Delhi District Court
State vs . Laxman on 27 July, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 25/13)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0019632013
State Vs. Laxman
FIR No. : 179/12
U/s : 363/366 IPC
P.S. : Ashok Vihar
State Vs. Laxman
S/o Late Sh. Angad Ram
R/o Village and P.O. Bid,
P.S. & District Pithoragarh,
Uttrakhand.
Date of institution of case 17.01.2013
Date on which, judgment has been reserved27.07.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment 27.07.2013
JUDGMENT:
1 Case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.2012 at about 6:30 am, when prosecutrix, a minor aged about 15 years, was going from her residence to her school, at Ashok Vihar, accused kidnapped her out of keeping of her lawful guardian i.e. her father and took her to Gangoli Haat, Pithoragarh, Uttrakhand, and kept her there from SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 1 of 20 2 23.07.2012 to 30.08.2012 with intent to force her or seduce her to have illicit intercourse with her or to compel her to marry him.
2 The investigations in the present case commenced when matter was reported to the Police by PW2 Sh. Hiraman Saroj, father of the prosecutrix. Initially a case u/s.363 IPC was registered and search was commenced for the victim girl. On 30.08.2012 prosecutrix returned back to her parents house herself and thereafter she was produced by her parents i.e. PW2 Hiraman Saroj and PW1 Smt. Sumitra before the IO. During the course of further investigations, prosecutrix was got examined at the hospital where her general medical examination was conducted, however, prosecutrix as well as her mother refused for detailed gynecological examination. Statement of prosecutrix was got recorded u/s.164 CrPC. On 03.10.2012 accused Laxman was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C and was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/D and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW7/C. After completing investigations charge sheet in the case was prepared and filed before the Court for trial.
3 Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charges for the offence under Sections 363/366 IPC were framed against the accused Laxman. However, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 2 of 20 3 5 PW1 Smt. Sumitra is the mother of the prosecutrix and she deposed about missing of the prosecutrix and her recovery after about one month and 8 days thereafter. Contrary to the prosecution case PW1 stated that medical examination of prosecutrix was refused on advise given by concerned doctor. She proved the handing over memo, vide which prosecutrix was handed over to her after medical examination, as Ex.PW1/A. During her crossexamination, PW1 stated that she knew accused Laxman since last about 11 years. She, however, denied that there were family relations between accused and their family. She also stated that prosecutrix had left the house of her own will. 6 The PW2, Sh. Hiraman Saroj, is the father of the prosecutrix and he deposed on the lines of PW1 Smt. Sumitra, his wife. He proved his complaint as Ex.PW2/A and further deposed that after about one month and 7 days of the incident, prosecutrix was recovered. He also deposed that he was informed by someone that prosecutrix had been seen in Ashok Vihar and so he went there and found prosecutrix and thereafter he and his wife took prosecutrix to Police Station and produced her before the IO, who prepared some documents. He proved his thumb impression on recovery memo of prosecutrix, which was then exhibited as Ex.PW2/B. He also stated that prosecutrix was taken for medical examination and after medical examination, prosecutrix was handed over in their custody vide memo Ex.PW1/A. As regards statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC, he stated that the prosecutrix was taken to Court, however, her statement could not be recorded and so she was brought back to home. The PW2 also deposed regarding the arrest of the accused by stating that a few days after recovery of the prosecutrix, police officials came to his house and told him that they had found out about the whereabouts of accused and asked him to identify the accused SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 3 of 20 4 and accordingly, he went to Wazirpur Industrial Area with the police officials and identified accused Laxman, who was taken to Police Station. He identified his thumb impression on Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D i.e. arrest memo and personal search memos of the accused.
7 During his crossexamination, a specific suggestion was put to PW2 that accused had given him telephonic call that prosecutrix was with him, however, PW2 stated that he did not remember about it. He also denied that after the said call, he had told the accused to bring the prosecutrix back after 4 5 days. 8 The PW3, Sh. Sushil Kumar, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, had recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC and proved the proceedings conducted by him in this regard as Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D i.e. the application filed by IO for recording of statement of prosecutrix as Ex.PW3/A ; the statement of prosecutrix as Ex.PW3/B ; the certificate given by him on the statement as Ex.PW3/C ; and the application filed by IO for supply of copy of the said statement as Ex.PW3/D. 9 The PW4 is the prosecutrix in the present case. Her testimony shall be discussed at length in the following paragraphs of the judgment. 10 The PW5, Dr. Rahul Singh, CMO, BJRM Hospital, appeared to depose in place of Dr. Bishwa Nath, who had conducted general examination of prosecutrix and had further referred her to SR Gynecology Department for further examination. He proved the MLC of prosecutrix as Ex.PW5/A by identifying handwriting and signatures SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 4 of 20 5 of Dr. Bishwa Nath.
11 The PW6, Dr. Latika Phogat, was posted as SR Gynecologist at BJRM Hospital when the prosecutrix was taken there for her gynecological examination. She stated that she examined the prosecutrix externally and as patient was not willing for her internal examination, she did not conduct the same and that at that time patient was alone and no guardian was available and that she made note regarding nonavailability of the guardian and refusal by the patient / prosecutrix for medical examination on the MLC and that she had taken signatures of Lady Constable, who had brought the prosecutrix also on MLC when patient refused for medical examination. She proved her observation notes on MLC Ex.PW5/A at point "Y".
12 The PW7, HC Baljeet Singh, is the duty officer. He deposed that on 23.07.2012 at about 8:20 PM, he received a rukka from HC Bahadur Singh and on the basis of that rukka, he got recorded the FIR No.179/12 u/s.363 IPC through computer operator and after registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to ASI Ved Prakash for further investigation. He proved computerized copy of FIR and endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively. 13 He further deposed that on 03.10.2012, he had joined the investigations of the present case with the IO and that on that day, while he and IO ASI Ved Parkash were on patrolling duty in the area, one secret informer met them and informed them that accused Laxman, who was wanted in the present case, would be coming at about 6.30/6.45 pm, at B block, WPIA, opposite Swadeshi Bazar Motorcycle Show room and SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 5 of 20 6 that accordingly, IO called the complainant Hiraman and that they all took positions near about B block, Swadesi Bazar. He further deposed that at about 6.30 pm, accused Laxman was apprehended at the pointing out of the secret informer and after his identification by the complainant. He then deposed that during the course of investigation, the accused disclosed that he had enticed away prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her and had kept her with him from 23.07.2012 to 30.08.2012, outside Delhi. He further deposed that the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D respectively and that IO recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW7/C and that thereafter, the accused was got medically examined at BJRM Hospital and was brought back to the PS and put in lock up. 14 During his crossexamination, the PW7 stated that on 03.10.2012, he was on duty at PS Ashok Vihar and his duty hours were from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm. He denied the suggestion that the accused was called to the PS on the pretext of getting the case compromised, but later on, he was falsely implicated in the present case. 15 The PW8, Lady Ct. Kusum, deposed that on 30.08.2012, she had joined the investigation of the present case with IO ASI Ved Parkash and that the complainant came to PS with his wife and prosecutrix and told the IO that the prosecutrix, who had been missing since 23.07.2012, had returned back home of her own on 30.08.2012 and that IO prepared the recovery memo of the prosecutrix i.e. Ex. PW2/B. She further deposed that on directions of the IO, she took the prosecutrix for her medical examination to BJRM hospital and that the mother of the prosecutrix also accompanied them and that in the hospital, general medical examination of the prosecutrix was SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 6 of 20 7 conducted, however, the prosecutrix as well as her mother refused for the internal examination of the prosecutrix and their signatures and thumb impression were taken on the MLC by the concerned doctor. She then deposed that thereafter she brought back the prosecutrix to PS and handed over her MLC to the IO and that the prosecutrix was handed over in custody of her parents vide handing over memo Ex. PW1/A and that the parents of prosecutrix were directed to produce the prosecutrix before the court on 31.08.2012 for her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
16 The PW9, ASI Ved Prakash, is the IO of the case and he deposed that on 23.07.2012, after registration of the case, the investigation of this case was handed over to him and that during the course of investigations, he sent WT message to all SSPs, DCSPs and all SHOs to Delhi and also sent information to ZIP NET ; Director of NCRB ; Director CBI and that Hue and Cry notice was also got prepared and the photographs of the missing girl were widely circulated on T.V and through pamphlets and that the said documents were exhibited as Ex. PW9/A (colly) and that search was made for the missing girl, without any success. He further deposed that on 30.08.2012, when he was present in PS, the complainant came to PS with his wife and prosecutrix and told him that the prosecutrix, who had been missing since 23.07.2012, had returned back home of her own on 30.08.2012 and that he accordingly, prepared the recovery memo of the prosecutrix Ex. PW2/B and that thereafter sent prosecutrix along with her mother for her medical examination through lady/Ct. Kusum to BJRM hospital. He then deposed that in the hospital, general medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted, however, the prosecutrix as well as her mother refused for the internal examination of the prosecutrix and their signatures and thumb impression were taken on the MLC by SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 7 of 20 8 the concerned doctor and that thereafter L/Ct. Kusum brought back the prosecutrix to PS and handed over her MLC to him and that the prosecutrix was handed over in custody of her parents vide handing over memo Ex. PW1/A and that he also directed the parents of prosecutrix to produce her before the court on 31.08.2012 for her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
17 The PW9 further deposed that on 31.08.2012, he recorded the statements of prosecutrix and her parents u/s 161 Cr.P.C at PS and brought the prosecutrix to court for her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and moved application Ex. PW9/B but statement of prosecutrix could not be recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C and the same was fixed for 01.09.2012 and on which date, her statement was recorded by ld. M.M. u/s 164 Cr.P.C vide Ex. PW3/B and that he moved application Ex. PW3/D for supply of copy of statement of the prosecutrix and same was allowed vide endorsement Ex. PW3/A and that thereafter the custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to her parents. 18 The PW9 further deposed that on 03.10.2012, he along with HC Baljeet were conducting the investigation of the present case and that one secret informer met him, while they were present in the area, and informed him that accused Laxman, who was wanted in the present case, would be coming at about 6.30/6.45 pm, at B block, WPIA, opposite Swadeshi Bazar Motorcycle Show room and thereafter he called the complainant Hiraman and they all took positions near about B block, Swadesi Bazar. He then deposed that at about 6.30 pm, accused Laxman was apprehended at the pointing out of the secret informer and after his identification by the complainant. He also deposed that during the course of investigation, the accused disclosed that he had SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 8 of 20 9 enticed away prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her and had kept her with him from 23.07.2012 to 30.08.2012, outside Delhi and that thereafter the accused was arrested by him vide arrest memo and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D respectively and that thereafter he recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW7/C. He then deposed that he also recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and that the accused was got medically examined at BJRM Hospital. 19 During his crossexamination, the PW9 deposed that he searched for the accused in Swaroop Nagar area, where accused had been residing earlier at Rana Enclave and other local colonies, bus stand and Railway Station. He denied the suggestion that he was in touch with the accused telephonically, prior to his arrest, and that he was knowing about the whereabouts of the accused, prior to his arrest. He then stated that prosecutrix did not tell him that during the period, she had been missing from her house, she was in continuous touch with her mother telephonically and that he did not obtain call details of the complainant, his wife, prosecutrix or accused and that he did not inquire if accused was having any mobile phone or not and that there was no delay in arrest of the accused and that he arrested him immediately, when he came to know of his whereabouts. He denied the suggestion that the accused was called to PS on pretext of getting the matter compromised with the complainant. 20 After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Laxman was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case since the parents of prosecutrix were holding grudge against him as he was already married and despite this, prosecutrix wanted to marry him and so they SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 9 of 20 10 lodged a false complaint against him. He also stated that his signatures were obtained forcibly by the police on some blank papers and printed proformas and later on, those papers were converted into various memos against him and that during his stay with prosecutrix, he informed the parents of the prosecutrix from Uttrakhand about the whereabouts of prosecutrix through his own mobile phone No.8449364744 and 9627596731, on the mobile phone number 9891321239 and 7503395126 of parents of the prosecutrix and that the prosecutrix also used to talk to her parents from his abovementioned phones daily. He further stated that IO ASI Ved Prakash was also informed by the parents of the prosecutrix about his mobile phone numbers and IO used to call / talk to him on his abovementioned phone numbers from his own (IO's) mobile phone No.9811642792 and IO repeatedly told him that he (IO) would get the matter compromised between him and parents of the prosecutrix and that he should not worry and on this pretext, IO called him Delhi on 30.08.2012 and arrested him. He then stated that he had requested the IO to place the call details on record but IO refused to do so as mobile phone number of IO would have been reflected in the CDR and that much prior to that, he had already convicted the prosecutrix to return back to her home and had sent her back to her parents. The accused declined to lead evidence in his defence. 21 Arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the accused as well as learned Additional PP for the State.
22 Learned Additional PP has contended that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has accordingly prayed that accused Laxman be convicted u/s.363/366 IPC. SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 10 of 20 11 23 Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand has contended that prosecutrix was a major as on the date of incident. It is also contended that prosecutrix and the accused were having a love affair and that prosecutrix had gone away from her house of her own accord. It is also stated that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as their only material witness i.e. prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution and thus accused is entitled to be acquitted of all charges in the present case and it is prayed accordingly.
24 I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Addl. PP as well as learned counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case.
25 In the present case the accused is alleged to have kidnapped a minor aged about 15 years out of keeping her lawful guardian and further taken her to Gangoli Haat, Pithoragarh, Uttrakhand, with intent to force her or seduce her to have illicit intercourse with her or to compel her to marry him. The entire prosecution case rests squarely on the testimony of prosecutrix, however, as the testimony of prosecutrix is discussed in following paragraphs it will be seen that prosecutrix had failed to support the prosecution case from the stage of investigation itself. The prosecutrix went missing from her house on 23.07.2012 and was recovered on 30.08.2012 after which her statement u/s.161 CrPC was recorded wherein she deposed, that she is residing with her parents and that she passed her Xth class and studying in XI class at Sarvodya Kanya Vidhayalaya, IInd SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 11 of 20 12 Ashok Vihar and that she is 15 ½ years old. She further deposed that in the morning of 23.07.2012, when she was to go to her school, she did not go to her school and went on another way and then she met one boy named Laxman, who was working in Ashoka Machine Tools Company which was situated in front of her house and whom she knew since May, 2012 and was on talking terms since 11 th June. The prosecutrix also stated that she had called Laxman in the morning of 23.07.2012 and that they both met and went to Deep Market and from there they went to Jhandewalan and that she told him that she had left her house on which he asked her why and made her understand to go back to her house, as her parents would be worried and that he tried to talk to her and make her understand till 12 Noon but she refused. She then stated that thereafter at about 12:30 PM, Laxman left her at Deep Market and went away from there while she proceeded on foot on the road going towards Azadpur Terminal and that by chance Laxman met her again on a road while going in a TSR and that he stopped his TSR and that he again made her to understand to go back to her house but she refused to go home. She further stated that since it was dark and she did not want to go home, accused took her to a room and that he told her that in the morning, he will drop her to her home. She further stated that she remained in the room for about 4 - 5 days and that he again made her understand but she refused to go back to her home and that after 4 5 days he took her to Uttrakhand Gangoli Haat where they stayed separately in a hotel. She further stated that he brought her back to Delhi on 12 / 13.08.2012 and took her to a room and that on 24 / 25.08.2012 he brought her to Uttrakhand again where he took her to the house of some relative and that on 28.08.2012, he took her to Pithoragarh and that he again asked her to return back to Delhi on 29.08.2012 and that thereafter they returned back to Delhi and that she went back at her home on SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 12 of 20 13 30.08.2012.
26 The prosecutrix was produced before the learned MM on 01.09.2012 for her statement u/s.164 CrPC i.e. Ex.PW3/B, wherein she deposed that on 23.07.2012, when she was going to school from house, she could not go to school and made a call to one boy namely Laxman, whom she knew since 11.07.2012, and called him to meet her. She further stated that both of them met at Deep Market and from where they went to Jhandewalan and that she told him that she wanted to leave her house on which accused tried to make her understand not to leave her house and that her parents would be worried about her and to go back to her home and that thereafter he left her at Deep Market and went away. She then stated that thereafter she went on foot on the road going towards Azadpur Terminal and that he met her again on the road and he again made her understand to go back home but she refused. She further stated that since it was dark and she was not going home, he took her to a room and told that in the morning, he would drop her to her home. She further stated that she remained there for about 4 - 5 days and that he again made her understand but she refused to go back home and that during that stay, she was alone at night and that he came only in day time and that he again asked her to go back to her home but she did not pay any heed to his advice and that thereafter he took her to Uttrakhand Gangoli Haat where they stayed separately in a hotel. She further stated that he brought her back to Delhi on 12 / 13 and took her in a room and that on 24 / 25 he took her to Uttrakhand again to the house of some relative and that on 28th he took her to Pithoragarh and he again asked her to return back to Delhi on 29th and that thereafter they returned back to Delhi and that she returned back to her home. She further stated that she had gone with accused of her SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 13 of 20 14 own free will and Laxman had no fault in the same.
27 It is seen that from the statement Ex.PW3/B that prosecutrix has completely exonerated accused of all allegations of kidnapping or trying to seduce her or to force her to have sexual intercourse with her or to force her to marry him. This statement was not only reiterated by the prosecutrix before the Court as PW4 but she clarified it further as under : "Accused was working in a factory by the name of Ashoka Machine Tools which is situated opposite my house. I know accused since May 2012 as a worker in the said factory. I had not talked with him . My date of birth is 06.04.1997. Since 11 th June 2012 I started talking with the accused in a light manner. On 23.07.2012 I called the accused on his mobile and told him that I wanted to meet him and instead of going to my school I went to meet the accused at Deep Market and from there we went to Jhandewala Mandir. I told him that I wanted to leave my home on which accused tried to make me understand not to leave the house . He told me that my parents would be worried about me and I should go back home. But, I did not listen his advices. Due to the said reason accused left me at Deep Market at about 12.30 p.m. and went away. Thereafter I went on foot on the road going towards Azad Pur Terminal and kept on walking till 5 or 6 p.m. in the evening. By chance I met accused again at a road ahead of Azad Pur Terminal. The accused SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 14 of 20 15 was in a TSR. He stopped that TSR and asked me as to why I was roaming around. He also asked as to why I did not go to the home yet. He also advised that I should have reached home by that time . He repeatedly tried to make me understand but I was adamant and did not want to go back home at that time. He offered me to sit in the TSR and to drop me at my home but I refused.
Since it was dark, accused offered me to go alongwith him at his house and he took me to a room . I do not know the name of the place where the said room was situated. No other person was residing in the said room. In the morning, the accused asked me to go back to my home but I did not pay any heed to his advice.
Thereafter he took me to Uttrakhand by bus and we went to Gangoli Haat and we stayed there in a hotel and thereafter lived in a room on rent. Accused used to change the rooms and he lived at different places in Uttrakahand for about one month. Accused brought me back to Delhi on 30.08.2012 and I came back at my home. My parents took me to the police station. I was taken to the hospital for medical examination with a lady police and my mother. My mother and myself had refused for my internal examination. During the period I stayed with the accused, no physical relations took place between us.
At this stage the witness was explained what is meant by physical relations and was asked whether any relationship as between husband and wife had taken place SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 15 of 20 16 between her and the accused. The witness after understanding the same clearly, stated that no physical relations took place between her and the accused and that they both used to sleep in separate rooms during the period they were together. She further deposed that : I had told this fact to my mother also and due to this reason only she refused for my medical examination. The police prepared my recovery memo on 30.08.2012 in the presence of my parents when they produced me before the police. The recovery memo is already Ex. as PW 2/B which bears my signatures at point B. After my medical examination I was brought to the court by the IO to give my statement before the Magistrate but on that day could not be recorded and I was called on next day. My statement was recorded by the Magistrate in the chamber on 01.09.2012. My statement which was recorded by the Magistrate is signed by me which is already Ex. PW 3/B and bears my signatures at point A on both the pages.
Court Q. Did you know that accused is already married?
Ans Yes.
Court Q. During the period you and accused were together and at
the time when you went with the accused, did he ever asked you to marry him?
Ans. No." SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 16 of 20 17 28 During her crossexamination, PW4 admitted that she had gone with the
accused voluntarily and at no point of time accused enticed her or allured her or pressurized her to go with him.
29 It is apparent from the statement of prosecutrix made before the police, her statement u/s.164 CrPC Ex.PW3/B and her testimony before the Court that there was no threat or inducement or enticement on the part of the accused to make prosecutrix to go with him. Rather it appears that prosecutrix insisted on going with the accused though he continuously advised her to return back home. The accused appears to have given shelter to the prosecutrix and even when she was staying with him, he did not take any advantage of her vulnerability to exploit her sexually for prosecutrix has categorically stated as PW4 that while they were staying at Gangoli Haat, Pithoragarh, Uttrakhand, and she and accused used to sleep in separate rooms. Further accused has taken a defence that he had informed the father of the prosecutrix about her whereabouts and a specific suggestion in this regard was put to PW2 Sh. Hiraman Saroj, father of the prosecutrix, however, there was no specific denial thereof by PW2, who gave an evasive answer by saying that he did not remember about it. There is also contradiction in the testimony of PW1 Smt. Sunita and PW2 Sh. Hiraman Saroj as PW1 has stated that she knew accused since last about 11 years where PW2 denied the same. It appears that parents of prosecutrix themselves were aware that prosecutrix had gone away from the house of her own and very aware of her whereabouts during the period when she was amiss. In similar circumstances, in case of S.Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 942, it was held that, SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 17 of 20 18 "There is a distinction between "taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though it cannot be laid down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes. of S. 361. Where the minor leaves her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she is doing, voluntarily joins the accused person, the accused cannot be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian, Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian." 30 Similar view has been taken in judgment in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sureshbabu Puk Raj Porral, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 966.
31 It has also been held in para 8 of judgment titled as Bunty vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi in Crl. Appeal no. 846/2009 decided on 16.03.2011 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that : "8. In this case, the prosecutrix had accompanied the Appellant voluntarily without any use of force exercised by him. It is not a case wherein he had taken the prosecutrix after enticing her. Prosecutrix had travelled SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 18 of 20 19 with the accused to different places outside Delhi without raising any alarm or complaining to fellow passengers that she had been taken away by force. If a minor accompanies accused voluntarily without any offer or allurement then offence under Section 363 is not made out. ...."
32 In the present case also, the element of 'taking away' or 'enticement' is found to be lacking. In view of the material on record, it appears that prosecutrix was herself refusing to return back to her home despite repeated advice given by accused to go back to her parents house. Further accused took all possible steps to inform the parents of prosecutrix of their whereabouts but for some reason best known to them, they did not go to bring the prosecutrix back but waited for her to return back to home of her own. Perhaps their anger and frustration due to the acts of prosecutrix, in leaving the house without their permission, overpowered their sense of reasoning and instead of going to fetch the prosecutrix and to counsel her and to bring her back to home, they continued to wait for her to come back to home of her own. In the facts and circumstances elaborated hereinabove, the factum of kidnapping of prosecutrix does not stand proved in the present case.
33 The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that from the testimony of the prosecutrix as well as other material placed on record, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused had kidnapped prosecutrix from the lawful custody of her father without the consent of such guardian and took her to Gangoli Haat, Pithoragarh, Uttrakhand, and kept her there from 23.07.2012 to 30.08.2012 with intent to force her or SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 19 of 20 20 seduce her to have illicit intercourse with her or to compel her to marry him. Accordingly, I acquit accused Laxman of the charged offences, giving him benefit of doubt for the offences u/s. 363/366 IPC.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 27.07.2013) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 20 of 20
21
FIR No. 179/12
P.S. Ashok Vihar
State Vs. Laxman
27.07.2013
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel Sh. B.N. Tiwari.
PW7 HC Baljeet Singh, PW8 Lady Ct. Kusum and PW9 ASI Ved Prakash are present. They are examined, crossexamined and discharged.
Perusal of record shows that no witness remains to be examined, hence PE closed.
Statement of accused u/s.313 CrPC recorded.
Arguments heard.
Judgment shall be passed during the course of the day.
Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 27.07.2013 At 4:15 PM Present: As before.
Vide separate judgment, announced today in the open Court, accused Laxman has been acquitted of the charged offence.
Accused Laxman requests that his previously furnished bail bond may be accepted in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC. Request allowed. Accordingly, previous bail bond of the accused Laxman is extended for a period of six months from SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 21 of 20 22 today in terms of Section 437A CrPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 27.07.2013 SC No. 25/13 State Vs. Laxman Page Nos. 22 of 20