Delhi District Court
State vs . Md. Shakeel. on 20 March, 2008
IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG: ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: KKD: DELHI
SC No. 726/07
FIR No. 219/05
PS Bhajan Pura
U/s. 363/376 IPC
State vs. Md. Shakeel.
State
Vs.
1. Md. Shakeel S/o Md. Akhtar
R/o. D-269, Gali No.4,
Noor Ilahi, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused has been put to trial on the allegations that on 14/06/05 within the jurisdiction of PS. Bhajan Pura, accused kidnapped the prosecutrix (name withheld) aged about 14½ years out of keeping of her lawful guardianship, which kidnapping was done with a view to marry her or to have illegal intercourse with her and thereby accused committed offence punishable U/s. 363/366 IPC. It is also the case of the prosecution that prosecutrix was subjected to rape and thereby accused committed offence punishable U/s. 376 IPC.
2. After committal charge was framed against the accused under section 363/366/376 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In this case report with regard to prosecutrix and her father, who are the only material witness forthcoming was that prosecutrix is not residing at the given address. She was living as a tenant at the given address. Efforts were made to procure her attendance through IO as well and despite best efforts made by the IO, he could not produce the prosecutrix before the court and stated that he cannot produce her in near future as he was not aware of her present whereabouts. As per IO even efforts were made to trace out the prosecutrix at her village address in Bihar but without any success. Statement of IO was recorded accordingly and he proved the report of SHO in this regard as PW1/A and his own report as PW1/B.
4. Under these circumstances, when there is no likelihood of appearance of the prosecutrix in near future, it was considered futile to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses as fate of the case would have remained the same as it is today even if, prosecution in future would have been able to bring home the testimony of the remaining witnesses on record unrebutted. As such, prosecution evidence was closed. There being no incriminating evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, connecting the accused with the crime his statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
5. I have heard the final arguments and gone through the case file. In view of the above, accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under section U/s. 363/366/376 IPC. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court ( REENA SINGH NAG)
Dt: 20.03.08 Addl. Sessions Judge,
KKD, Delhi