Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar on 21 April, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:ROHINI:DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 323/06 FIR No. 248/05
P.S. Tilak Nagar
u/s 363/366-A/376 IPC
State
vs
Manoj Kumar, son of Shaheb Singh
r/o WZ-78, Nangli Jalib Near Janak Puri
Delhi.
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Suraj Bhan who is the father of the prosecutrix had filed a complaint case before the Court of Ld. MM alleging therein that her daughter, the prosecutrix was seduced by the accused Manoj Kumar and has got married with her on 21.03.2005 by claiming herself to be an adult. The date of birth of the prosecutrix was stated to be 17.03.1989 by the complainant. The complainant was not even allowed to talk with the prosecutrix and the complainant had an apprehension that accused may sell his daughter in the hands of anti-social elements. The prosecutrix was stated to be a minor by the prosecution. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate directed the police State Vs Manoj Kumar 2 to register a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly case FIR u/s 363/366-A/376/343/346/34 IPC was registered against the accused.
2. After filing of charge sheet, prima facie case u/s 363/366/376 IPC was made out against the accused for which formal charge was framed to which the accused did not plead guilty in the said formal charge. In the said formal charge, it was explained to the accused that on 24.03.2005 at about 9:00 a.m. he kidnapped the prosecutrix Poonam within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship of her parents with intent that she may be compelled to marry the accused against her will or that she may be forced to illicit intercourse. Accused also raped the prosecutrix without her consent.
3. The prosecution produced the prosecutrix as well as her father & mother.
Prosecutrix had initially made a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate that she was 18 years of age and she had got married the accused out of her own will and she was living with the accused as husband and wife. She even State Vs Manoj Kumar 3 stated in the said statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that her guardians have falsely reported to the police that the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years. The prosecutrix stated in the said statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that everything was done with her consent.
4. Though, there are two sets of certificates reflecting the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 17.03.1987 & 17.03.1989 but vide order dated 21.09.2006, Ld. Addl. P.P. was permitted to produce the record of the school showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 17.03.1989.
5. The prosecutrix when produced in the Court as PW1 could not support the case of the prosecution and stated that she was in affairs with the accused and had gone with the accused out of her own sweet will. The accused had not asked her to marry but it was the prosecutrix who had asked the accused to marry her. The prosecutrix got married with the accused on 21.03.2005 and thereafter she went back to her parental house. She again accompanied the accused on 24.03.2005 to Tis Hazari Courts. She stated that the accused neither enticed her nor committed rape with her. She claimed that the accused was innocent. She further stated that at present she is having a nine months old State Vs Manoj Kumar 4 female child born out the wedlock with the accused. The prosecutrix was subjected to detailed cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. with the permission of this Court but she could not help the prosecution on any aspect.
PW2 was the father of the prosecutrix who also could not support the case of the prosecution and stated that he filed the police report under some misconception as he wanted that his daughter should come back as the accused might have taken her away without her will. He was later on informed by prosecutrix that the prosecutrix married the accused out of her own sweet will without any threat or pressure. He requested this Court to close the case as it may affect the matrimonial life of the couple. Despite cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P., this witness also could not be of any support for the prosecution.
PW3 was the mother of the prosecutrix who deposed in the same lines as that of PW1 and PW2. She further stated that complaint was filed under the pressure of some elders as the family of the prosecutrix is a joint family.
6. All the material witnesses including the prosecutrix could not support the prosecution. The prosecutrix had not supported State Vs Manoj Kumar 5 the prosecution in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Even if we consider the age of the prosecutrix to be 17.03.1989, the prosecutrix was just on the verge of majority and keeping in view all the circumstances she was able to understand her interest.
7. Since all the material witnesses had resiled from their respective statements, this Court did not deem it appropriate to further proceed with the case as it would have been futile to do so because the remaining witnesses are formal in nature. Therefore, the Prosecution Evidence was closed. Statement of accused is also dispensed with. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt. The accused is hereby acquitted for the charges under Section 363/366/376 IPC framed against him. His bail bond stands cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on this 21st day of April, 2007.
(SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI: DELHI.