Delhi District Court
Sc No. 1/13 State vs Shahzade Etc. Page No. 1/35 on 15 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 : SED:
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA/POCSO:
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE ID No. 02403R0125802010
SESSIONS CASE NO. 1/13
FIR NO. 448/09
POLICE STATION : SANGAM VIHAR
UNDER SECTION : 363/366/376/506/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. SHAHZADE @ MASTAN,
S/O ASHRAF ALI,
R/O H.NO. H17/406, SANGAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI.
2. SANJAY BANARJEE @ BABU BHAI
S/O SH. S.K. BANARJEE
R/O H16/152, SANGAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI.
3. NOOR NABI
S/O ASHRAF ALI,
R/O H17/406, SANGAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.04.2010
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 27.03.2015.
DATE OF DECISION : 15.05.2015.
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution: SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 1/35
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.12.2009, after receiving DD No. 12A HC Manoj Kumar registered a complaint under Section 363 of IPC made by complainant Sh. Girish regarding missing of his daughter namely 'S' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) wherein he stated that he is residing with his family and sells vegetables. On 18.12.2009 he left her daughter 'S' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) aged about 14 years who studies in 7th class at the gate of her school i.e. Sarvodaya CoEd Middle School, J Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi at about 7.30 AM but her daughter 'S' did not reach the school and went missing. She was searched but she could not be found. It is stated that accused Shahzade had taken their daughter. On the complaint of complainant, case was registered. Investigation of the case was assigned to ASI Laxman Prasad. WT Messages were flashed and Missing form was filled. Accused Shahzade @ Mastan was arrested. He was medically examined. On 08.01.2010 prosecutrix 'S' was recovered and she was medically examined and report was taken. Statement of prosecutrix 'S' under Section 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. NBWs were issued against the other coaccused Sanjay Banarjee and Noor Nabi. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 363/366/376/506/34 of IPC against the accused in the court.
2. On 14.05.2010 supplementary charge sheet of coaccused Sanjay Banarjee and Noor Nabi was filed in the court. Since the offence under Section 366/376 of 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.
SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 2/35Charge against the accused persons:
3. Prima facie case under section 363/34 IPC, 366/34 IPC, 506 IPC was made out against all the accused persons and under Section 376 IPC was also made out against the accused Shahzade @ Mastan. Charge under Section 363/34 IPC, 366/34 IPC, 506 IPC was framed against the accused persons and in addition under Section 376 IPC was also framed against the accused Shahzade @ Mastan to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined:
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses. The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under: Material witnesses:
5. PW1 is prosecutrix 'S' herself. She deposed that she was studying in 7th class at Sarvodaya Convent School, J Block, Sangam Vihar, when the incident occurred. On 18.12.2009, her father dropped her in the school. She came out of the school in order to return shawl to her father but she could not find her father. While she was returning back to her school she saw one autorickshaw and accused Shahzade standing near the school. Two persons, namely Noor Nabi and one other person were sitting inside the autorickshaw. Shahzade caught hold of her and touched a handkerchief on her mouth and she was made to smell something and pushed into the auto. Her sister Suman raised alarm but Noor Nabi showed a knife to her and told her "Agar chillai to tumhari behen ko maar denge". After that she became unconscious and when she gained SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 3/35 consciousness she found herself at New Delhi Railway Station. At railway station, accused persons gave her tea to drink and she again became unconscious. When she again gained consciousness she found herself at Mumbai in a Kholi. She raised alarm on which accused persons threatened her to kill her, her brother and sister. Thereafter, accused Shahzade gave her food mixed with something and thereafter he committed rape upon her. On 06.01.2010, accused Shahzade brought her back to Delhi. She raised alarm and accused Shahzade left her near Batra Hospital in an auto. On 08.01.2010, she along with her parents went to police station and lodged a complaint. She has duly identified her signatures on Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. She stated that she had given brief history to the doctor that accused had committed rape upon her. She has duly identified the accused persons in the court. She further stated that accused Shahzade had taken away and thrown the school uniform worn by her at the time of commission of rape in the kholi in Mumbai and he had brought new clothes for her.
6. PW2 Ms. Suman, sister of prosecutrix had deposed that she is studying in 6th standard in Sarvodaya CoEd School, Sangam Vihar. She does not remember the month and year but it was 18th and she was studying in 5th standard. Her father had gone to drop her and her sister / prosecutrix 'S' to school. He dropped them a little away from the school as there was mud on the road. They entered the school. The shawl of her father left with her sister 'S'. They both came out of the school to return the shawl to their father and were looking for their father at a distance of 1015 minutes of walking. There an auto was parked in which Shahzade and Noor Nabi were present. Shahzade pushed her sister and Noor Nabi SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 4/35 put handkerchief on the face of her sister 'S'. Noor Nabi had shown a knife to her and stated "main teri behen ko pakad kar le ja raha hun, agar tune kisi ko bataya, to kaat kar faink doonga". Thereafter, one more person came on the motorcycle and sat inside the auto. Noor Nabi stated that "chal babu bhai auto chala". Thereafter, they left in the auto with her sister and auto was driven by Babu Bhai. Accused persons were correctly identified by the witness in the court. Thereafter, she went back to the school and due to fear, did not tell anything to anybody. After school, she came back to house at 11 AM and informed about the incident to her mother. Her mother approached the police and thereafter she does not know what had happened.
7. PW3 Sh. Girish Chand, father of the prosecutrix had deposed that he runs business of selling vegetables. He does not remember the date, time and year. About one year three/four months back from today, at about 7.30 AM he had gone to drop his children 'S' and Suman to school on a two wheeler scooter. His scooter break down at a distance of ten minutes walking from the school. He sent her children to school of their own and came back home along with scooter. Her daughter 'S' was aged 1415 years and was studying in 6th class and her daughter Suman was aged about 89 years and was studying in 4th class. He stated that examination were going on and it was winter season (kohra pad raha tha). At about 11.30 AM only Suman returned back to home but prosecutrix 'S' did not return. Suman had told him that 'S' was taken away by Noor Nabi, Shahzade and Babu Bhai in TSR Scooter. Suman further told him that those accused persons had threatened her that if she disclosed anything to her family members, she would be killed by knife. He then informed the SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 5/35 police at 100 number and his statement was recorded by the IO vide Ex.PW3/A. Accused persons were correctly identified by the witness in the court. He stated that after about 20 days he came to know from police that his daughter 'S' is appearing in the court. He came to court and met her there and then came to police station with her daughter along with police officials.
8. PW14 is ASI Laxman Prasad, Investigating officer of the case who stated that he along with Ct. Rajender Singh arrested the accused on the information of secret informer, got conducted the medical examination and statement of prosecutrix, got recorded the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C, got the accused Shahzade medically examined, got the NBWs of other coaccused Sanjay Banarjee and Noor Nabi who surrendered before the court later on. He arrested the co accused persons and filed the supplementary charge sheet before the court. He has duly identified all the accused persons in the court and proved all the memos etc. in this regard.
Formal witnesses:
9. PW5 is Ms. Meena, mother of prosecutrix who had deposed that the date of incident was 18th but she does not remember the month and year as the incident is more than one year old. Her daughters prosecutrix 'S' and Suman went to school with their father on two wheeler scooter at about 7.30 AM. On that day, at about 12.45 PM her daughter Suman came at home and told her that she along with prosecutrix 'S' were going to school. Both of them saw that a checking of uniform was going on in the school. 'S' came out from the school to return the shawl of her father. Suman told her(PW5) that Noor Nabi and one other person came SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 6/35 on the motorcycle and pushed 'S' inside the TSR. Shahzade put the handkerchief on the mouth of 'S'. Noor Nabi had shown the knife to Suman and threatened her not to disclose anyone, otherwise she would be killed. She further told her that Noor Nabi stated that "babu bhai auto chala". Thereafter, they took her daughter 'S'. At about 1 PM she called on 100 number. She saw that Noor Nabi was trying to flee away from his house. She apprehended Noor Nabi and requested him to return her daughter. After some time, police came there and apprehended accused Noor Nabi. After about 20 days, Shahzade left her daughter 'S' at Sangam Vihar. 'S' had informed to the police and then came to her house. Police came to her house and some writing work was done. Thereafter, her daughter was medically examined at AIIMS hospital and her statement was recorded by the police at police station. She stated that at the time of incident, her daughter 'S' was about 13 years and nine months. Accused persons were correctly identified by the witness in the court. During her examination witness resiled from her statement and Ld. Addl. PP for the state has cross examined the witness.
10. PW4 is W/Ct. Renu who joined the investigation of the case along with the Investigating officer, took prosecutrix to AIIMS Hospital and handed over the samples in a sealed cover to the investigating officer vide Ex.PW4/A.
11. PW6 is Shiv Narayan, TGT Social Science, Sarvodya Co Education Middle School, JBlock, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi who brought the admission and withdrawal register and duly proved all the memos etc. He deposed that as per record, the date of birth of 'S' is 04.04.1996 and she was admitted in Class VIA on 01.11.2008 and she left SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 7/35 the school and obtained transfer certificate on 24.12.2009. He had deposed that as per record she had taken admission in primary school on the basis of affidavit Ex.PW6/A of her mother wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 04.04.1996 and copy of TC and other documents are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW6/B. Copy of the register is Ex.PW6/C (OSR).
12. PW8 is HC Dharam Singh who had deposed that on receiving call, he along with HC Manoj kumar reached at the spot i.e. H 17/404, Sangam Vihar, Delhi. Complainant met them there and gave his statement to HC Manoj Kumar and after recording his statement HC Manoj Kumar prepared rukka and sent him to PS Sangam Vihar. He got registered the case, came to spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to HC Manoj Kumar.
13. PW9 is HC Manoj Kumar who had deposed that on receiving call, he along with Ct. Dharam Singh reached at H17/404, Sangam Vihar, Delhi. Complainant Girish met them there and gave his statement to him and after recording his statement he prepared rukka Ex.PW9/A and sent to Ct. Dharam Singh to PS Sangam Vihar. After getting the case registered, Ct. Dharam Singh came to spot with copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the same to him.
14. PW10 is HC Subhash, Duty officer who recorded the computerized FIR Ex.PW10/A and endorsed rukka vide Ex.PW10/B. After registration of case, copy of FIR and rukka was handed over to Ct. Dharam Singh to deliver the same to IO.
15. PW11 is HC Gajraj Singh who received information about the kidnapping of a girl and made DD entry vide Ex.PW12/A. SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 8/35 Copy of the said DD was sent through Ct. Vijay to hand over to HC Manoj for further proceedings.
16. PW12 is Ct. Rajender Singh who joined the investigation of the case with the IO. IO received a secret information that accused Shahzade is standing at the red light near Khanpur depot and is waiting for somebody. He along with IO reached there and at the pointing out of secret informer, apprehended the accused Shahzade. IO interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/A and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW12/B. Accused made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW12/C.
17. PW13 is Ms. Aastha Pathak, who stated that she was posted as Manager at Prayas Institute of Juvenile. She went to police station on receiving call where baby girl/prosecutrix 'S' was present along with Satish Bhati and IO. She counselled prosecutrix 'S' and whatever she stated she reduced the same into writing vide Ex.PW2/DB. She handed over the said original to police.
Medical witnesses:
18. PW7 is Dr. Raghvendra Kumar who examined the accused Shahzade and prepared the MLC report Ex.PW7/A. He deposed that there was nothing to suggest that person examined is incapable of performing sexual intercourse under normal circumstances. He found one abrasion of size .6 X .5 over right side of neck on front aspect which was reddish in colour. There were multiple contusions and abrasions present over back which were reddish in colour.
19. PW15 is Dr. Uruj who proved on record the MLC Ex.PW1/B prepared by the Dr. Pragyanika. Dr. Uruj stated that Dr. Pragyanika opined SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 9/35 that the hymen of the prosecutrix is torn. He has duly identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Pragyanika and stated that she has left the hospital and her whereabouts are not known.
Statement and Defence of accused persons:
20. Statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein the accused Shahzade @ Mastan had denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated. He stated that his mother had taken loan from mother of prosecutrix and original documents were kept with her as collateral security. Loan was almost paid which is Ex.PW5/DX1 to Ex.PW5/DX4. They came to know that mother of prosecutrix is planning to sell their house and when his brother Noor Nabi went to enquire about the same, she threatened to implicate him in false case of rape regarding which complaint vide DD No. 27B dated 03.09.2009 and DD No. 51 B dated 31.08.2009 were duly lodged in PS Sangam Vihar. Accused Shahzade and prosecutrix were having love affair and she had written letters to him however, the parents of the prosecutrix did not like the same. Her marriage was fixed and they were apprehending that they may create a problem at the time of her marriage hence, implicated him in a false case in connivance with the police.
21. Accused Noor Nabi u/s313 Cr.P.C. had deposed that his mother had taken loan from the mother of the prosecutrix and the original documents were given to her as collateral security, loan amount was almost paid however, they came to know that the mother of the prosecutrix is planning to sell their property on the basis of original documents kept with her and when they went to enquire, she threatened him and his family to implicate him in a rape case. Furthermore, his brother Shahzade and the SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 10/35 prosecutrix were having love affair which was not liked by her parents. Her marriage was fixed and they were apprehending that they will create mischief at the time of her marriage and therefore implicated them in false case.
22. Accused Sanjay Banarjee has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he has been falsely implicated as he had approached the local police not to harass the parents of coaccused Shahzade since he was working as journalist and neighbourer of accused Shehzade.
23. Accused persons in their defence evidence produced two defence witnesses i.e. DW1 HC Rajbir Singh and DW2 Noor Nabi, accused himself. DW1 is HC Rajbir Singh who deposed that as per record vide DD entry NO. 27B dated 03.02.2009 a complaint was received from Noor Nabi and the same was entered in the register Ex.DW1/A(OSR). As per record in column no.3 the signatures of Noor Nabi are mentioned. He had also produced register containing DD entry no. 51B and stated that as per record on 31.08.2009 a complaint from Mohd. Ashraf Ali was also received which was reduced into writing by the then DD writer as DD No. 51B which is Ex.DW1/B (OSR). As per record in column No.2 signatures of Ashraf are mentioned.
24. DW2 is Noor Nabi/accused, (whose application under Section 315 Cr.P.C was allowed vide order dated 17.09.2012 by the then Ld. Predecessor of this court), had deposed that when his father started construction of house he took some loan from mother of prosecutrix 'S'. The original documents of their property was kept with mother of prosecutrix as security at the time of taking loan. His father has made the SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 11/35 most of the payment which was duly received by mother of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW5/DX1 to DX4. Some payment was made in the presence of HC Manoj Kumar who had attested the receiving executed at the time of making payment. The signature of Manoj Kumar is at point 'Z' in Ex.PW5/DX. They came to know from dealer that mother of prosecutrix Ms. Meena is planning to sell their house on the basis of original documents kept with her as security and when he went to enquire about the same, she threatened him that she will falsely implicate him, his brother and father in a false case of committing wrong act with her daughter. He lodged a complaint in this regard with PS Sangam Vihar vide DD No. 27B dated 03.02.2009 which is Ex.DW2/A. In August, 2009 his father went to Ms. Meena and demanded documents. She then again threatened to implicate them in "Izzat lutne ke case mein". His father lodged a complaint on the same day with PS Sangam Vihar vide DD No. 51B dated 31.08.2009 at 6.30 PM which is Ex.DW2/B. He stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
Arguments of Ld. APP for state:
25. Ld. APP for state has argued that prosecution has examined 15 witnesses out of whom PW1, PW2 and PW15 are the important witnesses . As per the school record, prosecutrix is minor. She has proved the rape allegations against the accused Shahzade. Prosecutrix has assigned specific roles to the other accused in the kidnapping. Her MLC also supports her versions. Hence, it is prayed that accused persons be convicted.
Arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons:
26. Ld. Defence counsel for accused Shahzade and Noor Nabi has SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 12/35 argued that there are lot of contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix PW1 and her sister PW2 who is the eye witness of the incident. Both the witnesses have improved upon their statements. There is difference in the school uniform as deposed by PW1 and in the rukka. There are contradictions on the point of recovery of the daughter. There are several contradictions as to who put the handkerchief on the face of prosecutrix and who had shown the knife and who were the person present in the auto. It is not believable that PW2 sister of the prosecutrix will not inform her parents or the school teachers when her sister was kidnapped by the accused persons and she will simply attend her school and then inform her parents on returning to home. There are contradictions in DD No. 22 A and the rukka as to who has kidnapped the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm when she stayed with the accused in the Kholi. She had appeared in the anticipatory bail application of the accused on 06.01.2010 though in her cross examination she stated that accused had left her in the evening of 06.01.2010 then how she appeared in the court in the anticipatory bail application order which may be seen from the court file. There are so many contradictions in the statement of PW2 to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Both the prosecutrix and her sister have submitted about the financial dealings between the parties. It is also stated that the age of the prosecutrix must be about 20 years as per her cross examination and the cross examination of the father of the prosecutrix. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was missing from 18.12.2009 to 06.01.2010. How she went on 24.12.2009 to get the TC from the school raises suspicion. In fact the TC from the school was taken so as to marry the prosecutrix during the time when the accused is in SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 13/35 custody. No enquiry of the first attended school of the prosecutrix with regard to her age was conducted. The father says that she is the first child born after the two years of the marriage and his marriage had taken place 25 years back. Hence, if we go by this statement then the prosecutrix must have been 23 years old. Hence, both the accused are liable to be acquitted.
27. Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Banarjee has filed written arguments and has also advanced oral arguments. It is argued that allegations against him are only of kidnapping. The case against the accused Sanjay Banarjee is that he took all the persons in the auto however, there are contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix and her sister as to how the accused came to the spot. PW2 states that the accused came on the motorcycle but PW1 does not speak about the same. The FIR was registered when the sister of the prosecutrix, on returning from the school informed her parents about the kidnapping of the prosecutrix by the accused persons but in the rukka it is not mentioned that accused Noor Nabi and Babu Bhai were involved in kidnapping. It is stated that infact prosecutrix and accused Shahzade were having love affair and he has been falsely implicated as he was having friendship with the accused and used to take his side whenever a quarrel used to take place. Moreover, there was a financial dispute with regard to the house of the accused and accused Sanjay Banarjee used to take side of Shahzade and as such, he was falsely implicated in this case. It is not believable that the accused knew that the prosecutrix shall come out of the school to return the shawl to her father and shall walk down to a distance of 10 minutes from the school where the accused persons keep on waiting for the prosecutrix and shall kidnap her. This shows that the prosecutrix and her SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 14/35 sister have falsely made the story against the accused persons. Hence, it is prayed that accused be acquitted.
28. I have heard Ld. Defence counsel for accused as well as Ld. APP for state and have carefully perused the record. Conclusion:
29. Before appreciating the facts of this case, it is necessary to know the ingredients of the offences by resorting to the provisions of relevant sections.
Offence of Kidnapping:
30. 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 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:
31. 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 SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 15/35
(iv) knowing it to be likely that she will be so forced or seduced.
32. Section 506 IPC defines: Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
33. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. And if the threat be to cause death of grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
34. Section 375 Rape provides: " A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: First Against her will.
Secondly Without her consent.
Thirdly With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly With her consent, when, at the time of giving such SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 16/35 consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly With or without her consent, when she under sixteen years of age.
Explanation Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Exception Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.
35. "Rape" is the act of physically forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse: an act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a woman against her will. "Statutory rape" is a sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different States from ten to eighteen years.
36. The offence of rape in its simplest term is 'the ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by force, fear or fraud', or as 'the carnal knowledge of a woman by force against her will? 'Rape' or 'Raptus' is when a man hath carnal knowledge of a woman by force and against her will (Co. lett. 123b); or as expressed more fully, 'rape' is the carnal knowledge of any woman, above the age of particular years, against her will; or of a woman child, under that age, with or against her will. Section 375 IPC defines rape. This Section requires the following essentials:
1. Sexual intercourse by a man with woman.
2. The sexual intercourse must be under circumstances falling under any of the six clauses in Section 375 IPC.
SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 17/3537. The two issues to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution are the age of the prosecutrix and whether she was a consenting party to the incident or not.
Age of the prosecutrix:
38. In the present case the prosecution has relied upon the school records of the prosecutrix to prove her date of birth i.e. 04.04.1996. To prove the school records, prosecution has examined PW6 Sh. Shiv Narain who has brought the school records of Sarvodaya Middle School and deposed that she was admitted in 6th A on 1.11.2008 and left the school after obtaining transfer certificate on 24.12.2009. He also deposed that as per the school record she has studied in MCD Primary School, JBlock, Sangam Vihar and thereafter in Sarvodaya School, Tuglakabad and in Primary school she has taken admission on the basis of affidavit of her mother dated 28.04.2006 which mentions her age as 04.04.1996. The witness has been cross examined from the side of accused persons but nothing adverse came out in the cross examination of the witness. As per the school records the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 04.04.1996. There is nothing to doubt the date of birth of the prosecutrix which was got recorded by her parents several years prior to the incident. It cannot be comprehended even by way of imagination that the parents of the accused would have got the wrong age of the prosecutrix recorded in the school records imagining that one day the prosecutrix shall be involved in this case.
39. Ld. Counsels for the accused have argued that as per the statement of the father of the prosecutrix PW3, he was married around 25 years back from 2011 and the prosecutrix, his first child is born after 23 SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 18/35 years of marriage. This statement of the father of the prosecutrix cannot be given much weight in view of the documentary evidence in the form of school records of the prosecutrix wherein her date of birth was registered many years prior to the incident when the prosecutrix was admitted in primary school. Moreover, the date of birth was registered in the school records on the basis of the affidavit given by the mother of the prosecutrix PW5 Smt. Meena who has specifically deposed that at the time of her admission she has also given vaccination card of the child prepared from Majidia Hamdard Hospital which was prepared after 1 ¼ months after the birth of the prosecutrix. A suggestion was put to the mother of the prosecutrix which is denied by her that they started education of the prosecutrix at a late stage and therefore in order to get her admitted in the school they reduced her age at the time of admission. In view of the testimony of PW5 who is the author of the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the school records and in view of the documentary evidence in the form of school records of the prosecutrix, the statement of the father of the prosecutrix which is based on estimation and is vague cannot be given any value. Even otherwise it is not within the scope of jurisdiction of criminal to conduct a roving inquiry with regard the age of child as is done in Civil cases. I am supported by judgment of Apex court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 Supreme Court wherein it is observed that: "Age determination inquiry" contemplated under section 7A of the JJ Act read with rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 19/35 the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, does the court need to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the above mentioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
Once the court, following the abovementioned procedures, passes an order, that order shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or juvenile in conflict with law. It has been made clear in Rule 12(5) that no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof after referring to Rule 12(3). Further, Section 49 of the JJ Act also draws a presumption of the age of the juvenility on its determination.
Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and Rules has nothing to do with an inquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion etc. SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 20/35 There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a Child Welfare Committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Child Welfare Committee need to go for medical report for age determination."
40. Hence, from the school records of the prosecutrix coupled with the statement of PW5, it is proved that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 04.04.1996. The offence was committed on 18.12.2009. Hence, she was less than 14 years of age on the date of offence and was minor.
Consent of the prosecutrix:
41. The prosecution story is that on 18.12.2009 the prosecutrix 'S' along with her younger sister Suman came out of the school to handover the shawl to her father but not finding their father near the school they started returning back to the school, when on the way an auto was parked and accused Shahzade was standing near the auto. The prosecutrix 'S' was made to smell one handkerchief put on her mouth and pushed inside the auto and all the three accused kidnapped the prosecutrix and thereafter she SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 21/35 was taken to Mumbai where accused Shahzade kept her in a Kholi and committed forcible rape upon her and on 06.01.2010 she was brought back to Delhi by accused Shahzade and left here whereafter on 08.01.2010 the prosecutrix went to the police station and got her statement recorded in the FIR of kidnapping already lodged by her parents.
42. To prove the offence, PW1 prosecutrix 'S', PW2 her younger sister Suman, PW3 Sh. Girish Chand and PW5 Ms. Meena, mother of the prosecutrix, are the material witnesses. I have seen the testimonies of all the four witnesses which are full of contradictions.
43. Firstly, as per the prosecution case when the prosecutrix was kidnapped by accused Shehzade, his brother Noor Nabi and the third accused Babu Bhai in the TSR, sister of prosecutrix/PW2 namely Suman was with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused in the morning when their school was started however, despite knowing that her sister was forcibly taken by the accused persons after showing knife to her and giving threat by the accused Noor Nabi to Suman/PW2 at the point of knife asking that 'Main teri bahan ko pakad kar le ja raha hun , agar tune kisiko bataya to kaat kar phenk dunga'. The accused persons had taken the prosecutrix/sister of prosecutrix PW2 in her presence but even after they left with the prosecutrix in the auto, PW2/ sister of the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm nor tried to inform any person in the school nor she tried to return to her house to inform her parents. Rather, she attended the school as a normal student and after attending her school she returned to her house and thereafter, she informed her parents about the kidnapping of her sister by the accused persons. It is certainly an unusual conduct on the part of a sister whose elder sister is kidnapped in SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 22/35 her presence. Her behaviour is certainly opposed to the behaviour of a normal human being which raises suspicion.
44. As per the prosecution case, on receiving the information from PW2 Suman/sister of the prosecutrix about the kidnapping of the prosecutrix 'S', PW5 Ms. Meena / mother of the prosecutrix had called the police at 1 PM at 100 number. She saw accused Noor Nabi who was trying to flee away from his house, apprehended him and he was later on arrested by the police when the police arrived. In FIR of missing, lodged by the father of the prosecutrix/PW3 Sh. Girish, he has mentioned that on 18.12.2009 he had left his daughter prosecutrix 'S' at around 7.30 AM at the gate of the school who did not reach the school and went missing from the gate and that he tried to search for the prosecutrix but she could not be found and that he is having a suspicion upon Shahzade, his neighbour, to have instigated and kidnapped the prosecutrix. This complaint was sent for registration at 5.20 PM on 18.12.2009. The same was recorded by the IO after he reached at the spot on receiving DD No. 12A dated 18.12.2009. In the said DD which is Ex.PW11/A it is mentioned that prosecutrix 'S' was kidnapped by one person Nabi. The DD No. 12A is recorded at 1.40 PM whereas the complaint was sent for registration at 5.20 PM. There is discrepancy in DD No. 12A and the complaint Ex.PW3/A in so far as DD speaks about the name of Nabi to have kidnapped the prosecutrix whereas the complaint/rukka raises suspicion against accused Shahzade. There is no mention in the rukka or in the DD about the third accused Babu Bhai @ Sanjay Banarjee. If the incident of kidnapping was disclosed by PW2 Suman to her parents then the FIR should have mentioned the exact details of the incident mentioning specifically that accused Shahzade , Noor Nabi SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 23/35 and Babu Bhai had forcibly taken the prosecutrix in a TSR from outside her school after criminally intimidating PW Suman at the point of knife. All the details of the incident are missing from the rukka which is simplicitor a complaint of missing raising suspicion against Shahzade. This is material fact which makes the prosecution case weak and unreliable. If as per the statement of parents of the prosecutrix (PW3 and PW5), PW2 Suman had informed them about the kidnapping of the prosecutrix by three accused, why the FIR was not registered by name against all the three accused persons. There is no explanation to this effect and it is a serious lacuna.
45. So far as the incident of kidnapping is concerned, there are several contradictions in the statement of both the victim and eye witnesses i.e PW1 and PW2. PW1 prosecutrix 'S' has stated that their examination were going on and checking had taken place in the school and since she was having a shawl, she along with her sister Suman came out of the school to hand over the shawl to her father who was not found near the school and thereafter, they started returning back to the school. There was one auto parked near the school where Shahzade was standing and two persons namely Noor Nabi (elder brother of Shahzade ) and one other person (whose name she came to know later on as Babu Bhai) were sitting inside the auto. Shahzade caught hold of her, touched a handkerchief on her mouth and she was made to smell something and pushed into the auto. Thereafter, Noor Nabi caught hold of her and she was made to sit inside the auto. Babu Bhai was driving the TSR. On seeing this, her sister Suman raised alarm but Noor Nabi shown a knife to her sister and told her 'agar chillai toh tumhari behen ko maar denge' and thereafter she was SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 24/35 taken. On the other hand, PW2 Suman had stated that as the checking was going taking place in the school and the shawl of their father was left with the prosecutrix, so they both came out of the school to return the shawl to their father and they were looking for their father at a distance of 1015 minutes of walking. There was an auto parked in which Shahzade and Noor Nabi were present. Shahzade had pushed her sister and Noor Nabi put handkerchief on the face of her sister and Noor Nabi had shown a knife to her and stated 'Main teri bahan ko pakad kar le jaa raha hun, agar tune kisiko bataya toh kaat kar phenk dunga'. Thereafter, one more person came on the motorcycle and sat inside the auto. Noor Nabi stated that 'chal babu bhai auto chala'. Thereafter they left in the auto with her sister and the auto was driven by Babu Bhai. What happened to motorcycle is not known. Thereafter, she returned to the school and due to fear did not tell anybody. After attending the examination she came back to her house at 11 AM and informed about the incident to her mother who approached the police. It is clear from the testimony of the prosecutrix and Suman that there are material contradictions with regard to the person who had put handkerchief on the mouth of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix stated Shahzade put handkerchief on her face whereas her sister says it was put by Noor Nabi. The prosecutrix has nowhere stated that accused Babu Bhai came on the motorcycle as is deposed by PW2. Moreover, in the statement of PW2 recorded by the police she has stated that Babu Bhai came on the motorcycle and Noor Nabi sat with him on the motorcycle and then both left the place whereas in court she stated that Babu Bhai was driving TSR. She was contradicted with regard to this statement given to the police but she denied having made the statement to the police. She has SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 25/35 also stated in her cross examination that she had not earlier seen Babu Bhai prior to the incident. During her cross examination, she was confronted with her statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW2/DA on the point of dropping them by their father at the school on 18th at a place little away from the school as there were mud and stones lying on the road, on the point that shawl of their father was left with her sister and they went back to return their shawl, on the point that they had walked for about 1015 minutes from the school in search of their father, on the point that the auto was parked in which Shahzade and Noor Nabi were sitting, on the point that Shahzade pushed her sister and Noor Nabi put a handkerchief on her face, where it is not so recorded. Similarly, the prosecutrix PW1 was also confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/DA on the point that they informed the police that examination and checking was going on in the school or that Noor Nabi was sitting in the TSR or that sister of the prosecutrix i.e. PW2 was shown a knife and threatened to be killed if she raised an alarm where it is not so recorded.
46. As per the statement of PW1 and PW2, their father had dropped them at some distance from the school as there was lot of mud and stones on the road. On the other hand, their father PW3 has stated that his two wheeler scooter went out of order before he reached at the school, at a distance of 10 minutes walking from the school and as such he sent prosecutrix and Suman to the school of their own and returned to his house.
47. As per the statement of PW2 they were looking for their father for return of the shawl at a distance of 1015 minutes from the school and the autorickshaw in which the prosecutrix was kidnapped was SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 26/35 also parked at a distance of about 15 minutes walk from the school gate. PW2 has also stated that the TSR was not parked at the place where their father had dropped them but it was parked at a distance of about 10 minutes walk from the place where their father had dropped them. Similarly , PW1 has stated that distance of the place where the auto was parked from the school was about 15 minutes walking. If the statement of both PW1 and PW2 is believed then the auto was not parked at the gate of the school and was parked at a distance of 1015 minutes walk from the school. It is beyond comprehension that the accused would have known before hand that the shawl of the father shall be left with prosecutrix or that checking will be there in school, due to which both sister shall come out of school to return the shawl, and shall walk upto a distance of 10 minutes from school and they should wait for them at a distance of 10 minutes walk from school and then they will get an opportunity to kidnap the prosecutrix. It cannot be imagined that as a part of their preplanning they were standing in the auto at a distance of 1015 minutes walk away from their school waiting for the prosecutrix to come so that they can kidnap her. How the accused would have known that the prosecutrix will come to such a distance is beyond imagination. As per the statement of the sister of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix, few persons were coming and going near the place where TSR was parked but it is not believable that nobody would have witnessed the forcible kidnapping of prosecutrix and threat being extended to Suman at the point of knife by the accused persons.
48. It is an admitted fact that the prosecutrix, her sister PW2, their two younger brothers used to take tuition from the younger sister of SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 27/35 Noor Nabi and Shahzade and they used to go to their house for about 3 to 4 months and as such, accused Noor Nabi and Shahzade were already known to them. If they were already known, their names could have been mentioned in the FIR which is not being done in this case without any explanation.
49. As per the FIR, the prosecutrix was wearing suit salwar of blue colour with blue canvas shoes, black jacket and pink colour shawl which was the school uniform at the time of incident. However, as per the statement of the prosecutrix her school uniform comprises of white colour shirt, brown colour salwar, brown colour jacket and white shoes. Apart from the contradictions on the point of colour of the clothes which the prosecutrix was wearing there is also a contradiction in the statement of prosecutrix when she says that after accused Shahzade committed rape with her he had thrown her school uniform and brought new clothes for her whereas in the statement to the police she has stated that Shahzade had kept the clothes at his house at some place.
50. Apart from these major contradictions in the statement of PW 1 , PW2 , PW3 and PW5 and rukka on the incident of kidnapping, there are also contradictions in the statement of PW1 prosecutrix on the later incident when after kidnapping in the auto she was taken uptill Mumbai by accused Shahzade. As per her statement she became unconscious after she was touched by the handkerchief on her mouth and when she gained consciousness she found herself at New Delhi Railway Station where she was beaten by Noor Nabi and Shahzade and was forced to drink tea in which something was mixed making her unconscious. As per her statement she was made to sit near the toilet in the train. Thereafter she SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 28/35 found herself in Mumbai in a Kholi and beaten by Shahzade and one other person (whose name she does not know). When she raised alarm in the train, she was shown a knife and told 'agar chillai toh tumhe maar denge aur tumhare bhai behno ko bhi maar denge' where accused Shahzade gave her food mixed with something and committed rape with her and he committed rape upon her for 34 days in the same kholi and on 06.01.2010 Shahzade brought her back to Delhi. After coming to Delhi she raised alarm when she was in auto with Shahzade who left her in the auto near Batra Hospital, Sangam Vihar and ran away and then she made a call to police on 100 number and returned to her house. All these facts mentioned above by the prosecutrix in her statement in the court that she was beaten by Noor Nabi and Shahzade at Railway station and was made to drink tea mixed with something or that on gaining consciousness she found herself at Railway Station and thereafter she found herself in Kholi in Mumbai or that she was threatened at the point of knife or that the accused Shahzade used to commit rape with her after mixing something in food are all missing from her statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/DA. These are material facts which are not mentioned by the prosecutrix in her statement to the police. In her cross examination the prosecutrix has admitted that there was crowd in the train, ticket checker, food suppliers, waiters and vendors were coming and going and that she had not made any complaint to any person. She stated that she was unconscious. During the said state of unconsciousness, she could remember the presence of persons in the train, her place of sitting in front of the toilet in the train but she could not raise alarm is not believable. If she was so much conscious to note the presence of the crowd in the train SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 29/35 then she could have certainly raised an alarm in the train which is not being done by her. As per her statement she was made to stay in a kholi in a Mumbai where rape was committed with her and there was no toilet / bathroom attached with the Kholi and she never went outside the kholi in those 15 days to attend the call of nature as the kholi was locked from inside. She has stated that there was an empty space near the kholi where she used to go for passing stools and for urination there was one pipe in the room. It is not her case that when she used to come out for attending the call of nature she ever tried to raise alarm.
51. She had stated in her cross examination that she cannot tell as to by what mode of transport she returned to Delhi, as she was completely unconscious. When she again regain consciousness she found herself in an auto in Delhi in Sangam Vihar at around 4 PM. She raised a noise and made a complaint to TSR driver that accused Shahzade had forcibly kidnapped her then accused Shehzaze left her and ran away leaving her in TSR in Sangam Vihar whereupon she made a phone call on 100 numer and gave her residential address on 06.01.2010. Police came to her house in the evening on 06.01.2010. She has also deposed that prior to her reaching in her house on 06.01.2010 she had not appeared in any other court nor she made the statement to the police that she was forcibly produced in the court on 06.01.2010. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/DA where it is so recorded. On this point Ld. Counsel for accused had drawn the attention of this court to the bail order dated 06.01.2010 passed in this case by the then Ld. ASJ Ms. Poonam A. Bamba wherein the presence of the prosecutrix is marked along with the counsel for accused.
52. Hence, presence of the prosecutrix in the court during hearing SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 30/35 of the anticipatory bail application of the accused on 06.01.2010 belies her statement that she was brought to Delhi in the TSR by the accused Shahzade at 4 PM on 06.01.2010. If she was left at Delhi at 4 PM her presence cannot have been there in the order of Ld. ASJ which is on the record of this file.
53. During the cross examination of the prosecutrix Ld. Counsel for accused had put up a suggestion to the prosecutrix that she and accused Shahzade were having love affair and used to exchange love letters and have also got clicked photographs together. The love letters marked PW 1/DB1 to DB10 were put to the witness which were denied by her. The photographs marked PW1/DC1 to DC12 were also shown to the witness. After seeing the photographs witness has admitted that she is there in the photographs along with accused Shahzade however she had never photographed with the accused and stated that these are local photographs. The IO PW14/ASI Laxman Prasad has admitted in his cross examination that the prosecutrix and the accused Shahzade were having love affairs. In view of this statement of IO who had found during the investigation that there was love affair between the accused Shahzade and prosecutrix and in view of the photographs in which the prosecutrix has admitted her photograph with the accused her denial appears to be flimsy and false.
54. As per the statement of PW6 Sh. Shiv Narayan, Teacher from the Sarvodya CoEducation Middle School, wherein the prosecutrix was studying, prosecutrix had obtained her Transfer Certificate (TC) from the school on 24.12.2009. As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix was missing from 18.12.2009 to 06.01.2010. It is certainly a question mark as to how she went on 24.12.2009 to the school to get her Transfer SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 31/35 Certificate and if she had not gone or her parents had gone to take Transfer Certificate from the school, it becomes questionable as to why the parents have approached the school for obtaining the Transfer Certificate during the period when their daughter was missing. No explanation is forth coming on this point. Ld. Counsel for accused had argued that transfer certificate was taken from the school on one side and on other side the accused Shahzade and others were falsely implicated in this and sent to judicial custody on the false grounds so that during the period of custody of Shahzade, prosecutrix should be married of. Whatever may be the reason, but obtaining a transfer certificate (TC) from the school during the period of missing of the prosecutrix is not a natural conduct and raises suspicion.
55. Defence of the accused: As per the defence of the accused Shahzade he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, his mother had taken loan from the mother of the prosecutrix who had kept the documents of their house with her as collateral security. The loan was almost paid which was acknowledged vide receipt by the mother of the prosecutrix. Later on, they came to know that mother of the prosecutrix is planning to sell their house on the basis of original documents. When his brother Noor Nabi went to enquire they threatened to implicate them in the false case. Further, he and the prosecutrix were having love affairs and the prosecutrix had written lot of letters which was not liked by the parents of the prosecutrix. They fixed her marriage and apprehending that accused person may create a problem in her marriage, they implicated him in false case.
56. Accused Noor Nabi has also taken the same defence as taken SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 32/35 by the accused Shahzade.
57. Accused Sanjay Banarjee had stated that he has been falsely implicated as he has approached the local police not to harass the parents of the coaccused Shahzade. He is a journalist and neighbour of accused Shahzade and that is why he has been falsely implicated in the case.
58. To prove the defence the accused have examined DW1 HC Rajbir Singh who had proved the complaint received from accused Noor Nabi on 03.02.2009 and complaint of Mohd. Ashraf Ali received on 31.08.2009. They have also examined DW2. Accused Noor Nabi has himself appeared in the witness box and deposed on the lines of his defence. He had also stated that payment to the mother of the prosecutrix was made vide receipt Ex.PW5/DX1 to DX4. He also proved DD entry of 03.02.2009 which is made by him against the threats of Meena to sell their house and to implicated his brother and father in a false case with her daughter. He also proved the complaint lodged on DD No. 51B on 31.08.2009 by his father.
59. During the cross examination the prosecutrix had admitted the factum of loan taken by the accused from her mother. She has stated that due to enmity as the documents of the house of the accused Shahzade was with her mother that was the reason for kidnapping her. She has also stated that on 25.11.2009 her mother had gone to demand money from the father of the accused when Noor Nabi started abusing her mother and then brought 1015 persons at the shop of her mother whereupon they went to the police station but police turned them out. During the cross examination the mother of prosecutrix PW5 has admitted her signatures on the various receipts Ex.PW5/DX1 to DX4 wherein she was paid SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 33/35 money by the accused persons towards repayment of the loan. (All these documents coupled with the statement of DW1, the prosecutrix and her mother and the defence of the accused persons appeared to be trustworthy). It is settled law that enmity is a double edged weapon but in this case the receipts prima facie show return of major part of the loan amount by the accused persons to the mother of the prosecutrix and if taken in that earnest, it is probable that mother of the prosecutrix was planning to sell their property because in the statement before this court the mother of the prosecutrix has stated that the accused persons had not returned the loan amount which is clearly against the receipt Ex.PW5/DX 1 to DX4 duly signed and admitted by her. The said receipts make her statement unbelievable that the accused persons had not returned the amount of loan. In view of this shaky testimony of the mother of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix, probability of false implication on account of property matter and unacceptable affair of prosecutrix with Shahzade cannot be ruled out. The defence of the accused appears to be more plausible and acceptable.
60. In view of above discussion, seeing the major contractions in the statement of the prosecutrix, her parents and sister, their testimonies are not reliable and trustworthy. It is not believable that the prosecutrix was kidnapped by all the three accused persons as alleged by the prosecutrix. It is also unbelievable that prosecutrix was taken to Mumbai, kept in a Kholi from 18.12.2009 to 06.01.2010 and the accused Shahzade had committed forcible rape with her.
61. In view of above discussion, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, all the SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 34/35 three accused persons are acquitted of the offence under Section 363/366/506/34 IPC. Accused Shahzade @ Mastan is also further acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC.
62. In view of the Section 437A of Cr.PC, all the accused are 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 they 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.
63. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.05.2015.
( RENU BHATNAGAR ) DESIGNATED JUDGE TADA/POTA/MCOCA/POCSO ASJ01/SED/NEW DELHI SC No. 1/13 State Vs Shahzade etc. Page No. 35/35