Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Rajan Rai on 14 October, 2019

        IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
   METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.

FIR No. : 296/14
U/s : 363 IPC
P.S : Chhawla
State Vs. Rajan Rai
                                          Date of Institution of case :­11.04.2018
                                          Date of Judgment reserved:­14.10.2019
                               Date on which Judgment pronounced:­ 14.10.2019

                                      JUDGMENT
Unique ID no.                              :   3304/18
Date of Commission of offence              :   23.05.2014
Name of the complainant                    : Sh Manohar S/o Sh. Nathe R/o
                                             Mahender Rana Ka Makan Near
                                             Vishal Factory village Paprawat,
                                             Najafgarh, Delhi.

Name and address of the accused : Rajan Rai S/o Sh. Awadh Rai R/o persons RZ­35,Dharampura,Najafgarh, Delhi Permanent Add. Village Ghatbatra Police Station Bishfi Distt. Madubani, Bihar.

Offence complained of                      : U/s 363 IPC
Plea of accused                            : Not guilty
Date of order                              : 14.10.2019
Final Order                                : Accused is acquitted .

BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:

1.Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that on 26.05.2014, complainant Manohar gave a complaint in P.S regarding kidnapping of his daughter FIR No. :296/14 P.S :Chhawla U/s : 363 PC State Vs. Rajan Rai Page 1 of 3 Pinki. He gave complaint that yis 15 years old daughter Pinki left home on 23.05.2014 on the pretext of buying some articles from Najafgarh but did not return home. He suspected that she has been kidnapped by some persons. Accordingly, present FIR was registered for the offence u/s 363 IPC.

2.During investigation, it was found that victim victim had married accused Rajan and they were both living in Bihar. On 25.11.2016, mother of victim brought her to P.S informing IO about the fact of her marriage.

3. Arguments were heard and charge for the offences u/s 363 IPC against accused was framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution examined two witnesses in support of its case:

3.1 PW1 Sh. Smt Pinki entered the witness box on 14.10.2019 and deposed that she left her home, without informing her parents and got married to accused as per their mutual consent. She stated that she had left her home voluntarily and was residing with accused as his wife. She relied on her statement U/s 164 Crpc as Ex Pw­1/A and identified her photograph as Ex Pw­1/B. 3.2 PW2 Sh Manohar entered the witness box on 14.10.2019 and deposed on the lines of his complaint Ex PW­2/A. He stated that later he found his daughter and she informed him that she voluntarily left home and went to native village of accused, where she married him.

5. Statement of accused u/s 294 Cr.PC was recorded wherein they admitted the genuineness and preparation of present FIR as Ex. A1(colly.), FIR No. :296/14 P.S :Chhawla U/s : 363 PC State Vs. Rajan Rai Page 2 of 3 Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex PW­1/A, Age verification documents as Ex A2, Missing report Ex A3(colly.) and MLC no. 2183 Ex A4.

6. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 281 r/w 313 CrPC wherein he denied all the allegations made against him. He did not lead evidence in defence.

7. I have heard both the sides and perused the record.

8. To prove offence u/s 363 IPC, prosecution had to prove that accused took or enticed victim Pinki out of the keeping of her lawful guardian i.e. complainant Manohar, without the consent of complainant.

9.At the outset, it is admitted by the accused that the date of birth of victim is 14.10.2001 i.e. victim was 12 years and seven months old when the incident happened.

10. Both Pw­1 and Pw­2 have deposed that victim voluntarily left her home. There is no allegation of inducement/allurement of any kind and thus it can not be said that the victim was enticed away by the accused. Further since the victim left home on her own and resided with accused for 1.5 years before returning home, it can be certainly said that she was not forcibly taken away from the custody of her guardian.

11. Accordingly offence U/s 363 IPC is not made out against the accused. Accused Rajan Rai is acquitted of the offence U/s 363 IPC.



   Announced in open court today               (Richa Gusain Solanki)
   on 14th October2019                        Metropolitan Magistrate­07
                                                Dwarka Court/Delhi
                                                              Digitally signed by
                                                  RICHA       RICHA GUSAIN
FIR No. :296/14 P.S :Chhawla
U/s : 363 PC
                                                  GUSAIN SOLANKI
                                                              Date: 2019.10.14
State Vs. Rajan Rai                               SOLANKI 16:45:34
                                                                 Page 3+0530
                                                                         of 3