Delhi District Court
Sc No: 227/17 State vs . Manish Kumar Sharma on 4 September, 2017
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 227/17
FIR No. 1337/2015
Police Station Uttam Nagar
Under Section 365/366/376 IPC
State
Versus
Manish Kumar Sharma @ Manish Aggarwal
@ Manish
S/o. Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma
R/o. House No. P-15, Village Pilanji,
Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi.
......Accused
Date of institution 22.04.2017
Judgment reserved on 23.08.2017
Judgment Pronounced on 04.09.2017
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 1 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial in the present case on allegations of kidnapping, confining prosecutrix "C' aged around 20 years and committing her rape.
2. Initially FIR in question was registered u/s 365 IPC on the basis of complaint of father of prosecutrix alleging that his daughter (prosecutrix "C') was abducted by accused on 20.09.2015 on false pretext of giving her a job.
3. Police searched prosecutrix through electronic and print media but of avail. As per charge-sheet, on 14.09.2016, accused left prosecutrix at ISBT, Kashmere Gate and went away. Father of prosecutrix went and brought prosecutrix to police station. Prosecutrix was got medically examined and was found 30-32 weeks pregnant. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded by IO and was also got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Prosecutrix alleged that accused kidnapped, confined and sexually assaulted her.
Judgment 2 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
4. Accused was arrested and charge-sheeted. Charge for offence punishable under Section 344/366/376/506 IPC was framed against him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses.
PW Name of witness Nature of Documents proved witness 1 C Prosecutrix Supported prosecution version and proved her statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr. P.C as Ex PW1/A and arrest of accused vide memo as Ex PW1/B..
2 Father of prosecutrix Complainant Lodged missing complaint of prosecutrix as Ex PW2/A. 3 A Brother of Supported prosecution case as prosecutrix to missing of her sister and her recovery.
4 Raj Kumar Public Deposed that prosecutrix was
(Shopkeeper) staying with accused at
Manikaran, H.P
5 Jagdish Chand Public Deposed that prosecutrix
stayed with accused in a
Dharmshala at Manikaran,
H.P
6 Yogita Aggarwal Sister of accused Deposed accused was
previously married to one
Anisha
Judgment 3 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
7 ASI Sita Ram Police Proved arrest, personal search
and disclosure statement of
accused.
8 ASI Jaswant Initial Recorded statement of
Investigating complainant, prepared rukka
Officer as Ex. PW8/A, prepared site
plan at instance of
complainant as Ex PW8/B,
went to Manikaran, H.P. In
search of prosecutrix. Got
prosecutrix medically
examined.
9 ASI Sushma Investigating Got recorded statement of
Officer prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C
6. Accused admitted FIR in question, a certificate u/s.65B of Evidence Act, MLC of prosecutrix, his MLC and statement of prosecutrix recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C as such witnesses who were cited to prove those documents were dropped.
7. Accused in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, stated that prosecutrix was in love with him. In May, 2015 prosecutrix met him while she was working in Cyber Cafe at Laxmi Nagar. She insisted accused to take her along. They married each other at Manikaran and then resided for an year together at different Judgment 4 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma places. One day, prosecutrix told him to leave her at her house, at that time she was pregnant. When accused went to take prosecutrix from her parental house, he was got arrested by her parents and he was implicated to wriggle out from wedlock.
8. It is contended on behalf of accused that prosecutrix voluntarily left her home. She did not make any attempt to return home and there is no evidence to indicate that accused either enticed, kidnapped, confined or established forcible relations with her. Thus, accused has not committed any offence and he is entitled to be acquitted.
9. Per-contra, Ld. Addl. PP submits that prosecutrix in all her statements stated that accused not only enticed & confined her but she was raped by him also. It is submitted that testimony of prosecutrix which is reliable and trustworthy establishes guilt of accused and in these facts accused is liable to be convicted.
Judgment 5 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
10. I have heard arguments and perused material on record.
11. Versions of prosecutrix: Prior to deposition of prosecutrix her statement Ex PW5/A was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C . It's loose English translation reads as under:
"On 18.09.2015, I went to Laxmi Nagar for a job interview. At Rajiv Chowk Metro Station I along with my friend Sonia were waiting to change Metro. There we met a boy namely Manish Kumar Sharma. That person had requirement for girls for an event. I talked to him regarding a job. Then I along with Manish went to Mc Donalds, Karolbagh. There I called my brother Ajit as well. Then he went through my resume and of Ajit and he told me that he would get me employed at Airport Terminal 3 but I have to do a course that would cost Rs. 20,000/-. That person took money from us to open our account, preparing PAN card and other documents and filled up forms as well, which I came to know that it was fraud. He told me that I have to go to Manali Airport for giving interview and that I have to go through training as well. My brother asked to accompany then accused scheduled interview at some office in Noida. As Manish told me, I told at my home that 20-25 girls are going to Manali and I would have to accompany them. My brother Ashish came to drop me at ISBT but no girl was present there. He told me that one volvo was waiting at Chandigarh. When we reached there, there was one boy and a girl whom I have met before, when Manish prepared my ID. From Chandigarh we went to Manikaran. He got forms filled from me. After two days, I told him that we should Judgment 6 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma return but he told me that "server" is down. It will take 1-2 days more. Rest of the people are at Katra, we should also got to Katra. I again told that I want to go home. He told me that "I have lost my purse". On this pretext, he sold my phone, so that money can be arranged to go to Delhi. But he again took to Manikaran to sign some form. After signing the form, he took me to a priest. After performing prayer priest put tilak then Manish told me that we are married now.Then he took me from Manikaran to a place in Himachal Pradesh. Now from past 1 year accused keeping me at Himachal at different places. He always kept me at places which are near to temple and used to feed me food of Langar. He didn't give me medicine and food during illness and used to keep me locked in a room. During my stay with him, by fraud he took money from people. Many a times, he asked money from my family members by telling lie about my health about which my parents informed police. He has created my many fake IDs and used to blackmail me that I have address or identity proof of you brother and parents and I will falsely implicate them. Due to weakness, I vomited blood, then also he did not get me treated. He sexually abused me for a year and due to this today I am seven months pregnant but he did not get me any treatment or test nor even food. Now when I am started having blood in my vomiting, then he got ready to took me to my parents. From Chamba he took me to Amritsar. From there we don't have money to go to Delhi then he got prepared a bus pass like voucher from a senior officer to travel free on bus. When, we reached ISBT, Delhi, accused went missing. It is incident of 14.09.2016. After waiting for some time, after much effort, I recalled phone number of my father and called him. Manish should be strictly punished. "
Judgment 7 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
12. Prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief has
supported the prosecution version and has testified as under:
"On 18.10.2015 I was coming back from Laxmi Nagar to my house at Mohan Garden in Metro after giving a job interview. I noticed accused Manish (present in the court today, correctly identified) at Rajeev Chowk Metro Station and he was talking with somebody on mobile regarding requirement of some girls for some event. Listening his conversation I talked to him regarding my job. Accused then asked me about my Resume. Since I was having Resume with me I showed him. Thereafter, accused took me with him to McDonalds, Karol Bagh. Accused also told me that he has also requirement for some more boys and girls for an event as such I also called my brother at McDonalds. After seeing my Resume and Resume of my brother accused told me that he will get me a job at Airport, Terminal-3 but for that I have to undergo a course for which I will have to pay Rs.20,000/-. Accused assured me that he would get an employment to my brother in Noida. Accused asked us to give our account details so that the salary of our job could be credited there.
On 19.10.2015, me and my brother again met accused at Rajeev Chowk Metro Station. Accused took Rs.10,000/- from my brother to open an account in HDFC Bank. Though my brother accompanied him but accused did not take him inside the Bank. Thereafter he promised us that soon we will get employment. After handing over the money and documents to accused we left for our house.
Judgment 8 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
On 20.10.2015 accused called me and told to meet him with my photographs and two-three other documents at Rajeev Chowk Metro Station. I met him at Metro Station. Accused asked me for Rs.10,000/- but I told him that I have only Rs.5000/- with my mother. Thereafter I called my brother to bring Rs.5000/- to Metro Station. My mother and brother both reached there with the money. Thereafter, accused told us that I would have to appear for an interview at Himachal Pradesh. Accused informed us that there are 25 other girls also who were to appear for the interview and would be accompanying us. Accused informed us that a Volvo bus would leave from ISBT Kashmere Gate. We went back to our house.
In the evening, I along with my brother reached at ISBT. Accused met us there but we did not notice any other girls. Accused told us that since we are late as such we will have to board the bus from Chandigarh. Thereafter I accompanied accused to Chandigarh. At Chandigarh Bus Terminal accused met with somebody who handed over my fake ID to accused. Then accused took me with him to Manikaran. Accused made me to fill some forms there. For two days accused kept on making execuses by saying that since the server is down we cannot fill the form. Accused then told me that we will have to Katra since all other persons have already reached there. Accused took me to Katra. At Katra also he made me to fill a form or two. Accused on the pretext of shortage of money sold my two mobile phones which I was having with me. He told me that we will have to again go to Manikaran as the job will be given to me from Manikaran. After reaching Manikaran, he took me to temple and accused made me perform a Pooja. After Pooja accused told me that now I am married to him. Thereafter, accused Judgment 9 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma established physical relations with me against my consent and by blackmailing me that all my documents are with him. After that accused kept me in different stations in Himachal Pradesh but always in near a temple so that he could feed me from the 'Lungar'. Accused always used to keep me under lock.
Soon I was not keeping well and even at times I used to vomit blood. I came to know that due to physical assault I have become pregnant. On 13.09.2016 accused brought me to Delhi as my health was deteriorating. Accused told me that in Delhi he would make me to meet his family but accused after dropping me at ISBT, Kashmere Gate went away. Throughout my stay accused took me only once to a doctor. From ISBT I somehow managed to call my father. My father brought me to Police Station Uttam Nagar. Police recorded my statements and took me to DDU Hospital where I was medically examined. At that time I was seven month pregnant. My statement was also recorded by Ld. Judge....
I gave a birth to a girl child on 20.9.2016. The child is not with me and I have given the child in adoption. I did not permit to take the blood sample of the baby girl keeping in view the future of child in mind. ......"
13. From testimony of prosecutrix it is evident that prosecutrix admits that she stayed with accused for about a year and during her entire stay she made no effort to return to her house. Prosecutrix was cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence Judgment 10 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma Counsel and during her cross-examination prosecutrix deposed as under:-
a) About her relationship with accused:
I noticed accused Manish .. at Rajeev Chowk Metro Station and he was talking with somebody on mobile regarding requirement of some girls for some event. Listening his conversation I talked to him regarding my job. Accused then asked me about my Resume. Since I was having Resume with me I showed him. Thereafter, accused took me with him to McDonalds, Karol Bagh.
b) About her going with the accused: Prosecutrix in her examination in chief deposed as under:
Thereafter, accused told us that I would have to appear for an interview at Himachal Pradesh. Accused informed us that there are 25 other girls also who were to appear for the interview and would be accompanying us. Accused informed us that a Volvo bus would leave from ISBT Kashmere Gate. We went back to our house. In the evening, I along with my brother reached at ISBT. Accused met us there but we did not notice any other girls. Accused told us that since we are late as such we will have to board the bus from Chandigarh. Thereafter I accompanied accused to Chandigarh. At Chandigarh Bus Terminal accused met with somebody who handed over my fake ID to accused. Then accused took me with him to Manikaran.
Judgment 11 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
c) About her marriage with accused:
After reaching Manikaran, he took me to temple and accused made me perform a Pooja. After Pooja accused told me that now I am married to him. (examination-in-chief) In September 2015 some rituals were performed in a temple by a Pandit in Manikaran like applying vermillion on parting of my head and after that accused told me that I am married to him. I also wore red and white bangles (choora) brought by the accused. I kept wearing bangles till January 2016..
(cross-examination)
d) Place where prosecutrix stayed:
From Katra we again came to Manikaran. For this time we almost stayed there for a month. Initially for three-four days we stayed in a hotel and thereafter in a rented room having rent of Rs.150/- per day of one of the acquaintance of the accused. For all those days I used to go to temple only from the room. There was five minutes walking distance from temple to our rented accommodation. Landlord of the property was residing on the ground floor and there was one room on the second floor which was lying vacant. After residing at Manikaran, we went to Hameer Pur by a bus. The travel distance was about four hours. We stayed in Hameer Pur for about 10 days. We stayed there in the house of friend of accused near a temple.
Thereafter, we went to Jawala Ji and we stayed there for 4-5 days. Then we went to Chamunda, Kangra, Naina Devi, Mansa Devi. At each place we stayed near the temple for a week or so. Each time we Judgment 12 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma travelled in a public transport. At every place, we stayed in the accommodation of some known to the accused.
Then we went to Amritsar and we stayed there for about one month in a Dharamshala near Golden Temple. One day in Amritsar I managed to come out of the room by breaking open the lock, I reached near the Golden Temple and borrowed a mobile phone from some public person but at that time accused noticed me and snatched the mobile phone. He again took me to room. From the room he took out my bag and again took me to bus stand from where we again went to somewhere in Himachal Pradesh.
e) About her effort to leave:
After that accused kept me in different stations in Himachal Pradesh but always in near a temple so that he could feed me from the 'Lungar'. Accused always used to keep me under lock.
It is correct that during my entire stay with accused and despite in public vision I did not raise any alarm nor I tried to run away from the company of accused.
(cross-examination)
f) About Sexual Assault:
After reaching Manikaran, he took me to temple and accused made me perform a Pooja. After Pooja accused told me that now I am married to him. Thereafter, accused established physical relations with me against my consent and by blackmailing me that all my documents are with him.
(examination-in-chief)
Judgment 13 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
14. It is evident from the testimony of prosecutrix that she was acquainted with the accused at the time she left her house.
She accompanied accused to appear for an interview. On 20.09.2015 she along with her brother reached at ISBT from there she accompanied accused to Chandigarh and then to Manikaran.
15. Prosecutrix admits that from Manikaran she went to Katra then from there came back to Manikaran. In a temple at Manikaran some rituals were performed after which accused told him that he has married her. Though prosecutrix deposed that accused took her with him for an job interview but she has given no explanation that why she immediately not choose to return to her home when she came to know that accused neither got her appeared in any interview nor any job is available for her at Manikaran or Katra. It is evident that despite coming to know that accused did not bring her for any interview, prosecutrix went with accused to a Temple and performed rituals to get married to him.
Judgment 14 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
16. Prosecutrix stayed in company of accused for an year at Katra, Manikaran, Hamirpur, Jawala Ji, Chamunda, Kangra, Naina Devi, Mansa Devi and Amritsar. Prosecutrix deposed that each time they traveled in a public transport and stayed near Temples but prosecutrix throughout entire period of one year did not make complaint to any person either while traveling with accused or at places she stayed with him.
17. Prosecutrix testified that she visited 20 different temples with accused. They ate food in Golden Temple for about 50-60 times. She also visited Manikaran and Amritsar markets with accused. Prosecutrix was able bodied grown up female and in crowded places such as Golden Temple or Katra she could have easily raised an alarm or could have sought help for any public person if at all she was under threat or fear of accused rather prosecutrix admits that during her entire stay with accused and despite in public vision she did not raise any alarm nor tried to run Judgment 15 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma away from the company of accused. Conduct of prosecutrix demonstrates that she was residing with accused voluntarily and with her consent.
18. In this regard testimony of PW4 Raj Kumar(a Shopkeeper of Manikaran) and PW5 Jagdish Chand, Manager of Dharmshala at Manikaran, H.P are worth to appreciate. PW4 Raj Kumar deposed that accused was staying in a Hotel at Manikaran with a girl near his shop. He deposed that accused met him about 5-8 times and each time a girl was accompanying accused. Accused informed him that girl accompanying him was his wife. PW4 categorically deposed that the girl did not make any complaint to him rather she seemed comfortable in company of accused. From appearance she seemed to be wife of accused as she was wearing "Chura" and "Vermillon" on parting of her head.
19. Similarly, PW5 Jagdish Chand, Manager of Dharmshala deposed that on 02.11.2015 he gave a room to Judgment 16 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma accused who stayed in the room for a night with a girl. PW5 deposed that accused informed that the girl accompanying accused was his wife. She did not make any complaint to him rather she seemed to be quite comfortable in the company of accused. From appearance also she seemed to be wedded wife of accused as she was wearing "Chura".
20. PW8 ASI Jaswant Singh with police team went to Manikaran in search of prosecutrix. During his cross-examination, he testified that nobody in Manikaran informed him that accused had forcibly kept prosecutrix with him. It came to his knowledge from local investigations that prosecutrix was residing with accused as his wife and prosecutrix was wearing 'Choora' which was generally worn by newly wed girl.
21. Testimony of PW4 & 5 who are independent witnesses and not known to either party indicates that prosecutrix was residing comfortably with accused and was accompanying Judgment 17 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma him like a newly wedded wife. Testimony of PW8 ASI Jaswant Singh further strengthens that prosecutrix was residing with accused as his wife. If at all prosecutrix was under any kind of fear, force or coercion she had every opportunity to raise alarm or approach any public person but her conduct shows that she was comfortably staying and roaming around with accused.
22. Testimony of father & brother of prosecutrix: In her testimony prosecutrix claimed that she went to ISBT along with her brother and she boarded the bus from there. However, PW3 (brother of prosecutrix) deposed that after taking him and prosecutrix to bank accused took prosecutrix with him to Noida on the pretext of meeting with his senior. Then from there, accused took prosecutrix alongwith him and he came back to my house. Thereafter prosecutrix did not come back and his father (PW2) then lodged a missing complaint.
Judgment 18 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
23. Though in his testimony brother of prosecutrix (PW3) claims that on the same day when accused took prosecutrix with him he informed his father (complainant) and his father lodged a police complaint. However, if we go through DD No. 39 B dated 06.10.2015 as Ex PW2/D-1 it can be seen that father of prosecutrix on 06.10.2015 reported to police that on 20.09.2015 prosecutrix left home without informing them and despite search she was untraceable. It is surprising that if at all brother of prosecutrix was aware that accused took prosecutrix with him on pretext of a job interview and that prosecutrix did not return then why complainant did not inform police about the said incident on 20.09.2015 itself or till 06.10.2015.
24. Complainant lodged a complaint Ex PW2/A in which he mentions that after prosecutrix left her home, she talked to her family and informed that she has cleared interview and is getting training and after getting salary she will return. Prosecutrix Judgment 19 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma herself telling her family that she appeared in an interview and is getting training despite the fact that she did not appear in any interview further indicates her willingness and consent in staying with accused.
25. From testimony of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, it is evident that at no point of time prosecutrix made an effort to leave the company of accused. Neither she ever complained about acts of the accused to any of persons. This shows that prosecutrix was residing with the accused willingly and consensually.
26. There is no reason why prosecutrix could not have make a complaint to the family, police, friends, relatives others with whom she came in contact with. The fact that she choose to remain silent only shows that she herself was in the company of the accused with her consent.
Judgment 20 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
27. As far as allegation of forcible sexual assault upon prosecutrix is concerned it is matter of record that during her entire stay with the accused prosecutrix never made any complained to any person nor she approached the police with any such complaint despite having an opportunity to do so. It is matter of record that prosecutrix stayed with the accused for about an year and at no point prosecutrix made an effort to leave the company of the accused.
28. From above stated discussion it emerges that :
i) Prosecutrix was aged about 20 years and had adequate intelligence.
ii) Testimony of prosecutrix shows that she herself accompanied accused to Himachal for a job interview and continued to stay with him despite fact that she was not made to appear for an interview nor any job was given to her.
iii) Prosecutrix stayed with accused for about any year at different places but she made no attempt to return back nor made any complaint to any person.
Judgment 21 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
iv) Prosecutrix performed marriage rituals with accused in a Temple and also wore bridal bangles (Choora) & vermillion.
v) After reaching Manikaran prosecutrix herself called to her parents and informed them that she was selected for a job and would return home with her salary.
vi) Prosecutrix despite being pregnant did not lodge any complaint against accused alleging sexual assault till the time she remained in company of accused.
vii) Testimony of public & police witness indicate that prosecutrix was comfortably residing with accused.
29. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to render an authoritative pronouncement on 14.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 325/2013 titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi wherein a girl aged about 15 years of age had gone along with the accused to Bhatinda Punjab and remained there for 89 days where physical relations between them were established on several occasions. In the said case the Ld. Trial Judge had convicted the boy for offence punishable U/S 363/366/376 IPC, however in the Judgment 22 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma appeal filed in the matter the Hon'ble High Court duly considered the conduct of the girl and came to the conclusion that the girl was of the age of discretion, she had gone along with the accused without any kind of protest, she had not raised alarm at any point of time at any place despite there being an opportunity for the same. As far as the medical evidence in the said case is concerned the Hon'ble High Court duly considered the medical evidence of prosecutrix showing her hymen to be found torn and the allegations that the boy had established physical relations with her in Bhatinda and found the same to be consensual.
30. Hon'ble High Court placed reliance upon the law laid down in Shyam and Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 2169 to hold that the girl was of the age of discretion. The paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment relevant for the facts of the present case are reproduced as under:
" xxx In her statement in Court, the prosecutrix has put blame on the appellants. She has deposed that she was threatened right from the beginning when being kidnapped and she was kept under threat till the police Judgment 23 of 26 SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma ultimately recovered her. Normally, her statement in that regard would be difficult to dislodge, but having regard to her conduct, as also the manner of the so called "taking", it does not seem that the prosecutrix was truthful in that regard. In the first place, it is too much of a coincidence that the prosecutrix on her visit to a common tap, catering to many, would be found alone, or that her whereabouts would be under check by both the appellants/accused and that they would emerge at the scene abruptly to commit the offence of kidnapping by "taking" her out of the lawful guardianship of her mother. Secondly, it is difficult to believe that to the strata of society to which the parties belong, they would have gone unnoticed while proceeding to the house of that other. The prosecutrix cannot be said to have been tied to the bicycle as if a load while sitting on the carrier thereof. She could have easily jumped off. She was a fully grown up girl may be one who had yet not touched 18 years of age, but, still, she was in the age of discretion, sensible and aware of the intention of the accused Shyam. That he was taking her away for a purpose. It was not unknown to her with whom, she was going in view of his earlier proposal. It was expected of her then to jump down from the bicycle, or put up a struggle and, in any case, raise an alarm to protect herself. No such steps were taken by her. It seems she was a willing party to go with Shyam the appellant on her own and in that sense there was no "taking" out of the guardianship of her mother. The culpability of neither Shyam, A1 nor that of Suresh, A2, in these circumstances, appears to us established. The charge against the appellants/accused under Section 366 I.P.C would thus fail. Accordingly, the appellants deserve acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed acquitting the appellants. Xxx"
Judgment 24 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
31. If the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case then it would be apparent that prosecutrix was fully understanding the consequences of her act and willfully went with accused.
32. From all her statements it is evident that she did not make any complaint against accused during her entire stay period with accused. Therefore, ratio of the aforesaid judgment applies to present case as well. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in aforesaid case has been pleased to set aside the conviction of the accused. On the basis of the aforesaid ratio laid down in the case, accused cannot be held guilty for enticing, confining or establishing physical relations with prosecutrix.
Judgment 25 of 26
SC No: 227/17 State Vs. Manish Kumar Sharma
33. Conclusion: From aforesaid discussions, it is evident that prosecution has failed to prove charges against accused. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted. Accused is in custody. He be released from custody if not required in any other case. Accused is directed to furnish a personal and surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- each under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C with shall remain in force for period of six months.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 4st day of September, 2017.
GAUTAM MANAN Addl. Sessions Judge (SFTC) South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
04.09.2017
Judgment 26 of 26