Delhi District Court
State vs . Jasbir on 22 September, 2008
-:1:- SC No.102/08
State Vs. Jasbir
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
SC NO. 102/08
STATE VERSUS JASBIR
s/o Sh.Prem Singh
R/o Village Sehri, the-Kharkhoda
Distt.Sonipat
Haryana.
FIR No.336/05
u/s 363/366/376 IPC
P.S.Uttam Nagar
Arguments heard on : 22.09.2008
Judgment pronounced on : 22.09.2008
JUDGMENT:
DD No.48 B was recorded on 18.04.05 on complaint of Smt.Sheela Devi-mother of prosecutrix. She alleged that her daughter (prosecutrix) had left without information on 18.04.05 and failed to return back. Later on FIR was registered on 20.04.05 on her statement. She further cast suspicion on accused Manjeet who was related to the landlord of the premises in which they were residing. -:2:- SC No.102/08
State Vs. Jasbir During the course of investigation prosecutrix appeared and surrendered before the court on 20.05.05. In statement U/s 161 Cr.PC she alleged that her parents wanted to get her married to another boy whom she did not like and as such asked the accused to help her. On 18.04.05 accused took her and further offered to marry her. They stayed at Agra till 29.05.05 and on 30.05.05 returned to Delhi and married in a Mandir. Thereafter they stayed at Panipat and on pressure of police on the relations of accused, she appeared in the court. She further alleged that accused had committed wrong act with her. However, in statement U/s 164 Cr.PC the entire incident as allegedly recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.PC was denied. She stated that her date of birth was 1.4.86 and her parents had under mentioned her age by four years in the school while admitting her in the school. She further stated that she loved the accused and while leaving the house, she had written a letter that she was going with Guddu. She also stated that she had left on her own free will and had left the house to save herself and the accused -:3:- SC No.102/08 State Vs. Jasbir had not committed any wrong act. Charge Sheet was filed after formal investigation.
2. Charge was framed against the accused only U/s 363/366 IPC as the prosecutrix denied the committal of any wrongful act by accused against her consent in statement U/s 164 Cr.PC. Accused pleaded not guilty to same and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case prosecution examined two witnesses namely prosecutrix (PW.1) and Smt. Sheela-mother of the prosecutrix(PW.2).
PW.1 prosecutrix deposed that in 2005 her parents were planning to marry her with someone but she was in love with accused. Her parents were against the relationship and threatened her. Thereupon she called accused Jasbir and went to Agra. After returning to Delhi they got married at Shalimar Bagh Mandir and thereafter left for Panipat. Later on she came to know that police -:4:- SC No.102/08 State Vs. Jasbir were harassing her brother in law Manjeet. She also wrote a letter to her parents regarding her marriage with the accused on her own free will. Her bony age x-ray was also conducted. Her statement was recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC. As the witness did not support the prosecution version as disclosed in statement U/s 161 Cr.PC she was cross examined on behalf of State. She denied having stated to police that accused committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. She categorically deposed that she was major when she left with accused and left with her own consent.
PW.2 Sheela(mother of prosecutrix) deposed that she had lodged a report with the police and her daughter was traced and is living happily with accused. She further stated that both her daughter and her husband were blessed with a son and she had no complaint against the accused. During cross examination she stated that she did not know the exact date of birth of her daughter and the same was recorded by approximation in school register. She further submitted that prosecutrix was above 18 years of age on the date of -:5:- SC No.102/08 State Vs. Jasbir incident and they have no grievance against the accused. 4 Admittedly both the prosecutrix and her mother Smt.Sheela Devi-PW.1 & PW.2 did not support the prosecution version. Prosecutrix categorically deposed that she had left on her own will and married the accused without any coercion and is blessed with a child. The only other point involved for consideration is the age of prosecutrix, as in the initial complaint it was claimed that she was under 18 years of age and further her date of birth was stated to be 10.08.92. The prosecutrix in her statement categorically deposed that her age was under mentioned by less than 4 years. Further her mother in cross examination deposed that the prosecutrix was 18 years of age on the date of incident and her age was recorded by approximation in the school register. Even in the bony age examination of the prosecutrix it was opined that her age is more than 17 years but less than 19 years at the time of examination i.e. 31.05.05. In view of categorical deposition of the prosecutrix and the -:6:- SC No.102/08 State Vs. Jasbir bony age examination it can be safely inferred that prosecutrix was aged in between 17-19 years on the date of incident and was not aged about 15 years as alleged in the FIR. As per prosecutrix herself she was major at the time of incident and had left at her own free will. Further in the absence of any evidence as to taking or luring the accused no purpose would have been served by examining other witnesses relating to investigation and the exercise would remain in futility.
For the foregoing reasons prosecution evidence was directed to be closed and statement of accused was dispensed with in the absence of any incriminating evidence on record.
The prosecution as such has failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is hereby acquitted. Bail bond of accused are discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open ( A.K.MENDIRATTA )
Court on 22.09.08 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI : DELHI.
-:7:- SC No.102/08
State Vs. Jasbir
22.09.08
Present- Sh.G.S.Guraya, Addl.PP for State.
Accused on bail with Sh.Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate. Statement of PW.1 prosecutrix Geeta & PW.2 Sheela has been recorded. No other witness is present. Prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case and submits that she had married with accused voluntarily. Even the mother of prosecutrix during cross examination admitted that age of the prosecutrix was recorded in school only on approximation and the prosecutrix was 18 years on the date of incident. As per bony age examination prosecutrix was more than 17 years of age and less than 19 years at the time of examination i.e. 31.05.05.
In view of above it shall not be possible to hold that prosecutrix was under 15 years of age, since the prosecutrix did not support the case of prosecution. As such the recording of statement of other witnesses will be an exercise in futility. In view of above prosecution evidence is directed to be closed.
Statement of accused is dispensed with in the absence of any incriminating evidence on record.
Arguments heard. Vide separate Judgment, accused is acquitted. Bail bond of accused are discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(A.K.MENDIRATTA) ASJ : ROHINI : DELHI