Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Saud Alam S/O Abdul Rahim on 4 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03(NE):KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
SC No.221/10
Unique ID No.02402R0347682008
Date of institution:01.05.2008
Date of transfer: 23.04.2010
Date on which reserved for order:03.01.2012
Date of delivery of order:04.01.2012
State Vs Mohd Saud Alam S/o Abdul Rahim
R/o VillageDumariya Dakano Tole,
PS Mahal Gaon, District Aradiya, Bihar.
FIR No. 1012/07
PS Nand Nagri
U/s 363/366/376 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. The prosecution case is based on the complaint dated 27.11.07 made by Sh. Narayan Singh (father of the prosecutrix) wherein he stated that on 26.11.2007 at about 7.00 am his daughter aged 14 years, height 4'8" wheatish complexion, medium built, long faced wearing badami colour shirt, white salwar and black shoes went to Sarvodya Bal Vidyalya, E Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi but did not return back. One boy namely Saud Alam residing in his neighbourhood on rent was also found missing since then. He FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 1/24 searched for his daughter on his own but but no clue was found. He suspected that boy living in his neighbourhood had enticed / kidnapped his daughter. His daughter may be traced out. He wanted legal action against accused. On the basis of the complaint a case u/s 363 IPC was registered and investigation of this case was handed over to HC Pooran Singh. During investigation HC Pooran Singh sent a wireless message for search of the prosecutrix. On 28.11.07 prosecutrix came to police station herself and her statement u/s 161 Cr PC was recorded. Prosecutrix was got medically examined at GTB hospital. On 29.11.07 prosecutrix was produced before Ld. MM and her statement u/s 164 Cr PC was got recorded. On 03.12.07 complainant Narayan Singh made a call to HC Pooran Singh and informed him that accused Saud Alam who lived in his neighborhood enticed away his daughter. HC Pooran Singh recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr PC and made efforts for search of prosecutrix and accused. On 01.02.08 prosecutrix and accused came to police station Nand Nagri. SI Arun Kumar recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr PC and sent her for medical examination in GTB hospital through Head Ct. Sunita under the supervision of her mother but mother of the prosecutrix told the FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 2/24 concerned doctor that she was not willing to get prosecutrix medically examined. SI Arun Kumar arrested the accused on 01.02.08 after his personal search was conducted. Medical examination of accused was got conducted at GTB hospital. On 01.02.08 statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr PC was again got recorded by SI Arun Kumar and after completing necessary formalities charge sheet was filed u/s 363/366/376 IPC.
2. Accused was charged for the offence punishable u/s 363/366/376 IPC. To the charge, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. ● The material prosecution witnesses are PW1 Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of the prosecutrix), PW2 Narayan Singh (complainant and father of the prosecutrix) and PW11 (Prosecutrix). ● The medical evidence has been proved by the prosecution through PW9 Dr. S. Kohli who has identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Ashar on MLC of accused and proved the same as Ex. PW9/A. PW10 Dr. Shruti, SR, GTB hospital has identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Monika on the MLCs of prosecutrix and proved the same as Ex. PW10/A and Ex. PW FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 3/24 10/B. ● PW6 is Sh. Anil Kumar, Incharge Admission, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, E Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi. He proved the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 01.04.1992. He has proved the transfer certificate of the prosecutrix from her previous school as Ex.PW6/A, copy of original admission form running into two pages as Ex. PW6/B and relevant entry in the admission register running into two pages as Ex. PW6/C. He has also proved the transfer certificate issued by Principal Mrs. Asha Kumari of prosecutrix as Ex. PW6/D. ● PW3 is HC Ompal Singh who recorded FIR Ex. PW3/B and made endorsement vide Ex.PW3/A on the rukka. PW5 Ct. Karamveer Singh was present in the investigation with PW4 HC Pooran Singh. On 01.02.08 PW7 Ct. Kunti took the prosecutrix to GTB hospital for her medical examination. Doctor handed her the sealed parcels and sample seal after examination of prosecutrix which she handed over to the IO and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A and the salwar of the prosecutrix was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. ● PW4 is HC Pooran Singh, first IO of the case. On 27.11.07 he FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 4/24 received DD no. 15B regarding missing of a girl and thereafter he along with PW5 Ct. Karamveer Singh reached at E4/292, Nand Nagri, Delhi and recorded statement of complainant Narayan Singh which is Ex. PW2/1 and prepared rukka Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, he made efforts to search for the prosecutrix as well as the accused. He filled up a missing form and flashed wireless message throughout India. On 28.11.07 the prosecutrix came to the police station Nand Nagri on her own. On 29.11.07 statement of prosecutrix was got recorded u/s 164 Cr PC. On 28.1.08 he along with SI Vijay and Ct. Komesh and complainant Narayan went to District Aradiya, Bihar in search of prosecutrix. He further stated that the prosecutrix and the accused surrendered in the police station Nand Nagri when they were in District Aradiya, Bihar. Thereafter the investigation of this case was handed over to PW8 SI Arun Kumar.
● PW8 Inspector Arun Kumar is 2nd IO of the case. He stated that accused and proseuctrix came to police station themselves. He interrogated accused and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW8/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/A1. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW8/B. FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 5/24 Accused and prosecutrix were sent for medical examination to GTB hospital. Ct. Rajbir handed over the exhibits which were given to him by the doctor in GTB hospital and the same were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Mother of the prosecutrix had also produced before him the certificate relating to the date of birth of the prosecutrix which he seized vide memo Ex.PW1/1 and the certificate is Ex. PW6/D. He again sent prosecutrix for her medical examination through lady Ct. Kunti. He identified printed pink color Salwar of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW7/P1.
● PW12 is ASI Sumitra. She received the investigation of this case on 03.05.08, obtained the JC remand of accused, prepared the challan and filed the same in the court.
4. Ld. defence counsel for accused has admitted the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr PC recorded on 01.02.08 and 29.11.07 and FSL report as Ex. C1, Ex.C2 and C3 respectively, u/s 294 Cr PC.
5. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr PC was recorded in which he denied the prosecution case and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of parents of the FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 6/24 prosecutrix.
6. I have heard Addl. P.P. for the state and Defence Counsel Mr. D. K. Singh and gone through the entire record.
7. The present case is based on the complaint of the father of the prosecutrix Narayan Singh who reported that prosecutrix had been missing since 26.11.07. The prosecutrix returned back on 28.11.07. Her medical examination was got conducted on 28.11.07. She was produced before Ld. MM Sh. Naresh Kumar Malhotra for recording of her statement u/s 164 Cr PC. She again left her house and then came back. Her medical examination was again got conducted on 01.02.08 at 12.15 PM. Medical of the accused was also got conducted on the same day i.e. on 01.02.08. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.PC was again recorded by Ld. MM Sh. Raj Kumar on 01.02.08 and school leaving certificate dated 08.1.08 was produced before the court which shows that she was a minor when she went missing her date of birth being 01.4.92.
8. Now the question for consideration before the court is whether she was kidnapped/enticed/persuaded by the accused to leave her parental home. Whether she was compelled to marry him or forced to have illicit sexual intercourse with him and whether accused FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 7/24 ravished the prosecutrix while she was with him.
9. The main plank of the prosecution case rests upon the testimony of PW1 Ganga Devi, PW2 Narayan Singh and PW11 prosecutrix.
10. PW1 Ganga Devi stated in her testimony before the court that she did not remember the date and month but the incident had occurred in the year 2007, her daughter (prosecutrix) was studying in 6th class and she was kidnapped/abducted by the accused (the accused was identified by the witness in the court). Later on she received telephonic call made by the accused that he had married her daughter. Thereafter they informed the police station and later on her daughter was recovered. Her daughter was taken to the hospital for medical examination and thereafter she was handed over to them. She had given School leaving certificate of her daughter to the police. Her daughter was handed over to her by the police. After two days proseuctrix again left home and went with the accused. She did not know whereabouts of her daughter till date. In her cross examination she stated that her age was 50 years approximately. She did not remember the year of her marriage. Her age might have been between 18 to 20 years at the time of her FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 8/24 marriage. She gave birth to her first child after five years of her marriage. She did not know if her age was in between 2325 years when she gave birth to her first child. She had three sons and two daughters. She could not tell difference between the age of her eldest child and the youngest child. The youngest child was the prosecutrix. She did not get registered birth of her children with the MCD. She could not tell the year in which the prosecutrix was sent to school. Her daughter was admitted in the school on the basis of Janampatri and she deposited the janampatri in the school. She has also stated in her cross examination that she went to police station and stated to the police that when she received custody of her daughter, after two days her daughter again left her house but she did not name the accused.
11. PW2 Narayan Singh, father of the prosecutrix stated that the age of the proscutrix was about 15 years when she went missing in the year 2007. He did not remember the date and month but at that time she was studying in class 6th. He came to know that his daughter (prosecutrix) had gone with the accused as accused was also found missing from his house. The accused was residing in his locality on rent. He reported the matter to the police but he did not FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 9/24 remember the date and month of the same. Police recorded his statement. Later on a telephonic call was made by her daughter in which she stated that she had married the accused. Thereafter they went to the police station and on the same telephone number from which they received the call, the police officials talked to her daughter and asked them to send the documents regarding their marriage. Later on documents pertaining to her marriage were received by him through post and the same were handed over to the police. Thereafter the police officials went to Bihar and his son Ravi also accompanied the police officials but his daughter could not be recovered. Later on his daughter was recovered by the police. He was called in the police station. Thereafter medical examination of his daughter was got conducted by the police and his daughter was handed over to him. On the next day his daughter again went missing since he had left her at the house of his relative and his daughter was untraced.
12. It has been contended by Ld. defence counsel that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the incident as PW1 and PW2 are totally illiterate, are not even aware about the relevant date and time. They have not proved any document on record to FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 10/24 show that her date of birth was 01.04.92 as claimed by the prosecution. Herein the testimony of PW6 Sh. Anil Kumar, Incharge Admission, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalya becomes relevant. He stated that he was working as Incharge Admission in the Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalya, Govt School. He produced the original admission register maintained in the school on regular basis. As per admission register prosecutrix D/o Narayan Singh was admitted in the school on 21.4.03 and her date of birth was recorded as 01.04.92. He also proved the original admission form filled up at the time of her admission. The date of birth was recorded on the basis of a transfer certificate issued by Municipal Primary Girls School, Nand Nagri, EBlock, Delhi. He produced the original TC on the basis of which admission to the prosecutrix was given. Original admission form and admission register were also produced. He identified signatures of Principal Mrs. Asha Kumar on the original Transfer Certificate issued by his school. In his cross examination he stated that he could not say on what basis the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded in the previous school from where the transfer certificate was issued and presented to him at the time of admission of the prosecutrix. He did not ask FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 11/24 for any other document showing date of birth of the prosecutrix as her Transfer Certificate was produced. He further stated that generally when a child was admitted to class Ist any of the document i.e MCD birth certificate, Janampatri or an affidavit of the parents are taken by the school. However, since the admission was taken from 5th class onwards they asked only for Transfer Certificate of the previous school showing the date of birth. They did not ask for any other document. They did not get any verification done of the transfer certificate.
13. As regards the transfer certificate issued on 31.3.03 by Nagar Nigam Prathmik Balika Vidyalya, EBlock, Nand Nagri, Delhi i.e. (primary school) Ex. PW6/A, it is showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 01.04.92. The transfer certificate issued by Rajkiya Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyalya, E Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi93 i.e. Secondary school Ex. PW6/D is also showing her date of birth as 01.04.92. The witness also produced the original admission form Ex. PW6/B filled up by PW1 Ganga Devi mother of the prosecutrix wherein her date of birth is again shown as 01.04.92. Therefore the best evidence which could have been produced by the school has been placed to substantiate that the prosecutrix was FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 12/24 minor on the date of incident. The certificates Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/D are issued by the Govt. officials in discharge of their official duty and there is no reason to disbelieve the same on account of presumption attached to it u/s 35 r/w section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced as under: Relevancy of entry in public [record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty: An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or [record or an electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
Section 114 (e) of Indian Evidence Act is also reproduced as under: Court may presume existence of certain facts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 13/24
Illustration
The court may presume
(e) That judicial and official acts have been
regularly performed;
Although no entry regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix from the office of Registrar Births and Deaths has been produced in this case yet the school record produced in this case clearly indicates that her age was less than 16 years on the date of occurrence. Precisely her age was 15 years 7 months and 25 days on 26.11.07 i.e. the date of incident. In Umesh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan, 1982 SCC (Crl.) 36, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the entries in the school register and admission forms regarding the date of birth constitute good proof of age and where these entries are antelitem mortem, there was no reason to disbelieve them. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the certificate Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/D relates to the prosecutrix. Ex. Pw6/A was issued on 31.3.03. Her date of admission in the primary school is reflected as 08.7.97. Therefore, many years prior to the incident date of birth of the prosecutrix was given as 01.4.92. Ld. counsel for the accused has contended that there is a tendency among the parents to usually give a lower age at FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 14/24 the time of admission of the child and in view of non production of Janampatri or MCD birth certificate regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix her age as shown in the admission form and the transfer certificate cannot be believed. However, Hon'ble apex court in Bhoop Ram Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 1989 SCC (Crl.) 486 has reiterated that the entries in the school certificate cannot be rejected on the basis of surmises that usually parents understate the age of their children at the time of admission to school. I am also supported in my opinion by Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana, 2004 (4) RCR (Crl.) 204. From the evidence brought on record it is proved beyond any doubt that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of incident and her date of birth was 01.04.92.
14. Now I would analyse the most important testimony i.e of the prosecutrix to conclude if the prosecution has been able to prove its case of kidnapping, enticing and rape upon the prosecutrix through her testimony.
15. PW11 the prosecutrix disclosed her age as 20 years on 06.9.11 when her testimony was recorded. She stated that in the year 2009 she had gone to the house of accused present in the court (though the relevant year was 2007). She had gone to the house of the FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 15/24 accused as her family members were harassing her and she had no other option. She wanted to live with the accused as her family members did not want to keep her and they were harassing her and she had nothing else to say. Since she was resiling from her earlier statement she was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor. In her cross examination by the State she stated that she was 9th class pass and her date of birth was 01.04.92. She denied the suggestion that on 18.12.07 she had married accused Saud Alam in Bihar. She stated that out of her own willingness she had accompanied accused who was her neighbour to his native village Domaria. She admitted that accused had changed her name and she was known as Shabana Praveen. She admitted that on 26.11.2007 she had left her house for going to school and before she could reach school she met Anju who was her chacha's daughter and residing in the neighbourhood. She asked her to accompany her to Chandni Chowk and accordingly she went to Chandni chowk. She and Anju were not separated in the Chandni Chowk and they both returned back to their respective houses. She had not stated that she and Anju got separated in the crowd and Anju went to her house and she had made a call from a STD Shop and thereafter she had taken a bus FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 16/24 and went to Okhla and stayed with a lady who was running a STD booth. She was confronted with portion A to A1 of her statement Ex.PW11/A where it was so recorded. She had not stated that the lady at STD Booth had given money to her and thereafter she had returned back to her house and from her house she had gone to police station where IO made enquiries from her and she had also refused for her medical examination and she had told that she wanted to go her house and live with her parents. She was confronted from portion B to B1 with statement Ex.PW11/A where it was so recorded. PW11/A is the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 161 Cr PC dated 28.11.07. Therefore from the testimony of PW11 it is clear that she did not make any allegation against accused Saud Alam for having kidnapped her on 26.11.07. Rather in her statement u/s 161 Cr PC Ex.PW11/A also she had stated that she went with one of her cousins Anju.
16. In her testimony PW11 further stated that she had not gone to the village of accused at village Dumaria, Bihar on 02.11.07 and she had not stated so before the police in her statement. She was confronted from portion A to A1 of her statement mark PW11/B where it was so recorded. The statement of the prosecutrix u/s 161 FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 17/24 Cr PC dated 01.02.08 is mark PW11/B. She further stated that she had not stated that "ACCUSED NE MUJHE HASEEN SAPNE DIKHAYE THE" and that is why she was influenced by his talks and he had also told her that she should not reveal the truth or that she should refuse for her medical examination and accordingly as per the saying of accused she refused for her medical examination or that accused had also told her that she should not say the truth in the court or that if she stated the truth then he would be implicated in the case by the police. She was confronted from portion D to D1 with statement mark PW11/B where it was so recorded. She had not stated that when she and accused had gone to the P.S. then they both had thrown their clothes on the way which she could not get recovered. She was confronted from portion E to E1 with statement mark PW11/B where it was so recorded. She also stated that her statement was recorded on 01.02.08 in the court of Sh. Raj Kumar, the then Ld. MM. Statement mark P11/D was shown to her and she denied her signature at point A. She deposed that she had not stated that on 26.11.2007 accused Saud had enticed her and taken her to his village Dumaria, Bihar at his house. She was confronted from portion A to A1 of statement mark P11/D where it was so FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 18/24 recorded. She had not married accused at Dumaria Village and there was no court marriage or NIKAH performed. She had also not stated that accused prevented her from making phone calls to her house and she had not stated that accused Saud had left her in village and himself had gone somewhere for one month. She was confronted with portion B to B1 of her statement mark P11/D where it was so recorded. She had not stated that she had stayed in the house of accused for two months and she had not stated that accused Saud did not do any 'galat kaam' with her and neither had physical relations with her. She was confronted from portion C to C1 with statement mark P11/D where it was so recorded. In her cross examination by the defence she stated that she did not accompany accused Saud Alam at any point of time. She did not lodge any report against him. Police did not record any statement. Accused Saud Alam did not kidnap her or enticed her to accompany him to any place. He did not compel her to marry him or forced her at any point of time to have illicit sexual intercourse with him. She was never raped by the accused. This was a false case.
17. There is no evidence against the accused for having raped the FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 19/24 prosecutrix during the period from 18.12.07 to 28.01.08 at village Dumaria, Bihar. The prosecutrix was produced twice for her medical examination. As per MLC dated 28.11.07 at 9.00 PM Ex. PW10/A the history is revealed as 'The prosecutrix went to Trade Fair from her school with her girl friend without informing at home on 26.11.07 at 8.00 am. Then they both separately lost in mela. The friend came back to home but she not. Next day with the help of a STD booth operator she came back. According to her no sexual relation with anyone. No history of assault'. The proseuctrix was not willing for her examination. On 01.02.08 she was again taken for her medical examination to GTB hospital. As per MLC Ex.PW 10/B the history disclosed was 'Prosecutrix ran away from house with her boy friend Saud 2 months back and got court marriage in Bihar after telling wrong age in court. According to her she has got intercourse many times. Police caught her father in law on 31.1.08 so under pressure she surrendered today in police station Delhi on 31.1.08'. It is again shown that she was not willing for her examination. However, there is another MLC prepared on the same date i.e. on 01.02.08 at 12.15 PM which shows that alleged history by prosecutrix 'that she ran away from her house two months back FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 20/24 with Saud and got married with him in court at Bihar. History of sexual relation with him. Patient was recovered by police yesterday. Patient was brought for medico legal examination. Refused yesterday. But wants examination today. No history of any medical disorder. No history of verbal/ physical sexual abuse. No injury over body and hymen was found torn. However, this document has not been proved by the prosecution. The FSL report which is proved as Ex. C3 shows that human semen on 'salwar' and 'vaginal smear of the prosecutrix'. However, the report on the species of origin of the semen on the salwar of the prosecutrix remained inconclusive. The proseuctrix has not levelled any allegation against accused. There is no other witness and the proseuctrix has completely exonerated the accused.
18. As regards the kidnapping or enticing or inducing the prosecutrix to compel her to marry the accused the evidence on record is highly insufficient. The accused is charged for the offence u/s 363/366 IPC. The most important ingredient of this section is taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound mind from keeping of the lawful guardian. However, there is no proof of the accused having done something which led to removal of the minor FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 21/24 from the keeping of her lawful guardianship. The statement of the prosecutrix does not indicate how the accused was the proximate or the immediate cause of the prosecutrix going out of the keeping of her parents. Even in the MLC dated 28.11.07 Ex. PW10/D she is shown to have left with her friend Anju. There is nothing on record to show that accused took some active step in persuading or inducing the prosecutrix to leave her home.
19. In S. Varadarajan V. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of a minor girl who was on the verge of attaining majority and who herself telephoned the accused to meet her and finding him waiting with a car, got into that car of her own accord, held that the accused was not guilty of taking out the girl out of the lawful guardianship of her father as there was no suggestion that the act was done by force or anything like that on the part of the accused.
20. The minor i.e. prosecutrix who was around 16 years of age (a little blow 16 years) left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing and voluntarily joined the accused. In such a case I do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 22/24 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 or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of her guardian. In order to hold that accused enticed away the prosecutrix, it is necessary to have some evidence to the effect that accused had given her some temptation or promise or assurance or allurement which had the effect of an irresistible force upon the prosecutrix. There was no onus on the accused to have dissuaded the prosecutrix not to accompany him. The prosecutrix has not levelled any allegations of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused with her. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was kidnapped or enticed by the accused with a view to compel to marry him or raped her. The prosecutrix not only went missing on 26.11.07 once but again went missing after a few days and even on the date when the statements of the parents of the prosecutrix were recorded in the court i.e. 20.11.08 her whereabouts were not known to her parents. The testimony of the material prosecution witnesses do not inspire much confidence and are full of infirmities. The main prosecution witness has not supported the prosecution case at all.
FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 23/24
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accused Saud Alam is accordingly acquitted of the charge u/s 363/366/376 IPC. His bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Nisha Saxena)
Dated: 04.1.2012 Addl. Sessions Judge03(NE):
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR NO.1012/07, PS Nand Nagri 24/24