Delhi District Court
State vs . Gaurav Kumar on 19 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. NUPUR GUPTA, MM11, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 518/14
PS : Jaitpur
No. : 90479/16
U/s : 363 IPC
STATE VS. GAURAV KUMAR
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification Number 02406R0218572015
B Name of the Complainant Parmod Kumar S/o Ram Dass, R/o
H.No. 45/3, Meethapur Vistar,
Dharamshala Road, Jaitpur, New
Delhi.
C Name of the accused & his Gaurav Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, R/o
parentage and address H.No. 76,Surya Vihar PartIII, Sector
91, Faridabad, Haryana.
D Offence complained of 363 IPC
E Date of commission of 03.08.2014
offence
F Date of Institution 13.07.2015
G Offence Charged 363 IPC
H Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
I Order Reserved on 04.12.2019
J Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2019
K Final Order Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Prosecution alleges that on 03.08.2014 at about 9 AM at H.No. 45/3, Meethapur Extension, Dharamshala Road, Jaitpur, New Delhi, accused FIR no. 518/14 PS Jaitpur State Vs. Gaurav Kumar 1/6 Gaurav Kumar took or entice the girl, namely, Vimlesh Kumari (minor) out of legal guardianship of complainant Pramod Kumar i.e. father of the victim without his consent and thereby he committed offence publishable u/s 363 IPC.
2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of PW1 (complainant) Pramod Kumar. His complaint is Ex. PW1/A. After the completion of the investigation, a final report in the form of chargesheet u/s 173 Cr.PC. was forwarded to the court arraying accused Gaurav Kumar as accused.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence by the court accused Gaurav Kumar was summoned and pursuant to his appearance, in compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., copy of the chargesheet was supplied to him. Subsequently, after hearing the state and the defence and after perusal of the judicial file prima facie the case against the accused for the offence publishable u/s 363 IPC was found to be made out. Accordingly charge was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to substantiate and prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined following witnesses:
(i) PW1 Pramod Kumar deposed that accused Gaurav Kumar is his nephew and victim Vimlesh is her daughter. He further deposed that there was intimacy between accused and Vimlesh and accused used to visit his house regularly. One day when he went to his house from his shop, he found that his daughter Vimlesh was not present at his house. On next day, he went to PS Jaitpur and lodged a complaint. After 89 months from registration of FIR, police officials of PS Jaitpur informed him about recovery of his daughter along with accused. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
(ii) PW2 Suman Lata deposed that she was deputed by Principal of FIR no. 518/14 PS Jaitpur State Vs. Gaurav Kumar 2/6 Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Molarband, New Delhi vide deputation letter Ex.PW2/A. She brought original admission and withdrawal register Ex.PW2/B. She further deposed that at the time of admission of Vimlesh Kumari, an affidavit was filed with regard to her date of birth which was mentioned as 12.10.1996, which is Ex.PW2/C. She also produced the report of Vimlesh Kumar Ex.PW2/D. She identified the signatures of Principal Tulsa Devi.
(iii) PW3 ASI Virender Singh deposed that on 05.08.2014 at about 1:10am, SI Narender Kumar handed over original rukka Ex.PW3/A to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he made endorsement over the rukka and registered the FIR Ex.PW3/B. He handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to SI Sanjay Rawat. He also issued a certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act.
(iv) PW4 ExSI Narender Kumar deposed that on 05.08.2014 he was posted as SI at PS Jaitpur. At about 12:30am, complainant came at Police Station and lodged a missing complaint of her daughter Vimlesh Kumari. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant, prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to SI Sanjay Rawat.
(v) PW5 Inspector Sanjay Singh Rawat deposed that on 05.08.2014 present case was marked to him for further investigation. During investigation, he got published pamphlets relating to missing girl, got issued hue and cry notice and sent information to various Government agencies. He collected documents relating to age of missing girl. On 07.12.2014 on secret information, he apprehended the accused Gaurav Kumar along with victim from Meethapur Chowk and brought both of them to Police Station. He informed father of victim, inquired the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/E. He conducted personal search of the accused vide FIR no. 518/14 PS Jaitpur State Vs. Gaurav Kumar 3/6 Ex.PW5/F. He recorded statement of victim as well as complainant U/s 161 Cr.PC. He got the victim medically examined and got her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the Court. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
(vi) PW6 HC Rajeev Kumar deposed that on 07.12.2014 he alongwith SI Sanjay Rawat went to Meethapur Chowk at around 5pm where accused alongwith victim Bimlesh Kumari came there from the side of Molarband. He further deposed that thereafter, accused was inquired by the IO in his presence and was brought to the PS. IO inquired the victim and recorded his statement. Thereafter, the victim and her father was sent to hospital with Ct. Rekha for medical examination. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F respectively. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
(vii) PW7 Vimlesh Kumari deposed that she was never kidnapped by the accused and accused was his friend. She has correctly identified the accused. Thereafter, the witness was cross examined by ld. APP for State. In crossexamination by ld. APP, PW7 stated that police took her to PS Jaitpur in December 2014 and police also produced her before Magistrate for recording of her statement U/s 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW7/A. She denied the suggestion that police had recorded her statement dated 07.12.2014 Ex.PW7/B.
5. All the witnesses were cross examined by ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. Accused had admitted MLC No.18167/14, statement U/s 164 Cr.PC of Vimlesh Kumari and role of WCt. Rekha u/s 294 Cr.PC. Since all the material eye witnesses turned hostile, examination of formal police witnesses was dispensed with.
FIR no. 518/14 PS Jaitpur State Vs. Gaurav Kumar 4/6
7. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Virender, was recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC, wherein all the incriminating evidences lead by the prosecution against him were put to him giving an opportunity to give explanation, if any. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
8. Accordingly, the matter was posted for final arguments. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also carefully perused the entire judicial record and carefully appreciated the evidence lead by the prosecution.
9. The court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the PWs recorded before the Court. There is the only star witness i.e. PW1 Pramod Kumar, father of the victim who has been examined in the present case apart from victim and other police officials. He has deposed that accused Gaurav Kumar is his nephew and he had apprehension that there was a love affair between accused and his daughter Vimlesh. PW1 has not stated anywhere in his complaint or in his examination inchief that his daughter has been enticed by accused Gaurav Kumar. Further, PW7 Vimlesh Kumari who is the victim in the present case, has also been examined and she has stated that she was never kidnapped by accused Gaurav Kumar nor she has ever resided with him during the period August 2014 to December 2014 rather she was residing at Nangloi due to quarrel between her and her parents.
10. Thus, the allegations leveled against the accused were falsified with the testimony of the PW7 Vimlesh Kumari herself, who is the victim in the present case. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all the reasonable ground.
11. Moreover, as per Section 363 IPC, the accused should have FIR no. 518/14 PS Jaitpur State Vs. Gaurav Kumar 5/6 either taken away or enticed the minor, but in the present case as per the statement of PW1 Pramod Kumar and PW7 Vimlesh Kumari, the accused neither taken away her nor enticed her. Hence, with these observations, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all the reasonable doubts and to bring his acts and conduct within four corners of the said provisions of law constituting any of such offence or within legal ambit which would warrant his conviction and punishment in the present case. In view of the cardinal principle of law that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and every benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, hence, the accused is entitled to every benefit arising out of lacuna's in the prosecution case.
12. Accordingly, accused Gaurav Kumar stands acquitted for the offence U/s s 363 IPC. His Bail Bonds stand canceled. Surety Bonds stand discharged. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any, on property receipt and identification. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
Announced in the Open (NUPUR GUPTA) Court on 19.12.2019 MM11/SED/ Saket Courts/ND FIR no. 518/14 PS Jaitpur State Vs. Gaurav Kumar 6/6