Delhi District Court
State vs Chandan S/O Late Sh. Ram Nath on 27 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. : 19/2010
FIR No. : 14/2010
U/s : 363/366/376 IPC
PS : Patel Nagar
State Versus Chandan S/o Late Sh. Ram Nath
R/o T661/A1, Gali No. 21,
Baljeet Nagar, Delhi.
Permanent Address:
Village Saeangpur, PS Tajpur,
Samastipur, Distt. Bihar.
Date of filing of Charge Sheet : 28.04.2010
Date of taking up matter for the first time : 01.05.2010
Date of conclusion of arguments : 26.08.2011
Date of Judgment : 27.08.2011
Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Addl. PP for the State.
Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curie for the accused.
JUDGMENT:
Accused was chargesheeted under Sections 363/ 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as "IPC") FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 1 of 24 on the allegations that he kidnapped a minor girl Priyanka, in order to seduce her to illicit intercourse and then raped her.
2. Brief facts:
(a) On 24.01.2010 one Shailesh Kumar lodged a complaint at police station Patel Nagar that her daughter Priyanka, aged about 1617 years, was missing since 18.01.2010. He suspected accused Chandan, his neighbour, for enticing and kidnapping her daughter. On the basis of this statement FIR was registered under Section 363/366 IPC and investigation was assigned to SI Ganesh Kumar.
(b) On 27.01.2010 Priyanka was found with the accused at bus stand near Moti Nagar flyover. She was rescued and accused was arrested. The girl and the accused were medically examined. Statement of the rescued girl Priyanka was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C by the Metropolitan Magistrate and she was produced before the Child Welfare FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 2 of 24 Committee, which gave her custody to her father.
(c) During investigation, evidence about age of the girl was collected. As per school certificate her date of birth was revealed as 15.01.1995 and accordingly age of the girl was found to be 15 years. Consequently Section 376 IPC was added.
(d) Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for
analysis.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 06.04.2010, who took cognizance and supplied copies to the accused. Vide order dated 21.04.2010, the case was committed to the Sessions by the Metropolitan Magistrate after compliance of Section 207 Cr. P. C as offence in the chargesheet was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The case was received by this Court on assignment on 28.04.2010.
4. On the basis of material on record, primafacie only offence punishable under Section 366 IPC was found to be made out against the accused. Charge was framed accordingly to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 3 of 24
5. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case:
PW3 Ct. Dharamvir had deposited 4 sealed pullandas at FSL Rohini against the receipt on 15.03.2010, which he had received from HC Madan Lal, MHC(M) vide RC No. 09/21/2010.
PW4 Ct. Rajesh was the computer operator at police station Patel Nagar on 24.01.2010 who had recorded the FIR on computer at about 9.30 pm on the dictation of the duty officer.
PW5 ASI Rishi Pal was the duty officer at police station Patel Nagar on 24.01.2010 who had received rukka from SI Ganesh at about 9.30 pm, made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW5/A and got registered the FIR No. 14/2010 under Section 363/366 IPC on computer through Ct. Rajesh, Computer Operator (PW4) vide Ex. PW5/B. He handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Ravinder for handing over to SI Ganesh for further investigation.
PW9 Mr. Gaurav Rao, Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded the statement of Priyanka, the minor girl, under Section 164 Cr. P. C (Ex. PW9/A) on 28.01.2010 with respect to which he gave certificate of correctness (Ex. PW9/B).
PW10 HC Madan Lal was posted as MHC(M) at police FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 4 of 24 station Patel Nagar on 27.01.2010 who had received four sealed parcels bearing the seals "CMO LHMC SSKH" alongwith two sample seals from SI Ganesh with respect to which he had made Entry No. 3149 in register No. 19 (Ex. PW10/A). According to him on 15.03.2010, all the sealed parcels alongwith sample seals were sent to FSL through Ct. Dharamvir (PW3) vide RC No. 9/21 (Copy Ex. PW10/B) and had received the FSL receipt of deposit (Copy Ex. PW10/C) from PW3.
PW12 Dr. Archana Mishra, Senior Resident, Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital was posted in Gynae Casualty of hospital on 27.01.2010, who had examined the girl Priyanka vide MLC No. 825 dated 27.01.2010, Ex. PW8/D3.
PW14 Ram Chander Prasad, Head Master Mehant Ram Narayan Puri Senior Secondary School, Sakashora, Patna, Bihar, produced the admission record of Priyanka Kumari D/o Shailender Singh (Certified copy Mark 14A) and his certificate (Ex. PW6/D3), according to which the date of birth of Priyanka is 15.01.1995. He also produced the certified copy of the school leaving certificate of the previous school attended by Priyanka (Ex. PW6/D2).
FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 5 of 24 PW15 Ct. Gopal Krishan had verified the school certificate of Priyanka from PW14.
PW1 Shailender Kumar is the complainant and father of Priyanka. PW2 Priyanka is the victim girl.
PW6 ASI Rakesh Tyagi, PW7 Ct. Ravinder, PW8 SI Ganesh and PW11 HC Jai Pal are the police witnesses, who were involved in the investigation.
PW8 SI Ganesh and PW6 ASI Rakesh Tyagi are the Investigating Officers (hereinafter referred as "IO").
6. All the incriminating evidence on record was put to the accused. He admitted that he was the neighbour of the complainant. He denied that he enticed PW2 Priyanka to accompany him on a false pretext and claimed that PW2 left her house by herself and went to Satyam Park where she called him and insisted him to marry her threatening that if he did not agree she would commit suicide by lying on railway track. He admitted that he took PW2 to a temple and performed marriage with her saying that Priyanka had insisted for the marriage. He claimed that after marriage he and Priyanka had stayed at a rented place selected by Priyanka herself and that when he went to his FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 6 of 24 brother's house to collect the certificates, his brother took him to the police station as police was harassing him. He claimed to be falsely implicated in this case as parents of the Priyanka were against the marriage and further that Priyanka (PW2) deposed falsely under pressure of her parents. However, he did not wish to lead evidence in defence.
7. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Addl. PP for the State and Mr. Dinesh Sharma Advocate, Amicus Curie for the accused. I have carefully perused the record.
8. Accused has been charged under Section 366 of IPC for kidnapping one Priyanka D/o Sh. Shailender Kumar, a minor girl, with intention to compel her to marry him. In order to prove guilt of the accused, prosecution is required to firstly prove "taking" or "enticing" the minor PW2 Priyanka out of the keeping of lawful guardianship without the consent of such guardian and secondly, such kidnapping should be with intention that she will be compelled to marry and subjected to illicit intercourse against her wish.
9. The FIR was registered on the statement of PW1 Shailender Kumar (Ex. PW1/A), father of the girl, who deposed FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 7 of 24 that her daughter Priyanka, aged about 1617 years was missing since 21.01.2010. He suspected involvement of the accused, a neighbour. According to him, his daughter (PW2) was found on 28/29.01.2010 and he received the custody of his daughter from Bal Niketan after about 1½ months.
10. The victim girl Priyanka has deposed as PW2. According to her, she new accused Chandan, who was living in the neighbourhood. She stated that on 18.01.2010 at about 09.00 am accused Chandan came to her house while her parents were away and told her that her mother was calling her at subzi mandi. Accused is alleged to have made her smell something as a result she became unconscious. According to her, accused took her to Narela in a quarter where he removed her clothes and did "wrong act" with her. Since PW2 Priyanka was not able to explain the "wrong act", a leading question was put to her by Ld. Addl. PP for the State with the permission of the Court that whether accused had sexual intercourse with her in the room at Narela. PW2 Priyanka answered this question in affirmation. According to her, accused and his supervisor had taken her to a temple where accused performed marriage with her. After the marriage when FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 8 of 24 she alongwith accused and the supervisor were coming in the market, police met them and rescued her. She identified her signature on the rescue memo (Ex. PW2/A).
11. It was argued by Ld. Amicus Curie for the accused that prosecution has failed to prove that PW2 Priyanka was minor on the date of the incident and therefore accused cannot be held guilty for kidnapping her. It was further argued that in view of the statement of PW2 recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr. P. C. during investigation, accused cannot be held guilty for abducting her with intention to compel her to marry him against her wishes. In support of arguments, Ld. Amicus Curie has relied on Alamelu & Another V/s State, Represented by Inspector of Police, 2011 (2) Criminal Court Cases 272 (SC) and Jaya Mala V/s Home Secretary, Government of J & K & Others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1297(1).
12. To prove "kidnapping" for the purpose of Section 366 IPC, prosecution is required to prove that PW2 Priyanka was minor on the date of commission of offence. Evidence and material in this regard include the statement of PW1 Shailender Kumar, father of the prosecutrix PW2, made to the police vide Ex. PW1/A FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 9 of 24 wherein he stated that the age of his daughter was around 1617 years. Ex. PW9/A is the statement of PW2 Priyanka recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. wherein she disclosed her age as 19 years. Ex. PW8/D3 is the MLC of the prosecutrix, where her age is mentioned as 19 years. PW1 while deposing in the Court stated that age of her daughter was 1617 years. PW2 Priyanka, who had given her age as 19 years in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C., claimed to be 16 years while deposing in the Court during trial. PW12 Dr. Archana Mishra had examined the prosecutrix on 27.01.2010 and prepared her MLC (Ex. PW8/D3), showing age of the prosecutrix as 19 years and there is no challenge to her testimony in this regard. PW9 Mr. Gaurav Rao, Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix during investigation under Section 164 Cr. P. C. vide Ex. PW9/A, wherein age of the prosecutrix is given as 19 years and his testimony to this effect has gone unassailed. PW14 Mr. Ram Chander Prasad, Head Master, Mehant Ram Narayan Puri Senior Secondary School, Sakashora, Patna, Bihar proved his certificate Ex. PW6/D3, wherein he has mentioned date of birth of the prosecutrix as 15.01.1995. It is noteworthy that in the cross FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 10 of 24 examination he stated that he gave certificate about date of birth of the prosecutrix on the basis of School Leaving Certificate of the previous school (Ex. PW6/D2). He admitted that at the time of admission of the student, no document of municipality or hospital was submitted.
13. PW6 ASI Rakesh Tyagi though made one line statement in the examinationinchief to the effect that he prepared challan/chargesheet and filed it in the Court, but revealed in his crossexamination that he had filed the reply (Ex. PW6/D1) to the bail application of the accused, wherein he mentioned that as per the written document of the school produced by the father of the prosecutrix, age of the prosecutrix was 17 years & 05 months and as per "Bony Test", age of the girl had been determined as 1718 years.
14. On the fact of age of PW2 Priyanka, testimony of PW8 SI Ganesh is also relevant. It has come in his examinationinchief that after the prosecutrix was rescued, she was examined in the hospital for age determination. Ex. PW2/D3 is the age determination report, according to which from general physical examination, dental examination and radiological examination, her FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 11 of 24 age has been determined as 1718 years. In the cross examination PW8 admitted that Ex. PW8/D1 is his reply dated 09.01.2010 to the bail application of the accused, wherein he mentioned that according to the School Certificate produced by the family members of the prosecutrix, her date of birth is 12.09.1992. However, he claimed that the date was not clear on the document given and admitted that Ex. PW8/D2 is fax copy of the certificate, which was given to him by the parents of Priyanka (PW2). According to him, this document was verified vide reports Ex. PW6/D2 and Ex. PW6/D3.
15. It is noteworthy that while date of birth in the fax copy Ex. PW8/D2 is mentioned as 12.09.1992, whereas in the documents Ex. PW6/D2 and Ex. PW6/D3 it is mentioned as 15.01.1995. When the witness was confronted with different dates in these documents, though he tried to explain that fax copy of the certificate had cuttings on the year of birth, but admitted that there was no cuttings in the last two digits of year of birth shown in the document Ex. PW8/D2.
16. It is a settled legal position that "age" is required to be determined as a fact on the basis of evidence. It is also a settled FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 12 of 24 legal position that documentary evidence carries more weightage than the oral evidence for ascertaining the age. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 Shailender Kumar, father of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix was 1617 years cannot be made the basis to determine the age.
17. The school record produced and proved by PW14 Mr. Ram Chander, Head Master is not cogent to determine the age because date of birth in this record was mentioned on the basis of a transfer certificate issued by the previous school attended by the prosecutrix. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, it has not bothered to produce the record from the previous school. Since PW14 has admitted in the crossexamination that date of birth in the school record produced by him was not mentioned on the basis of any municipality or hospital record, entry in the school record on the basis of transfer certificate of the previous school cannot be taken as proof of date of birth of the prosecutrix.
18. Further, testimony of PW14 and the record produced by him cannot be relied to record finding about age of the prosecutrix in view of Ex. PW8/D2, which is the fax copy of the certificate issued by PW14 during investigation, wherein date of birth is FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 13 of 24 mentioned as 12.09.1992, which is contrary to deposition of PW14 in the Court and the record produced by him, where he gave the date of birth as 15.01.1995. Though, IO (PW8) tried to clarify by saying that there was cutting in the date of birth in the fax copy of the certificate (Ex. PW8/D2), but it is not factually correct as there is no cutting in Ex. PW8/D2 on the year of birth. It is surprising that prosecution has not bothered to clarify from PW14, author of the certificate and thus it would be unsafe to rely on the testimony of PW14 and the documents produced by him. The school record produced by PW14 would not be of much evidentiary value to prove the age of the prosecutrix in the absence of material on the basis of which the age was recorded. It is a settled legal position that date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate issued by school would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined, which the prosecution has failed to show in this case {Reference to "Alamelu & Another V/s State, Represented by Inspector of Police, 2011(2) Criminal Court Cases 272 (SC)"}.
19. Since the oral evidence and the school record produced FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 14 of 24 in evidence about age is not found credible, age of the prosecutrix needs to be determined on the basis of "medical evidence". Ex. PW2/D3 is the report of Doctors, according to which age of the prosecutrix on the date of examination was 1718 years. It was held in "Jaya Mala V/s Home Secretary, Government of J & K & Others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1297(1)" that margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is 02 years by either side, which was reiterated by the Apex Court in "Alamelu (supra)".
20. In view of the evidence on record above, since age of the prosecutrix (PW2) cannot be determined on the basis of the transfer certificate as there is no reliable evidence to certify correctness of the date of birth recorded in the transfer certificate and the bony age report does not rule out the possibility of the girl being a major, in my opinion, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that PW2 Priyanka was a minor at the time of incident.
21. Now, since the prosecution has not been able to establish that PW2 Priyanka was minor at the time of the incident, offence of kidnapping for the purpose of Section 366 IPC with FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 15 of 24 which the accused has been charged is not made out. Therefore, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record is required to be examined to find out whether PW2 was abducted by the accused with intention to compel her to marry him against her wishes.
22. The most important and the only piece of evidence to prove the charge against the accused is the testimony of PW2 Priyanka. She has deposed in the Court as PW2 that she knew accused Chandan as he was living in her neighbourhood. According to her, on 18.01.2010 at about 09.00 am accused Chandan came to her house while her parents were away for work and told her that her mother was calling her at Subzi Mandi. She alleged that accused made her smell something as a result she became unconscious. Accused Chandan took her to Narela in a quarter where he committed sexual intercourse with her. According to her, accused and his supervisor took her to a temple at Naraina where accused married her. She stated that on the same day after the marriage when she alongwith the accused and the supervisor was going in the market, police met them and brought them to the police station. She identified her signature on the rescue memo FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 16 of 24 Ex. PW2/A.
23. It has come in the crossexamination of PW2 Priyanka that accused Chandan alongwith his brother was living in a rental room on the ground floor of the house where she was living in another room with her family. The street in front of this house was wide enough for passing two wheelers only. The house was situated in a residential area. According to her, she became unconscious immediately after accused made her smell something and claimed that she did not know what happened thereafter. She claims to have regained consciousness in "Nirmal Chaya".
24. In the crossexamination PW2 Priyanka further stated that she did not know what she told the police and the Judge claiming that she was not conscious. She was confronted with her statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. vide Ex. PW2/D1. She admitted her signature on her statement recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex. PW2/D2. She denied that she had told the Metropolitan Magistrate that she had married accused Chandan on her own will and claimed that the statement was not read over to her by the Metropolitan Magistrate and she had signed the statement FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 17 of 24 Ex. PW2/D2 without going through the same.
25. It has come in her crossexamination that there were residential houses surrounding the room at Narela where she was taken by accused Chandan and public persons were also passing through the area. She admitted that there were residential and commercial establishments near the temple and many public persons were passing through the area where temple was situated.
26. Ld. Amicus Curie argued that testimony of PW2 Priyanka cannot be believed keeping in view her conduct and total improvement in her statement about the incident and role of the accused. It is argued that there is no evidence to show that accused Chandan induced or compelled PW2 Priyanka to marry him.
27. The issue of abduction and illicit sexual intercourse for the purposes of Section 366 IPC was considered by the Apex Court in "Alamelu (supra)". It was held that when prosecutrix was kept at various places where illicit intercourse was committed, she stayed with the accused for six days but did not complain in spite of having opportunity to do so, had opportunity to run away but she FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 18 of 24 did not, when prosecution has failed to prove that prosecutrix was minor at the time of abduction, where accused and prosecutrix married in a temple and there is no evidence that marriage was solemnized against her wishes, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences under Section 363/366/376 of IPC.
28. On the same aspect in "Sunil Kumar Sharma & Others V/s State, NCT of Delhi, 2011 IV AD (CRI.)(DHC) 6", it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that since prosecutrix was moving freely with the accused at different places, there was no persistent threat and despite number of opportunities, she neither raised any alarm nor made any attempt to move out of the custody, shows her consent and the benefit should go to the accused.
29. Coming to the evidence on record, besides testimony of PW2 Priyanka in the Court, it is noteworthy that during investigation her statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. on 27.01.2010 vide Ex. PW2/D1, wherein she stated that she became friendly with the accused around two years ago and fell in love with him. She stated that on 18.01.2010 on the asking of accused Chandan she on her own had left her FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 19 of 24 house and went to Moti Nagar Bus Stand where accused Chandan met her and they both went to a mandir in Shakurpur and got married. She stated that subsequent to the marriage they started living as husband and wife and she voluntarily had sexual intercourse with him.
30. However, version given by PW2 Priyanka in the Court is totally different than her statement recorded by the police during investigation, wherein she alleged that accused made her smell something and took her to a room at Narela in unconscious state. During crossexamination, when PW2 was confronted with her statement Ex. PW2/D1 made to the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C., she claimed that she was unconscious. Her claim in this regard has not been substantiated and rather is in contrast to the other evidence, which totally falsify her statement given in the Court.
31. It is noteworthy that PW2 Priyanka admitted her signature on Ex. PW2/A, which is the rescue memo dated 27.01.2010, according to which PW2 was found in the company of accused Chandan on 27.01.2010 at Moti Nagar Bus Stand. As per this document PW2 Priyanka had told the police that she had FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 20 of 24 married accused Chandan. Contents of this document further shows that PW2 Priyanka was in the company of accused, voluntarily and without any inducement or coercion.
32. It is also noteworthy that after her rescue, statement of PW2 Priyanka was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide Ex. PW2/D2, wherein she stated on oath that she had willingly married accused Chandan, with whom she was living happily. She also stated before the Metropolitan Magistrate on oath that accused Chandan was her husband and she wanted to live with him.
33. Though in the crossexamination when PW2 Priyanka was confronted with her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C., she denied having made any such statement and claimed that she had signed the statement without going through the same and it was not read over to her. However, her deposition in this regard is not believable in view of the certificate given by PW9 Mr. Gaurav Rao, Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein he has categorically mentioned that the statement recorded was true and correct account of the statement given by the prosecutrix. The certificate also includes that after recording the statement, it was read over to FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 21 of 24 the prosecutrix, who then signed after hearing the same. Testimony of PW9 has gone totally unchallenged on this account and it establishes that statement of prosecutrix (PW2 Priyanka) under Section 164 Cr. P. C. was made voluntarily without any inducement, force or coercion.
34. Besides the fact that there is total improvement in the statement of PW2 Priyanka in the Court, her testimony about the incident as told in the Court is totally unbelievable. As per her version in the Court, she was taken away in unconscious condition from her house by the accused in the morning hours. Her house is located in a very congested residential area. Keeping in view the geography of the area, had the accused physically carried her out of her house in unconscious condition at 09.00 am, he was bound to be seen by the people of the locality and accused could not have succeed in taking her away. There is no evidence to corroborate PW2 about the manner in which accused is alleged to have taken her and thus her testimony in this regard is unbelievable.
35. It has come in the crossexamination of PW2 that there were residential houses in the area where accused had kept her in FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 22 of 24 a room at Narela and public persons were present all that time. According to her, there were many commercial establishments near the temple where accused married her (PW2 Priyanka) and public persons were also present. In these circumstances, there is no doubt that she remained in the company of the accused willingly and was a consenting party throughout.
36. Consent of PW2 Priyanka is also reflected from other circumstantial evidence also i.e. her MLC Ex. PW8/D3, wherein the alleged history recorded by the Doctor as told by PW2 Priyanka shows that she on her own had eloped with the accused. It is noteworthy that according to PW1 Shailender Kumar, father of the prosecutrix, his daughter was given in her custody after about 1 ½ months of her rescue. This shows that till the time custody of PW2 was restored to her father, she continued to claim before different authorities that she was 19 years old and had gone with the accused on her own. However, in her deposition in the Court during trial, while she was in the custody of her parents, she retracted from her previous statements and very likely under inducement of her parents.
37. In view of the above observations, discussion and FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 23 of 24 findings based on the evidence on record, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused abducted the prosecutrix with intention to compel her to marry him against her wishes. Accused Chandan is, therefore, acquitted of the charge under Section 366 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (Santosh Snehi Mann) on 27th August, 2011 Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 14/2010; PS Patel Nagar; State V/s. Chandan Page No. 24 of 24