Mumbai: The Kalyan Railway court acquitted a couple and their accomplice who were arrested in 2022 for kidnapping a child and getting him involved in the begging business. While passing the verdict, the court criticised the lethargic and negligent conduct of the prosecution in conducting a case of such a serious offence.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court presided over by Magistrate Swayam Chopda, was moved by the way the prosecution had conducted the trial in the case. Though the case was crystal clear and had all the required evidence in the case, the careless attitude of the prosecution has turned the toss and has coined in favour of the accused, who for their ‘crime’ should have been behind bars.
As per the prosecution’s case, Sanjudevi Suryawanshi, a resident of Bihar, had eloped from her house following some arguments with her husband. Sanjudevi had carried her youngest son, Akshay, and boarded a train from Bihar to Kalyan. Sanjudevi was spotted by Pooja Mundhe, one of the accused when she was in a waiting room in Kalyan. Mundhe had offered Sanjudevi a shelter, which she refused.
The incident took place on August 18, 2022, when Sanjudevi, at 4 am, had kept her son sleeping in the waiting room and had gone to the canteen to buy some food for him. Pooja grabbed the opportunity took away the child and escaped from the spot along with one more of her accomplices.
When Sanjudevi came back from the canteen, she couldn’t find her child, so she approached the Kalyan Railway Protection Force (RPF). RPF checked for the CCTV footage and found that Pooja was the one who had kidnapped the child. Further investigation revealed that she, along with her husband, was running a begging racket with such kidnapped children.
The police had found the proper evidence against the accused. They had collected the CCTV footage, which showed the visuals of the accused committing the crime. However, the prime witness in the case, the complainant, Sanjudevi went back to Bihar and the prosecution failed to trace her.
The judge in its orders mentioned the extra efforts taken by the court to ensure that justice prevailed, but the prosecution was too lazy to work efficiently. The court maintained, “From day one of the opening of the trial, this court had issued witness summons to the informant (Sanjudevi) for her examination before the court. But dishearteningly, the prosecution was not serious in seeing that the informant was produced as a witness before the court. It is only upon a special letter issued by this court to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Railways), requesting him to inform this court about the status of a witness summons issued to him much earlier for serving upon the informant, steps were taken for serving the summons upon the informant. It was then informed that the informant, a resident of the State of Bihar, is not traceable.”
