Delhi District Court
Sc No.22/10 , Fir No. 100/08 "State vs . Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 1/26 on 14 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL
ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI.
SC No.: 22/10
(Unique ID No.: 02403R0063162009)
FIR No.: 100/2008
PS: Kotla Mubarakpur
U/S: 366/376/313/506 IPC
State
Vs.
Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey
S/o Sh. Lalan Prasad Pandey
R/o 1672/1, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
Date of Initial Institution : 12.02.2009
Date of Institution in the present Court : 22.09.2010
Date of reserving judgment : 27.08.2012
Date of Pronouncement of judgment : 14.09.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution is that on 13.05.2007, Tehsildar Singh, father of the prosecutrix (name withheld by this Court), came in PS-Kotla Mubarak Pur at 2:45 PM that his daughter/prosecutrix aged 20 years, has gone from the house on SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 1/26 12.05.2007 at 5 O'clock in the morning without telling anybody. He stated that she was wearing a pink colour shirt, white salwar and green colour slippers. He also stated that they do not doubt anybody's involvement in the case. This information was recorded vide DD No. 9-A.
2. Thereafter, on 18.02.2008, a complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC was filed by the prosecutrix under her signatures before the Court, whereupon, on 07.04.2008, directions were given to the SHO, PS-Kotla Mubarak Pur to register the FIR under the appropriate Sections of the law. In compliance, FIR No. 100/2008 was registered on 15.04.2008 at PS-Kotla Mubarak Pur under Sections 376/366/506/313/34 of IPC. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused Anjani Pandey while his brother Pawan Kumar Pandey was untraceable, and after committal, charge under Section 366/376/313/506 of IPC was framed against the accused on 15.10.2009, to which, he pleaded not- guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, Prosecution examined eleven witnesses, out of which, three are Medical Witnesses, five are SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 2/26 Police Witnesses, two are Public Witnesses and one is Official Witness.
3.1 PW-1 Dr. Arvind Kumar deposed on behalf of Dr. Shika and stated that Dr. Shikha has left the services of the hospital. He, however, identified her handwriting and signatures and proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW1/A. 3.2 PW-2 Dr. Monika deposed on behalf of Dr. P. Rajni Shanker and stated that Dr. P. Rajni Shanker has left the services of the hospital. She, however, identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. P. Rajni Shanker and proved the X-ray report of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW2/A, according to which, bone age of the prosecutrix was more than 19 years. 3.3 PW-3 HC Ram Kishan proved the writing of DD No.9A on 13.05.2007 as Ex. PW3/A. 3.4 PW-4 ASI Daya Ram proved the writing of FIR No. 100/08 on 15.04.2008 and proved the same as Ex. PW4/A. SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 3/26 3.5 PW-5 Ct. Sunil Dutt is the witness to the arrest of the accused on 19.11.2008. He proved the arrest memo of the accused as Ex. PW5/A. However, he could not identify the accused in the court and it was only at the suggestion of the Ld. Addl. PP that he identified the accused in the court. 3.6 PW-6 is the prosecutrix, who stated that on date 12th (she could not tell the month and year) about 4 years ago, she was living at Kotla Mubarak Pur and in the evening, she was going to Subji Mandi, Mother Dairy for purchasing milk; suddenly, she realized that somebody coming from back side closed her mouth with his hand and put something on her temple and pushed her inside a vehicle; the assailant took her to Kangra, Village Sunder Nagar, Uttaranchal where she saw the accused Anjani Pandey, who had taken her inside a room from the vehicle. She further stated that there accused married with her against her wishes; they remained there for about 4-5 months and he offered to go Delhi with her. She stated that he did not allow her to go outside the room nor allowed her to make any telephone call. Then accused took her to Delhi by a transport SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 4/26 bus and took her to House No. 157/1, Subji Mandi, Kotla Mubarakpur; she made attempts to find her parents and came to know that they had gone back to their village; knowing this, her health deteriorated and she was also pregnant at that time; he took her to AIIMS hospital and gave his name as her husband's name in the hospital records; he gave her some medicines on the pretext of improving her health; after consuming it, her pregnancy was aborted; after two months, again she became pregnant but due to his beatings, she once again aborted; he took her jewellery articles for keeping them in safe custody but after taking the jewellery, he disappeared and his whereabouts were not known; his brother Pawan Pandey gave her clothes to her parents and told them that she had died and believing it, her parents married her younger sister with her husband with whom she had lived only for 3-4 days at Village Morena. Some leading questions were put to her by the prosecution wherein she stated that she had gone on 12.05.2007 at 5:00 p.m for purchasing milk and at that time she was wearing her bridal jewellery. She also stated that when she was taken away by the accused to Village Sunder Nagar, he was SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 5/26 aware that she was already married and there he made forcible sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. She also admitted that accused was arrested in her presence on 19.11.2008 from House No.1672/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur. In her cross-examination, she stated that at the time of the incident, she was living in Gurjar's house at Kotla Mubarak Pur but she could not tell his name. She also stated that accused was living in the same building on an upper floor. She stated that when the incident took place, she had not purchased milk at that time. On that day, she was carrying a steel Dibba of 1 liter size and was carrying Rs.20/-; when she was going towards Dairy, other passers-by were not available at that time and it was a secluded place which was 200 meters away from the Dairy. She admitted that many shops are situated near Mother-Dairy; her marriage with her earlier husband took place about one month prior to the date of the incident; no photographs of that marriage was clicked; she could not tell name of her parents-in- law; that she had come to Delhi about 4-5 days prior to the date of the incident; at the time of the incident, she was wearing a white colour Kurta, a pink Pajami and a pink Dupata; she SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 6/26 noticed that one person had kidnapped her; her eyes and mouth were closed at that time by left hand; she was taken away in a vehicle which was like a Van and in the same Van they reached Uttaranchal; she could not tell the number of the vehicle; the Van proceeded towards direction of Mother-Dairy and she was made to sit on the rear seat of the Van; she could not see as to who was driving the Van; she could not tell whether the accused was driving the Van or somebody else was driving the Van; they reached at Uttaranchal at 4:00 p.m on the next day; the Van stopped nowhere enroute; at Sunder Nagar, she was kept in a house which was in the basement of a shop which he used to sell daily need articles; she could not tell name of the owner of that shop; accused was not working there; she never went out for any outing; she never cooked food there and accused used to bring food from outside. After about four months, accused brought her to Delhi but she could not tell the date; they came by a public bus to Delhi which they boarded from a bus stop at 8:00 p.m which was at a distance from the basement; they reached Delhi at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand at about 4:30/5:00 in the morning; the ticket was purchased by the accused but SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 7/26 she could not tell from where he purchased the ticket; the bus by which they travelled was fully occupied and there were about 50 persons in that bus; they did not take any food enroute; when she was sitting in the bus neither her mouth nor her eyes were closed nor any Katta was pointed out at her; when they reached Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand, tea-hawkers, newspaper vendors were at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand; accused brought an Auto Rickshaw from nearby place and from there they reached Kotla Mubarak Pur after half an hour in a room which was at top floor of a four storeyed building which the accused had already taken on rent. They lived in that room for about 2-3 months; she used to cook food in that house. She admitted that accused was working with Nitya Jewellers for which he used to live at 9:00 a.m and would return at about 7:00 p.m and she used to remain alone in this period in that house. She further stated that this house and the earlier house where she was living at the time of the incident was at a distance of about 1 hour away on foot and during the period the accused remained out of the house for his work, she could go and come back her earlier house about 5-6 times. She also SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 8/26 stated that at Sunder Nagar, accused brought two pairs of suits for her, one of orange colour and other of black colour but at Kotla Mubarak Pur, no other suits were provided to her by the accused and she had only two suits and the suit which she was wearing at the time of the incident had disappeared at Sunder Nagar itself. She stated that she never made any police complaint till she remained at Sunder Nagar or to the driver/conductor till they reached Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand or to the Auto Rickshaw driver or to the owner of the building where she lived at Kotla Mubarak Pur. She stated that she lived with the accused for about 2-3 months whereafter he went away and after 3-4 days she searched for her parents and came to know that her father had changed his job and then her parents came to the house where she was living. She told them the entire incident and she went to P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur with them. She denied the suggestion that accused had not abducted or he had not married her or that he had not lived with her at Sunder Nagar or that she did not suffer any abortion or that she was not raped by the accused. She also denied the suggestion that because her mother had to pay back a loan of Rs.17,500/- SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 9/26 to the accused, he was implicated in this case.
3.7 PW-7 Smt. Shakuntala Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that on 12.05.2007 at about 5:00 p.m in the evening, her daughter had gone to purchase milk but she did not return home. On 13.05.2007, she went with her husband to P.S.Kotla Mubarak Pur and lodged a missing report about her daughter; police searched for her daughter for about two weeks but no information could be received by the police in this regard; after two weeks, Babban Pandey, elder brother of the accused came to her room and informed that her daughter was no more and he also showed clothes of her daughter to her. Thereafter, he went away. She searched for her daughter for about two weeks and then she went to her native village where last rites of her daughter were performed. After about 5-6 months, she came to know that the accused was living with her daughter at Sewa Nagar, she came back from her village and came to know that accused had forcibly married with her daughter. In her cross- examination, she stated that in the year 2007, she was living in a rented room in Kotla Mubarak Pur which belonged to one SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 10/26 Pandit which she had vacated after about two weeks of the incident. They were living on the first floor of that property. She stated that accused used to live on the second floor of that building but she had no concern with him. She also stated that she had not accompanied her husband to the P.S for lodging missing report of her daughter. She knew Babban Pandey since he used to live with the accused and he was brother of the accused. She came to know that Babban Pandey is the brother of the accused after the incident and she came to know about it through other tenants. She could not tell the date when Babban Pandey came to her house and told her about her daughter. Babban Pandey has brought a white ladies Kurta, pink Salwar and pink Dupata. She could not tell whether he took away the clothes with him when leaving or whether the clothes were left by him with her. She did not disclose about the visit of Babban Pandey to anybody in the neighbourhood. She denied the suggestion that accused was working with Nitya Jewellers. She also denied the suggestion that she had borrowed Rs. 17,500/- from the accused. Her husband had come to know that the accused was living with her daughter at Sewa Nagar but she SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 11/26 could not tell the number of that house or name of that landlord nor she could tell the date when she gained this knowledge. 3.8 PW-8 SI Kiran Sood is part IO. She stated that on 02.01.2009 she had examined prosecutrix and her mother and since the other investigations were complete, she filed the charge-sheet against the accused. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not examine the father of the prosecutrix when the investigation was with her. She stated that according to arrest memo Ex. PW5/A and DD No.9A, the address mentioned is 1672/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur. She stated that earlier prosecutrix and the accused were residing at the same place. She did not prepare the site-plan of the place of the incident. She did not receive the photographs of the marriage or any other document of the marriage; she did not take prosecutrix and her mother to Himachal Pradesh. She was not handed over any clothes by the mother of the prosecutrix. 3.9 PW-9 ASI Pushpa is the main IO, who stated that on 15.04.2008, the present case FIR No.100/08 was registered on the directions of the court. On 18.04.2008, she recorded the SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 12/26 statement of the prosecutrix and got her medically examined in AIIMS and searched for accused. On 19.11.2008, she alongwith the prosecutrix and Ct. Sunil went to House No. 1672/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur where accused was found and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A. She identified the accused in the court. In her cross-examination, she stated that father of the prosecutrix never met her nor she recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She did not prepare the site-plan of Mother-Dairy from where the prosecutrix was taken away; she did not get recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C; she did not obtain the clothes from the mother of the prosecutrix as the said clothes were stated to be not available having been burnt; she did not examine any person from Mother-Dairy or from that locality as the incident had taken place at 5:00 a.m in the morning about 10 months ago. She visited House No.1672/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur but the owner did not meet her. Accused was living on the first floor of the building-1672/1,Kotla Mubarak Pur. She did not go to Sunder Nagar, Himachal Pradesh nor she visited the Temple. SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 13/26 3.10 PW-10 Dr. Rajanikanta Swain deposed on behalf of Dr. Shiva Prashad, who had left the services from the hospital. He identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Shiva Prashad and proved MLC of the accused as Ex. PW10/A. 3.11 PW-11 Ranjeet Singh proved filing of the complaint case by the prosecutrix under Section 200 Cr.P.C as Ex. PW11/A and the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C as Ex. PW11/C. In his cross-examination, he stated that in Para No.1 of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C Ex. PW11/A and in application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C Ex. PW11/C, the time of the incident was mentioned as 5:00 p.m on 12.05.2007.
4. In his examination u/s 313 Cr PC, the accused stated that Shakuntala, mother of the prosecutrix had taken a loan of Rs. 17,500/- from him in March 2007 for a period of 5 months and she did not return the loan amount after the expiry of 5 months. When he demanded his money back, Shakuntala threatened to implicate him in a false case and she filed the present case through her daughter.
SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 14/26
5. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that first of all the time when the prosecutrix is stated to have gone missing is not clear. In DD No. 9 A which was recorded on 13.5.2007, the prosecutrix was stated to be missing since 5 am on 12.5.2007, but in the FIR the said time has been stated to be 5 pm and in the depositions made before the Court, the time of missing is stated to be 5 in the evening. Next argument of the counsel is that PW-5 Ct. Sunil Dutt who is witness of arrest of the accused, could not identify the accused in the Court and it was only at the suggestion of the Addl. PP that he identified the accused, which makes the arrest of the accused doubtful. Ld. Counsel also stated that the entire prosecution story that the accused abducted the prosecutrix and kept her in his confinement for about 9 months is false. The prosecution could not prove as to where the accused kept the prosecutrix when she was kept out of station. The van in which the prosecutrix was allegedly abducted was not produced. No other public witness has been cited as witness except the prosecutrix and her mother. No site plan has been prepared and proved. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused married with the SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 15/26 prosecutrix and hence offence u/s 366 IPC is not proved against him. Regarding the offence u/s 376 IPC, he stated that the prosecutrix did not give the name of the accused in the MLC to have committed intercourse with her. For the offence u/s 313 IPC, he argued that the prosecution has not produced any evidence in this regard against the accused. On the basis of these arguments, acquittal for the accused has been prayed.
6. Ld. Addl. PP argued that the accused has failed to prove his defence that the mother of the prosecutrix had taken a loan of Rs. 17,500/- from him which she could not return. He stated that the accused did not bring any defence evidence in this regard. Apart from it, the accused also did not bring any evidence that he lived during the said period of 9 months from 13.5.2007 to 16.2.2008 at Delhi and the prosecutrix was not with him during this period. Regarding the time of abduction, he stated that the prosecutrix was abducted at 5 pm as stated by all the witnesses. He further argued that the deposition of the Prosecutrix is sufficient and she has fully supported the prosecution case in all respects. Therefore, conviction has been SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 16/26 prayed by the prosecution.
7. I have heard both the sides and have carefully perused the records of the case.
8. As per the charge-sheet, the prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details is that the prosecutrix was abducted by the accused in a van on 13.5.2007 at 5 pm when she had gone to buy milk from Mother Dairy at Kotla Mubarak Pur and from there she was taken to Sunder Nagar, Himachal Pradesh where he married her in a temple on 2.6.2007 and committed rape with her. Thereafter, he brought her to Delhi and on 5.9.2007 he gave her pills and caused miscarriage and again she aborted on 17.12.2007 when he gave her fists and legs blows and finally he abandoned her on 16.1.2008.
9. Rightly so, as per the contents of the charge-sheet, charges u/s 366, 376, 313 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused. If we put it in legal phraseology, the accused first abducted the prosecutrix for marriage, intimidated her, committed rape upon her and caused her miscarriage. So, first SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 17/26 of all, the prosecutrix was abducted and then all other offences were committed by the accused against the prosecutrix. So first of all, the prosecution is to prove abduction of the prosecutrix.
10. The prosecutrix PW-6 and her mother PW-7 are the only public witnesses cited by the prosecution in this case and the other witnesses are official witnesses who have deposed about the official part of this case. If the testimony of prosecutrix PW-6 is sifted, it comes out that according to her, on 12.05.2007 at 5:00 p.m when she was going to purchase milk from Mother Dairy, she was abducted by the accused and from there she was taken in a vehicle to village Sunder Nagar, Uttaranchal. She further stated that the accused married her there against her wishes. They remained there for about 4-5 months and at his offer they came to Delhi and stayed in House No. 157/1, Subji Mandi, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she lived with the accused in Delhi for about 2-3 months. She is not able to tell as to how many persons were involved in her alleged abduction. It appears quite improbable that a grown-up girl could be SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 18/26 abducted at 5:00 p.m. from a busy place like near Mother-Dairy where many other shops were there, without it being noticed by anybody else. There is no eye-witness to the alleged abduction. There is no recovery of the said vehicle in which she was allegedly abducted and taken to Sunder Nagar, Uttaranchal. The prosecution version regarding abduction of the prosecutrix at 5:00 p.m on 12.05.2007 also becomes suspicious in view of Ex. PW3/A which is DD No.9A which was recorded at the instance of Tehsildar Singh, father of the prosecutrix wherein he stated that the prosecutrix has gone from his house on 12.05.2007 at 5:00 a.m without informing anybody. So according to Ex. PW3/A, the prosecutrix went away at 5:00 in the morning whereas according to the FIR and the depositions of the witnesses, she was abducted at 5:00 in the evening. It is not clear as to whether the prosecutrix was abducted at 5:00 in the morning or at 5:00 in the evening of 12.05.2007. No explanation regarding this discrepancy has been given by the prosecution which is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution.
SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 19/26
11. Further, according to the prosecutrix, the accused had married with her at Sunder Nagar but no such evidence has been placed on record in this regard to show that the accused had married her at Sunder Nagar. The prosecution could have produced some evidence/witness from the said temple where the said marriage allegedly took place. The prosecutrix has not been able to tell the date on which the said marriage took place. She has not stated the place where this marriage took place, although, in the FIR, it was stated that the marriage took place in a temple. The deposition is also silent about the persons in whose presence the said marriage took place. There are neither any photograph of the said marriage nor any other kind of evidence to support such an averment that the accused married her and that too against her wishes at Sunder Nagar, Uttranchal.
12. Further, the keeping of the prosecutrix at Sunder Nagar by the accused for 4-5 months, without it being noticed by anybody, is also doubtful. Prosecutrix stated that the house in which she was kept also had a shop in which daily need articles were sold. There is no such evidence on record regarding the SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 20/26 house number or any other such distinct identifiable place where the prosecutrix was kept by the accused at Sunder Nagar. The evidence of the landlord in whose premises the prosecutrix was kept by the accused would have been most handy in such a situation but no such evidence has been produced, which casts serious doubts about the prosecution case in this regard. It cannot be believed that in the entire period of 4-5 months when the prosecutrix was kept against her wishes at Sunder Nagar, she got no opportunity to escape and if not escape, to tell about her woes to anybody. She herself stated that they had come to Delhi by a transport bus which they boarded from the public bus stand which was away from the place where they were staying. They came to Delhi in the public bus which was full of passengers and the journey took about 8-9 hours whereafter they landed at Sarai Kale Khan, Bus Stop where the accused went to get an Auto and in that Auto they came to Kotla Mubarakpur - the place where she used to live earlier prior to her abduction. She thus had more than ample opportunities to narrate the incident or to raise alarm against the accused but she never took any such step. It also does not appeal to reason that SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 21/26 the accused would bring the prosecutrix back to the same locality after her abduction from where he had abducted her. A person, who abducts somebody would go to any place in the world except to the same place from where he had abducted his victim. The prosecutrix has stated that thereafter they lived together at House No.157/1, Subji Mandi, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, for about 2-3 months. The prosecutrix has stated that the accused used to go for his work at 9:00 in the morning and used to come back after 7:00 p.m and thus the prosecutrix had all the time in the world to escape from there, if she really wanted to. But conversely, she continued to live with the accused which speaks volumes about her intentions and wishes. The alleged act of the accused of bringing the prosecutrix back to the same locality and then cohabiting with her for 2-3 months does not inspire confidence. The deposition of the prosecutrix regarding disappearance of the accused from this house also becomes suspicious as the accused was arrested on 19.11.2008 in her presence from House No. 1672/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. The prosecutrix has not stated as to how she came to know about the presence of the accused at House No. 1672/1, SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 22/26 Kotla Mubarak Pur when she was abandoned by the accused at House No. 157/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur. Interestingly, the House No. 1672/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur from where the accused was arrested on 19.11.2008 is the same house where the prosecutrix used to live when she went missing on 12.05.2007 as is disclosed by Ex. PW3/A i.e DD No.9A wherein the address of the father of the prosecutrix is given as 1672/1, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. In other words, the prosecutrix used to live in the same house and according to the prosecution, the accused was also arrested from the same house.
13. The prosecution has also not examined the father of the prosecutrix for reasons best known to them, but I do not see any plausible reason for non-examination of the father of the prosecutrix in a case where the prosecutrix was abducted and was kept away from her parents for about eight months where the accused had married with her against her wishes, intimidated her, raped her and caused her miscarriage on two occasions. In such a serious matter, non-examination of father of the prosecutrix, who had initiated the state machinery by SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 23/26 lodging DD No. 9A casts serious questions about the veracity of the prosecution case. There is no evidence at all on record that the accused had caused abortions of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, in her deposition, has stated that the accused had got her treated in AIIMS hospital wherein he gave his own name as the name of her husband but no such records were produced by the prosecution to strengthen its case.
14. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 18.04.2008 wherein she gave the history of being kidnapped by some person in May, 2008 where he married with her but quite surprisingly name of the said abductor or the person who married with her, was not disclosed by her in this MLC. No injury was noticed by the attending Doctor during the medical examination of the prosecutrix. A grown-up girl, who had lived for eight months with a person under alleged abduction, where the abductor also married with her against her wishes, caused MTPs to her, would definitely give the name of her abductor and her silence in this regard shows that either no such incident had taken place or she was a consenting party. PW-2 Dr. SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 24/26 Monika proved the age of the prosecutrix to be above 19 years and hence it can neither be a case of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship or statutory rape.
15. In neither of these situations, the ingredients of the offences of Section 366, 376, 313 or 506 IPC are satisfied to be made out against the accused to secure conviction against him. The argument that the accused had not satisfied and proved his defence of giving loan of Rs. 17,500/- to the mother of the prosecutrix and as to where the accused remained during the alleged period of nine months, is without merit since it is the prosecution which has to first discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and only then, the accused would be required to dispel the same by producing defence evidence. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot expect to gain on the weaknesses of the defence. In the net result, the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations of abduction of the prosecutrix for the purpose of marriage, her rape, her criminal intimidation, and abortions of the prosecutrix by the accused and hence the SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 25/26 accused is entitled to be acquitted and it is so ordered.
16. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court. (RAJEEV BANSAL)
Dated:14.09.2012 ASJ-3/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No.22/10 , FIR No. 100/08 "State Vs. Anjani Pandey @ Rajesh Pandey" 26/26