Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Shri Kusum Lata - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt.Of Nct Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 192 of 2021
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Trafficking - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 120-B, 363, 370 - The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) - Sections 80, 81
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a medical professional, was charged with offences under Sections 363/370 IPC and Sections 80/81 of the JJ Act for her alleged involvement in a child trafficking case. The charges were based on evidence of child selling and buying, and a planned syndicate for trafficking children.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was strong suspicion of the petitioner's involvement in a planned syndicate for selling and buying of children, and that the evidence warranted framing of charges. The court held that the petitioner's role could only be conclusively ascertained during the trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to frame charges under Sections 363/370 IPC and Sections 80/81 of the JJ Act against the petitioner, and whether the petitioner's role in facilitating adoption amounted to trafficking.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles outlined in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala to determine the sufficiency of evidence for framing charges. It emphasized that framing of charges required strong suspicion and detailed evidence appreciation was not necessary at that stage.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court did not find any legal infirmity or lack of application of judicial mind in the impugned order to warrant interference.
ORDER
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the Order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Ld. ASJ-03, Karkardooma Courts, framing charges against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC') read with Sections 363/370 IPC as well as Sections 80/81 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter, 'JJ Act').
2. The facts, in brief, leading up to the filing of the petition are as follows:
a) It is stated that a secret information was received on 19.08.2020 at about 2:00 P.M. that a woman named Shahida was trafficking infants and that she would arrive at Ghazipur Noida, New Barat Ghar, Chilla Village around 3 P.M. with a 2-3 months old child for the purpose of selling the same.
b) A raiding party was accordingly prepared to nab the persons involved; no passer-by's were willing to join the raid. Around 3:15 P.M., a lady with a small child appeared and the secret informer identified her as Shahida. The lady waited for about twenty minutes and as she was about to leave, the raiding team apprehended her. She was then arrested and interrogated about the child.
c) It is stated that Shahida revealed that on 18.08.2020 she had gone to Burari at 2:00 P.M. on the directions of one Priyanka who had informed her that a lady by the name of Shanti would give her a baby and in return, she was to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to her. Shahida paid an initial amount of Rs. 70,000/- and stated that the rest of the amount would be paid to Shanti through Priyanka. A telephonic conversation had transpired with Priyanka who told Shahida to reach Ghazipur on the same day where she would be present with the proposed purchasers of the baby. However, as they did not show up, Shahida decided to leave after which she was apprehended.
d) Accordingly, FIR No. 430/2020 dated 19.08.2020 was registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar Ph-I for offences punishable under Sections 370/363 IPC and Section 80 of the JJ Act. The Petitioner herein was formally added by way of the chargesheet filed, along with one Renu Garg and Naresh Kumar Garg. She was arrested on 21.08.2020, and was given interim bail on account of suffering from the COVID-19 virus. She surrendered before the jail authorities on 21.03.2021.
e) Vide Order dated 17.02.2021, charges were framed against the Petitioner for offences under Sections 363/370 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC as well as Sections 80/81 of the JJ Act. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant revision petition.
3. Mr. Jatan Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is a medical professional who is merely running a consultation centre for patients seeking IVF treatment and has been falsely implicated in the matter herein. He states that the Petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR and that no specific role has been assigned to her therein, and that she has merely been arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement of coaccused Shahida.
4. Mr. Singh submits that there is no evidence that establishes the factum of sale and purchase of the child for the purposes of child trafficking, and relies upon an adoption deed dated 16.06.2020 to state that the case was merely that of an adoption. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the impugned Order dated 17.02.2021 does not take into account the evidence on record to discern whether a prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioner under Sections 370/363 IPC. He states that the child which was given to Krishan Kumar was at best a case of improper adoption and could be categorised as an offence under Sections 80/81 of the JJ Act, and that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the same and has sweepingly added Sections 370/363 IPC to the charges against the Petitioner. He relies upon a judgement of the Karnataka High Court in Pm Robin
The sufficiency of evidence for framing charges under criminal law requires strong suspicion, and detailed evidence appreciation is not necessary at the stage of framing charges.
The scope and ambit of Sections 227, 228, 397 and 482 Cr.P.C. and the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under these provisions, particularly in the context of discharge of accused and....
Allegations of trafficking must meet statutory definitions; insufficient evidence or lack of necessary sanction renders related charges unsustainable.
The court established that consensual relationships, even if based on promises of marriage, do not amount to rape unless there is clear evidence of deception or coercion, and the standard for proceed....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused in case of inconsistencies and la....
Charges under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act require proof of inducement or coercion, which was not established as the victim left voluntarily.
At the charge framing stage, the court must determine if the prosecution's material establishes a prima facie case, without considering the defence's merits.
At the charge framing stage, the Court evaluates whether prima facie evidence exists to sustain the charges without determining guilt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
