Delhi District Court
State vs . Pramod Chaurasia on 3 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AASHISH GUPTA, ACMM
NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR Case No: 132/2019
STATE Vs. PRAMOD CHAURASIA
FIR No: 310/2016
PS: (Sonia Vihar)
1. FIR No. of the case : 310/2016
2. Date of commission of offence : 29.08.2016
3. Date of institution of the case : 14.01.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Priya Kumari
5. Name of accused & address : Pramod Chourasiya
S/o Surender Chourasiya
R/o C-2/328, 2nd Pusta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi
6. Offence charged with : U/s 451/363/506 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of final arguments : 04.03.2023
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10.Date of Judgement : 03.04.2023.
JUDGEMENT:
1. Prosecution has alleged that on 29.08.2016 at about 3:00PM at B-1722, Gali No. 25/8, Near Ram Nath Model School, Sonia Vihar, State Vs. Pramod Chourasiya FIR no. 310/2016 Sonia Vihar Page no. 1/8 accused Pramod Chourasiya forcibly entered into the house of complainant Ms. Priya Singh from roof side and kidnapped the sister of complainant namely Mannu from her guardianship and while taking away Mannu, he threatened to kill the complainant and her family members, if she made any police complaint in this regard. Thus, accused, as per prosecution, had committed offences made punishable U/s 452/451/363/506 IPC. Accused was arrested and charge-sheeted for the said offences.
2. Accused appeared before this Court and after compliance under Section 207 IPC, charges U/s 451/363/506 IPC were framed against him, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To discharge its onus, prosecution examined four witnesses.
4. A brief summary of prosecution evidence is as follows: -
Sr. Witness Witness Remarks No. name no.
1 Priya Kumari PW-1 Complainant of this case. She inter-alia deposed about the facts of the case. She claimed that on 29.08.2016 at about 3:00 PM, accused Pramod Chaurasia forcibly entered into her house from roof side and took away her younger sister Manu. She also claimed that while accused was taking away her sister, he threatened her to kill her and her family members. She duly identified the accused in the court.
2 Maya PW-2 She is mother of complainant. She claimed State Vs. Pramod Chourasiya FIR no. 310/2016 Sonia Vihar Page no. 2/8 that on the day of incident, she saw accused entering her house through roof and took away her daughter Manu forcibly.
She also claimed that accused threatened to kill her son and ran away. She also deposed that she wants to close the case as she has married off her daughter.
3 Mannu PW-3 Victim girl, who as per prosecution was kidnapped by the accused. She claimed that on 29.08.2016 she was present in her house and accused (correctly identified by her) came from the roof and took her with him in his auto. She further claimed that on 15.09.2016 accused brought her back and dropped her near PS Farsh Bazar and threatened her that she should not tell his name to anybody. However during her cross-examination she claimed that on the date of incident she went for an auto ride with accused out of her own free will. She again changed her stand, during cross-
examination and said that accused took her.
4 SI Suresh PW-4 IO of this case Bhatia
5. Prosecution has also relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Items Exhibits 1 Statement of complainant/Priya Kumari. Ex. PW1/A 2 Site plan of the spot. Ex. PW1/B 3 Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C of victim Mannu Ex. PW3/A recorded by Ld. MM. State Vs. Pramod Chourasiya FIR no. 310/2016 Sonia Vihar Page no. 3/8 4 Missing report form. Ex. PW4/A 5 Age related documents of victim. Mark X 6 Arrest and personal search memo of accused. Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW4/C 7 Copy of FIR (admitted by accused). Ex. A1 8 MLC No. 5080 of Mannu Singh (admitted by Ex. A2 accused). 9 Statement of Mannu U/s 164 Cr.P.C dated Ex. PW3/A 19.09.2016 (admitted by accused). 10 Counseling report of Mannu dated 17.09.2016 Ex. A4 (admitted by accused). 11 Age proof documents of Mannu. Ex. A5 (Colly)
6. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and he had denied all the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of complainant. He has not led any evidence in his defence.
8. I have heard the final arguments and have perused the record.
9. The most important witness of the prosecution is minor girl Mannu herself. When her testimony is perused, the same comes up as a pack of lies and in complete contrast to her statement given to the State Vs. Pramod Chourasiya FIR no. 310/2016 Sonia Vihar Page no. 4/8 Magistrate under oath on 19.09.2016 Under Section 164 Cr.PC. In the statement given to Magistrate U/s 164 Cr.P.C, victim Mannu stated that she had left home alongwith accused on her own accord as she used to love her. However, during her testimony in the Court on 25.02.2023, she for the first time, brought up a new story by testifying that on 29.08.2016 accused came from roof of their house and took her with him in his auto. She did not give any explanation for such a volte- face from the statement given to the Magistrate. Again, during her cross examination, she stated that she used to like the accused and used to go for auto rides with accused out of her own will and that on the date of incident, she went for auto ride with him out of her own accord. She again changed her stand and stated that accused took her. She also agreed to the suggestion of defence that accused had provided him a phone and she used to talk to accused with that phone. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has placed on record a counselling report Ex. A4 which was recorded on 17.09.2016 (right after victim Manu was recovered). The said report contains the facts which victmi Manu told the Counsellor concerned when she was produced before the CWC concerned after her recovery. Even the said report shows that on 29.08.2016, victim Mannu had left her house on her own accord. It does State Vs. Pramod Chourasiya FIR no. 310/2016 Sonia Vihar Page no. 5/8 not record any trespass being committed by the accused to take the victim Mannu with him. The said report also shows that at no instance the accused appears to give any inducement to victim Mannu for going with him. The said report was put to the victim during her cross-examination and she categorically admitted that the facts stated therein are true and correct. Thus, I have before me the statement of the victim Mannu recorded U/s 164 CR.P.C (Ex. PW3/A) and the counselling report (Ex. A4) which both record that the victim Mannu had left her house on her own accord. Therefore, her claim before this court (while deposing as PW-3) that she was taken away by the accused without her consent appears to be tutored and does not inspire confidence and is clearly a manipulation. It is clearly evident that PW3/Mannu appears to have been in prior relationship with the accused, in as much as, she appears to have been given a phone by the accused to interact. This fact has also come in the testimony of PW- 2/Maya who claims that she had recovered the said phone from Mannu and thereafter, she had beaten her on this account.
10. Be that as it may, in my opinion, with the testimony of victim Mannu clearly showing that she was in a relationship with the accused State Vs. Pramod Chourasiya FIR no. 310/2016 Sonia Vihar Page no. 6/8 prior to 29.08.2016 and keeping in mind her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C and also her version of facts recorded in Ex. A4, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the accused had either enticed or lured her in any manner to go away from the custody of her parents/sister nor he forced her to leave the guardianship of her parents. It appears that owing to the age of Mannu at the time of incident, possibly the complainant/her mother made a police complaint and are deposing against him, because they resented the relationship between Mannu and Pramod Chaurasiya. Be that as it may, considering the testimony of PW-3/Mannu (on the point of enticement etc) and also considering the facts discussed above, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the basic ingredients of Section 451/363 IPC on record. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is in contrast to the testimony of PW-3 on the point of alleged trespass or enticement. If that be the case, the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the said offences. It is ordered accordingly.
11. Again, as far as offence U/s 506 IPC is concerned, there is nothing in the testimony of PW-3 to suggest that any threat was extended by the accused to the said victim. I have already noted that the testimony State Vs. Pramod Chourasiya FIR no. 310/2016 Sonia Vihar Page no. 7/8 of PW-1 and PW-2 are in contrast to the testimony of PW-3 on material points. Even otherwise, it is settled law that mere threat is not sufficient to attract Section 506 IPC, as the said threat should cause alarm in the mind of the victim which should lead him to do or commit to do some act so as to avoid the execution of the threat. There is nothing to suggest that any such alarm was caused in the mind of the victim in this case and thus, in my opinion, accused herein is entitled to be acquitted U/s 506 IPC. It is ordered accordingly
12. Accordingly, the accused herein is accordingly acquitted for offences made punishable u/s 451/363/506 IPC. Digitally signed by AASHISH GUPTA AASHISH Date:
GUPTA 2023.04.03
16:40:49
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AASHISH GUPTA
On 03.04.2023 ACMM (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. Pramod Chourasiya FIR no. 310/2016 Sonia Vihar Page no. 8/8