VEENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 18.7.2009, the complainant Ravinder came to PS Sultan Puri and lodged an FIR, stating therein that his child 'M', aged about 4 years, had gone to market along with his sister -in -law Jyoti, but got separated from Jyoti on account of crowd in the market, and he had not been able to trace her. An FIR under Section 363 of IPC was registered on the aforesaid complaint made by Shri Ravinder Kumar.

(2.) ON 08.05.2010, SI Naveen Kumar of AATS (West), Paschim Vihar, received an information that a person, namely, Shyam Lal, residing in Village Sodawas, District Alwar or Rajasthan was engaged in procuring/purchasing girls from Delhi and used to sell them off in the said village as also in village Girwas of the same District. On this information, a raiding party consisting of police officers went to Village Sodawas, along with secret informer. One Shyam Lal was apprehended on being pointed out by the secret informer and was interrogated. Shyam Lal took them to another house in the same village. The appellants were found sitting outside the house. Both of them were apprehended on being pointed out by Shyam Lal and were interrogated. Pursuant to the disclosure statements made by them to the police, a child, namely, 'M' was found inside the house, outside which the appellants Veena and Ashok @ Pappu, who are sister and brother, were found sitting.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that no documentary evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer to prove that the house from which the child is alleged to have been recovered belonged to or was possessed by either of the appellants. They have also pointed out that no witness from the village has been examined to prove that the aforesaid house was occupied by the appellants. The contention is that in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the child was recovered from the custody of the appellants.