Delhi District Court
State vs . Prasanjeet on 5 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 91/2012
Unique Case ID: 02404R0210462012
State Vs. Prasanjeet
S/o Vibhore
R/o H. No. 1190, Khasra No. 965,
Sector5, Rithala, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
FIR No. : 85/2012
Police Station : Aman Vihar
Under Section : 363/366/343/506 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 05.10.2012
Date on which orders were reserved : 05.12.2012
Date on which judgment pronounced : 05.12.2012
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
(1) As per the allegations, on 21.4.2012 at about 6:30 AM at Deep Market, PhaseI, Ashok Vihar, the accused Prasanjeet kidnapped the minor girl 'P' aged 16 years (name of the girl is withheld being case under Section 376 IPC), from the lawful guardianship, with intent to compel her to marry him and to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse and after confining her in a room at Noida for about 4 to 5 days he committed rape upon her. It is also State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 1 of 24 alleged that while committed the rape upon the prosecutrix, the accused also criminally intimidated her by threatening her to kill her.
Case of Prosecution in brief:
(2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.4.2012 the complainant Raju Patel came to the police station and gave his statement to the police regarding missing of his sister 'P'. The complainant told the police that on that day at about 6:30 AM he left his sister 'P' at Deep Market as she had to go for her work as maid at B106, PhaseII, Ashok Vihar but thereafter she neither reached at her workplace nor returned back home. He also told the police that he made his best efforts to search for his sister but could not locate her and hence he expressed his suspicion that some unknown person might have kidnapped her after alluring her. He also gave the description of his sister to the police. On the basis of the above statement, a rukka was prepared, FIR was registered and investigations were initiated. During investigations on 27.4.2012 the prosecutrix and the accused Prasanjeet were apprehended by the police from Metro Station Keshav Puram. After completing the investigations, charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE:
(3) Charge under Section 363/366/506/368 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Prasanjeet to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 2 of 24
EVIDENCE:
(4) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses.
Public Witnesses:
(5) PW5 Raju Patel has deposed that he is residing at WP79, 2nd floor, Wazirpur Village, Delhi for the last one year and prior to this he was residing at Uttam Nagar. According to him, his family comprises of his mother, sister 'P' aged 16 years, wife and two children. According to him, he is into business of purchase and sale of old furniture items and date he does not recollect, perhaps it was in the month of March or April of this year i.e. 2012 that his sister 'P' who used to work as domestic maid did not return from work.
Witness has further deposed that he had left her behind the Deep Market, Phase II, Ashok Vihar at about 66:15 AM but she did not reach her work place and he received a call from the employers where she was employed at around 1011 AM that she had not reached there on which he started searching for her in the area but since he could not locate her, he immediately made a complaint to the police. Witness has further deposed that first he made a PCR call on 100 number and informed them regarding his missing sister and he went to the police station Ashok Vihar where his statement was recorded on the basis of which the FIR was registered. According to him, his statement / complaint is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signatures at State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 3 of 24 point A wherein he provided the details of his sister to the police and also her photograph and after about 45 days he received an anonymous call from some person that his sister had call him and the said person also provided him the number from which the call was made on which he dialed the said number and it was then he came to know that his sister was with Prasanjeet. The witness has correctly identified the accused in the court. He has deposed that he knew Prasanjeet previously through one Aslam and it was through Prasanjeet that his sister had got an employment somewhere in Gurgaon but since he did not appreciate of it and therefore she left the said employment and thereafter again employed at Ashok Vihar. Witness has further deposed that he immediately gave this information to the police who thereafter conducted their proceedings and after about one week his sister was recovered and he received the information and she was handed over to him at the police station after two days.
(6) During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that his sister was born in Punjab at home and has voluntarily explained that she was actually adopted and he was not aware of her exact date of birth. Witness has admitted that the age of 16 years was given to him by approximation. Witness has further deposed that she was taken in adoption by his parents when she was hardly 1516 days old and she is totally illiterate. Witness has State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 4 of 24 admitted that when his sister return back home, she disclosed that she had voluntarily gone with Prasanjeet and had got married with him but has voluntarily added that it was not possible to accept a marriage like this as no parents would accept it. Witness has admitted that they have no problems with the accused Prasanjeet and has voluntarily explained that it was only the manner in which he eloped with his sister which is objectionable and unacceptable as had he already told them, they would consider his proposal. Witness has admitted that even as on date he has no objection if his sister wanted to marry the accused Prasanjeet and wanted to live with him and has voluntarily added that he has left it to her.
(7) PW6 'P' is the prosecutrix. She has deposed that she was residing on the given address along with her family. According to her, she was known to the accused Prasanjeet previously. She has deposed that on 21.4.2012 after her brother left her at PhaseII, Ashok Vihar, she made telephone call Prasanjeet from STD Booth and thereafter she voluntarily went with him after which they went to a temple where they got married. She has further deposed that the accused thereafter took her to one house at Inderpuri where he introduced her as his wife and there they got themselves photographed. According to the prosecutrix after 2 to 3 days, they left the house at Inderpuri and while they were coming back from the metro station at Keshav Puram, they were apprehended by the police. State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 5 of 24 She has deposed that thereafter her statement was recorded and was also taken to the hospital but she refused for her internal examination. She has deposed that she was also produced before the Ld. MM where her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded which statement is Ex.PW6/A bearing her signatures at point A which statement she made under pressure and influence of her family. She has deposed that she was also produced before CWC and thereafter she was handed over to her brother. According to the witness, now she is free from all pressure and influence and has deposed that she wants to go with the accused Prasanjeet as she has already married him. She has also admitted that she had voluntarily eloped with the accused Prasanjeet with her own consent and free will as she was in love with him.
(8) In the leading questions put to witness by the Addl. PP, the witness has admitted that her statement was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW6/PX1 and also by the Ld. MM vide Ex.PW6/A. The prosecutrix voluntarily deposed that she made incorrect statements both in Ex.PW6/PX1 and in Ex.PW6/A because of the pressure of her family and had actually voluntarily gone with the accused Prasanjeet because she was in love with him and they resided together as husband and wife at Inderpuri and now she wanted to formally marry the accused Prasanjeet and also go with him. State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 6 of 24 (9) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that she is married to the accused and that she had voluntarily gone with him and got married to him. She has deposed that as on date she wants to go with the accused but with the consent of her brother and other family members. (10) This Court called the brother of the prosecutrix / complainant Raju inside the Chamber and informed him about the testimony of the prosecutrix on which the brother submitted that he has no objection and keeping in view the desires of the prosecutrix he would get the prosecutrix formally married with the accused Prasanjeet within next two days. The accused Prasanjeet also submits that his family is agreeable to the said alliance and are ready and willing for his formal marriage with the prosecutrix keeping in mind the social obligations.
Medical Evidence:
(11) PW8 Dr. Shipra Rampal has deposed that on 18.05.2012 the prosecutrix and the accused Prasanjeet were produced before the medical board for purposes of ossification / age determination test and their physical examination, dental examination and radiological examination were conducted on 18.05.2012. According to the witness, vide its report dated 21.05.2012, in respect State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 7 of 24 of the patient Prasanjeet the board opined his estimated age as 2022 years which report is Ex.PW8/A. Witness has further deposed that the board vide its report dated 26.05.2012 in respect of the prosecutrix 'P' opined her estimated age as 1718 years. The said report is Ex.PW8/B. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(12) PW9 Dr. Javed has deposed that on 18.05.2012 the prosecutrix 'P' and the Prasanjeet were produced before the medical board for purposes of ossification / age determination test and their physical examination, dental examination and radiological examination were conducted on 18.05.2012. According to him, vide his report dated 21.05.2012, in respect of the patient Prasanjeet the board opined his estimated age as 2022 years which report is Ex.PW8/A. Witness has further deposed that the board vide its report dated 26.05.2012 in respect of the prosecutrix 'P' opined her estimated age as 1718 years vide report Ex.PW8/B. He was not cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (13) PW10 Dr. Abhilasha has deposed that on 18.05.2012 the prosecutrix and the accused Prasanjeet were produced before the medical board for purposes of ossification / age determination test State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 8 of 24 and their physical examination, dental examination and radiological examination were conducted on 18.05.2012. According to her, vide its report dated 21.05.2012, in respect of the patient Prasanjeet the board opined his estimated age as 2022 years which report is Ex.PW8/A. Witness has further deposed that the board vide its report dated 26.05.2012 in respect of the prosecutrix opined her estimated age as 1718 years which report Ex.PW8/B. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Police Witnesses:
(14) PW1 W/HC Sushma Chauhan has deposed by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 bearing her signatures at point A and B and she relied upon the copy of the FIR No. 85/12 which is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A and her endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/B bearing her signatures at point A. (15) In her affidavit, the witness has deposed that on 21.04.2012 she was posted in police station Ashok Vihar as Head constable and on that day she was duty officer in the police station Ashok Vihar from 8AM to4 PM and she received a rukka by SI Rohit, No. D4583 through Ct. Sameer, No. 2192/NW at about 1140 State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 9 of 24 hours and on its receipt she made endorsement on that rukka and recorded kayme vide DD No. 16A and got recorded fir through computer operator which is correct as per rukka. According to her copy of FIR No. 85/12 and rukka handed over to the said constable for handing over to investigating officer SI Rohit No. D4583. (16) This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(17) PW2 Ct. Sumer has deposed by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. In his affidavit, witness has deposed that on 21.04.2012 he was posted in police station Ashok Vihar as constable and on receipt of DD No. 12 A he gone with SI Rohit at house No. 79, Wazirpur village, Delhi where complainant Raju S/o Ram Chander, brother of the prosecutrix met them and his statement was recorded by SI Rohit and as per his directions he had gone to the police station with the rukka and handed over the same to the duty officer for registration of case U/s 363 IPC. According to him after registration of the case, handed over rukka and FIR to him for handing over same to SI Rohit. (18) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had gone to the spot of incident on the instructions of the Investigating officer SI Rohit and he left the police station at about 11:35 AM and they reached the house of the State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 10 of 24 complainant within 57 minutes. According to him apart from Raju one other lady was also present with him but he cannot tell the relation of the said lady with Raju. The witness again said that Raju told the Investigating officer that the said lady was his sister but he cannot tell her details. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not participate in the investigations along with SI Rohit or that he did not go to house No. 79.
(19) PW3 Ct. Ashutosh has deposed that on 03.05.2012 he was posted at police station Ashok Vihar and on that day the accused Parsanjeet was taken in police custody remand. According to him, on 04.05.2012 he was interrogated by the Investigating officer in Investigating officer room and Parsanjeet had earlier made a disclosure informing the Investigating officer that he could identify the place where he had kept the prosecutrix. Witness has further deposed that he thereafter took them all to Inderpuri where they went in the private vehicle of the Investigating officer. Witness has further deposed that at Inderpuri they met a lady Sumitra, W/o Raj Kumar who informed that Parasnjeet had come on 11.04.2012 to take a room on rent, after which he was given a room on rent on the first floor and she further informed that on 21.04.2012 Parsanjeet brought a girl with him and on inquiry he informed that she was his wife and she informed that they again had suspicion because the girl look minor by appearance and therefore they again made inquiries from him but State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 11 of 24 he insisted and informed that she was his wife and thereafter both Parasnjeet and the girl left after 34 days. According to him on further inquiry from Inderpuri they came to know that a photographer Raj whose shop is situated on the main road and the accused and the said girl had got themselves photographed from the said photographer and copy of the photograph was taken from the photographer in which both of them appeared to be married. Witness has further deposed that Investigating officer recorded the statement of the land lady/landlord and also of the photographer in his presence and thereafter accused was taken to the police station and his statement was recorded thereafter.
(20) During leading questions put by Ld. APP for the state witness has admitted that in the morning of 04.05.2012 the accused Parasnjeet was taken out from the lock up and he was in a fit physical state. Witness has further deposed that he had mentioned that he was present in the Investigating officer room by mistake. Witness has admitted that Sumitra W/o Ram Kumar met them at B107, Inderpuri where Prasanjeet had taken them. Witness has admitted that Sumitra had informed the Investigating officer that because they had developed suspicion on Parsanjeet and on the girl as the girl appeared to be appeared hence they asked Parasnjeet to vacate the premises and after two days Parsanjeet and the girl went away. Witness has admitted that Prasanjeet had taken them to the shop of photographer State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 12 of 24 Raj, S/o Kalayan who is resident of B76/77, Budh Nagar, Inderpuri who is running a studio in the name and style of Welcome Studio. Witness has admitted that after the investigations were completed in Inderpuri, the accused was produced in the Rohini court before the Ld. MM from where he was remanded to Judicial custody. Witness has admitted that photographer had not handed over any photograph to the investigating officer and has voluntarily explained that he had only seen the accused with them and identified him as the person who had come with a young girl, who he claim his wife and both of them appeared to be a married couple and he had stated that he had taken that photograph. Witness has further deposed that whatever he had mentioned earlier in his examination in chief was just random as he had not read his statement and was not recollecting the exact sequence which took place and whatever he have said now is his correct statement. Witness has also correctly identified the accused Parasanjeet in the court .
(21) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that when they started from the police station on 04.05.2012 only he accompanied the Investigating officer and the accused and has voluntarily explained that he was in uniform. According to him it was around 1010:30 AM when they left the police station and they reached Inderpuri within half an hour and except the landlord, there was no other public witness present and he State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 13 of 24 did not make any separate departure entry and has voluntarily explained that a combine entry had been made by the investigating officer. Witness has admitted that the Investigating officer did not prepare any memo of pointing out of the room by the accused nor he prepared any site plan in his presence. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigations and it is for this reason that he was unable to give the details facts correctly initially. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance and on the instructions of the Investigating officer. (22) PW4 Ct. Parmod has deposed that on 27.04.2012 he was posted at police station Ashok Vihar and on that day he was on Emergency Duty along with SI Rohit. According to him, a secret informer informed the SI Rohit that one girl who is required in some case were sitting at the Keshavpuram Metro Station, on which he along with SI Rohit reached at the Keshavpuram Metro Station on the private vehicle of SI Rohit and after reaching at Keshavpuram Metro Station they found that one girl is sitting along with one boy. Witness has further deposed that on the pointing out of secret informer he apprehended the said boy and in the meantime PSI Suman was called from the police station by SI Rohit. According to him SI Rohit interrogated both above said girl and the boy and they came to know the name of the boy as Parasnjeet and the name of the girl as 'P' and the girl / 'P' was also interrogated by PSI Suman by State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 14 of 24 taking her to one side and thereafter her statement was recorded in the police station. Witness has further deposed that both 'P' and the Prasanjeet were taken to the police station Ashok Vihar and information regarding apprehension of both the girl and the boy were given to their parents and thereafter accused Prasanjeet was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/A and his personal search was also taken vide memo Ex.PW4/B. According to him, his statement was also recorded by the investigating officer. He has correctly identified the accused in the court.
(23) During leading question put by Ld. APP for the state, witness has deposed the he was not aware if the NGO was also informed by the Investigating officer. Witness has admitted that on return to the police station Prasanjeet was put in the lock up after being provided dinner.
(24) During cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, witness has deposed that they i.e he and SI Rohit had started from the police station in the private vehicle of SI Rohit and has voluntarily explained that PSI Suman was called later. According to him after receiving the secret information Investigating officer did not join any public person in the investigations. Witness has further deposed that it was after 1012 minutes after receiving the secret information when the accused and the girl were apprehended and the prosecutrix was dressed in a suit but he cannot tell its color. State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 15 of 24 According to him he does not recollect if the prosecutrix was also wearing a churra and having sindoor on her forehead. Witness has admitted that the prosecutrix did not appear to be under any pressure and has voluntarily explained that she was normal. Witness has admitted that when they apprehended the prosecutrix and the accused the prosecutrix informed that she was voluntarily residing with the accused with her own consent and was under no pressure but he cannot tell if she had refused to go to her parental house. Witness has further deposed that the brother of the prosecutrix was informed about her recovery. Witness has admitted that even after the apprehension of the prosecutrix and the accused no public person was joined in the investigations despite their availability. (25) PW7 SI Rohit has deposed that on 21.04.2012 he was posted at police station Ashok Vihar and on that day DD No. 12 A was handed over to him by duty officer which is Ex.PW7/A and after receiving the said DD he along with Ct. Sumer went to WP79, Wazirpur village where complainant Raju met them who gave his statement regarding missing of his sister to him which statement is Ex.PW5/A. According to him, he made his endorsement on the same which is Ex.PW7/B bearing his signatures at point A and converted the said statement into tehrir and same was sent through Ct. Sumer to the police station Ashok Vihar for getting the case registered. Witness has further deposed that he along with State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 16 of 24 complainant Raju went to Deep Market in search of the prosecutrix 'P' but no clue was found there and in the meantime Ct. Sumer reached at Deep Market along with original tehrir and copy of the FIR which is Ex.PW1/A. Witness has further deposed that on 27.04.2012 complainant Raju informed him that prosecutrix 'P' is in the nearby locality along with one Prasanjeet and on the same day at about 1:00 PM when he was in the area on duty, one secret informer informed him that the girl required in the present case was present at Keshavpuram Metro Station along with some boy on which he along with Ct. Parmod and secret informer in his private vehicle went to Keshavpuram Metro Station and at the instance of secret informer, he apprehended Prasanjeet with the help of Ct. Parmod. According to him, he called PSI Suman to the spot from the police station who after reaching at Keshavpuram Metro Station interrogated prosecutrix and he gave information regarding apprehension of prosecutrix to his brother Raju. Witness has further deposed that Secret informer was relieved there and thereafter he along with prosecutrix, accused, Ct. Parmod and PSI Suman reached at the police station where he interrogated the accused Prasanjeet and thereafter he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/A and his personal search was also taken vide memo Ex.PW4/B and thereafter accused was put in the lock up. Witness has further deposed that thereafter NGO official Malti Jain was called for the counseling of the State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 17 of 24 prosecutrix and thereafter he along with PSI Suman and prosecutrix went to BJRM Hospital for her medical examination where prosecutrix has refused to her internal examination which MLC is Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D as mentioned in the portion encircled X1. (not disputed by the accused). According to him, in the BJRM hospital MLC of the prosecutrix was handed over to him by the doctor and thereafter prosecutrix was sent to Kilkari Rainbow home, Kashmere Gate. Witness has further deposed that on 28.04.2012 accused Prasanjeet was taken to BJRM hospital for his medical examination, where after his medical examination, doctor handed over to him the MLC of the accused and thereafter he was produced in the Rohini courts before the Ld. MM and was sent to JC. Witness has further deposed that on 30.04.2012 PSI Suman moved an application before Ld. MM for getting the statement of Prosecutrix recorded U/s 164 Cr. P.C. which application is Ex.PX2 and thereafter he along with PSI Suman took the prosecutrix to the Rohini courts for getting her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr. P.C. which proceedings is Ex.PX3 collectively after which the application of receiving the copy of the said proceedings was filed by PSI Suman which application is Ex.PX5. Witness has further deposed that on 02.05.2012 production warrant was issued by Ld. MM for the accused for 03.05.2012 and on 03.05.2012 one day PC remand was obtained from the Ld. MM. According to him thereafter State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 18 of 24 accused was taken to the police station and put in the lock up. Witness has further deposed that on 04.05.2012 accused was taken from the lock up and he along with the accused, Ct. Ashutosh went to Inderpuri where the accused pointed out house No. B107, Inderpuri, Delhi where they met Sumitra and the said lady Sumitra informed that she was the landlady and had given one room on the first floor on rent to the accused on 11.04.2012. According to him she further informed that on 21.04.2012 the accused Prasanjeet brought one young girl to the room and introduced her to them as his wife, however, she was suspicious because the girl appeared to be a minor and hence after about two day, she asked to vacate the premises on which the said girl and Prasanjeet went away. Witness has further deposed that the accused thereafter took them to Welcome studio situated on the Main Road, Inderpuri, where they met the photographer Raj, S/o Kalyan Singh who after seeing the accused informed that it was the same person who had come to him along with a small girl for getting the photograph clicked and he further informed that he had taken the photographs and both the accused and the said girl appeared to be married and he recorded statements of the land lady and the photographer. According to him thereafter they produced the accused before the concern illaka magistrate from where the accused was sent to Judicial Custody remand and the prosecutrix was produced before the CWC and after about two days, State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 19 of 24 she was handed over to her brother Raju by the CWC. Witness has further deposed that the further investigations were thereafter transferred to W/SI Rajesh and he handed over the file to the subsequent investigating officer, the date of which he do not recollect at present. Witness has also correctly identified the accused Prasanjeet who was present in the court. Witness has further deposed that as per the record on 18.05.2012 PSI Suman had got the ossification/ age determination test of the prosecutrix as well as the accused conducted, after which the report of the same was obtained and is a part of the charge sheet (Ossification report not disputed by the accused).
(26) During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has admitted that the prosecutrix did not appear to be under any pressure when she was recovered from the Keshavpuram Metro Station. Witness has admitted that the prosecutrix had informed him that she had married the accused and had gone with him voluntarily. The witness has voluntarily explained that the prosecutrix kept on changing statements and had thereafter alleged that the accused had taken her forcibly to Noida and again thereafter alleged that she was forcibly kept by him at Inderpuri and it is for this reason that they had to proceed against the accused. Witness has admitted that he has got the ossification test of prosecutrix conducted and she was found to be more than 16 years of age having arise the age of consent and State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 20 of 24 was found to be between 1718 years of age. Witness has admitted that initially Raju had never expressed any suspicion on Prasanjeet. Witness has denied the suggestion that Raju never objected to the alliance between the accused and the prosecutrix. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly arrested the accused.
(27) PW11 W/SI Rajesh Sharma has deposed that on 25.06.2012 she was handed over the investigations of the present case and she prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court. She was not cross examined by Ld. defence counsel and her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Statement of Accused & Defence Evidence:
(28) After going through the evidence which came on record and having found nothing incriminating against the accused since the star witness of the prosecution i.e. prosecutrix 'P' and the complaint did not support the case of the prosecution and there being no other evidence, either Scientific, forensic or circumstantial to connect the accused with the alleged offence, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with.
FINDINGS:
(29) I have gone through the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and other material placed on record. I State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 21 of 24 have also considered the oral submissions made before me on behalf of the State as well as the accused. Firstly in so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the same has been duly established since the prosecutrix 'P' and her brother / complainant Raju both have identified him in the court.
(30) Secondly in so far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, it is admitted case that the prosecutrix was adopted by the family members of the complainant Raju and her exact date of birth is not known. She is totally illiterate and as per her ossification / age determination test report, her estimated age is opined to be between 17 to 18 years having already attained the age of consent i.e. 16 years. The prosecutrix has now stated in the court that she is around 18 years of age. This being the background I hold that the the prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age as on date.
(31) Thirdly in so far as the consent of the prosecutrix is concerned, she has in her depositions before the court testified that she with her free will and consent had gone away with the accused after which she got married with him and stayed with him as his wife. The prosecutrix has admitted that her statements were recorded by the police and also by the Ld. MM but has explained that she made both these statements under pressure and tutoring of her family members.
State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 22 of 24 (32) Fourthly it is evident from the testimony of the various police witnesses i.e. Ct. Pramod (PW4) and SI Rohit (7) that at the time when the prosecutrix was recovered, she did not appear to be under pressure and had informed them that she had voluntarily gone with the accused with her consent. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies in view of the fact that it finds due corroboration form the testimony of the prosecutrix.
(33) Lastly in so far as the apprehension of the accused and recovery of the prosecutrix is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the accused. It is writ large that the prosecutrix was taken to the BJRM Hospital where her medical examination was got conducted but she refused for her internal examination. (34) In view of the aforesaid the charges framed against the accused Prasanjeet do not stand established and proved more so in view of the fact that the prosecutrix has been found to be a major as on date and she has in her testimony admitted the factum of her having voluntarily eloped with the accused and thereafter getting married to him. Even now she wants to stay with the accused to which her brother / complainant Raju Patel (PW5) and also the mother of the accused consented and undertook that they would formally get the prosecutrix and the accused married after which the accused can take the prosecutrix to his house.
State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 23 of 24 (35) This being the background, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the charges against the accused Prasanjeet under Sections 363/366/506/368 of the Indian Penal Code and he is hereby acquitted of the same.
(36) The surety of the accused be discharged, as per rule.
(37) File be cosigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 05.12.2012 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Prasanjeet, FIR No. 85/2012, PS Ashok Vihar Page 24 of 24