seeking work after disappearing from her home and not only
misrepresented about her actual age, assuming not admitting that she
was a minor (or a child within the definition of section 2(k) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000), sans
permission from her family but also never complained about the
imputed mental and physical abuse to anyone until she fled from the
house of the accused no.2 and 3. The Ld. Counsels argued that the
benefit of the gaping contradictions as well as admissions which
emerge from the testimony of the victim (PW1) must inure in favour
of the accused and prayed that they all be acquitted in the present
case FIR.
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:52:49
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 29 of 42
26. Before sifting and weighing the competing submissions in the
adumbral of evidence tendered on record, it is deemed germane to
reproduce the applicable provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
namely:
(Section 2 (f) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000:-
f) “Committee” means a Child Welfare Committee
constituted under section 29;
Section 2 (g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000:-
(g) “competent authority” means in relation to children in
need of care and protection a Committee and in relation to
juveniles in conflict with law a Board;
Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000:-
(k) “juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not
completed eighteen year of age;
Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000:-
23 . Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child.-
“Whoever, having the actual charge of or control
over, a juvenile or the child, assaults,abandons, exposes
or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes orprocures him
to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed o neglected in a
manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child
unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or fine, or with both”
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:52:56
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 30 of 42
Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000
49 . Presumption and determination of age.-
(1) Where it appears to a competent authority that person
brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act
(otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a
juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make
due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that
purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary
(but not an affidavit) and shall record a finding whether
the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age
as nearly as may be.
(2) No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to
have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof that
the person in respect of whom the order has been made is
not a juvenile or the child, and the age recorded by the
competent authority to be the age of person so brought
before it, shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to
be the true age of that person.
(Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860)
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common inten-
tion.–
“When a criminal act is done by several persons in fur-
therance of the common intention of all, each of such per-
sons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone.”
27. In this backdrop, this Court shall test if the prosecution has
been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the
accused or not in the adumbral of events as they emerged from the
testimonies of witnesses cited, documents tendered and/or evidence
generally tendered on record, to wit:
27.1. In order to prove its case, it is rather incumbent upon the
prosecution to establish – (a) whether the victim is a child within the
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:53:02
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 31 of 42
meaning of section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 entitled to protection envisaged the
provisions thereof?; (b) whether the accused are liable to be
convicted under section 23 thereof for inflicting unnecessary mental
and physical suffering upon the victim in the manner imputed?
28. Speaking of 22.1.(a) (supra) – whether the victim is a child
within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 entitled to protection envisaged the
provisions thereof? It is profitable to note that the victim was
produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) during
investigation, however, in spite of being a ‘competent authority’ by
dint of section 2 (g) thereof, the statutory mandate of holding an age
inquiry of the victim in terms of section 49 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was not conducted in
the instant case, not to mention that the CWC abdicated its statutory
obligation of recording a finding as to whether the victim was a child
or not by stating her age as nearly as may be.
29.1. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that
no child should be denied the care and protection envisaged by
salutary provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 merely because of the remiss of CWC to record
a finding as to whether the victim was a child or not, more so when
the charge under section 23 thereof hinges on that finding. That said,
this Court shall endeavour to return the aforesaid finding by stating
her age of the victim as nearly as may be.
29.2. Apropos of the age of the victim, the prosecution, on the one
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:53:07
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 32 of 42
hand, has invoked the register of the school first attended by the
victim (Ex. PW7/A (OSR)) duly certified by its Principal indicating
the date of birth of the former as 01.01.1999 whereas, the Ld.
Counsel for the accused no.1, on the other hand, has pressed into
service the documents of agreements and payments done at the time
of hiring of victim as a maid seized by the IO vide memo Ex.
PW14/A as well as the admission of the victim in her cross-
examination that she has informed the accused no.1 that she was
more than 18 years old when she met him for the first time to
disprove the credibility of Ex. PW7/A (OSR) by further contending
that the age mentioned therein is based merely on the say-so of the
victim’s parents without any documentary verification.
29.3. At this juncture, it is germane to recount the procedure for age
determination, as stipulated by Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 which reads as under:
“12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age.
(1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict
with law, the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the
Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine
the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with
law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of
the application for that purpose.
(2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the
Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the
juvenile or the child or, as the case may be, the juvenile in
conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical
appearances or documents, if available, and send him to the
observation home or in jail.
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict
with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by
the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:53:16 +0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 33 of 42
seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if
available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a
play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause
(a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly
constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the
juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be
done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the
Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if
considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by
considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one
year, and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking
into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the
medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect
of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the
clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b)
shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or
the juvenile in conflict with law.
(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in
conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of
offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in
sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the
Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and
declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose
of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given
to such juvenile or the person concerned.
(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is
required, inter alia, in terms of section 7-A, section 64 of the
Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the
Court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate
or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of
this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also
apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility
has not been determined in accordance with the provisions
contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of
the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the
interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.”
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:53:24
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 34 of 42
29.4. Having given a careful consideration to the competing pleas
read in juxtaposition to the above cited provision, this Court is of the
considered opinion that between the two sets of documents, to wit –
Ex. PW7/A (OSR), on the one hand and Ex. PW14/A, on the other,
the law recognises the former and not the latter which is no more
than a self-serving statement; not even the admission of the victim
that she informed the accused no.1 that she was older than 18 years
of age when she met him in connection with her proposed
employment with the accused no.2 and 3 would be considered
evidence of her age. Moreover, none of the accused has contested
that NUMS Gadri Toli, Bharno, District Gumla, Jharkhand is not the
first school attended by the victim. The plea on behalf of the accused
no.1 that Ex. PW7/A (OSR) cannot be relied upon for determining
the age of the victim de hors a certificate from municipality/village
panchayat or bone ossification test does not hold water either, for
Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2007 is unambiguous not only with respect to the order of
precedence but also stipulates the contingency for seeking medical
opinion too. There is no gainsaying that the certificate issued by the
school first attended by the victim, i.e. Ex. PW7/A (OSR), takes
precedence over every other document and in the absence of any
cogent reason to disbelieve it, it suffices the legal requirement for
returning the age of the victim which is thence, declared as around
13 years old in June/July 2012, i.e. when she was employed at the
house of the accused no.2 and 3 by the accused no.1. Hence, the
victim was a child within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 aged about 14
years old at the time of registration of the instant case FIR .
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:53:30
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 35 of 42
30. Speaking of 22.1.(b) (supra) – having declared the victim as a
child within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, this Court shall proceed
to examine whether the accused are liable to be convicted under
section 23 thereof for inflicting unnecessary mental and physical
suffering upon the victim in the manner imputed?
30.1. Section 23 was enacted to uphold the dignity and rights of
every child.
30.2. This Court shall first deal with the charges against the accused
no.2 and 3.
31. The victim was employed as a domestic help at the residence
of the accused no.2 and 3 by the accused no.1 at a monthly pay of
Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only). During her stint at their
residence, which lasted for almost five months, the victim deposed
that she used to work from 6:00 A.M. till 11:00 P.M. without any
privacy as no separate room was provided to her. The victim imputed
that she was scolded and physically abused by her employers inspite
of her performing all the household chores as they repeatedly
complained about both the quality of her work as well as her
efficiency in completing it. One day, the victim deposed, the accused
no.2 caught her by the hair, however, when the former started crying,
the latter picked up a bat and threatened to beat her with that. The
accused no.3, as the victim alleged, had also beaten her with the bat
and scolded her on the issue of mopping the floor after which the
victim ran away from their house. The victim alleged that she was
provided food in a quantity which did not satiate her hunger. This
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:53:36
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 36 of 42
testimony of the victim has remained both consistent and
uncontroverted on all material aspects, barring a few minor
aberrations with respect to the period for which she had worked at
their house and the time when she fled their house, not only with her
previous versions but also stands fortified in her cross-examination
on behalf of the accused no.2 and 3 inasmuch as she reiterated the
mental and physical assault by both of them. In fact, the victim has
categorically testified that she was beaten up a number of times by
the accused no.3, though could not recall the exact dates/ days/ times
on which such beatings were given to her. The witness even
volunteered an instance where, pursuant to a beating, blood oozed
out of her head. The witness also complained that she was locked up
alone many a times in the house by the accused no.2 and 3.
32. It is equally noteworthy that the MLC of the victim, though
lacked a fresh injury, nonetheless, indicated old injury wounds and in
the absence of any suggestion on behalf of the accused no.2 and 3
either in the cross-examination or any explanation in their defence
for their presence on the body of the victim deserves to be construed
as a testament of physical assault upon her body.
33. The Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 and 3 harped on the
admission of the victim not only to the fact that the accused no.2 got
the victim medically treated for the boil she had developed and
regularly changed her bandage but also took the victim to the market
and bought her new clothes as well as other provisions to
demonstrate the care and protection given to her, however, these
stray incidents does not absolve them both of the repeated incidents
of assault, abandonment and neglect which the victim has uniformly
Digitally signed
by Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.04.29
16:53:42
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 37 of 42
deposed before this Court, cohering with her previous statements,
including but not limited to her statement recorded under section 164
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The admission of the
victim that she did not ever report these instances either to the
accused no.1 or to her fufa whenever the accused no.1 visited the
house of the accused no.2 and 3 to collect her salary does not ipso
facto disprove the imputations levelled by her against the accused
no.2 and 3 either, much less when no question asking the reason
therefor on their behalf was put to the victim in her cross-
examination.
34. Moreover, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that this a
case entailing victimisation of a child aged about 13 years old by the
accused no.2 and 3; given her tender age, social, financial and
educational background, victim’s testimony cannot thus be evaluated
on the touchstone of mathematical precision, for it would defeat as
much the intent and purpose behind enacting the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as the
ends of justice. Therefore, to contend that she did not leave the house
of the accused no.2 and 3 when the blood oozed out of her head until
the day she actually did rather runs counterintuitive to the defence of
the accused, for, on the one hand, it is not easy for a child who has
left her home and her hearth to earn a livelihood at such a tender age
to sacrifice her only foreseeable source of income to stand up for
herself until the saturation point is reached which, in this case, was
the beating given to her with a bat by the accused no.3, as deposed
by the victim, on the other hand, it is an admission of occurrence of
the incident deposed per se because no suggestion was given to the
victim that no such incident took place either.
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:53:47
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 38 of 42
35 The blithe omission of the accused no.2 and 3 to call upon any
of the family members of their’s dwelling under the same roof or any
other relative or neighbor into the witness stand who could have
either disproved the version of the victim or proven that the former
treated the latter with kid gloves or as their own daughter only
reinforces the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the victim has
admitted that she received 30-40,000/- after the registration of the
instant case FIR and yet, she has deposed plumb against the accused
no.2 and 3 which begs the question – what could possibly be the
surviving motive of the victim to depose against them inspite of
receiving the hush money but justice?
36. Before parting, this Court reminisces the following
enunciation rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case titled as ‘Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra‘, reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, on the perils of
exaggerated devotion to the cherished principles or golden thread of
proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our
law reads as infra:
“…The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit
of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing
sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of
justice to the victim and the community demand especial
emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and
escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The
cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond
reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should
not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy
and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the
attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent
martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable
doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:53:52
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 39 of 42
justice will then break down and lose credibility with the
community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person lightheartedly
as a learned author has sapiently observed, goes much beyond
the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished.
If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a
cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public
demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated
‘persons’ and more severe punishment for those who are found
guilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a
ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection
of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with
Viscount Simon, that “a miscarriage of justice may arise from
the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the
innocent.” In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed
innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make
criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck
between chasing enhance possibilities as good enough to set the
delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant
probability to punish marginal innocents…”
37. Having said that, this Court is of the considered opinion that
both the accused no.2 and 3 are guilty of assaulting, abandoning and
neglecting the victim in the manner which has ensued unnecessary
mental and physical suffering upon her within the meaning of
section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000. However, since no evidence has come forth that they did
so in furtherance to their common intention, the charge under section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is anyhow not a
substantive offence, is not made out against them.
38. Insofar as the accused no.1 is concerned, it is profitable to
heed to the salient admissions in the cross-examination of the victim
conducted at his behest, delineated infra:
38.1. The victim, accompanied by her fufa, visited the office of the
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:53:59
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 40 of 42
accused no.1, and they informed latter that the victim has an
experience of one year at household work, not to mention that she
was 18 years old;
38.2. The accused no.1 got her the employment after believing that
she was 18 years old;
38.3. the accused no.1 used to visit the house of the accused no.2
every month as much to collect her salary as to enquire about her
well-being and that she never complained to the accused no.1 about
the imputed treatment meted out to her at the behest of the accused
no.2 or her mother-in-law, the accused no.3;
38.3. every time the accused no.1 visited her at the house of the
accused no.2 and 3, he facilitated her conversation with her fufa
using his personal mobile phone and in none of those conversations,
did she ever complain about the alleged treatment meted out to her
or the behaviour of the accused no.2 or 3 to her fufa;
39 Conjoint reading of the foregoing reproduced admissions
would evince that it is nobody’s case that the accused no.1 got her
employed at the house knowing full well that the imputed treatment
would be met to her or even let her be subjected to it inspite of
learning about it, for, admittedly, the victim raised no complaint
whatsoever either with the accused no.1 or with her fufa with whom
she conversed every month. In the absence of any clear and distinct
evidence unequivocally indicating knowledge of the accused no.1 to
the physical and mental sufferings hereto fore proven to undergone
by the victim at the behest of the accused no.2 and 3, the said
Digitally
signed by
Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
Mahendru Date:
2025.04.29
16:54:04
+0530State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 41 of 42
accused no.1 cannot be saddled with the charge under section 23 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
much less when the nature of employment in which the victim was
engaged is nowhere proscribed by the provisions of the Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 either even though the age of
the victim has been determined as under 14 years at the time of
commencement of her employment, assuming not admitting that the
accused no.1 was misled into believing the victim to be above 18
years of age. The accused no.1 is hereby, acquitted of the charge
under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000.
Announced in open court Digitally
signed by
on this 29th day of April 2025 Akriti
Akriti Mahendru
(This judgment contains 42 pages Mahendru Date:
and each page is signed by me) 2025.04.29
16:54:10
+0530
(Akriti Mahendru)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
(West)/THC/Delhi
29.04.2025.
State vs. Rohit Kumar Bhagat & Ors. FIR No. 20/2013 Page No. 42 of 42