Delhi District Court
State vs Raju on 22 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
STATE VS. RAJU FIR No. :31/2015 U/s 363 IPC PS : BADARPUR A. CNR NO. : DLSE02-023181-2018 B. CIS No. of the Case : 4517/2018 C. Date of Institution : 26.07.2018 D. Date of Commission of : 09.01.2015 Offence E. Name of the complainant : Smt. Sushma Devi F. Name of the Accused : Raju S/o Late Sh. Karan Singh persons, his Parentage & R/o H.No. G-409, Gali No. 11, Addresses Mohan Baba Nagar, Badarpur, New Delhi & Vill: Mahrera, P.S. Bahargma, Distt. Etah, UP.
G. Offence complained of : U/s 363 IPC H. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial I. Order reserved on : Not reserved J. Final order : Acquittal K. Date of such order : 22.02.2025
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case:
1. The present FIR under Section 363 IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was registered on a complaint of Smt. Sushma Devi against accused Raju stating that on 09.01.2025 at about 8.00 PM at H.No. G-409, Gali No. 11, FIR No. :31/2015 Digitally signed by VIVEK STATE Vs. Raju PS : Badarpur VIVEK BENIWAL Pages 1 of 7 BENIWAL Date:
2025.02.27 16:48:28 +0530 Mohan Baba Nagar, Badarpur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, accused kidnapped a girl namely Seema aged 16 years daughter of the complainant namely Sushma Devi. Matter was reported to the police.
2. FIR was registered and matter was investigated by IO/SI Devender Singh who filed charge sheet against the accused upon which cognizance was taken on 05.11.2018,
3. Accused was summoned to appear before the Court after which he entered his appearance on 11.03.2019. Copy of charge sheet in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. was supplied to accused.
4. Charge was framed vide order dated 21.11.2024 for the offence punishable u/s 363 IPC against accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. As per the proceedings dated 17.02.2025, the Accused in his statement recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C. admitted the genuineness of FIR No. 31/15 P.S. Badarpur Ex.A1, Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C Ex.A2, age prove document of victim Ex.A3 and MLC No. 4883/2017 Ex.A4.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence.
7. The victim deposed as PW1. She stated in her testimony recorded in the Court that on 09.01.2025, she voluntarily went Digitally signed FIR No. :31/2015 by VIVEK STATE Vs. Raju PS : Badarpur VIVEK BENIWAL Pages 2 of 7 BENIWAL Date:
2025.02.27 16:48:36 +0530 out from her house with the accused as they both loved each other. Thereafter, she married with accused with her free will. Accused used to live in her home for many years and did not commit wrongful act with her. She further deposed that her mother filed a complaint against accused and thereafter police took her to Ld. M.M. Saket where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded.
8. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State. She denied the suggestion that on 09.01.2025 accused Raju kidnapped her forcefully and had enticed her. She further denied the suggestion that accused Raju forced her for the marriage. She further denied the suggestion that she deliberately concealed the true facts or made wrong statement as he had been won over by the accused. The witness was not cross examined by the Accused despite opportunity and discharged.
9. PW-2 Sh. Bhola stated in his testimony that on 09.01.2025 his sister Seema voluntarily went out from her home with the accused as they both loved each other and thereafter she married with the accused with her free will. He further deposed that accused used to live in his home for many years and he did not commit wrongful act.
10. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. He denied his statement Ex.PW2/1. He denied the suggestion that on 09.01.2025 at about 8.00 PM accused Raju kidnapped his sister forcefully and enticed her. He further denied the suggestion FIR No. :31/2015 STATE Vs. Raju Digitally PS : Badarpur signed by VIVEK Pages 3 of 7 VIVEK BENIWAL BENIWAL Date:
2025.02.27 16:48:46 +0530 that accused Raju forced her for the marriage. He further denied the suggestion that he was not identifying the Raju as accused as he was his brother in law. He further denied the suggestion that he deliberately concealed the true facts or made wrong statements as he had been won over by the accused.
11. As the most material witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2 had failed to support the case of the Prosecution and the complainant Smt. Sushma Devi stood dropped vide order dated 17.02.2025 on account of her demise, the Prosecution evidence stood as no purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses.
12. Accordingly, the Prosecution Evidence has been closed. Recording of the statement of the Accused Section 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as nothing incriminating had come on record. The Accused opted not to lead evidence in defence. The same was accordingly closed. Final Arguments have been heard. Record has been carefully perused.
13. PW1 and PW2 during their deposition have completely failed to support the case of the Prosecution, by having not identified the Accused as the person who had kidnapped the victim. Despite being confronted with the Accused for identification, the witness PW1 and PW2 denied the accused being the one who had kidnapped the victim.
14. It is trite law as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govind & Ors. v The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [ FIR No. :31/2015 Digitally signed by VIVEK STATE Vs. Raju BENIWAL PS : Badarpur VIVEK Date: Pages 4 of 7 BENIWAL 2025.02.27 16:48:55 +0530 104 (2003) DLT 510] that where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal trial to continue. It has been further held that 'it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts'. Clearly, as no person can be indicted for a crime, where his identity and complicity is also not established beyond any shadow of doubt, trial in such cases ought not to continue only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to defer the pronouncement upon conclusion for a future date. It also pertinent to note the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v Delhi Administration & Anr.(decided on 31.7.1996) as per which the time of the court should not be wasted merely for completion of procedure, where there is no chance of the trial culminating into a conviction.
15. The PW1 and PW2 have denied the Accused being the perpetrator, therefore, no purpose would have served by dragging feet, as the case of the Prosecution failed at the threshold.
16. In the case titled as S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed the distinction between 'taking' and allowing a minor to accompany a person and held that the two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourself from laying down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purpose of Section 361 IPC. We Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK BENIWAL FIR No. :31/2015 BENIWAL Date: STATE Vs. Raju PS : Badarpur 2025.02.27 16:49:04 Pages 5 of 7 +0530 would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily join the accused person. In such a case, we do not thing that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused persons or in active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of guardian'.
17. Perusal of testimony of PW Seema Singh and PW2 Bhola shows that both the witnesses have stated that victim Seema went out voluntarily from her home with the accused as they loved each other. Thereafter, both the victim and the accused got married to each other. During their cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, both the witnesses have stated that accused did not kidnap the victim forcefully and that accused never enticed the victim to leave her guardian care and protection. It is further admitted during cross examination that the date of birth which was mentioned in her Aadhar card was wrongly mentioned and that she was more than 18 years old on the day when she went out of her home to live along with the accused. The Court is not inclined to conduct an enquiry regarding the age of the victim girl as no useful purpose would be served. Even if it is presumed that the Aadhar card bears her correct date of birth, the Court is not oblivious of the fact that she had gone along with the accused Digitally signed by VIVEK BENIWAL FIR No. :31/2015 VIVEK Date: STATE Vs. Raju BENIWAL 2025.02.27 PS : Badarpur 16:49:13 +0530 Pages 6 of 7 out of the protection of her lawful guardian on her own free will. The statement of the victim nowhere shows that the accused had induced her to leave her parents protection and come along with him.
18. Thus, keeping in view the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the law laid down in S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras (supra), the court is of the opinion that essential ingredients of Section 361 IPC are not made out.
19. For the above discussed reasons, the Prosecution having failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts, against the Accused Raju, he is hereby acquitted for the offences reported.
20. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally
Dictated and announced VIVEK
signed by
VIVEK
BENIWAL
in the open Court on 22.02.2025 BENIWAL Date:
2025.02.27
16:49:21
+0530
(VIVEK BENIWAL)
ACJM (SOUTH EAST):
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
FIR No. :31/2015 STATE Vs. Raju
PS : Badarpur Pages 7 of 7