Delhi District Court
Sc No. 60/12 State vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 1 Of 18 on 25 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SE01
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA: SAKET
COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE ID NO. 02406R0210932012
SESSIONS CASE NO. 60/12
FIR NO. 193/12
POLICE STATION : AMAR COLONY
UNDER SECTION : 363/366 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
RAJU KARMAKAR
S/O SH. VISHWANATH KARMAKAR,
R/O VILLAGE MAGURIA, PS PURULIA,
MUFFASIL, DISTRICT PURULIA, WEST BENGAL.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 25.08.2012.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 16.04.2014.
DATE OF DECISION : 25.04.2014.
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution:
1 Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.06.2012 after receiving a complaint No. 590D dated 08.06.2012 SI Bikramjeet recorded the statement of complainant Phoolmani Devi wherein she stated that her daughter namely 'X' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) is studying in class 9th who has been kidnapped by Raju SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 1 of 18 Karmakar and his father namely Vishwakarma. On 23rd May, her daughter 'X' was going to Ranchi in Jharkhand Sampark Kranti along with Sh. Ritesh Mohli but she did not reach home. Ritesh after reaching Ranchi informed her on phone that he got prosecutrix 'X' boarded in train to Gagaya. After some time, Ritesh again called her and told that he got her boarded in train to Puruliya. He told her that prosecutrix 'X' herself sat in the train going to Puruliya. On 24th May Raju made an excuse that his brother is ill so he is going home to Puruliya. Complainant also accompanied him and when they reached Jalda station he left the train.
She went to Ranchi and made efforts to locate her daughter but could not found her. Raju did not make any phone call to her so she suspected him and went to his village Puruliya where she came to know that her daughter / prosecutrix 'X' had come there. She then went to Mukhiya (Head of Panchayat) who told her that they will send prosecutrix to her home. Raju and his father Vishwakarma took prosecutrix 'X' to Khatanga Village and hide the prosecutrix in a jungle. On the statement of the complainant, case was registered against the accused. Wireless messages were flashed and missing information was sent to different departments i.e. Doordarshan, NCRB, CBI, Zipnet etc. IO reached at District Puruliya , West Bengal and recovered the prosecutrix 'X' from the possession of accused Raju Karmakar. Statement of accused under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused was arrested. On 17.06.2012 prosecutrix and accused Raju Karmakar were medically examined and were produced before the CJM, Puruliya Sadar Court who gave four days transit remand. On 19.06.2012 IO brought the prosecutrix and accused to Delhi and got the prosecutrix and accused medically examined at AIIMS, Hospital.
SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 2 of 18 Statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C were got recorded by the police. On 20.06.2012 prosecutrix 'X' was produced before CWC, Kasturba Niketan Complex, Lajpat NagarII and was then handed over to her mother Phoolmani Devi. Thereafter, complainant reported that prosecutrix 'X' has left the house. On 31.07.2012 IO went to District Gair, Village Maguria and recovered the prosecutrix 'X' and was then produced before the CJM, Purulia Sadar Court upon whose directions prosecutrix 'X' was admitted in Anand Math Puruliya. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 363/366 IPC was filed against the accused in the court.
2. Since the offence under Section 363/366 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, therefore, after supply of documents, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. Charge against the accused:
3. Prima facie case under section 363/366 IPC was made out against the accused. Charge under Section 363/366 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Witnesses Examined:
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses in all. The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under: Material Witnesses:
5. PW1 is Smt Phoolmani Devi who deposed that her daughter prosecutrix 'X' aged 16 years is studying in 9th class. She had sent her SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 3 of 18 daughter 'X' to Rachi, Bihar with Sh. Ritesh, brother of her son in law. On reaching there Ritesh made a phone call stating that he had got her daughter boarded in train in her village Gagaya. Thereafter he again made a phone call and said that prosecutrix 'X' boarded the train for Purliya. She then received a phone call that her daughter had not reached home. Next day, Raju told her that his brother is ill and he is going home. PW1 also accompanied him and when they reached Jalda station he left the train. She went to Ranchi and made efforts to locate her daughter but could not find her. Raju did not make any phone call to her so she suspected him and called him on phone who told her that he will not return her daughter. After four days, she went to Purliya and came to know that her daughter had gone to Purliya. She then went to Mukhiya (Head of Panchayat) who asked the family members of the accused to return her daughter. They called the accused who told them that he is coming with her daughter but he did not return. PW1 than came to know that accused had taken her daughter to Khatanga , where her bua resides. On reaching there, she was informed that accused had left the village. She came back to Purliya and next morning, she along with the father of accused went to police station Purliya. They called the accused but he did not return. She came back to Delhi and gave a complaint to the police which is Ex.PW1/A. She also handed over the photograph of her daughter to them. After about 15 days, the police informed them about the recovery of her daughter and accused. Police got her daughter medically examined and handed over her the prosecutrix. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court. After three days, her daughter again left her home and stated that she is in custody of NGO in SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 4 of 18 Purliya.
6. PW3 is prosecutrix 'X' herself. She deposed that she was staying with her father in her native village at Jharkhand. In the month of March, 2010 after passing from 7th class, she came to Delhi where she was again admitted in 7th class in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya No.2, East of Kailash. About 5 years prior to the incident, accused Raju Karmakar was staying with her mother. He was employed in a hospital and also used to pull the pedal rickshaw. When he used to return from his workplace she used to serve him water. There neighbours were under the impression that she has some relations with accused and made complaint to her mother regarding the same. She wanted to study but her mother wanted to marry her. Her mother also used to beat her on the complaints of neighbour. Her mother sent her to her native village with her brother in law despite her reluctance. Her brother in law (Jija) had some work in Ranchi so she asked him to buy a ticket for her native village and told him that she will go along to her native village. He arranged the ticket for her and after he left her at Ranchi, she got the ticket of her village cancelled and procured another ticket for the village of accused Raju Karmakar. She alighted from the train at Purliya and went to his village and started living with the family of the accused at his village. At the time, the accused Raju Karmakar was in Delhi. He came to know about her presence at his home in the village so he also came there. She requested him to marry her but he told her that she had not completed 18 years so he will not marry her. She insisted for marriage upon and told that she will die if he does not marry her upon which he married her and thereafter started living as husband and wife. When her mother came to know about SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 5 of 18 her marriage she reported the same to the police. Police came to the village of accused and brought her and accused to Delhi. During the examination, witness turned hostile. Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness as she resiled from her earlier statement but nothing material came out in the cross examination.
7. PW12 is SI Bikram Jeet, Investigating officer of the case, who deposed that after being entrusted with the complaint dated 08.06.2012, he made an enquiry, got endorsed the complaint and got the case registered He got flashed the WT message and sent the information on Zip Net, Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan and Missing Person Cell (NCRB) & (HCRB) regarding the missing of child/prosecutrix, recovered the prosecutrix and accused, arrested the accused, prepared arrested memo and conducted personal search, recorded the statement of witnesses, procured transit remand of the accused, got medically examined the prosecutrix and the accused wherein prosecutrix refused for gynae test, seized four pullandas duly sealed with the seal of hospital along with sample seal vide memo already Ex. PW10/A, got recorded the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C, got lodged the prosecutrix in Prayas and then produced in CWC, Lajpat Nagar from where she was released to her parents. On 25.06.2012 mother of prosecutrix again informed them regarding the leaving of prosecutrix from their house. On 29.06.2012 the raiding team again went to Purliya and recovered the prosecutrix from the house of accused. Prosecutrix was produced before the CJM, Purliya and sent to Anand Math Shelter Home. Thereafter they came to Delhi, prepared the charge sheet and submitted the same before the court.
SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 6 of 18 Formal Witnesses:
8. PW2 is Mrs. Kamlesh Malik, Principal, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, East of Kailash, New Delhi who deposed that as per record prosecutrix 'X' was admitted in their school in class 7th on 06.05.2010 and her admission was duly entered in the admission register at serial number 6304. Prosecutrix passed out from their school in 8th class in the year 2012 and left the school while studying in 9th class. As per record, her date of birth is 20.10.1996. She has duly proved the photocopy of application form Ex.PW2/A, photocoy of TC Ex.PW2/B, photocopy of admission register containing the entry of admission of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/C and photocopy of school leaving certificate Ex.PW2/D. She has correctly identified the certificate issued by her to the police on 21.08.2012 Ex.PW2/E.
9. PW4 is Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, MM who had recorded the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C of the prosecutrix and duly proved on record Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/C.
10. PW5 is ASI Saroj Bala who deposed that on 09.06.2012 upon receipt of rukka mark X through SI Vikram Jeet she had recorded the formal FIR, the computerized print out of the FIR on record is Ex.PW5/A. After registration of the case, she handed over the rukka and copy of FIR back to SI Vikram Jeet. Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW5/B is proved on record by the witness.
11. PW6 is HC Pramod Kumar who deposed that on 05.06.2012 he along with SI Vikram Jeet and L/Ct. Meenakshi went to District Purliya, West Bengal. IO informed the local police and took their SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 7 of 18 assistance. They along with local police raided the house at village Mangoria, PS Purliya, West Bengal and recovered accused Raju Karmakar and the prosecutrix. On 16.06.2012 IO interrogated the accused and arrested him. He conducted his personal search also. They then returned back to Police station Purliya and on 17.06.2012 IO produced the prosecutrix before CJM, Purliya and obtained the transit remand and on 18.06.2012 they left for Delhi. IO recorded his statement. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court. Witness has proved all the memos in this regard.
12. PW7 is L/Ct. Meenakshi who also deposed he along with IO and HC Pramod went to District Purliya, West Bengal. IO informed the local police and took their assistance. They went to the house of accused and recovered him and the prosecutrix. IO enquired the prosecutrix and recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. IO interrogated the accused and arrested him. He conducted his personal search also. IO brought the prosecutrix and accused to PS Purliya. IO recorded her statement. Thereafter they came back to Delhi along with accused and prosecutrix. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court. Witness has proved all the memos in this regard.
13. PW8 is L/Ct. Geeta who deposed that on 19.06.2012 she along with IO had taken the prosecutrix and the accused to AIIMS hospital for their medical examination along with the mother of prosecutrix. The prosecutrix refused to undergo gynae test. IO got the medical examination of the accused conducted. Statement of prosecutrix was got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Prosecutrix was taken to CWC but as the same was closed they lodged her in Prayas. Her SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 8 of 18 statement was recorded by the IO and the witness has correctly identified the accused in the court.
14. PW9 is L/Ct. Mary Sudha who deposed that she joined the investigation with the IO. She along with IO went to the house at Maguria, PS Purliya , West Bengal where the prosecutrix was staying and found her there. IO examined the prosecutrix and recorded her statement. IO produced the prosecutrix before the court of CJM in Purliya. As per the directions of CJM prosecutrix was lodged in Juvenile Home for girls Anand Math Purliya. Her statement was recorded by the IO and they came back to Delhi on 02.08.2012.
15. PW10 Ct. Lalit who deposed that on 19.06.2012 he along with IO Vikram Jeet and L/Ct. Geeta has taken the accused Raju Karmakar as well as the prosecutrix to AIIMS Hospital where the IO got the medical examination of accused conducted. After medical examination, doctor handed over four sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of hospital along with the sample seal to the IO which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. L/Ct. Geeta as per the directions of IO got the medical examination of the prosecutrix. Thereafter , statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded. Prosecutrix was taken to CWC, Kastoorba Niketan but as the same was closed they lodged her in Prayas. His statement was recorded by the IO and the witness has correctly identified the accused in the court.
16. PW11 Ct. Rabindranath Gorain who deposed that on 16.06.2012 he on the instructions of SHO accompanied Delhi police and reached at Village Magoria where accused and prosecutrix were found. IO examined the prosecutrix and interrogated the accused and arrested SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 9 of 18 him vide Ex.PW6/A, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter they came to police station and after completing the formalities the Delhi police came to Delhi. IO recorded his statement. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court. Statement and Defence of accused :
17. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein the accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that it is a false case made at behest of the mother of the prosecutrix. Accused stated that prosecutrix 'X' went to his village Purliya of her own since she was given beating by her mother. She called him to his village. He went there and asked her to return to her parental house but she refused. He then made a phone call to her mother and informed her about her whereabouts who told him to leave her at her place. He then asked the prosecutrix to accompany him back to her mother place but she refused and stated that she wanted to stay with him and will consume poison if he insisted her to return to her mother's place. She insisted upon her to marry her and thereafter he and prosecutrix married each other in village Khirka. Mother of the prosecutrix came to his village after 45 days. He was called by the police in his village and they made enquiries from him as well as from the prosecutrix in which she had stated that she had come to his village of her own. She made the statement against her mother before the police and after making inquiries they left him. Thereafter mother of prosecutrix along with prosecutrix left for Delhi and mother of prosecutrix made a complaint in Delhi. Accused further stated that he does not wish to lead defence evidence.
18. I have heard the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused and Ld. SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 10 of 18 APP for state and have carefully perused the record. Arguments of Ld. APP for state:
19. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the prosecutrix is minor as per her date of birth and as such, even if she left to the village of the accused on her own then why the accused had married her at his village amounts to enticement. Hence, it is prayed that the accused be convicted.
Arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for accused:
20. It is argued by the counsel for accused that in the present case neither the prosecutrix nor her mother has made the statement that the accused took the prosecutrix to his village or in any manner enticed her. As per the statement of the prosecutrix she had gone to the village of accused of her own. Accused did not accompany her to her village and as such no kidnapping is made out and when the kidnapping is not made out no offence of kidnapping for the purpose of marriage is also made out. Hence it is prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence. Counsel for the accused has also cited judgments :
1. Thakorlal D. Vadgama Vs State of Gujarat 1973 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 835.
2. S. Varadarajan Vs State of Madras AIR 1965 Supreme Court 942 ( V 52 C 150).
Conclusion: Offence of Kidnapping:
21. For the offence under section 363 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the offence as mentioned in section 361 of IPC SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 11 of 18 i.e.:
i) taking or enticing a minor girl under 18 years of age,
ii) out of the keeping of lawful guardian of such minor,
iii) without their consent.
Offence under section 366 IPC:
22. For proving the offence under section 366 IPC the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.
The essential ingredients of section 366 of IPC are :
(a) A person kidnaps or abducts any woman.
(b) The act is done
(i) with intent that she may be compelled to marry any person against her will, or
(ii) knowing it to be likely that she will be so compelled, or
(iii) in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or
(iv) knowing it to be likely that she will be so forced or seduced.
23. In the present case the most material witness are PW1 complainant who is mother of the prosecutrix and PW3 who is prosecutrix herself.
24. So far as prosecutrix is concerned she has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. She has stated in her statement that about 5 years prior to the incident the accused was staying with her mother and was employed in a hospital and also used to pull pedal rickshaw. When the accused used to return home, she used to serve him water due to which the neighbours got an impression that she SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 12 of 18 had relations with the accused and consequently they made complaint to the mother of the prosecutrix, who used to beat her. During the summer vacations the mother of prosecutrix sent her to her native village despite her reluctance with her brother in law. As per the statement of the prosecutrix he bought a ticket for the prosecutrix for her native village and left her at Ranchi. However, the prosecutrix got the said ticket for his village cancelled and procured another ticket for the village of the accused and thereafter alighted from the train at Puruliya and went to the village of the accused and started living with the accused at his village. She has also stated that accused at that time was in Delhi and when he came to know about her presence in the village he came and requested that as she has not completed 18 years he will marry her later on but the prosecutrix insisted for marriage due to which they married each other whereafter the police came from Delhi and arrested accused. In the cross examination by the Ld. APP for the state, she has stated that she had sexual intercourse with the accused with her consent who again in her further cross examination by the defence counsel has stated that she did not have any sexual intercourse with the accused. No history of sexual intercourse was given by the prosecutrix in the entire trial before recording of her statement in the court and she had even refused for her gynecological examination and that is why accused was charged for offence under Section 363/366 IPC. The prosecutrix has made two contradictory statement in her cross examination by the APP and by the defence counsel as in the cross by APP she has stated to have sexual intercourse but in cross examination by defence counsel she refused for that hence no reliance can be placed on these contradictory and SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 13 of 18 inconsistent statements moreso when in her statement before the police or magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix never levelled any allegations of having sexual intercourse with the accused. Hence, from the statement of prosecutrix it is not proved that she had sexual intercourse with the accused.
25. So far as the offence of kidnapping is concerned, from the statement of the prosecutrix it is clear that the accused had not accompanied her to his village nor asked her to go to his village nor made any enticement to her before she left for the village of the accused on her own. There was no enticement, promise or allurement from the side of accused before she proceeded to the village of the accused nor the accused had taken the prosecutrix. Even the mother of the prosecutrix has deposed on the line of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix was sent to her native village Ranchi, Bihar with one Ritish who is brother of her son in law. On reaching Ranchi he made the phone call that he had got the prosecutrix boarded in the train to Gagaya. Thereafter he again made a phone call and said that the prosecutrix 'X' boarded the train for Puruliya and had enquired from PW1 who told that she herself boarded the train for puruliya. Therafter she received a phone call from his native village that Rekha did not reach there and on the next day Raju told her that his brother is alone and he has to go home. The witness PW1 told him that her daughter is missing and she will also accompany him whereafter they both boarded the train from Delhi and reached at Jalda Station where he left PW1 without information. Thereafter PW1 went to Ranchi and then to the native village of the accused and searched the daughter of the prosecutrix. Despite her asking they did not return the prosecutrix.
SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 14 of 18 Hence, it is clear from the statement of PW1 that she has supported the statement of the prosecutrix that she herself went to the village of the accused without being accompanied by accused as at that time accused was in Delhi. Hence, from the statement of the prosecutrix as well as the complainant herself, no taking or enticing the prosecutrix out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship of the parents by the accused is proved. In the case of Thakorlal D. Vadgama Vs State of Gujarat 1973 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 835 the court made reference to the judgment of State of Haryana Vs Rajaram (1973) 1 SCC 544 and thereafter held that : "In the case cited reference has been made to some English decisions in which it has been stated that forwardness on the part of the girl would not avail the person taking her away from being guilty of the offence in question and that if by moral force of a willingness is created in the girl to go away with the former, the offence would be committed unless her going away is entirely voluntary. Inducements by previous promise or persuasion was held in some English decision to be sufficient to bring the case within the mischief of the statute. Broadly, the same seems to us to be the position under our law. The expression used in section 361 IPC is " whoever takes or entices any minor". The word "takes" does not necessarily connote taking by force and it is not confined only to use of force, actual or constructive. This word merely means "to cause to go ", "to escort" or "to get into possession". No doubt it does mean physical taking, but not necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word 'entice' seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This can take SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 15 of 18 many forms, difficult to visualize and describe exhaustively; some of them may be quite subtle, depending for their success on the mental state of the person at the time when the inducement is intended to operate. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some time, in achieving its ultimate purposes of successful inducement. The two words 'takes' and 'entices', as used in Section 361, IPC are in our opinion, intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent its colour and content from the other. The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361 IPC. But if the guilty party has laid a foundation by inducement, allurement or threat etc, and if this can be considered to have influenced the minor or weighed with her in leaving her guardian's custody or keeping and going to the guilty party, then prima facie it would be difficult for him to plead innocence on the ground that the minor had voluntarily come to him. If he had at an earlier stage solicited or induced her in any manner to leave her father's protection, by conveying or indicating or encouraging suggestion that he would give her shelter, then the mere circumstance that his act was not the immediate cause of her leaving her parental home or guardian's custody would constitute no valid defence would not absolve him."
26. In Balasaheb Vs The State of Maharashtra 1994 Crl. L.J. 3044 the court was confronted with the situation where it was found that minor victim had accompanied the accused voluntarily stayed with him in SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 16 of 18 the very presence of his family members and there was consent on the part of the victim. The Maharashtra High Court has quoted with approval an extract from the book of Ratan Lal and Dhiraj Lal on the law of crimes to the effect : " A minor may not be competent to give her consent to her taking but a minor is certainly competent to leave the protection of her guardian of his or her own accord. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the girl alleged to be kidnapped was a minor or not in so far as her leaving the house of her own accord is concerned. If a minor girl leaves her home without any persuasion or inducement held out by the accused so that she has got fairly away from home and then goes to him, his not restoring her to her home is no infringement of the law. To sustain a conviction, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had some active part in the minor leaving her guardian's house. The offence under Section 363 s not a continuing one and it really consists in the initial act of taking her from the keeping of her lawful guardian. "
27. Hence in the light of the said proposition of law in the above mentioned case, it is clear that in the case in hand also there is no enticement or inducement or taking of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has left her parental home without any persuasion or inducement emanating from the accused. She has stated in her statement that she was serving only water to the accused when he used to return from his work who was residing in her house with her mother. The neighbours gather an impression that she had some relations with accused and making complaints to her mother who used to beat prosecutrix and did not allow her to study and was sending her to native place despite her reluctance but SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 17 of 18 on the way she slipped and got the ticket of her native village exchanged to the ticket of the native village of accused and alone went to his village. Prosecutrix has not stated that she was having any relations or affair with the accused by that time or that he induced her prior to the date she went to his village of her own accord. Hence, no inducement or enticement is proved on the part of accused. Hence, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 361 IPC. If no offence of kidnapping is proved then there is no question of offence of kidnapping for the purpose of marriage etc. proved against the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is acquitted of the offence under section 363/366 IPC.
28. In view of the Section 437A of Cr.PC, accused is directed to furnish bail bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount for the period of six months with the condition that he shall appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when notice be issued in respect of any appeal filed by the state against the judgment within a period of 6 months. Case property be confiscated to the state after expiry of period of revision/appeal, if any.
29. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.04.2014.
( RENU BHATNAGAR )
DESIGNATED JUDGE
TADA/POTA/MCOCA
ASJ SE01/NEW DELHI
SC No. 60/12 State Vs Raju Karmakar Page No. 18 of 18