Delhi District Court
Addl. Sessions Judge : Rohini Courts : ... vs Hari Kishan on 31 May, 2011
1 FIR No. 605/07 PS Jahangir Puri
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. BANSAL : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
S.C. No. 73/10
FIR No. 605/07
P.S. Jahangir Puri
U/s. 363/366 IPC
State
Versus
Hari Kishan
s/o. Sh. Vinod Kumar,
r/o. I1666, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
Date of Receipt : 25.11.2010
Date of arguments: 31.05.2011
Date of Decision : 31.05.2011
JUDGMENT :
1. Story of prosecution in brief is that on 10.09.2007, daughter of Raj Wati, hereinafter referred as 'V', left for school at 6.30 AM, but did not return. Some articles were also missing from her house and they suspected that Hari Kishan had allured away her daughter. She Page 1 of 3 2 FIR No. 605/07 PS Jahangir Puri made a complaint to the police and on 26.09.2007, 'V' was recovered from the possession of accused. Accused was arrested. Investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. Metropolitan Magistrate after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the court of Sessions as the offence punishable u/s.366 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
3. The accused was charged for the offences punishable U/s.363 & 366 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution examined 'V' as PW1. She stated that on 10.09.2007, as per plan, she left her home, but instead of going to the school, she alongwith accused went to a village at Etah in UP. She also stated that she accompanied the accused of her own and that they also performed marriage in the temple. The accused also stated that he pleads guilty that he took away the girl without the consent of her parents.
2. Statement of accused was recorded U/s.313 Cr.PC, wherein he admitted the factum of taking away the girl.
Page 2 of 3 3 FIR No. 605/07 PS Jahangir Puri
3. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the record. The evidence on record is that the accused had taken away 'V', who was minor, without the consent of her parents. No doubt, the girl had stated that she went away with the accused of her own, but she being minor, her consent is immaterial. So far as the offence U/s.366 IPC is concerned, there is nothing on record that she was compelled either by the accused, or by any other person to marry with the accused against her wish. The onus was on the prosecution to prove and establish that 'V' was forced to marry against her wish, which is not there. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.366 IPC.
4. However, the prosecution has successfully proved and established the offence punishable U/s.363 IPC against the accused. The accused is, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s.363 IPC.
Announced in open Court on today i.e. 31 of May, 2011 st (V.K. BANSAL) ADDL. SESSION JUDGE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Page 3 of 3 4 FIR No. 605/07 PS Jahangir Puri IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. BANSAL : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI S.C. No. 73/10 FIR No. 605/07 P.S. Jahangir Puri U/s. 363/366 IPC State Versus Hari Kishan s/o. Sh. Vinod Kumar, r/o. I1666, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 31.05.2011 Pr. Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict in person with Counsel.
1. Heard on the point of quantum of sentence.
2. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that convict is of young age; he is recently married; he had also remained in JC for 18 days and prayed for a lenient view.
Page 4 of 3 5 FIR No. 605/07 PS Jahangir Puri
3. Keeping in view the facts and submission, I sentence the convict U/s.363 IPC to 15 days SI, with a fine of Rs.5,000/ ID seven days SI. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be extended to the convict. Fine paid.
4. File be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in open Court on today i.e. 31 of May, 2011 st (V.K. BANSAL) ADDL. SESSION JUDGE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Page 5 of 3