Delhi District Court
State vs Irfan S/O Kashim on 21 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, LD. A. S. J.- I : North- East
/ KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0569442008
Sessions Case No. 106/08
Assigned to Sessions. 04/08/08
Arguments heard on 20.07.2010
Date of order. 21.07.2010
FIR No. 286/08
State Vs Irfan s/o Kashim
R/o E-57/ B-4, Jhuggi Sunder
Nagari, Delhi.
Police Station Nand Nagari
Under Section 363/ 366 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Facts of the present case in brief are that complainant Mangal Pandey who happens to be the father of victim Ms. Neetu (girl, allegedly aged about 16 ½ years old) made a statement before the police official HC Ramesh Chander on 14.06.2008 regarding missing of her daughter from 12.06.08. On the basis of said statement FIR No.286/08 was recorded u/s 363 IPC. Investigation of the present case was marked to I.O./ ASI Rakesh Tyagi who along with HC Ramesh and complainant Mangal Pandey visited the spot i.e. house no. D-777, Gali no.20, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. I.O. made investigation in the locality about the prosecutrix Neetu but no clue was found. The FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 1 / 21 complainant was having suspicion upon accused Irfan. So, the police team and complainant visited the house of accused in Sunder Nagari and house of accused was found locked. On the next day IO flashed message to all Deputy Commissioners of Police and Senior Superintendents of Police of India. The photograph of prosecutrix mark Z was sent to T V Channel and to the Missing Persons Squad.
2. On 16.06.08 accused as well as prosecutrix appeared in the Police Station themselves. I.O. called the parents of prosecutrix and recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr. P C. I.O. has also prepared recovery memo of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW1/B. Accused was put in the lock up and prosecutrix was kept in the police station in the custody of lady Ct. as well as her mother. On the next day accused as well as prosecutrix were got medically examined. Prosecutrix refused to undergo for her internal medical examination.
3. Accused was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and his personal search memo Ex.PW6/C was also prepared. Accused was sent to JC when he was produced in the court. Prosecutrix was sent to Nirmal Chhaya for one day. On 18.06.08 prosecutrix was again produced in the court and her FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 2 / 21 statement u/s 164 Cr. PC was got recorded vide photocopy of the same mark Z1.
4. I.O. collected photocopy of her date of birth certificate issued by MCD and same was verified by him from MCD Office and it was found correct vide Certificate Ex.PW6/D. As per the certificate date of birth of prosecutrix was 29.11.91 and she was found minor at the time of incident which had occurred on 14.06.08. The sealed pulandas of accused were not sent to FSL Office since prosecutrix did not get her internal medically examined. Accordingly, this case was registered against the accused and he was booked for the offence u/s 363/366 IPC.
5. Charge sheet was filed in the court. Charge was framed against the accused for committing offences punishable under section 363/ 366 IPC on 25.09.08 to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution in support of its case has examined 10 witnesses namely PW1 Kumari Neetu- prosecutrix, PW2 HC Ramesh Chander, PW3 Mangal Pandey - father of prosecutrix , PW4 Suchitra- mother of FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 3 / 21 prosecutrix, PW5 Munni Devi, PW6 ASI Rakesh Tyagi- IO, PW7 Dr. Bhawna Aggarwal, PW8 Satyender Kumar, PW9 ASI Sumitra Devi and PW10 Sh. Ravinder Singh in toto.
7. PW1 Kumari Neetu, prosecutrix is the most material witness in this case. For the sake of brevity and convenience let her statement be produced verbatim which is as under :-
" At present I am studying in 9th Standard, Madhyamic Ucchtam Kanya Vidalya, School situated in Nand Nagari area. My father used to work as book binder at our house and accused was also employed by my father for the same work for the last about one year from the date of incident. On 12.06.08 it was around 10 a.m., accused did not turn up for his work . I was going to the market to purchase some articles accused met me in the way at Harsh Bazar, accused asked me to arrange R.20,000/- from my house but I cannot tell any reason why accused had asked me for such huge amount. Accused kept standing at the afore said place and I went to my house for taking money. There was nobody at my house at that time . I took away Rs.20,000/- from the Almirah of my house and handed over the said amount to the accused but this fact was not disclosed by me to anybody. Thereafter, accused took me in a TSR at New Delhi railway station. Thereafter, accused took me to Bombay in a train and thereafter on the same day we again boarded the train for Delhi. We reached Delhi at around 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, accused and myself came to police chowki . Again said I asked the accused to accompany me to police chowki. My parents were also called by the police in the police chowki. Thereafter, police took me as well as accused to the police station Nand Nagari. I was kept in the police station for one day and on the next day I was produced in the court where my statement was recorded by the court. Thereafter, I was allowed to accompany my parents. I can identify my signature on the statement recorded by the court.
At this stage, one sealed envelop already attached with the judicial file with the seal of RS and case particulars, has FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 4 / 21 been opened, it is containing statement of prosecutrix recorded by ld. MM u/s 164 Cr. PC and shown to the witness upon which she had identified her signature at point A and B on Ex.PW1/A. Accused Irfan is present in the court identified correctly.
At this stage, ld. APP wants to cross-examine the witness as she is suppressing certain material facts before this court. Heard and allowed.
Xxxby ld. APP It is correct that I was interrogated by the police and police recorded my statement. It is correct that I had stated to the police in my statement that besides accused other boys were also working at our house with my father. It is correct that I had stated to the police in my statement mark X dt. 16.06.08 that accused asked me to accompany him to Bombay and when I refused to accompany him he told me that he would marry me. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police in my statement that accused wanted to do some wrongful act with me but I saved myself from him from doing any wrongful act. It is correct that I had stated to the police that in Bombay we had gone for dating and I made a call to my house and I came to know that police case has been registered and thereafter, accused brought me Delhi. The witness has been shown the recovery memo Ex.PW1/B on which she has identified her signature at point A. It is correct that I had mentioned in my statement u/s 164 Cr.PC before ld. MM that accused made me a call in the intervening night of 11/12.06.08 and threatened and asked me to bring Rs.20,000/- from my house and to meet him in the Park near GTB hospital. It is correct that I had got mentioned in my statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. PC that I had taken Rs.15,000/- from my house and handed over the said amount tot he accused. It is also correct that I had stated before ld. MM that accused firstly took me at Panipat by a train. It is correct that from Panipat I made a call to my parents at my house and in the meanwhile accused came and he snatched phone from me and brought me Delhi on next day. I had not got mentioned the fact about going to Bombay with the accused in my statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. PC. I have forgotten this fact while deposing before ld. MM.
Xxxxby the counsel Mrs. Tanuja Bose - amicus curiae for accused.
It is correct that accused used to talk with me prior to FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 5 / 21 incident but there was no friendship with him. It is wrong to suggest that I did not carry away Rs.20,000/- from my house. It is wrong to suggest that I took Rs.20,000/- from my house at my own with the intention to marry with the accused as I was in love with him. On 12.06.08 we left for Bombay by a train at around 11a.m. and reached Bombay at around 12 noon on next day. We did not stay there in any hotel. Accused returned Rs.15,000/- to me in the police chowki before the police. Said amount was handed over to the police by me and police handed over the said amount to my parents after taking from me. Accused did not commit any wrongful act with me. It is wrong to suggest that I accompanied the accused with my consent. It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. I did not raise any alarm in the train or anywhere when accused was taking me to Bombay. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of my parents."
8. Having perused the testimony of most material witness PW1 Neetu, I found it full of contradictions. She has deposed that on 12.06.08 it was around 10 a.m., she was going to the market to purchase some articles where accused met her on the way of Harsh Bazar. Accused asked her to arrange R.20,000/- from her house. She took out Rs.20,000/- from the Almirah of her house and handed over the said amount to the accused. Thereafter, accused took her in a TSR at New Delhi railway station than Bombay in a train and thereafter on the same day they again boarded the train for Delhi. They reached Delhi at around 11.30 a.m. Further perusal of her testimony reveals that she has been got declared hostile by ld. APP and in the cross- examination she admitted that in statement mark X given u/s 161 Cr. FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 6 / 21 PC dt. 16.06.08 she told to police that accused asked her to accompany him to Bombay and when she refused to accompany him he told her that he would marry her. She denied the suggestion that accused wanted to do some wrongful act with her. She again admitted that she got mentioned in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC before ld. MM that accused made her a call in the intervening night of 11/12.06.08 and giving threat asked her to bring Rs.20,000/- from her house and to meet him in the Park near GTB hospital. It has also come on record that she admitted that accused firstly took her at Panipat by a train. In the cross-examination done by ld. counsel Mrs. Tanuja Bose - amicus curiae, it has also come on record that she denied the suggestion that she took Rs.20,000/- from her house at her own with the intention to marry with the accused as she was in love with him. On 12.06.08 they left for Bombay by a train at around 11a.m. and reached Bombay at around 12 noon on next day. They did not stay there in any hotel. Accused returned Rs.15,000/- to her in the police chowki before the police. Accused did not commit any wrongful act with her. It has also come on record that she did not raise any alarm in the train or anywhere when accused was taking her to Bombay. Thus, testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence.
FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 7 / 21
9. PW2 HC Ramesh Chander appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 14.06.2008 he was posted as HC in chowki Harsh Vihar, Police Station Nand Nagri. He was present in the Police Station. One Mangal Pandey s/o Shivji Rai came in the Police Station and made a statement regarding missing of his daughter from house since 12.6.2008 and he was having suspicion upon one Irfan s/o Kasim. Accordingly, he recorded his statement and made endorsement on the same for registration of FIR u/s 363 IPC. This witness proved the endorsement vide Ex.PW2/A which bears his signatures at point A. The investigation of the present case was handed over to ASI Rakesh Tyagi on the directions of SHO Police Station Nand Nagri. Thereafter, he accompanied ASI Rakesh Tyagi to the house of accused Irfan situated in Sunder Nagri area where accused was not found available there. This witness has been cross-examined. I have perused the same and found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
10.PW3 Mangal Pandey, complainant appeared in the witness box and deposed that he is doing the work of book binding at her house. He FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 8 / 21 is having four children. He deposed that Neetu (prosecutrix) is eldest child and she was around 16 and half years old at the time of incident. She was studying in the 7th standard at the time of incident in Hindon Public School situated in Harsh Vihar. This witness further deposed that on that day he had gone to his shop around 7:30 a.m. Around 1:00 p.m. He was informed by his younger daughter Jyoti that Neetu had left for market and she did not return back. He immediately reached his house and tried to search his daughter in the locality as well as in relations but she could not be found. On the next day he went to Police Station and lodged a report with the police vide Ex.PW3/A bears his signatures at point A. He got suspicion upon accused Irfan as he used to work earlier with him and he was also not at his house. This witness further deposed that after three days of incident accused himself appeared in the police chowki along with prosecutrix. He was informed by the police in this regard. After passing of order from the court, the custody of his daughter was handed over to him. His daughter went outside of house on 12.6.2008 on the pretext of going to the market. This witness has been cross-examined by defence counsel Ms. Tanuja Bose, Amicus Cuarie. In the cross-examination it has come on record that accused had worked at his shop about three years ago from the date of FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 9 / 21 incident. It has also come on record in the cross-examination that he had not given any date of birth certificate issued from the MCD to the police. On the next breath he deposed that he had only handed over copy of Janampatri to the police. It has also come on record that his daughter Neetu had failed in the examination twice i.e. when she was studying in the 7th standard. Accused did not visit his house after leaving his job. It has also come on record in the cross-examination that he was residing in the Jhuggis of Sunder Nagri and accused was residing adjoining his Jhuggi. He was residing in his own Jhuggi. Accused used to talk with his daughter. He scolded him several times. He has also given beatings to Neetu on this account. He denied the suggestion that his daughter had taken away Rs.15,000/- from his house at the time of leaving the house.
11.PW4 Suchitra came to the witness box and deposed more or less similar facts as deposed by PW3 Mangal Pandey in his statement. She has also been cross-examined by defence counsel Ms. Tanuja Bose, Amicus Cuarie for accused Irfan. In the cross-examination it has come on record that She does not know the year of date of birth of prosecutrix. In the cross-examination she deposed that her daughter had taken Rs.15,000/- when she had left the house. She FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 10 / 21 denied the suggestion that accused had returned Rs.15,000/- to her daughter Neetu in the presence of police to her husband.
12.PW5 Munni Devi is a formal witness. She appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 17.6.2008 she was posted as Ct. at Police Station Nand Nagri. She joined the investigation with ASI Rakesh Tyagi. She accompanied the I.O. as well as prosecutrix Neetu to GTB Hospital for her medical examination but prosecutrix refused to undergo her medical examination. However, MLC of prosecutrix was prepared. She further deposed that prosecutrix was brought in the court and from there she was sent to Nirmal Chhaya. She further deposed that prosecutrix was left at Nirmal Chhaya as per court direction. This witness has been cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. No material contradiction has come on record in her statement.
13.PW6 ASI Rakesh Tyagi, I.O. of the present case. He came to the witness box and deposed that on 14.06.08 he received FIR of the present case from duty officer for conducting investigation of the present case. Thereafter, he along with HC Ramesh and FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 11 / 21 complainant Mangal Pandey went to the spot i.e. house no. D-777, Gali no.20, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. I.O. made investigation in the locality about the prosecutrix Neetu but no clue was found. The complainant was having suspicion upon accused Irfan. So, the police team and complainant visited the house of accused in Sunder Nagari and house of accused was found locked. On the next day IO flashed message to all Deputy Commissioners of Police and Senior Superintendents of Police of India. The photograph of prosecutrix mark Z was sent to T V Channel and to the Missing Persons Squad. Further, perusal of his testimony reveals that on 16.06.08 accused as well as prosecutrix appeared in the Police Station themselves. I.O. called the parents of prosecutrix and recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr. P C. I.O. has also prepared recovery memo of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW1/B. Accused was put in the lock up and prosecutrix was kept in the police station in the custody of lady Ct. as well as her mother. On the next day accused as well as prosecutrix were got medically examined. Prosecutrix refused to undergo for her internal medical examination. Accused was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and his personal search memo Ex.PW6/C was also prepared. Accused was sent to JC when he was produced in the court. Prosecutrix was sent to Nirmal Chhaya for one day. On FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 12 / 21 18.06.08 prosecutrix was again produced in the court and her statement u/s 164 Cr. PC was got recorded vide photocopy of the same mark Z1. I.O. collected photocopy of her date of birth certificate issued by MCD and same was verified by him from MCD Office and it was found correct vide Certificate Ex.PW6/D. As per the certificate date of birth of prosecutrix was 29.11.91 and she was found minor at the time of incident which had occurred on 14.06.08. The sealed pulandas of accused were not sent to FSL Office since prosecutrix did not get her internal medically examined. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence counsel. I have perused the same. I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
14.PW7 Dr. Bhawna Aggarwal, Sr. Resident, GTB Hospital, appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 17.06.08 he was working as Sr. Resident in GTB hospital, Delhi. On that day one lady Ct. Munni brought prosecutrix Neetu d/o Mangal Pandey age- 16 years old for her medical examination with the alleged history of running away from her house. He proved her MLC vide Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that patient refused to get her medically examined internally. This witness has not been cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 13 / 21
15.PW8 Ct. Satyender Kumar deposed that on 16.06.2008 he was posted as Ct. at PP Harsh Vihar, Police Station Nand Nagari. He further deposed that on that day accused Irfan along with prosecutrix Neetu came in the PP Harsh Vihar in the evening time. This witness proved the arrest memo of accused vide Ex.PW6/B and Personal Search Memo vide Ex.PW6/C which were prepared in his presence. He further deposed that on 17.06.2008 accused was taken out from the Police lock up and got medically examined from GTB Hospital and after medical examination, accused was produced in the court and sent to JC. This witness has been cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. No material contradiction has come on record which can go to the root of this case.
16.PW9 ASI Sumitra, is a formal witness being duty officer. She came in the court and got exhibited the computerized copy of the present case FIR vide Ex.PW9/A which was recorded by her on the basis of rukka received from HC Ramesh Chand. She further deposed that investigation was handed over to ASI Rakesh Tyagi. This witness has been cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. No contradiction has come on record which can suggest that this witness is false one. FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 14 / 21
17.PW10 Sh. Ravinder Singh, the then Ld. MM appeared in the witness box and proved the statement of prosecutrix recorded by him u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW1/A on 18.06.2008. He also proved application received from IO to supply the copy of the statement vide Ex.PW10/A. He has also proved the application which he received from link MM vide Ex.Pw10/B. This witness has not been cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
18.Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded in which the defence of the accused was of denial in simplicitor. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. Though, accused has denied all the allegations.
19.Arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP for the state submitted that the prosecutrix at the time of kidnapping was 16 years old as revealed by her father complainant. He again argued and submitted that the prosecutrix herself has deposed in her statement that she was taken away by accused under threat. In this regard, the statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded by the then Ld. MM vide dated 18.06.08 Ex.PW1/A. On these grounds, he FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 15 / 21 has prayed the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts against accused for the offence u/s 363/366 IPC.
20.Per contra, Ld. counsel Ms. Tanuja Bose, Amicus Curiae for accused argued at length and submitted that the prosecutrix was major at the time of leaving her house with accused. She further argued that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. no where has inculcated the accused for the offences. She again submitted that prosecutrix PW1 has been got declared hostile by ld. APP and no allegation regarding compel to marry has come on record. She further deposed that there are so many contradictions in the testimony of prosecutrix itself since she has failed to establish that if she has left the house with accused as to where she firstly went Panipat or Bombay. Besides, in the testimony of other witnesses there are also so many contradictions since PW3 Mangal Pandey deposed that he had not given any date of birth certificate issued from the MCD to the police. On the next breath he deposed that he had only handed over copy of Janampatri to the police. Furthermore, PW3 Mangal Pandey has denied the suggestion that his daughter had taken away Rs.15,000/- from his house at the time of leaving the house while PW 4 Suchitra - mother of prosecutrix stated in the FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 16 / 21 cross-examination that her daughter had taken Rs.15,000/- when she had left the house. On these grounds ld. counsel for accused submitted that story of the prosecution is full of suspicion as there are major contradictions in the testimonies of all material witnesses. She prayed that accused may be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
21.The relevant sections with regard to the kidnapping from lawful guardianship are 361 IPC, 363 and 366 IPC and for the sake of convenience sections are reproduced as under :-
Section 361 IPC:-
" Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male,or under eighteen 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."
Section 363 IPC:-
" Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from 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."
Sec. 366 IPC " Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc - Whoever, kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 17 / 21 punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid."
22.It has been defined in section 361 IPC that whoever takes or entices any minor under (18) years of age if a female, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. In a judgment titled as 'Prakash Vs State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 227: (2004) 1 SCC 339' it has been observed that:
" The object of this section seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards"
23.Having this state of affairs, let the case be considered in view the some Apex court decisions. In 'Brij Mohan Vs State' it has been observed that:
" 4. It is a matter of common knowledge that the age given at the time of admission of children to school in quit a large number of cases did not use to be correct and precise. The parents or guardian used to give these dates by approximation. There FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 18 / 21 has also been tendency to give the ages of the child on lower side if the child had already become of an age higher that that as was the upper limit for admission to the first primary class of the school. This tendency....................prosecutrix appears to belong. It is a settled law that in the absence of cogent evidence such as of birth entry, the determination of age scientifically i.e. by ossification test should be preferred to other evidence...........Therefore, most of the schools now insist on having an entry from the birth register in support of the age of the child. .................. According to him the prosecutrix had completed 16 years of age but had not completed 18 years as on October 5, 1984, the date on which he took the ......... of the prosecutrix. Thus, according to this evidence the prosecutrix may just be marginally below 18 years of age. Now, it is also settled law that the determination of age on ossification test is not quite accurate and there may be a margin of about 1-1/2 to 2 years on either side. It is also a settled law that the benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of accused in the matter of determination of age of the prosecutrix on such medical evidence................... It is accordingly hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 16 years or even below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence."
22.In the present case no ossification test has been got conducted by the I.O. The duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove the case u/s 363 Cr.P.C. with regard to determination of age of the victim. In the present case a certificate was got exhibited by the prosecution through PW6 ASI Rakesh Tyagi vide Ex.PW6/D but the production of this certificate to the IO has been denied by PW3 Mangal Pandey who is father of prosecutrix. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the age of prosecutrix below 18 years. Besides there are so many FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 19 / 21 major contradictions. In case of Jaskaran Singh Vs State 1997 SCC (Crl) 651 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words:-
" When the evidence of first informant is found to be full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements, he cannot be held to be a truthful witness" .
The observations made in the aforesaid case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are exfacie indicative of the fact that when contradictions are major these affect the root of the case and leave an impression of untruthfulness of the witnesses. In the case in hand after going through the whole case file and testimonies of material witnesses I found some major contradictions which go to the root of this case such as prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. no where has inculcated the accused for the offence u/s 366 IPC. Further, prosecutrix i.e. PW1 has been got declared hostile by ld. APP and no allegation regarding compelling her for marry by accused has come on record. Moreover, prosecutrix has failed to depose that as to where she firstly went Panipat or Bombay with accused. Besides, in the testimony of other witnesses there are also so many contradictions since PW3 Mangal Pandey deposed that he had not given any date of birth certificate issued from the MCD to the FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 20 / 21 police. Then, question arises as to how police obtained birth certificate of prosecutrix. On the next breath he deposed that he had only handed over copy of Janampatri to the police. PW3 Mangal Pandey also denied the suggestion that his daughter had taken away Rs.15,000/- from his house at the time of leaving the house while PW 4 Suchitra - mother of prosecutrix stated in the cross-examination that her daughter had taken Rs.15,000/- when she had left the house.
Further, prosecutrix appears to be of mature understanding as she was above the age of 16 years old at the time of incident.
Accordingly, I acquit accused Irfan for the offences u/s 363/ 366 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21.07.2010 ( RAJ KAPOOR) ASJ/NE-1/ KKD/DELHI FIR no.286/08 U/s 363/ 366 IPC 21 / 21