Delhi District Court
The State vs Angad Kumar S/O Musafir Singh on 21 July, 2014
D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011
P.S Alipur
u/s 363/366 A IPC.
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL:
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE -5 (NORTH),
ROHINI , DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. : 47/14
UID NO . : 02404R0228602012
FIR no : 317/2011
P. S : Alipur
u/s 363/366 A IPC.
The State versus Angad Kumar s/o Musafir Singh
R/O Flat J 340 Pkt -1, Sector 6 , DDA
Flat, Narela , Delhi .
Date of committal to session court : 30.08.2012
Date of argument : 21.07.2014
Date of order : 21.07.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case, as per the story of the prosecution are that on 15.9.2011, Sh Ram Pandey made a complaint to the police that his daughter 'A'( identity witheld ) had gone for her tuition classes of computer at about 3:00 pm but she did not return to the house till 5:00 pm and he raised suspicion that someone had taken his daughter. On the basis of said complaint, present FIR was registered initially u/s SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 1 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
363 IPC .
2. According to the prosecution accused Angad was working in a factory at Kundli where mother of the prosecutrix 'A' Ms Mantura Devi was also working . Accused Angad was on visiting terms with complainant at her house. It is alleged that the on 14.9.2011, accused Angad kidnapped the prosecutrix 'A' from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent. During the investigation section 366 A IPC was added.
3. On 2.3.2012, accused Angad surrendered before the ld MM, Rohini Court. He was interrogated. Accused disclosed that prosecutrix 'A' is in the court premises and he can call her in the court. It is alleged that prosecutrix 'A' was recovered from his possession. Since the girl was minor, therefore, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Prosecutrix 'A' was taken for medical examination where she refused for any kind of medical examination. Statement of the 'A' was got SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 2 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
recorded before ld MM u/s 164 CrPC. After completion of investigation , accused was chargesheeted for offences u/s 363/366 A IPC.
4. Vide order dated 01.08.2012, Ld MM took the cognizance of the offences and subsequently, since the offence u/s 366 A IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, therefore, vide order dated 30.8.2012 , case was committed to the court of sessions.
5. Vide order dated 20.09.2012. Ld Predecessor of this court decided the charges and accordingly, charges for the offences u/s 363/366 A IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses.
7. PW1 Mantura Devi is the mother of the victim who deposed that earlier she was working in a SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 3 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
steel factory where accused Angad was also working. He get issued a PAN Card to her and her husband. Thereafter, accused used to visit his house. She asked him not to visit her house as her husband used to remain outside but accused did not listen to her. She further deposed that sometime she listened accused Angad talking with her daughter on phone in the night hours. She further deposed that on 14.9.2011, her daughter 'A' returned from school and thereafter, she went for her tuition classes of computer and then she never returned. Accused Angad had kidnapped her daughter. Her husband lodged a complaint on 15.9.2011.
8. PW2 Sh Ram Pandey is the father of the girl 'A' who lodged the complaint alleging that on 14.9.2011, his daughter had gone for computer classes at about 3:00 pm and she did not return to the house till 5:00 pm. Thereafter, on the next day he lodged the FIR ExPW2/A stating that someone had taken his daughter. Later on inquiry being made by him and his wife, they came to know that accused SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 4 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
Angad had kidnapped his daughter by alluring her. PW2 further deposed that he told this fact to the police and handed over the birth certificate of his daughter 'A' to the police according to which date of birth of girl 'A' is 3.10.1995. PW2 was cross examined by the accused.
9. PW3 'A' is the victim. She deposed that accused was known to her since 2- 2 ½ years as he was on visiting terms at their house in connection with LIC's of her parents. She was in love with accused Angad Kumar and wanted to marry with him. On 14.9.2011 , she had gone to her school and returned in afternoon. She further deposed that in the evening his father took her to the house of her maternal uncle, situated at Gurgaon, Haryana so that she and accused Angad Kumar may not meet each other. She was kept at the house of his maternal uncle till 4.2.2012. She further deposed that on 4.2.2012, she ran away from the house of her maternal uncle and made a telephone call to accused Angad Kumar. Accused Angad Kumar came SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 5 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
to Gurgaon and met her and thereafter she proposed to him to marry her and he agreed to her proposal.
10. PW3 prosecutrix 'A' further deposed that on 5.2.2012, she and accused Angad got married. She was not enticed by accused Angad Kumar and she performed marriage with accused Angad Kumar out of her sweet will . Thereafter she started living with accused Angad Kumar at his house as his wife . Police recorded her statement and her statement was also recorded before the ld MM . PW3 was resiling from her previous statement therefore she was cross examined by the then ld Additional PP for state.
11. PW4 Sh Shailender Singh , Physical Education Teacher,Govt Co-Education Sr. Sec School, Singhu Delhi brought the admission and withdrawal register maintained by the school and deposed that as per the record, date of birth of prosecutrix 'A' is 3.10.1995 and photocopy of the record is ExPW4/A. He deposed that as per the record ExPW4/B SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 6 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
( admission form), at the time of admission , father of the prosecutrix 'A' had also submitted the marksheet of class X of CBSE and as per the same also her date of birth is 3.10.1995. PW 4 was not cross examined by the accused.
12. PW 5 Ct. Sonia deposed that on 2.3.2012, IO S.I Ravinder recorded statement of girl 'A' in her presence and her mother Mantura Devi(PW1) was also present at that time. From PS she alongwith IO, prosecutrix 'A' and her mother Mantura Devi(PW1) reached at SRHC Hospital for medical examination of prosecutrix 'A' . Prosecutrix 'A' refused to get herself medically examined. On 3.3.2012 , IO got recorded the statement u/s 164 CrPC of prosecutrix 'A' . PW5 was also not cross examined by the accused.
13. PW6 Ct. Udaibhan is the witness in whose presence accused Angad was got medically examined at SRHC hospital and in his presence the sample which were handed over by the doctor to the IO, were seized by the IO vide seizure memo ExPW6/A. SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 7 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
14. PW7 WHC Usha Rani is the duty officer who proved the registration of FIR ExPW2/A. She also proved DD no.14 A ExPW7/A.
15. PW8 Pandit Rajan Prasad is the witness who on 5.2.2012, acted as priest in Sewak Mandal , Arya Samaj Mandir situated at A-70, Kolkata Gate, Jamna Bazar, Delhi and performed the marriage of accused Angad Kumar with prosecutrix 'A'. He brought the marriage register containing the marriage record of the accused with prosecutrix 'A' and proved the copy of same as ExPW8/A. He deposed that certificate of marriage dated 5.2.2012 MR. NO. 36/2012 was issued to both of them and the said certificate is ExPW8/B. At the time of marriage a separate affidavit of prosecutrix 'A' ExPW8/G regarding her age on which accused also had put his thumb impression, was also submitted by the prosecutrix 'A'.
16. PW9 Dr. Avdesh Kumar Bhagat , Medical officer, on 2.3.2012 examined accused Angad Kumar SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 8 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
and prepared his MLC ExPW9/A . He also conducted general examination of prosecutrix 'A' and prepared MLC ExPW9/B and thereafter prosecutrix 'A' was referred to S.R Gynae.
17. PW10 S.I Ravinder is the IO of the case . He deposed that that on 15.9.2011 , after registration of aforesaid FIR , DD no.14 A ExPW7/A was marked to him for investigation and on that day accused Angad alongwith Krishan brother of Aarti and Sh Ram Pandey (PW2) father of Aarti also met him. He further deposed that he made the efforts to trace the victim girl 'A' and during searches accused Angad also accompanied him. During investigation from the analysis of call details of mobile number 8860563182 and 9873745583 ( belonging to accused Angad ) a suspicion was raised upon him .
18. PW10 IO S.I Ravinder further deposed that on 8.2.2012, Manturo Devi ( PW1) mother of the prosecutrix 'A' had seen prosecutrix 'A' on the motorcyle alongwith accused. During investigation , SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 9 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
it was revealed that accused was residing at DDA flat ,Pocket 6 Narela , Delhi. On visiting, the said flat was found locked but it was having the name plate mentioning therein 'LIC Agent'. On 2.3.2012, accused Angad moved an application ExPW10/E for surrender before the ld MM in Rohini Court. PW10 further deposed that he moved the application ExPW10/F for PC Remand and accused was arrested vide arrest memo ExPW10/G, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex PW10/H and his disclosure statement ExPW10/J was recorded. Victim 'A'(PW3) was recovered from the possession of the accused Angad vide recovery memo ExPW10/K. PW10 IO S.I Ravinder is shown to have carried out further routine investigation. He was cross examined by the ld counsel for the accused.
19. PW11 Dr. Hema proved the emdorsment of Dr. Sameer on MLC ( ExPW9/B) of prosecutrix 'A'.
20. PW12 Mithalal Meena , Assitant Public Health Inspector (APHI) , Health Department, NDMC, SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 10 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
Narela, Delhi proved the birth certificate of prosecutrix'A' as ExPW12/A.
21. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded. During the statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused denied all the allegations made against him. He opted to lead evidence in his defence but no witness was examined despite opportunity.
22. I have heard the ld Chief Prosecutor and the accused. I have also perused the record very carefully.
23. Accused Angad Kumar is facing trial for the offence u/s 363 and 366 A IPC. As far as section 366 A IPC is concerned, the same is not applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the present case.
24. In order to attract Section 366A IPC, essential ingredients are (1) that the accused induced a SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 11 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
girl; (2) that the person induced was a girl under the age of eighteen years; (3) that the accused has induced her with intent that she may be or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; (4) such intercourse must be with a person other than the accused; (5) that the inducement caused the girl to go from any place or to do any act.
25. In the instant case, it has come on the record that prosecutrix 'A' was not forced to sexual intercourse. None of the prosecution witness has deposed so . There is no evidence at all in this regard. Since the essential ingredient that the intercourse must be with a person other than the accused has not been established, Section 366A has no application(Iqbal vs state of Kerala AIR 2008 SC 288 ).
26. Now we advert to the section 363 IPC.
27. Section 361 , IPC reads :
"361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. - 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 SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 12 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
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.
Explanation. - The words 'lawful guardian' in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care of custody of such minor or other person.
Exception- This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose."
28. 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. The gravamen of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the ages 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 the lawful guardian of such minor" in Section 361, are significant. The use of the word "Keeping" in the context connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control; further SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 13 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
the guardian's charge and control appears to be compatible with the independence of action and movement in the minor, the guardian's protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity arises.
29. On plain reading of this section the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial . It is only the guardian's consent which takes the case out of its purview. Nor is it necessary that the taking or 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.
30. Thus the essential ingredients of the offence are taking or enticing any minor 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. The words SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 14 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
taking or enticing have been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to mean "to cause to go", "to escort" or "to get into possession" in Thakorlal D. Vadgama Vs. The State of Gujarat (1973) 2 SCC
413. Thus, taking away would not only include moving forward or backward but also taking into possession the physical body of the minor or person of unsound mind.
31. As per the story of the prosecution, on 14.9.2011 prosecutrix 'A' was aged about 16 years and she was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent. Initially, PW2 Sh Ram Pandey had made the complaint ExPW7/A to the police stating that his daughter prosecutrix 'A' aged about 16 years old, who is studying in school is missing and he raised suspicion that somebody had kidnapped her. The said information was given on 15.9.2011 which was initially recorded vide DD no.14 A.
32. PW2 Sh Ram Pandey appeared in the SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 15 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
witness box and he deposed that on 14.9.2011 his daughter 'A' had gone for computer tuition classes at around 3:00 pm but she did not return to her house till 5:00 pm usually when she used to return from the tuition. He made search and on the next day he lodged the aforesaid complaint. He further deposed that on enquiry being made by him and his wife, he came to know that accused Angad has kidnapped his daughter 'A' by alluring her.
33. PW1 Mantura Devi , who is the wife of PW2 Shri Ram Pandey and mother of the prosecutrix 'A'(PW3) also deposed that on 14.9.2011 her daughter prosecutrix 'A' did not return from the tuition classes. They made search and the complaint was lodged on 15.9.2011.
34. If PW1 and PW2 are to be believed then the prosecutrix 'A' went missing on 14.9.2011 and information in this regard was lodged in the form of DD no.14 A to the police station. But prosecutrix 'A' has testified contrary to the version given by her SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 16 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
parents. She was examined as PW3. She deposed that she was in love with the accused Angad Kumar and wanted to marry him and these facts came to the knowledge of her parents . She further deposed that on 14.9.2011, she had gone to her school and returned in afternoon. In the evening her father took her to the house of her maternal uncle situated at Gurgaon, Haryana so that she and accused Angad Kumar could not meet each other.
35. Prosecutrix 'A' PW3 further deposed that she was kept at the house of her maternal uncle till 4.2.2012. On 4.2.2012, she ran way from the house of her maternal uncle and made a telephonic call to accused Angad Kumar. Accused Angad Kumar came to Gurgaon and met her and thereafter, she proposed him to marry her and accused agreed to her proposal. PW3 further deposed that on 5.2.2012, she and accused Angad got married.
36. Prosecutrix 'A' was resiling from her previous statement, therefore, she was cross SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 17 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
examined by then ld Additional PP for state. During her cross examination by ld APP for state she denied that she wanted to save accused Angad. Not even a suggestion was put to this witness that she was not residing at the house of her uncle at Gurgaon till 4.2.2012 and she had not run away from there on 4.2.2012. The testimony of PW3 prosecutrix 'A' , pertaining to her staying at Gurgaon till 4.2.2012 had gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
37. Further, it is also not in dispute that accused and prosecutrix 'A' got married on 5.2.2012, which support the version of prosecutrix that she ran away on 4.2.2012. Pandit Rajan Prasad who acted as priest in the marriage of prosecutrix 'A' and accused Angad was examined as PW8. He deposed that on 5.2.2012, he had performed marriage of accused Angad and prosecutrix 'A' at Arya Samaj Mandir , Jamuna Bazar , Delhi and the said marriage was witnessed by one Love Kush s/o Bhaswan Patel and Surender S/o Kailashar . He further deposed that said marriage was duly entered into the SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 18 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
register ExPW8/A in the said Mandir, the certificate of marriage dated 5.2.2012 is ExPW8/B , affidavit of Aarti (PW3) is ExPW8/C, affidavit of accused Angad is ExPW8/D . He further deposed that accused Angad gave an application ExPW8/E and application of prosecutrix 'A' is ExPW8/F which they had given to Arya Samaj Mandir to perform the marriage. At the time of marriage prosecutrix 'A' also submitted an affidavit ExPW8/G regarding her age on which accused also had put his thumb impression. PW8 has not been cross examined by the accused.
38. Now, we have two sets of version regarding the date of incident. As per the testimony of PW1 Mantura Devi and PW2 Shri Ram Pandey, who are parents of prosecutrix 'A', incident took place on 14.9.2011 but according to the prosecutrix 'A' (PW3) who is the victim of the present case, incident took place on 4.2.2012. Further, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of prosecutrix 'A' herself who is the eye witness of the incident. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW1 and PW2 had SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 19 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
seen the accused taking away the prosecutrix 'A' with him on 14.9.2011 . Though it has come on record that missing report was lodged on 15.9.2011 but in the background of the testimony of prosecutrix 'A' herself it would be presumed that incident took place on 4.2.2012.
39. Now, it is to be seen as to what was the age of the prosecutrix 'A' on the date of incident i.e 4.2.2012. Mother of the prosecutrix 'A' Mantura Devi (PW1) deposed that date of birth of her daughter 'A' is 3.10.1995. Similarly, PW2 Shri Ram Pandey also deposed that date of birth of his daughter is 3.10.1995. PW1 Mantura Devi during her cross examination categorically stated that prosecutrix 'A' was admitted in Govt School, Singhu Village and she studied there till 5th class and after that she was admitted in Senior Secondary School, Singhu Village and at that time she was pursuing in 11th standard.
40. Prosecution has also examined one Shailender Singh Physical Education Teacher from SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 20 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
Govt Co-Education Sr. Sec School, Singhu , Delhi as PW4 who brought the admission and withdrawal register maintained by the school pertaining to the prosecutrix 'A' and deposed that as per their record date of birth of prosecutrix 'A' is 3.10.1995 and photocopy of the record is ExPW4/A. He further deposed that he has also brought the admission form and the copy of the same is ExPW4/B and at the time of admission, father of the prosecutrix 'A' had also submitted the marksheet of class X of CBSE and as per the said certificate also her date of birth is 3.10.1995. PW4 also proved the certificate issued by the vice principal of their school as ExPW4/D. PW 4 has not been cross examined by the accused despite opportunity .
41. Meaning thereby accused has not disputed the record maintained and produced by school authorities. As per school record dated of birth of the prosecutrix 'A ' is 3.10.1995. That being so, there is nothing on record to discard the said records. It has also come on record that school authorities recorded SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 21 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
the date of birth of the prosecutrix 'A' on the basis of marksheet of class 10th issued by CBSE . At that time there was no occasion for the parents of the prosecutrix 'A' to got recorded the wrong date of birth in the school record. Therefore, it stands established that date of birth of the prosecutrix 'A' was 3.10.1995 which is further supported by the record of the MCD.
42. PW12 Mithalal Meena Assitant Public Health Inspector Health Department, NDMC, Narela produced the record pertaining to the birth certificate of prosecutrix 'A' alongwith the birth register. He proved the certified copy of the said birth certificate as ExPW12/A. He also proved the relevant entry regarding registration of birth at serial. no.868 dated 28.12.1995 as ExPW12/B. Said documents are lying on record. As per ExPW12/A , date of birth of prosecutrix 'A' is 3.10.1995. PW12 was cross examined by the accused. Even during his cross examination, he replied that whatever information was given by the informant at the time SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 22 of 24 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011 P.S Alipur u/s 363/366 A IPC.
of registration of birth, information was reduced into writing in the birth record register at serial no.868 dated 28.12.1995.
43. From the testimonies of PW1 Mantura Devi, PW2 Shri Ram Pandey, PW4 Shailender Singh and PW12 Sh Mithalal Meena, it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that date of birth of prosecutrix 'A' is 3.10.1995. The incident took place on 4.2.2012. That being so, prosecutrix 'A' was minor on the date of incident .
44. It is not in dispute that accused had taken away prosecutrix 'A' with him. The only objection which accused appears to have taken is that 'A' had gone with him with her consent. Even if she had given consent to marry accused, there was no occassion for the accused to take her with him knowingly well that she is minor. It has come on the record that accused was a frequent visitor to the house of prosecutrix 'A' on one pretext or other. He was asked not to visit there but he did not listen.
SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 23 of 24 )
D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 317/2011
P.S Alipur
u/s 363/366 A IPC.
From the testimony of prosecution witnesses
particularly PW1 and PW2, who are the parents of the prosecutrix 'A', there is no difficulty in saying that it was the persuasion by the accused which created willingness on the part of the prosecutrix 'A' to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship of her parents. In such type of cases when a girl of aged below 18 years was taken or enticed then the consent of such minor is immaterial. Accordingly, the ingredients of section 363 IPC stands proved.
45. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused in respect of offence u/s 363 IPC but failed to prove the case for the offence u/s 366 A IPC. Accordingly, accused Angad Kumar stands acquitted for offence u/s 366 A IPC but stands convicted for offence u/s 363 IPC.
Announced in the open (Rajesh Kumar Goel) Court today i.e 21.7.2014 ASJ-5, North Rohini Court SC No. 47/14 State vs Angad Kumar (Page 24 of 24 )