Delhi District Court
State vs . Parmod on 26 April, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No.27/12)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0047352012
State Vs. Parmod
FIR No. : 297/11
U/s : 363/366/376 IPC
P.S. : Adarsh Nagar
State Vs. Parmod
s/o Sh. Ram Charan
r/o Village Sonvara,
Post Office Kotla,
P.S. Rani Ki Saria,
District Azamgarh, U.P.
Date of institution of case 14.02.2012
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 25.04.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment 26.04.2013
JUDGMENT:
1 Investigations in the present case commenced on 11.11.2011 when complainant Umesh Kumar went to Police Station Adarsh Nagar and gave his statement Ex.PW3/A wherein he stated that he was residing at B19 Jhuggi, Sarai Pipal Thala, Durga Market, Near Aggarwal Sweet, in front of Laxmi Trader, Delhi, with his family, and SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 1 of 35 2 was having four children i.e. two sons and two daughters and that prosecutrix was his eldest daughter, who was aged about 17 years and 7 months and that her date of birth was 13.03.1994 and that she was studying in 10th class in Rajkiya Uchh (Kanya) Vidalaya, Adarsh Nagar. He further stated that on 10.11.2011 at about 2:00 PM, prosecutrix had gone to purchase some books from Adarsh Nagar but did not return back and that he had tried to search for his daughter but could not trace her. The complainant gave description of his daughter as well as clothes which she was wearing and expressed suspicion that some unknown person had enticed away his daughter and prayed that action be taken in the matter.
2 On the basis of said complaint, a case FIR Ex.PW1/A u/s.363 IPC was registered. The investigation of the case was marked to PW11 ASI Uday Singh. On 17.12.2011, PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar produced the prosecutrix and accused in the P.S. and on inquiry, prosecutrix gave her statement wherein she disclosed that accused had taken her forcibly, by giving threats, to Lucknow where he got married with her and established physical relations with her forcibly. Further investigation of the case were assigned to PW12 W/SI Upkar Kaur and on inquiry, prosecutrix stated that on 09.02.2011 she had gone to the house of her friend for taking some books but on the way accused met her and took her to Lucknow forcibly by extending threats to her and at Lucknow he forcibly married her in a Mandir and established physical relations with her without her consent. Thereafter IO took the prosecutrix for medical examination to BJRM Hospital where mother of prosecutrix refused for internal examination of the prosecutrix. Accused was also taken to said hospital for medical examination. The samples taken during their examination by the concerned doctors were seized and SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 2 of 35 3 deposited in the Malkhana. On 18.12.2011 accused was produced before the concerned Court and was remanded to JC. The statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC i.e. Ex.PW5/C was got recorded. After completing investigations of the case, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the Court.
3 Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charges for the offence under Sections 363/366/376 IPC were framed against the accused Parmod. However, the 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 13 witnesses : 5 The PW2, Smt. Uma, is the mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that she had taken prosecutrix to Police Station, where Police officials made inquiry from her daughter and that she had gone along with the prosecutrix for her medical examination to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where her daughter i.e. prosecutrix was medically examined by the concerned doctor, however, she refused for internal examination of prosecutrix as she was having her periods. In response to a leading question put to her by learned Additional PP, the PW2 termed it correct that she had taken prosecutrix for medical examination on 17.12.2011.
6 During her crossexamination by learned defence counsel, PW2 stated that she had told the IO in her statement u/s.161 CrPC that she had refused for internal examination of prosecutrix as she was having periods, however, this fact was not found SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 3 of 35 4 recorded in Mark 'X', her statement u/s.161 CrPC.
7 The PW3, Sh. Umesh Kumar Bhardwaj, is the father of the prosecutrix. He deposed as per his complaint Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that date of birth of his daughter i.e. Prosecutrix is 13.03.1994 and that she was studying in 10th class at the time of incident and that on 10.11.2011 she had gone to house of her friend Bhumika, at A31, Adarsh Nagar, at around 2:00 / 2:30 PM, to complete her homework but did not return back and that his wife went to Bhumika's house to enquire about prosecutrix and was told by Bhumika that prosecutrix had left about half an hour ago and that thereafter his wife made enquiry from other friends of prosecutrix but there was no clue about her. The PW3 further deposed that he returned back to his home at around 9:30 PM and was informed by his family members that prosecutrix was missing and that PW3 gave a call at 100 number pursuant to which PCR official came there but they did not take any action and on their advice he went to PS Mahendra Park from where he was sent to PS Adarsh Nagar but his complaint was not recorded on 10.11.2011 and on 11.11.2011 his complaint Ex.PW3/A was recorded.
8 The PW3 then deposed that he kept searching for his daughter and on 15.11.2011, prosecutrix and accused gave call to his wife stating that they would not be returning back and that wife of PW3 told PW3 about the said call and PW3 informed the IO about it and that the call details of said number were traced out and location of caller was found out at Mohibulla Pur, Bharat Nagar, Lucknow, and that PW3 was told by police officials to make arrangements for going to said place. In the meantime, PW3 found out the details of area from one of the businessman SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 4 of 35 5 visiting his office and went to Lucknow on 09.12.2011. After searching for prosecutrix here and there, he found prosecutrix and accused near Mobillah Pur Railway Station on fourth day. The PW3 then deposed that he brought prosecutrix and accused to Delhi but at Delhi he set accused free on advise of his family members, as he did not want his daughter (prosecutrix) to have bad name, however, when accused did not mend his way and threatened to take away prosecutrix again, he took accused to PS on 16.12.2011 where he was arrested by the Police. On the next day PW3 again went to PS with his wife and prosecutrix, where inquiries were made from prosecutrix and she was got medically examined at BJRM Hospital.
9 During his crossexamination, PW3 stated that he had got married on 08.05.1984 and that prosecutrix, who was his eldest child, was born after 10 years of his marriage and that he had got her admitted in school when she was around 4
- 5 years old and at that time, he had produced her birth certificate. During his further crossexamination, PW3 stated that his working hours were 11:00 AM to 8:30 PM and that he had come to know about missing of his daughter on 10.11.2011 when he came back from his office at about 9:30 PM. The PW3 termed it correct that he as well as his wife were having mobile phone. He also stated that prior to 9:30 PM on 10.11.2011, he had not received information about missing of the prosecutrix. During his further crossexamination, PW3 was confronted with modifications made during his testimony before the Court over and above his complaint Ex.PW3/A and it was brought out that he had not mentioned in Ex.PW3/A that prosecutrix had gone to the house of her friend Bhumika at A31, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Delhi, at about 2:00 - 2:30 PM to complete her homework and that when prosecutrix did not return back home, his wife SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 5 of 35 6 had gone to Bhumika's house to enquire about her and that his complaint was not recorded on 10.11.2011 by the officials of PS Mahendra Park and PS Adarsh Nagar. The PW3 admitted that he had not made any complaint to senior Police officials of PS Mahendra Park and PS Adarsh Nagar for their inaction in recording his complaint on 10.11.2011. He termed it correct that in his complaint Ex.PW3/A he had stated that some unknown person had enticed prosecutrix away. He also stated that house of Bhumika was at a distance of about 15 yards from his house and that there was only a road between their house and house of Bhumika. Regarding his complaint Ex.PW3/A, the PW3 stated that the same was recorded by the Police in their own language (Policia language) and that he had not gone through the contents of his complaint though copy of the same was supplied to him by the Police. During his further crossexamination, PW3 reiterated that on 15.11.2011 accused Parmod had made a call on the mobile phone of his wife. He also deposed that he had not visited Lucknow prior to 09.12.2011 and that he had come to know about the location of mobile phone of accused at Lucknow only one week prior to his visit at Lucknow. The PW3 also stated that he had not contacted any local police official at Lucknow and that accused did not run away from Mohibulla Railway Station. The PW3 stated that it was so as he had apprehended accused from behind. He further stated that he had not called any police official or the Railway Police official at the time of apprehension of accused. During his further crossexamination, PW3 stated that accused was not living in his locality. He denied that accused was living in a house situated at a distance of 3 - 4 houses from his house. He also denied that prosecutrix was having an affair with the accused since about 7 years prior to the incident or that she used to talk to him on mobile phone. He also stated that he had not been told by prosecutrix that she had SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 6 of 35 7 married the accused voluntarily. The witness clarified stating that he had verified himself if accused and prosecutrix had married each other but had come to know that they were not married. The PW3 denied that prosecutrix had herself called accused from Sai Baba Mandir, Jahangir Puri and compelled him to marry him. He further denied that she had voluntarily accompanied accused to Lucknow and lived with him as his wife for about month at Lucknow.
10 The PW4 is the prosecutrix in the present case. Her testimony shall be discussed at length in the following paragraphs of the judgment. 11 The PW5, Sh. Dheeraj Mor, 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.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/D i.e. the application filed by IO for recording of statement of prosecutrix as Ex.PW5/A ; the statement of prosecutrix as Ex.PW5/B ; the certificate given by him on the statement as Ex.PW5/C ; and the application filed by IO for supply of copy of the said statement as Ex.PW5/D. 12 The PW8, Dr. Deepak Chugh, was deputed in place of Dr. Anil Kumar, who had conducted medical examination of prosecutrix as well as accused on 17.12.2011. He deposed that on 17.12.2011 Dr. Anil Kumar had examined prosecutrix d/o Sh. Umesh Kumar, aged about 17 years, under his supervision, vide MLC Ex.PW8/A and had referred her to Dr. Mamta Aggarwal, Senior Resident (Gynecologist), for expert opinion. The PW8 proved the observations given by Dr. Anil Kumar on the MLC of the prosecutrix i.e. Ex.PW8/A. The PW8 further deposed that on the same day Dr. Anil SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 7 of 35 8 Kumar had examined patient Parmod, under his supervision, vide MLC Ex.PW8/B and thereafter patient was referred to Dr. Rahul, Senior Resident (Surgery), who further examined the patient and gave its observation on MLC Ex.PW8/B. The PW8 identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Anil Kumar on MLC Ex.PW8/A (of prosecutrix) and Ex.PW8/B (of accused) as well as handwriting and signatures of Dr. Rahul on MLC Ex.PW8/B (of accused).
13 The PW13, Dr. Seema, was deputed in place of Dr. Mamta Aggarwal, who had conducted medical examination of prosecutrix. She deposed that on 17.12.2011 prosecutrix was referred to Gynecological Department by Dr. Anil Kumar, JR for her medical examination and that the prosecutrix was produced for further medical examination before Dr. Mamta Aggarwal, however, prosecutrix and her mother refused for internal examination of prosecutrix. The PW13 proved the observations given by Dr. Mamta Aggarwal on the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex.PW8/A and also identified her signatures thereupon.
14 During the crossexamination of PW13, she stated that as per MLC Ex.PW8/A, prosecutrix had stated that she had run away with her boyfriend on 10.11.2011 to Lucknow where she got married with accused on 11.11.2011 and that prosecutrix ran away of her own will and that they had sexual intercourse three times during this period and that prosecutrix called her parents on 16.11.2011 and informed that she had got married on 12.12.2011 and that thereafter her father took her back to home.
SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 8 of 35 9 15 The PW1, W/HC Prafulla, was posted as Duty Officer at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, at the relevant time. She proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement made by her on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. 16 The PW11, ASI Uday Singh, is the first IO of the case. He deposed regarding the investigations carried out by him and the documents prepared by him during the course of investigation. He further deposed that during the course of investigations, he got flashed wireless message to all SSPs, all over India and all SHOs in Delhi vide Ex.PW11/A and also got flashed message on zip net vide Mark PW11/X. He then deposed that on 14.11.2011, he also informed the Director NCRB, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, regarding kidnapping of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW11/B and that he had also given an application for supply of information of kidnapping of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW11/C and tried to trace the accused and prosecutrix but they could not be found. He further deposed that on 17.12.2011 on the instructions of SHO, he handed over the case file to SI Upkar Kaur.
17 The PW12, SI Upkar Kaur, is the second IO of the case. She deposed that she was marked the investigations of the case on 17.12.2011 and that on that day, complainant Umesh Bhardwaj, his wife Uma and the prosecutrix and accused were already present in the Police Station when she reached there. The PW12 further deposed that she made inquiry from complainant and the prosecutrix and that she interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW12/B and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW12/C. She further deposed that she had taken accused and the SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 9 of 35 10 prosecutrix, along with parents of prosecutrix and PW7 Ct. Sandeep to BJRM Hospital for medical examination of prosecutrix and the accused and also seized the pullandas, handed over to her by concerned doctor after examination of accused, vide memo Ex.PW7/A. The PW12 further deposed about proceedings whereby she had got statement of prosecutrix recorded u/s.164 CrPC. The PW12 lastly deposed about sending the exhibits of the case to FSL Rohini by issuing necessary directions to MHCM. 18 From the crossexamination of PW12, it is brought out that date of recording of disclosure statement Ex.PW12/C was not mentioned thereupon. Similarly, the date on which statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s.161 CrPC, vide Mark "X" was also not mentioned thereupon. The PW12 also stated that she did not visit Lucknow during investigations. She, however, denied that it was so as prosecutrix had told her that she had gone to Lucknow with the accused voluntarily and that she had voluntarily married accused in temple at Lucknow. The IO was put Ex.PW8/A i.e. the MLC of the prosecutrix and in particular endorsement made by concerned doctor on the MLC wherein in the history given by patient, the doctor had recorded that prosecutrix had told that she had run away with her boyfriend on 10.11.2011 and got married with him on 11.11.2011 and had sexual intercourse with him voluntarily and had called her parents on 16.11.2011 and that her father had reached Lucknow and brought her back. The IO admitted having gone through these facts, as recorded by the concerned doctor, and stated that despite having read this endorsement, she did not visit Lucknow to make inquiry regarding the marriage between the parties, at the place where accused and prosecutrix were residing. The IO, however, stated that she had inquired from prosecutrix about the history given by her to the doctor, SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 10 of 35 11 who had prepared her MLC Ex.PW8/A and that the prosecutrix told her that she had responded to whatever doctor had asked her. The PW12 termed it correct that prosecutrix did not state to her that the concerned doctor had wrongly recorded the history on MLC Ex.PW8/A. The PW12 denied that prosecutrix had reiterated this history when PW12 recorded her statement u/s.161 CrPC but PW12 deliberately did not record so. The disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW12/C was also put to the IO. The PW12 termed it correct that in Ex.PW12/C accused had also disclosed that he and prosecutrix had married in a temple at Lucknow and thereafter they were residing at Lucknow as husband and wife. She also termed it correct that despite the disclosure made by accused in Ex.PW12/C she did not verify this fact by carrying out investigations at Lucknow and that she had not made any effort to trace out the landlady / owner of the house where accused and prosecutrix were residing and that she also did not make efforts to find out about the train by which accused and prosecutrix had gone to Lucknow and that she further did not trace out particulars of vehicle in which accused is alleged to have kidnap the prosecutrix. The PW12 also stated that she had not verified from the complainant about the place at Lucknow from where he had found the prosecutrix and the accused. She stated that she was told by the first IO that prosecutrix had given a call to her father / complainant from which complainant came to know about her whereabouts. The PW12 admitted that she had not tried to find out the phone numbers from which the prosecutrix and her father had communicated and she had also not tried to collect the call details of the said phone numbers. The PW12 denied that she had not done so as these documents would have revealed that prosecutrix was in continuous touch of her parents since the day she had gone with the accused.
SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 11 of 35 12 19 From further crossexamination of PW12, it is brought out that she did not record statement of Bhumika, friend of the prosecutrix, to whose house prosecutrix is stated to have gone on the day of incident and that she had also not tried to trace out the friend of the accused from whom he had borrowed the vehicle used for kidnapping of the prosecutrix. The statements of witnesses recorded by PW12 u/s.161 CrPC were put to her and after going through the same, PW12 termed it correct that she had not mentioned the specific date on which she had recorded the statement of said witnesses. PW12 denied that accused had been falsely implicated in the case as parents of prosecutrix had refused to accept marriage of prosecutrix and the accused. 20 The PW6, W/Ct. Deepa Yadav, had joined the investigation of the case with the IO PW12 W/SI Upkar Kaur on 17.12.2011 and had accompanied her to BJRM Hospital with the prosecutrix for her medical examination and deposed regarding the same. She further deposed that the mother of prosecutrix was also accompanied them to the hospital where she refused for internal examination of the prosecutrix. 21 The PW7, Ct. Sandeep, had joined the investigation of the case with the IO PW12 W/SI Upkar Kaur on 17.12.2011 and had gone for medical examination of accused to BJRM Hospital and deposed regarding the same. He proved his signatures on seizure memo Ex.PW7/A i.e. the memo vide which sealed pullandas containing samples taken from accused and sample seal, were seized.
22 The PW9, Ct. Ashraf, deposed that on 12.01.2012 on the instructions of IO, SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 12 of 35 13 he received two pullandas sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital from MHCM for depositing the same in FSL Rohini vide RC No.2/21/12 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini.
23 The PW10, HC Radhey Shyam, was posted as MHCM at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, at the relevant time. He produced Register No.19 and proved the relevant entries of deposit of samples and other articles at Malkhana and about sending them to FSL as Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C. 24 After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Parmod was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case after obtaining his signatures on blank papers by the Police in connivance with PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar, father of prosecutrix. He further deposed that he was having an affair with the prosecutrix since last 6 - 7 years and due to community differences, the family members of the prosecutrix did not accept their relation. He further deposed that the prosecutrix had accompanied him of her own sweet will and consent and that he had married prosecutrix in a temple at Lucknow with her consent and that he had established physical relations with her as her husband with her consent. He then deposed that he and prosecutrix had informed the father of prosecutrix about their marriage after about 10 days of the marriage. The accused declined to lead evidence in their defence.
25 Arguments have been addressed by learned amicus curie for the accused person as well as learned Additional PP for the State. The learned amicus curie has SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 13 of 35 14 also filed written submissions.
26 Learned Additional PP has contended that the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution and that she has clearly deposed about the manner in which she was forcibly taken away by the accused to marry him and that she has also deposed about the manner in which accused committed rape upon her. It is further stated that the remaining prosecution witnesses have also corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix and hence, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has accordingly prayed that accused Parmod be convicted u/s.363/366/376 IPC.
27 Learned counsel for accused on the other hand has contended that accused is innocent and has not committed any offence as he and prosecutrix were of marriageable age and had thus taken a joint decision to get married against the wishes of their parents. It is further contended that prosecutrix had herself accompanied the accused and got married with him and that parents of prosecutrix were also aware of their marriage yet they failed to accept the relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused and incited prosecutrix to depose against the accused by telling her that accused had raised hand on her father. It is thus prayed that accused be acquitted of all charges in the present case and it is prayed accordingly.
28 I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Addl. PP and learned counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions and judgments filed on behalf of accused. I have also carefully considered SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 14 of 35 15 the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. 29 In the present case, the accused is alleged to have kidnapped prosecutrix, a minor aged about 17 ½ years, from the lawful custody of her father without his consent and compelled her to marry him and further seduced her to have illicit intercourse with him. The prosecutrix is alleged to have been taken away on 10.11.2011 by accused and was recovered on 09.12.2011 from Lucknow by her father after which she was brought to Delhi by him. Initially father of prosecutrix did not press for charges against the accused, however, when accused continued to stalk prosecutrix after she was brought back to Delhi, he took the accused to Police Staion on 16.12.2011. On the same day statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s.161 CrPC wherein she deposed as under : "Mein (prosecutrix) d/o Umesh r/o B19, Sarai Pipalthala, Adarsh Nagar me saparivar rehti hua ; wah dasvi (10 th ) kaksha me padti hua ; mein 10.11.2011 ko apni saheli ke ghar kitabe lene gayi thi jo raste me mujhe Parmod mil gaya jisko mein 6 7 sal se janti hua jo hamare pados me hi rehta hai, jo mujhe aakar kehne laga ki mere sath chal, maine bahut mana kiya lekin wah kehne gala ki me gadi (chota hati) se takkar mar dunga wah mujhe zabardasti dhamka kar apne sath le gaya, mujhe train me lekar Lucknow aagaya, Lucknow me Parmod ne mere sath zabardasti mandir me shadi ki wah mere sath zabardasti hi sharirik sambandh banaye, mere mana karne par bhi yeh nahi mana ; jo mere pita mujhe dudte hue Lucknow pahuch gaye wah mere ko wah Parmod ko lekar Thane aaye."
SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 15 of 35 16 30 The statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC Ex.PW5/B was recorded on 18.12.2011, wherein she deposed that she was residing at B19 Saraipipalthala, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, with her parents and that accused used to reside in her neighbourhood. On 10.11.2011, she went to house of her friend Bhumika. Accused Parmod followed her and obstructed her way with his vehicle (gadi) and asked her to come near him. When prosecutrix refused, he threatened to kill her and out of fear prosecutrix sat in his vehicle. Thereafter accused Parmod closed windows of the vehicle and took prosecutrix forcibly with her. He further took her to Lucknow in a train. At Lucknow, he took a room on rent and kept prosecutrix with him. He also married her forcibly in a temple. Prosecutrix alleged that whenever accused used to leave the room, he used to lock her in it. After about one month, father of prosecutrix came to Lucknow searching for her and brought her and accused to Delhi. Prosecutrix alleged that accused had sexual relations with her forcibly without her consent.
31 The prosecutrix appeared to depose before the Court as PW4 and her statement was recorded on 26.07.2012 wherein she deposed as under : "On 11.11.2011 it was an off day of my school. I was studying in 10th class and had gone to house of my friend Bhumika situated behind Sai Baba Road, at about 2:30 PM to collect my assignment. Bhumika told me that my assignment was not with her as she had handed over the same to another friend Meena. I was going to the house of Meena to collect my assignment.
SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 16 of 35 17 Accused Pramod came from behind in a vehicle which is popularly known as 'chota hathi'. I do not know its actual name. Accused blew horn from behind. I gave him side. Accused asked me where I was going. I told him that I was going to my friend's house. He also asked me why I did not respond to his phone calls. He made me sit in his vehicle forcibly. He closed the glass panes of the vehicle. He threatened to throw me in Khai of Nirankari Colony. I got angry and slapped him. He torn off my books and copies. He started driving the vehicle. I told him to stop the vehicle but he did not. I told him to let go of me and that I would not tell anything to anyone. Accused told me that he had Rs.10,000/ with him and that he would take me with him on that day itself. Accused stopped his vehicle at Jahangir Puri. From there, accused made me sit in a train going to Kanpur. I told accused to leave me but accused told me that he would take me with him any how. When train stopped at Kanpur, accused took a rickshow for hotel. Accused got a call from his friend Dharmender, who asked him about me. Accused told him that I was not with him. I started raising alarm and after hearing the alarm, when his friend Dharmender said that I was with the accused, the accused disconnected the call. He also removed sim from the phone and kept it separately. He told me that we would leave the hotel at about 7:00 PM. I told him that I wanted to talk to my parents. I was adamant on talking to my parents, and after some time SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 17 of 35 18 accused again put sim card in his phone. He did not let me talk to my parents. In the mean time, Dharmender again called on phone of accused. When accused asked him, Dharmender told accused that Police had come and was searching for me and that accused should inform my parents and bring me back to them.
Accused did not bring me back to my parents. He took me to
Lucknow in a bus. On reaching Lucknow, accused asked one
Rrickshaw Wala to arrange for a room. He did not know said
Rickshaw Wala from before. The Rickshaw Wala arranged for a room in a residential house of some lady. I do not know name of said lady. At the said place, there were some muslim boys, who thought from my appearance that I too was a Muslim. They started threatening the accused that since I am a muslim, they would keep me with them. The landlady told the accused that if he did not marry me, then the said boys would take me away and may even sell me off. Accused told me to marry him. We were taken to a nearby temple where we were got married. We were taken there by women from the family of Rickshaw Wala, who had arranged for the room. We returned back to the said room. I started residing in the said room with the accused as husband and wife and had physical relations with him. I stayed with accused in that room for about one month. During that time, accused used to make calls to his parents. The parents of accused told him to let me go and to talk to my father since my Chacha had visited their SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 18 of 35 19 house, however, accused did not listen. Accused made a call to one Maulvi and told him to make my mind in such a manner that I did not express desire to go back to my parents house and stayed with accused willingly.
After 7 / 8 days of my marriage with the accused, I asked accused to make me talk to my parents. After great persuasion, accused allowed me to talk to my parents on phone but he did not let me tell them about the place where we were staying. 2 - 3 days thereafter I had a quarrel with accused and ran away but I met 2 - 3 men on the way, who wanted to take me away. Accused also came there so I returned with him. Accused told me not to run away from the house and assured me that he would take me to my parents himself after few days as he was apprehensive that my parents would have already filed a case against him and would catch hold of him.
After some days when accused was away for work, I asked the children playing nearby about a STD Booth. After 2 - 3 attempts, I was able to make call to my parents house. I paid for money of the call from the money given to me by accused for household expenses. I was able to speak to my mother and told her description of the area in which I was kept. My mother assured me that she would send my father. After 8 9 days the landlady told me that a man was looking for his daughter in the area. I was sure that it was my father.
SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 19 of 35 20 On the next day, I and accused were going to market. At that time, my father saw us and apprehended us. My father asked me if I had gone with the accused willingly or he had forced me to do so. I told my father that accused had taken me away forcibly. I brought my father to the room where I was staying with the accused and told him everything. On the next day, my father brought back me and accused back to Delhi. My father advised accused that in case he wanted to marry me then he should bring his parents to talk to him. Accused did not listen and used to talk ill about me in the neighbourhood. My father got fed up and got him arrested in the case.
I was taken for medical examination but I did not get the same conducted as I was not well at that time.
I had come to the Court once before to make statement before learned Magistrate.
She identifies her signatures at point "A" on the statement already exhibited as Ex.PW5/B."
32 During her crossexamination by learned defence counsel, several improvements made by her in her deposition as PW4, over and above her statement u/s.161 CrPC dated "Nil", Mark "X" and her statement u/s.164 CrPC Ex.PW5/B were brought out in as much as in Mark "X", she had not deposed that when she was going to house of her friend, accused blew horn from behind and that she gave him side and that accused asked her where she was going and prosecutrix told him that she was going to SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 20 of 35 21 her friend's house and that he also asked her why she did not respond to his phone calls and that thereafter accused made prosecutrix sit in his vehicle forcibly and also closed the glass panes of the vehicle and threatened to throw her in Khai of Nirankari Colony and that prosecutrix got angry and slapped him and accused too torn off her books and copies and started driving the vehicle. It was also not found recorded in Mark X that prosecutrix told accused to stop the vehicle but he did not do so even though she told him that she would not tell anything to anyone and that accused told her that he had Rs. 10,000/ with him and that he would take her with him on that day itself and that accused stopped his vehicle at Jahangir Puri and that from there, accused made prosecutrix sit in a train going to Kanpur and that prosecutrix told accused to leave her but accused told her that he would take her with him any how and that when train stopped at Kanpur, accused took a rickshaw for hotel. It was further not recorded in Mark X that accused got a call from his friend Dharmender, who asked him about prosecutrix and that accused told him that prosecutrix was not with him and that prosecutrix raised alarm at that time and after hearing the alarm, friend of accused told him that prosecutrix was with the accused and on this accused disconnected the call and also removed sim from the phone and kept it separately and told prosecutrix that they would leave the hotel at about 7:00 PM and that prosecutrix told him that she wanted to talk to her parents and was adamant on talking to her parents, and that after some time accused again put sim card in his phone but he did not let prosecutrix talk to her parents and that in the mean time, Dharmender again called on phone of accused and told accused that Police was searching for prosecutrix and that accused should inform her parents and to take prosecutrix back to them.
SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 21 of 35 22 33 The prosecutrix had also not stated in Mark "X" that accused did not take her back to her parents and instead he took prosecutrix to Lucknow in a bus. It was merely recorded in Mark X that accused had taken prosecutrix to Lucknow in a train. In Mark "X" it was further not found recorded that on reaching Lucknow, accused asked one Rrickshaw Wala, whom he did not know from before, to arrange for a room and that the Rickshaw Wala arranged for a room in a residential house of some lady, whose name prosecutrix did not recollect, and that at the said place, there were some Muslim boys, who thought that prosecutrix too was a Muslim and they started threatening the accused that since prosecutrix was a Muslim, they would keep her with them and that the landlady told the accused that if he did not marry prosecutrix, then the said boys would take her away and may even sell her off and that accused told prosecutrix to marry him and they were taken to a nearby temple they by women from the family of Rickshaw Wala, who had arranged for the room, and got married and thereafter prosecutrix started residing with the accused as husband and wife and had physical relations with him. In Mark "X" it was merely recorded that accused established physical relations with the prosecutrix against her will and consent. The prosecutrix was further confronted with her statement Mark "X" and it was not found recorded therein that she stayed with accused in that room for about one month and that during that time, accused used to make calls to his parents and that the parents of accused told him to let go of prosecutrix and to talk to her father since Chacha of prosecutrix had visited their house, however, accused did not listen and that accused made a call to one Maulvi and told him to turn mind of prosecutrix in such a manner that she did not express desire to go back to her parents house and stayed with accused willingly. However, in statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC Ex.PW5/B, it was recorded that accused forcibly married prosecutrix at Lucknow SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 22 of 35 23 and thereafter they stayed in a room Lucknow for one month and that during this period, accused kept her there forcibly and whenever he went out of the room, he used to lock her up.
34 It was also not found recorded in Mark X that after 7 / 8 days of her marriage with the accused, prosecutrix asked accused to make her talk to her parents and after great persuasion, accused allowed her to talk to her parents on phone but he did not let prosecutrix tell them about the place where they were staying and that 2 - 3 days thereafter prosecutrix had a quarrel with accused and ran away but she met 2 - 3 men on the way, who wanted to take her away and accused also came there so prosecutrix returned with him and thereafter accused told prosecutrix not to run away from the house and assured her that he would take prosecutrix to her parents himself after few days as he was apprehensive that her parents would have already filed a case against him and would catch hold of him.
35 Again in Mark "X" it was not found recorded that after some days when accused was away for work, prosecutrix asked the children playing nearby about a STD Booth and that after 2 - 3 attempts, she was able to make call to her parents and that she paid for money of the call from the money given to her by accused for household expenses and that she was able to speak to her mother and gave her description of the area in which she was kept and that mother of prosecutrix assured her that she would send her father and that after 8 9 days thereafter the landlady told prosecutrix that a man was looking for his daughter in the area and that she was sure that it was father of prosecutrix and on the next day, father of prosecutrix apprehended them while she and SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 23 of 35 24 accused were going to market and that father of prosecutrix asked her if she had gone with the accused willingly or he had forced her to do so and that prosecutrix told her father that accused had taken her away forcibly and that she brought her father to the room where she was staying with the accused and told him everything and that father of prosecutrix advised accused that in case he wanted to marry prosecutrix then he should bring his parents to talk to him and that accused did not listen and further talked ill about prosecutrix in the neighbourhood and so her father got fed up and got him arrested in the case.
36 During her further crossexamination prosecutrix stated that house of her friend Bhumika was at a walking distance of 20 minutes from her house. She termed it correct that on the day accused took her with him, he did not have any knife etc. with him. She further stated that the place where accused stopped his vehicle was a public way. She clarified that no public persons were present there at that time and only vehicles were parked there. She then stated that she had not raised alarm when accused made her sit in his vehicle. She volunteered to state that she had started quarreling with him. She further deposed that attention of public person was not attracted by her quarrel with the accused as it was not of such magnitude. During her further crossexamination, prosecutrix stated that Sai Baba Mandir was at walking distance of 10 - 15 minutes from the place where accused made her sit in his vehicle and that she did not try to open the window of the vehicle as she did not know how to do so and that accused parked his vehicle on the road on Jahangir Puri, from where accused took her to railway station at Anand Vihar in a bus and that she had raised alarm in the bus. The prosecutrix then again said that she did not raise alarm but she SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 24 of 35 25 was quarreling with the accused. The prosecutrix improved her statement further and said that there were about 45 persons in the bus but said persons did not pay much attention as they though that it was a quarrel between a girl friend and a boy friend. The prosecutrix further deposed that tickets were bought by accused and at that time, accused made her stand near him at the ticket counter and that she had thought of running away but as accused was looking at her, she did not do so as she thought that he would catch hold of her again and that she did not raise alarm at the railway station. From further crossexamination of prosecutrix, it is brought out that there were several persons in the train by which they went to Kanpur. Prosecutrix admitted that she had not raised alarm in the train and that she did not tell the rickshaw wala in the Kanpur that accused had taken her forcibly to Kanpur. As regards their stay at Kanpur, prosecutrix said that she did not see public persons / guests at the hotel at Kanpur where accused had taken her. She volunteered to state that it was 3:00 AM at night. She then deposed that they left hotel at about 7:00 AM and at that time, there were no persons seen on the road as it was winter time and there was fog and that from Kapur, they took bus for Lucknow without taking a ticket and that there were several persons sitting in the said bus but prosecutrix did not raise alarm in the bus. She also did not tell rickshaw wala in Lucknow that accused had brought her forcibly there. The prosecutrix further deposed that when accused took her to room in Lucknow, she did not tell the landlady that accused had brought her there forcibly. She volunteered to state that she told her after 3 days after her marriage with the accused. Prosecutrix admitted that she did not tell the Pandit, who performed her marriage with the accused, that he had brought prosecutrix forcibly there. Prosecutrix then deposed that at the time of her marriage with accused, there were only few persons were present including the rickshaw wala, two women and SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 25 of 35 26 their children and two Pandits and that she did not raise any alarm in the Mandir at the time of her marriage with the accused and she also did not inform the owner of the STD Booth that accused had brought her there forcibly nor did she seek assistance from anyone i.e. the owner of the STD Booth or any other person who could have taken her to Police to file her complaint.
37 During her further crossexamination prosecutrix stated that she had not told her mother on 15.11.2011 that she had gone with accused willingly or that they would not be returning back. The prosecutrix further stated that she had gone out once with the accused for outing during her stay with him at Lucknow and that at that time, she had gone to buy Chappals. She then deposed that accused did not try to escape when her father found them as he did not recognize her father.
38 When asked if accused has confined her in the room, the prosecutrix stated that accused had locked her inside the room only for 4 - 5 days and that none of the persons in the neighbourhood nor the landlady asked the accused as to why he used to lock her up and that the landlady used to leave at about 6:30 AM and returned at 3:30 PM and that there were not too many persons in their neighbourhood at Lucknow and that after her marriage with the accused, the muslim boys stopped saying anything to her. She also stated that her father did not take her to Police Station in Lucknow after he found prosecutrix and the accused.
39 The prosecutrix was crossexamined with respect to observations made by examining doctor on her MLC Ex.PW8/A. Prosecutrix stated that she did not tell the SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 26 of 35 27 doctor at the time of her medical examination that she had gone with the accused willingly and had married him. Prosecutrix further stated that she knew accused since 7 years prior to the incident. She denied that accused used to visit her house regularly. She stated that she was not on talking terms with the accused and that she did not talk to him on telephone. She denied the suggestion that she was having love affair with accused and that her parents were not accepting her relationship with the accused due to difference in their caste and that due to this reason, prosecutrix ran away with the accused voluntarily and married him. Prosecutrix denied that accused had been falsely implicated in this case by her at the instance and under pressure of her parents. 40 The first issue which arises for consideration is what was the age of the prosecutrix as on the date of commission of offence. The prosecutrix has not specifically stated her age in deposition as PW4, however, the same has been recorded as 18 years as on the date she appeared to depose before the Court i.e. 26.07.2012. Since the incident in the present case had occurred on 10.11.2011, the prosecutrix presumably was about 17 years of age at the time of incident. The father of prosecutrix has stated that her date of birth is 13.03.1994. From record it appears that IO has collected documents of age of prosecutrix from the school where she had studied in 5 th class, however, the concerned witness i.e. the Head Master was not cited as witness by the IO. There is nothing on record to show that IO verified the genuineness of the documents of age of prosecutrix given to her by the father of the prosecutrix. Since the age of prosecutrix is very material to determine the extent of liability of the accused and to rule out the fact that the prosecutrix was of consenting age it was necessary for the prosecution to produce the concerned witness i.e. the Head Master so that it could be SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 27 of 35 28 ascertained as to on what basis was the prosecutrix admitted in the school and whether her date of birth of 13.03.1994 as stated by PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar Bhardwaj, her father was correct or not. The possibility of parents of prosecutrix having under mentioned her age at the time of her admission in the school, as contended by learned defence counsel, cannot be ruled out, specially considering that PW3 stated that he was married on 08.05.1984 and prosecutrix was his eldest child. He, however, claimed that prosecutrix was born 10 years after his marriage. Considering the time gap between date of marriage of PW3 and alleged date of birth of prosecutrix, it was imperative for IO to verify this fact and also to collect the birth certificate of prosecutrix, which PW3 stated was submitted by him at the time of admission of prosecutrix in school. As IO has failed to do so, it has resulted in major lacuna in the case of prosecution. 41 Further as per case of the prosecution accused kidnapped the prosecutrix while she was coming from house of her friend Bhumika. According to prosecutrix, who was examined as PW4, accused came in a vehicle which is properly known as 'Chota Hathi' and made her sit forcibly in his vehicle, closed glass panes of vehicles and threatened to throw prosecutrix in Khai of Nirankari Colony. The prosecutrix also stated that she got angry and slapped him while accused tore off her books and copies and that accused started driving the vehicle. The prosecutrix claims that she asked accused to stop the vehicle but he did not do so and that he took her to Jahangir Puri and from there he made her sit in train going to Kanpur and from Kanpur, he took her to Lucknow in a bus. It is a matter of common knowledge that the term "Chota Hathi" is used for a 'small commercial vehicle' namely 'Vikram Tempo' and is used in congested areas for transporting luggage. Being a commercial vehicle, it would not have been possible for SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 28 of 35 29 the accused to continue to drive the same if prosecutrix had offered resistance and further raised alarm. The prosecutrix went with accused in the said vehicle to Jahangir Puri and then traveled with him in a train to Kanpur and from Kanpur she went with accused in a bus and from bus in a rickshaw to the place where accused took a room on rent and continued to stay with him till 12.12.2011 when her father found her. She apparently did not raise any alarm on her way from Delhi till Lucknow. The landlady of the house, where prosecutrix and accused were staying on rent, was also told about alleged forcible taking of the prosecutrix by the accused three days after their marriage. Though in her statement u/s.164 CrPC, prosecutrix has stated that accused used to lock the room in which they were staying when he used to go out of the room, she does not state so in her statement PW4. It is also apparent from her statement that accused allowed prosecutrix to talk to her parents in fact it appears that prosecutrix was staying as normally with the accused at Lucknow as any husband and wife would. 42 It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration of the same is required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime and her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 29 of 35 30 testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony. I am supported in my view by judgment in case titled as Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 818 and Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 508.
43 In the present case evidence of prosecutrix as reproduced in foregoing paragraphs is found to be suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies and it is seen that prosecutrix is making deliberate improvements on material points. 44 The next question which arises for consideration is whether prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused out of lawful keeping of her guardian i.e. her father or if she had accompanied him voluntarily and if so whether consent of prosecutrix would have any consequence in the matter. In this regard when the three statements of the prosecutrix i.e. her statement u/s.161 CrPC Mark "X", her statement u/s.164 CrPC Ex.PW5/B and her deposition as PW4 recorded on 26.07.2012 and 07.11.2012 are considered, then it is seen that prosecutrix has continuously changed her version. Whereas Mark "X" and Ex.PW5/B reflect that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused, in her statement as PW4, prosecutrix has tried to portray that she had been forced to go with the accused by him, however, in the process she has made several additions and modifications over and above her previous statements i.e. Mark "X" and Ex.PW5/B. She has then introduced the fact that accused had threatened her. When SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 30 of 35 31 confronted with contents of her statement Mark "X", prosecutrix made modifications by denying some portions and admitting the other. She further denied that her father had knowledge of her affair with the accused. As regards her statement u/s.164 CrPC, prosecutrix admitted the same in toto but she added a rider that she had given her statement Mark "X" u/s.161 CrPC and statement Ex.PW5/B u/s.164 CrPC to learned MM under threats from the accused. Admittedly accused has been in custody since 17.12.2011 when he was arrested in the present case. There is nothing on record to show that how and in what manner accused continued to threaten the prosecutrix while he was in judicial custody and if so why the prosecutrix did not disclose about this fact to anyone, including her parents, prior to 26.07.2012 and 07.11.2012 when she appeared to depose in the Court. Further even assuming that accused had forced her to go with him by making her sit on Chota Hathi, the prosecutrix has herself admitted that the area, where she was made to sit in the vehicle "Chota Hathi", is a congested area. Despite this no effort was made by prosecutrix to raise any alarm and at least attention of other people, who could have helped her to escape from the clutches of the accused. The fact that prosecutrix has continuously changed her version makes it difficult to rely upon her statement alone to arrive at conclusion of guilt of the accused and some corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix was required. The prosecution has, however, failed to corroborate the testimony of prosecutrix by producing any other ocular or documentary evidence. The medical evidence on record does not support case of the prosecution as prosecutrix herself refused her medical examination. Further no effort was made by the IO to go to Lucknow and visit the place where accused and prosecutrix stayed for about one month and to inquire from their landlady and other neighbours at Lucknow regarding their stay, alleged marriage, etc. at Lucknow. No effort was made by IO to examine the SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 31 of 35 32 Pandit, who performed alleged marriage between prosecutrix and accused, at Lucknow. This is despite statements Mark "X" and Ex.PW5/B made by prosecutrix and disclosure statement Ex.PW12/C made by accused.
45 In these circumstances, the manner in which accused was apprehended also becomes very material. As per prosecution case, in particular arrest memo Ex.PW12/A, accused was arrested on 17.12.2011. However, PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar Bhardwaj, father of prosecutrix, claims that he came to know about whereabouts of prosecutrix on 15.11.2011 when accused Parmod gave a call to his wife. He further states that he had informed IO about it. However, neither PW11 ASI Uday Singh nor PW12 SI Upkar Kaur state anything about any such information being given to them by complainant. Further PW3 also stated that call details of number from which accused had called was traced out and location caller was found out as Mohibulla Pur, Bharat Nagar, Lucknow. He does not clarify who traced out the said call details, whether he did so personally or police helped him. He does state that police officials told him to make arrangements for going to said place but then for some unexplained reason PW3 / complainant went to Lucknow himself on 09.12.2011 in search of prosecutrix after getting further information about area from a businessman, who visited his office. The PW4 prosecutrix on the other hand claims to have given a call to her mother herself, from a STD booth, when accused was not there. Further PW3 states that he traced prosecutrix and accused on fourth day, after reaching Lucknow while prosecutrix as PW4 states that after 8 - 9 days of her call, she was informed by her landlady about a man, who was looking for his daughter and on next day, while going to market she and accused were apprehended by her father. It is also surprising that PW3 brought accused to Delhi with him and let him SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 32 of 35 33 go and again caught accused on 16.12.2011 when he actually took accused to PS. If accused could have kidnapped prosecutrix, as put forth by prosecution, then it is difficult to comprehend that he would continue to obey father of prosecutrix meekly and act as per his biding without making any effort to escape from his custody and imminent arrest by police. In these circumstances omission on the part of IO to mention date of execution on various memos, arrest and personal search and disclosure statement of accused and statement of witnesses u/s.161 CrPC also becomes very material and has not been explained by prosecution.
46 In the present case from the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly testimony of prosecutrix, the element of 'taking away' or 'enticement' is found to be lacking. In view of the material on record, it appears that prosecutrix was willing and consenting party and it seems that everything has happened with her sweet will. In these circumstances, the factum of kidnapping of prosecutrix does not stand proved. I am supported in my view by judgment in case 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, wherein it was held 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 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 SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 33 of 35 34 allurement then offence under Section 363 is not made out. ...."
47 It would also be relevant to refer to the case titled as " S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942", wherein while distinguishing between " taking"
and "allowing a minor to accompany a person" it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : "There is a distinction between " taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though it can not 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."
48 Similar observations have been made in judgments in case titled as Rukshana & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors, 2007 (3) RCR Cri. 542 ; Ajit Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR Cri 287 ; Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) CC Cases (HC) 291 ; Sukhbir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) Crimes 280 and Balasaheb vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1994 Crl. L.J. 3044, relied upon by learned counsel for accused.
49 The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that from the testimony of the SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 34 of 35 35 prosecutrix as well as other material placed on record, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused had kidnapped prosecutrix on 10.11.2011 out of lawful guardian of her father or that he had kidnapped the prosecutrix with intent to force her or seduce her to have illicit intercourse or that he had compelled prosecutrix to marry him or that after kidnapping, accused had committed rape upon prosecutrix against her wishes and without her consent. Accordingly, I acquit accused Parmod of the charged offences, giving him benefit of doubt for the offences u/s. 363/366/376 IPC.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 26.04.2013) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 35 of 35
36
FIR No. 297/11
P.S. Adarsh Nagar
25.04.2013
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC with counsel Sh. Rajnish Kumar Antil, learned amicus curie.
Further arguments heard.
Be listed for judgment on 26.04.2013.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 25.04.2013 26.04.2013 Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC with counsel Sh. Rajnish Kumar Antil, learned amicus curie.
Vide separate judgment, announced today in the open Court, accused Parmod has been acquitted of the charged offence.
Accused is in custody, be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 26.04.2013 SC No. 27/12 State Vs. Parmod Page Nos. 36 of 35