Delhi District Court
3.Title State vs . Ranjeet on 3 October, 2013
THE COURT OF MS NEHA PALIWAL :
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
1.FIR No. 348/2011
2.Unique Case ID No. 02401R0358142011
3.Title State Vs. Ranjeet
3(A).Name of complainant Rani Begum, W/o Sh. Dilbar Khan, R/o
E-77, Nehru Camp, Patparganj, Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused Ranjeet, S/o Sh. Chunchun Yadav, R/o
Village Mansahe, District Katihar,
Bihar.
Also at
4.Date of institution of challan 29.10.2011
5.Date of Reserving judgment 30.09.2013
6.Date of pronouncement 03.10.2013
7.Date of commission of offence 14.08.2011
8.Offence complained of Under Section 363/365 IPC
9.Offence charged with Under Section 363/365 IPC
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order Convicted U/s 363 IPC & Acquitted U/s
365 IPC
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. The case of the prosecution in a narrow compass is that on 14.08.2011 between 4.00pm to 5.00pm, at jhuggi no. E-77, Nehru Camp, Patparganj, Delhi the accused had kidnapped prosecutrix namely Farzana @ Moni, D/o Sh. Dilawar Khan, out of the keeping of her lawful guardian, and had done so with the intention of secretly and wrongfully confining her and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 363 & 365 IPC.
2. The Charge sheet was filed in the court on 29.10.2011 and after compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. and after hearing parties, charge for the offence punishable u/s 363 & 365 IPC was framed on 26.11.2011, against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused in FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 1 of15 total has examined as many as nine witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ct. Rajender, PW-2 Complainant Mst. Rani Begum, PW-3 Sh. Suna Ullah:
brother of the victim, PW-4 Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, PW-5 Farzana: victim/prosecutrix, PW-6 SI Bal Singh: IO, PW-7 Dr. Rachna Jain, PW-8 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh and PW-9 WHC Deepali:
DO.
4. PW-1 Ct. Rajinder is the witness of investigation and he has deposed that on 3.9.2011, in his presence the IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B which bears his signatures at point A and accused was released on police bail at the spot. He further stated that IO recorded his statement.
5. In his cross examination it was deposed by PW-1 that accused was arrested at 11 am and the information regarding his arrest was given to his brother.
6. PW-2 Mst. Rani Begum, is the complainant as well as recovery witness in the present case. She, in her examination in chief has deposed that on 14.08.2011, at about 4 pm, she had gone to the market to purchase vegetables, however, when she returned back, she found that her daughter Farzana was not present at home. She further stated that she tried her best to search for her daughter but she could not be found and thereafter she reported the matter to the police after four days, when all her efforts failed. PW-2 proved her statement on record as Ex. PW 2/A which bears her RTI at point A.
7. She further deposed that after about 20-22 days, she alongwith her son Mohd. Sana Ulla and police went to the jhuggies near Jakirapul where her daughter was found in the jhuggi of Ranjeet, who earlier used to resider near her jhuggi. She further stated that police took her daughter into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/B which bears her RTI at point A.
8. She further stated that her daughter was sent to LBS hospital for medical examination however, she refused for the same, thereafter her daughter was sent to Nirmal Chhaya and after 25 days, her daughter was sent with them. She correctly identified the FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 2 of15 accused.
9. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel it was admitted by PW-2 that prior to the date of the incident Ranjeet was also residing in the same locality (jhuggies) and she knows Ranjeet as he was residing in a jhuggi which is situated after about 2-3 jhuggies from her jhuggi and she knew him for the last two years from the day of incident. She denied the suggestion that she used to quarrel with Ranjeet on petty issues. PW-2 further sated that she had gone to Pandav Nagar to purchase vegetables. The witness further deposed that she do not remember the date when her daughter was recovered from the possession of the accused, however, it was about 9.00pm.
10. The witness further deposed that they came to know about their daughter from the friend of Ranjeet whose name she does not know and that friend also accompanied them to the jhuggi of Ranjeet (place of recovery) in a private vehicle. The witness further deposed that at the time of the recovery her daughter was wearing a pink colour suit. The witness further deposed that the place of recovery is surrounded by jhuggies and many public persons gathered there. She further stated that she had not signed any document at the spot.
11. PW-3 Suna Ulla is the brother of the victim and is also a recovery witness. He in his examination in chief deposed that on 14.08.2011, his mother found that his sister was missing from their house and despite their best efforts his sister could not be found. Thereafter his mother reported the matter to the police after four days. It was further deposed by the witness that after about 20-22 days he alongwith his mother and the police went to the jhuggis near Zakhira Pul, where his sister was found in the jhuggi of Ranjeet. It was further deposed by the witness that he earlier knew Ranjeet. The witness further stated that his sister was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-2/B which bears his signature at point B. It is further deposed by the witness that his sister refused for medical examination and thereafter she was sent to Nirmal Chhaya and after about 25 days she was sent with her family members. The witness correctly identified the accused who was present at the time of his FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 3 of15 deposition.
12. During his cross examination the witness deposed that at the time when his sister was found missing he was on duty and he came to know about the whereabouts of his sister from the friend of Ranjeet whose name he does not know who also accompanied them to jhuggi of Ranjeet. It is further deposed by the witness that besides IO, friend of Ranjeet, his mother and he himself went to jhuggi of accused Ranjeet. It is further deposed by the witness that he was knowing Ranjeet earlier as he was residing in the same locality. It is further deposed by the witness that when his sister was recovered many public persons had gathered there. It was further deposed by him that he had not signed any document at spot.
13. PW-4 Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, Ld. MM Tis Hazari Courts is the witness who had recorded the statement of prosecutrix Farzana @ Moni U/s 164 Cr.P.C.. He has deposed that on 18.8.2011 an application Ex. PW-4/A was received by him from his Ld. Link MM Sh. Naveen Gupta preferred by IO/SI Bal Singh for recording of sthe statement of prosecutrix Farzana and after being satisfied as to the competency of the witness to depose, he recorded the statement of prosecutrix in his own handwriting on 3.9.2011 and thereafter, proceedings upon completion was sent to the concerned court through the office of Ld. ACMM in a sealed envelope. The sealed envelope was opened in the presence of witness and was exhibited as Ex. PW-4/C and the witness identified his signatures on each and every page of the statement.
14. Statement of the witness U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is Ex. PW-4/C. In her statement it was deposed by the prosecutrix, before the Ld. MM that she loves Ranjeet and has gone after leaving her house on 14.8.2011 at around 11.00am to Ranjeet at Pandav Nagar and from there they went to Jhuggies below Jakhira Pul. There they lived in one room and Ranjeet put vermilion (Sindoor) on her head, tied mangalsutra and put churis on her hand.
15. It was further stated by her that on 14.9.2011 when she alongwith Ranjeet and one more girl namely Gudiya, were sitting in FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 4 of15 the room, then her brother alongwith two more boys and one policeman came there and took her alongwith Ranjeet to PS.
16. It was further stated by her that she out of her own will had gone to Ranjeet and that she loved him and Ranjeet had not done anything wrong to her.
17. PW-5 Farzana, who is prosecutrix in the present case deposed in her examination in chief that accused had told her that he loved her very much, but she refused his proposal and thereafter he gave her a letter wherein the same things were written and she torn and threw the said letter. It is further deposed by the witness that thereafter accused leveled false allegations upon her that she loved him.
18. It was deposed by her that one day accused asked her to accompany him and thereafter on the next date she went alongwith him. It is deposed by the witness that accused took her to the room of his friend where they remained for 20 days and accused put sindoor on her head. Thereafter police came to the said room alongwith her brother and she was taken to her house. The witness further deposed that her mother asked her to accompany her but she refused. It is further deposed by the witness that she also got her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. before Ld. MM and then she was sent to Sneh Home Kolkata.
19. In her cross examination the witness has deposed that she was 17 years old however, again stated that she was 19 years old. It was deposed by her that she knew the accused for the last two years. The witness admitted that in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she had stated that she and Ranjeet both loved each other and she will not leave Ranjeet. The witness further admitted that she had stated before the Ld. MM, that she on her own had gone to the house of Ranjeet at Pandav Nagar, Delhi. The witness voluntarily stated that accused had called her on phone. It was further deposed by the witness that she had stated this fact before the Ld. MM. The witness was confronted with the statement where it is not so recorded. It was further deposed by the witness that it took 30 minutes in reaching FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 5 of15 the house of Ranjeet by foot from her house.
20. Witness further stated that she went to his house by foot as Ranjeet had made a phone call at the nearby STD shop. It is further deposed by the witness that she was informed by her friend as the shop owner had told her friend to call her. It is further deposed by the witness that she went to the house of accused Ranjeet after 7 days of receiving the call from him. It is further deposed by the witness that she had not told this fact to her parents and brother that Ranjeet had called her telephonically and asked her to come to his house. It is further deposed by the witness that her mother knew Ranjeet as he was residing in the same area.
21. The witness further deposed that she had stated in her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she on her own had gone alongwith Ranjeet and he had not done any wrong to her. The witness further admitted that she had also stated that they both lived together.
22. It is admitted by the witness that when police caught her on the relevant date, she refused to go with her parents and since then, she is residing in Calcutta and is studying in Nirmal Chhaya at Calcutta. It is further deposed by the witness that before her deposition in the court she had not talked with her mother. The witness denied the suggestion that she is changing her stand due to pressure of police or her parents. The witness further denied the suggestion that before the last three days after coming to Delhi, she had met with her parents and they had tutored her. The witness further denied the suggestion that she had told the magistrate that her age is 19 years.
23. PW-6 SI Bal Singh is the investigating officer in the present matter. He has deposed in his examination in chief that on 18.08.2011, he was present in the PS when complainant Rani Begum came and gave her statement which is Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, he made the endorsement upon statement and prepared the rukka Ex. PW6/A and gave the same to the Duty Officer. It is further deposed by the witness that he searched for the girl but as she could not be found then they came back and flashed the wireless message and FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 6 of15 filled up the missing persons form and had completed the necessary formalities.
24. It is further deposed by the witness that on 03.09.2011, he alongwith the complainant and her son went to the jhuggies below Jakhira Bridge and the prosecutrix Farzana was recovered vide memo Ex.PW2/B which bears his signature at point B. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was brought to the PS and her counseling was done by the NGO and document is Ex. PW6/B. It is further deposed by the witness that the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination at LBS hospital but she refused for the same. Thereafter her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The witness further deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B which bears his signature at point B respectively.
25. It is further deposed by PW-6 that the prosecutrix was sent to Nari Niketan/Nirmal Chhaya as she refused to go alongwith the parents and the accused was sent to JC. The witness further deposed that the bony age X-ray of the prosecutrix was got conducted as there was no age proof of her and as per the X-ray, her age was between 15-16 years. It is further deposed by the witness that he recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter he prepared the charge-sheet after the completion of investigation and sent the charge sheet to the court for trial. The witness correctly identified the accused present before the court at the time of his deposition.
26. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel PW-6 admitted that in the complaint Ex. PW2/A, the complainant had not given the name of the any person who had taken away her daughter and that he had visited the jhuggies of Jhakhira on the basis of suspicion. The witness further stated that he had made the departure entry but he does not remember the DD number. It is further deposed by the witness that he had not informed the PS, in which the area of Jhakhira falls about his visit. It was further deposed by the witness that the girl was recovered on the road/gali outside the jhuggies i.e. the open space outside the jhuggies. It was FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 7 of15 further deposed by him that he had requested few public persons to join the investigation but no one agreed, though about 5-10 persons were present at the time of recovery of the girl. The witness further admitted that he had not prepared any document at the place from where the girl was recovered.
27. The witness further deposed that at the time of the recovery of the prosecutrix, accused Ranjeet was present and both of them were standing together. The witness further deposed that so far as he remember, accused was arrested at about 12 noon and the information regarding the arrest was given to the father of the accused through the telephone but he do not remember the telephone number. The witness admitted that the signature of the complainant and her son were not obtained on the arrest memo. The witness further deposed that he had not verified the owner of the jhuggi outside of which the girl was recovered.
28. The witness denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that the prosecutrix was not recovered from the possession of the accused or that the accused had not kidnapped the prosecutrix and had not wrongfully confined her. The witness further denied the suggestion that the accused has been lifted from his jhuggi at Mandawali and that is why no public person was made witness in the arrest memo of the accused and the recovery memo of the prosecutrix despite availability or that he was deposing falsely.
29. PW-7 Dr. Rachna Jain (radiologist) LBS Hospital, in her examination in chief deposed that on 7.10.2011 vide MLC No. 15849/2011, she had seen the X-rays of Farzana, daughter of Dilwar Khan with regard to age estimation and had given her findings in this regard and the same is Ex. PW-7/A which bears her signature at point A. It is further deposed by the witness that on the basis of findings a joint report has been given by three doctors namely Dr. Kavita Dhalla (Dentist), Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh (Forensic Expert) and herself and as per their report the age of the prosecutrix was between 15 -16 years and the report is Ex. PW-7/B which bears her signature at point B. FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 8 of15
30. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness stated that no documentary proof with regard to age of the prosecutrix has been enclosed alongwith documents received. The witness voluntarily stated that as a matter of rule, they do not consider any documents with regard to age and final opinion has been given on the basis of physical examination, dental examination and radiology examination.
31. PW-8 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Specialist Forensics Medicine, LBS Hospital, in his examination in chief stated that on 7.10.2011 vide MLC No. 15849/2011, he had examined Farzana, daughter of Dilawar Khan with regard to age estimation. The witness further deposed that the report is in his handwriting and the same has been prepared on the basis of findings of three doctors namely Dr. Kavita Dhalla (Dentist), Dr. Rachna Jain (Radiologist) and himself and as per their report the age of the prosecutrix was between 15 -16 years on the date of examination and the report is Ex. PW-7/B which bears his signature at point B.
32. PW-9 WHC Deepali, is the duty officer in the present matter and she had proved before the court FIR Ex. PW-9/A and her endorsement upon rukka Ex. PW-9/B.
33. No other PW was examined in the present case, therefore prosecution evidence was closed vide order of the court dated 5.9.2013.
34. Thereafter, the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. by the court on 16.9.2013 and his statement was recorded wherein accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely and wrongly implicated in the present case. However, the accused denied to lead any evidence in defence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments. However, at the stage of final arguments it came to notice of the court that certain incriminating material was not put to the accused and therefore, amended statement of accused was recorded before the court. However, in that statement also the accused denied to lead any evidence in his defence and thereafter final arguments were heard in the present FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 9 of15 matter.
35. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state, Ld. counsel for the accused persons and perused the entire material available on record.
36. It is a settled legal principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond the shadow of the reasonable doubt and has to stand upon its own legs. The prosecution cannot draw any strength from the weakness of the case of the accused. It is also a settled proposition in the criminal law that the accused had a pious right of not to be convicted for an offence which is not established beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. The burden of proof in a criminal trial always rest upon the prosecution and the same never shifts on accused.
37. Thus in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
34. Now by applying the aforesaid legal propositions of law to the factual matrix of the present case, let us see as to what extent the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused persons.
35. The accused in the present case has been charged for the offence punishable U/s 363 and 365 IPC.
Section 363 IPC reads as under:-
Punishment for kidnapping:- Whoever, kidnaps any person from (India) or lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 365 IPC reads as under:-
Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongly to confine person:- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 10 of15 confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
36. Section 363 IPC provides for punishment for kidnapping however the offence is defined U/s 361 IPC, which reads as under:-
37. Section 361 - Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under 18 years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
38. Thus for the purpose of attraction of the provision of Section 361 IPC i.e. For the purpose of proving the offence of kidnapping four essential ingredients are required to be satisfied, namely:
(1) Taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound, (2) Such minor must be under sixteen years of age, if a male, or under eighteen years of age, if a female.
(3) The taking of enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, (4) Such taking or enticing must be without the consent of such guardian
39. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Raja Ram AIR 1973 SC 819 that the object of Section 361 IPC is as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purpose as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards.
The gravermen of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the age specified in this section out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian. The words "takes or entices any minor...out of the keeping of lawful guardian of such minor" in Section 361 IPC are significant.
FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 11 of15
40. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that on the plain reading of this section the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial. Nor is it necessary that the taking of enticing must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud, persuasion by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the section.
41. The taking therefore, as contemplated under Section 361, need not be by force. The word take means to cause to go, to escort or to get into possession. Inducement of the accused to make the girl leave her home amounts to 'taking' within the meaning of this section.
42. It was held in the case of Thakorlal Vadgama Vs State of Gujrat AIR 1973 SC 2313 by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the two words 'takes'' and 'entices' as used in Section 361 are intended to be read together, they suggest that if the minor leaves her parental home, completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement from the side of the accused, then the accused is not guilty U/s 361 IPC. However, if the accused had laid a foundation by inducement, allurement, or threat etc., and if this can be considered to have influenced the minor or weighed with her in leaving her guardian's custody or keeping and going to the accused, then it would be difficult for the accused to plead that the minor had voluntarily come to him.
43. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the accused had at an earlier stage solicited or induced her in any way to leave her guardian's protection, by indicating or conveying or encouraging suggestion that he would give her shelter, then the mere circumstance that his act was not the immediate cause of her leaving her parental home or guardian's custody would constitute no valid defence and would not absolve him.
44. In the present case in hand testimonies of PW-7 and PW-8, had proved before the court Ex. PW-7/B, which is the age estimation report of the victim/prosecutrix given by Board of three doctors of FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 12 of15 LBS Hospital and as per the report of the doctors, the age of the prosecutrix was found to be between 15-16 years. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor of 15-16 years i.e. less than the age of 18 years and was thus a minor and therefore, would be covered U/s 361 IPC.
45. The testimony of PW-2, who is the complainant in the present matter categorically proves before the court that her daughter was taken out of her keeping without her consent. Her testimony is also corroborated with the testimony of PW-3 who is the brother of the prosecutrix.
46. Perusal of the deposition of PW-5, Farzana who is the prosecutrix in the present matter coupled with her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before Ld. MM, clearly proves before the court that there was an inducement given by the accused to the minor to leave her guardian's protection. It is deposed by PW-5 in her examination in chief that the accused has asked her to accompany him and on the next day she went alongwith him. Though in her cross examination, she has admitted that she had went to the house of Ranjeet after 7 days of receiving call from him. It has also come in her cross examination that she has received telephonic call from the accused. Though this fact is not recorded in the statement of prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr.P.C. However, the omission to mention this fact in the statement does not make the version of the prosecutrix unreliable and it is consistent with the earlier statement made by her before the Ld. MM. There is no major contradiction in the two depositions and minor discrepancies cannot be allowed to jeopardize the importance and relevancy of an otherwise crucial testimony.
47. Though it is deposed by PW-5 that she loved Ranjeet and had out of her own consent went with him, however, law is very clear that the consent of the minor is immaterial and it is wholly the guardian's consent which determines whether the offence amounts to kidnapping or not.
48. In view of the law laid down in the case of Thakorlal D. Vadgama (Supra), the taking or enticing of a minor as FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 13 of15 contemplated in Section 361 IPC would be proved if the accused had at an earlier stage solicited or induced the minor. The act of the accused need not be the immediate cause of the minor's leaving the guardian's protection. It would suffice if there had been a conveying suggestion by the accused that he would give the minor shelter. In the present matter the accused has participated in the formation of the girl's intention and resolve to leave her parents house and therefore, the accused has enticed the minor to come out of the keeping of her guardian without the consent of that guardian. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused is guilty of the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship as defined U/s 361 IPC and punishable U/s 363 IPC.
49. The accused has also been charge for the offence U/s 365 IPC.
In order to prove the said offence the prosecution has to prove the intention of the accused that he intended to confine the minor secretly and wrongfully. Thus the prosecution has to prove that the accused has wrongfully and secretly confined the prosecutrix and the said act was done by him voluntarily. Thus both the existence of physical as well as mental element in the commission of the offence have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
50. In the present case in hand perusal of the testimony of PW's show major contradiction as to from where was the victim recovered and whether at that time when she was recovered she was accompanied by the accused or not. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 is silent as to whether when the prosecutrix was recovered she was accompanied by the accused or not. They have only deposed that the prosecutrix was found in the jhuggi of Ranjeet i.e. the accused. In her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., it was deposed by the girl that she alongwith another girl and Ranjeet were sitting in the jhuggi when her brother and police came. Her testimony before the court is silent with respect to that fact. PW-6 who is the IO in the present matter, however, has admitted in his examination in chief that the victim/prosecutrix was recovered from the road/gali outside the jhuggies i.e. Open space outside the jhuggies and at that time she FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 14 of15 was accompanied with the accused.
51. Perusal of these testimonies do not prove the ingredients of Section 365 IPC as intention to secretly and wrongfully confining the prosecutrix by the accused is not proved. There is categorical admission by the IO that the girl was recovered from the open space outside the jhuggies and therefore, she cannot be said to be secretly confined. Furthermore, if the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is to be relied it was deposed by the girl that she was in the jhuggi alongwith one another girl and Ranjeet and therefore, secret confinement is further ruled out.
52. In her medical examination also the victim has not given any history of physical/sexual abuse. She has also admitted this fact in her cross examination.
53. In view of the above said discussions and findings ingredients of Section 365 IPC are not made out. In view of the the same accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 365 IPC.
54. Thus the accused is convicted for the offence U/s 363 IPC and acquitted for the offence U/s 365 IPC.
55. Convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
56. Copy of judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the (Neha Paliwal)
Open Court on3.10.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate
KKD,-Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 15 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Neha Paliwal)
Metropolitan Magistrate
KKD,-Delhi
FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 15 of15
FIR No. 348/2011 State Vs Ranjeet 16 of15