Delhi District Court
Sc No. 160/10 State vs Tilak Chand Page No. 1 Of 19 on 22 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE : SE01
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE ID No. 02406R0399472010
SESSIONS CASE NO. 160/10
FIR NO. 284/10
POLICE STATION SUNLIGHT COLONY
UNDER SECTION : 376/366/363 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
TILAK CHAND
S/O SHAHI CHAND
R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHANDANI, P.S. BANBASA,
DISTRICT CHAMPAWAT, UTTARAKHAND.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.11.2010
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 28.02.2013
DATE OF DECISION : 22.03.2013
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution:
1. On 05.08.2010 complainant Sh. Nazim Ali came to police station Sunlight Colony and lodged a complaint regarding kidnapping of her daughter namely 'X' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential). Statement of SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 1 of 19 complainant recorded at the police station. After recording his statement, case under Section 363 of IPC was registered. Prosecutrix was searched by the police. During the investigation of the case, on the basis of telephone calls on the mobile phone of complainant one unidentified number i.e. 9810526033 was traced. A call was made by the police on the aforesaid number and the receiver/person told them that prosecutrix is with him at his Village Chandni, Banbasa, Champawat, Uttarakhand. Complainant also had a talk with her daughter/prosecutrix as well as with the receiver/person. On 07.08.2010, the aforesaid boy/person left the prosecutrix near the gali of house of the complainant. Prosecutrix told her parents that accused Tilak Chand took her on the pretext of marriage with her and committed sexual intercourse upon her without her consent. Prosecutrix was got medically examined at AIIMS Hospital by the police and case under Section 366/376 of IPC was registered against the accused Tilak Chand. Accused was arrested from his native village and his disclosure statement was recorded. Medical examination of accused was also conducted at AIIMS Hospital by the police. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was got recorded by the police. Statement of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 376/363/ 366 of IPC was filed against the accused in the court.
2. Since the offence under Section 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, after supply of documents, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions.
SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 2 of 19
Charge against the accused:
3. Prima facie case under section 363/366/376 of IPC was made out against accused. Charge under Section 363/366/376 of IPC was framed upon the accused by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.12.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined:
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in all. The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
Material Witnesses:
5. PW2 is Sh. Nazim Ali, complainant of the case. He stated that on 04.08.2010 his daughter/prosecutrix aged about 15 years had gone to market to purchase a notebook from the shop but she did not return back home. He tried to search her but she could not be traced. Thereafter, he made a complaint in the police station Sunlight Colony regarding kidnapping of his daughter vide Ex.PW2/A. He stated that he had given his mobile phone number 9717784740 to the police and police traced the accused on the basis of his telephone calls. On 08.08.2010, his daughter returned home at about 10.30/11 am and disclosed that accused Tilak chand had taken her to R.K. Puram. Thereafter, next day he produced his daughter before the police at PP Sunlight colony. Police recorded her statement and took his daughter to AIIMS Hospital for her medical examination. Statement of her daughter was also recorded by the Magistrate.
On 08.08.2010, complainant called the accused to talk on the false pretext of marriage of his daughter with him and when accused came to his house, SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 3 of 19 complainant informed the police and accused Tilak Chand was arrested by the police. Police took him to police station. PW2 has correctly identified the accused in the court. He further stated that his daughter told him that accused had committed rape upon her in his village.
6. PW6 is prosecutrix herself. She stated that she was studying in 10th class at South Delhi Public School. She used to go by rickshaw and in the way accused Tilak Chand used to harass her. On 04.08.2010, at about 8/8.30 pm she was going to the shop to take her test copy when accused met her on the way and asked her to accompany him but she refused. Accused told her that her parents are standing at some distance and wanted to see and talk to her. Then accused took her to the house of his brother in law (Jija) at R.K. Puram and committed rape upon her. She cried but nobody came to rescue her. The next morning, accused gave her a glass of water and after that she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness she was told by someone that she is in the village of accused. Accused committed rape upon her there also and on her repeated request he got her connected to her father on phone. The accused also had conversation with her father and thereafter, accused brought her back to Delhi and left her near her house. She along with her father went to police station and her medical examination was conducted by the police. She further stated that accused had taken her to village Banbasa, Uttarakhand. On 08.08.2010 she was sitting at her house and accused was sitting in another room with the police. She told the police that accused is the same person who committed rape upon her. Her statement was recorded by the police in this regard and accused was arrested.
SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 4 of 19
7. PW11 is SI Rambir Singh, Investigating officer of the case who arrested the accused, got accused and prosecutrix medically examined and proved all the memos etc. in this regard.
Formal Witnesses:
8. PW3 is Sh. Devender Kumar Jangala, Metropolitan Magistrate who recorded the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and proved the same on record.
9. PW5 is Sh. B. S. Rana, Accounts officer from South Delhi Public School, Defence colony, New Delhi who brought the original admission form, birth certificate issued from the Registrar and the original admission and withdrawal register etc. of the prosecutrix and has duly proved on record Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/E in this regard.
10. PW7 is HC Lakhan Singh, Duty officer who recorded the FIR Ex.PW7/A and proved on record the endorsement on rukka Ex.PW7/B.
11. PW8 is Ct. Praveen who joined the investigation of the case along with the Investigating officer, arrested the accused, got the accused medically examined and proved on record all the memos in this regard.
12. PW9 is W/Ct. Sapna Yadav who joined the investigation of the case along with the Investigating officer, got the prosecutrix medically examined and has proved on record all the memos in this regard.
13. PW10 is Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited who brought the call details from 04.08.2010 to 08.08.2010 of mobile phone number 9810526033 and has duly proved on record memos Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C in this regard.
SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 5 of 19
Medical witnesses:
14. PW1 is Dr. Ashish Jain who conducted medical examination of accused and duly proved on record his MLC report Ex.PW1/A.
15. PW4 is Dr. Manu who conducted the medical examination of patient/prosecutrix and duly proved on record his MLC report Ex.PW4/A. Statement & Defence of accused:
16. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the case of prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused further chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
Arguments of Ld. APP for state:
17. Ld. APP for state argued that as per the school record and school certificate it is proved that prosecutrix is minor. It is stated that during the personal search of the accused one mobile phone no. 9810526033 was recovered from which the accused had made a phone call by the name of Irfan. It is stated that the accused has misrepresented his name as Irfan to the prosecutrix and also used this phone which was recovered from his possession which was also used at Banbasa village. It is stated that the prosecutrix has duly identified the accused and her MLC also proves her version of sexual intercourse. It is stated that there is no suggestion from the side of accused that someone else by the name of Irfan had committed rape upon the prosecutrix and now this plea cannot be taken by the accused. It is stated that the case diary of the IO also proves this misrepresentation of the accused . The call details of the mobile phone also proves his involvement. The accused does not dispute his personal search in SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 6 of 19 which this mobile phone is shown to be recovered.
Arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for accused:
18. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel for accused argued that there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix. Further, she has admitted that she does not raise any alarm in the bus or in the van by which she was taken to Banbasa Village which shows that she was a consenting party. She had taken mobiles phone from the accused which shows her acquaintance and consent. The clothes which were seized were new clothes and there is contradiction on this point in the statement of prosecutrix. It is stated that there is contradiction in the statement of PW6 with regard to the duration of stay of the prosecutrix in Prayas, NGO. Factualy, she stayed for one day in Prayas but her statement was recorded after 45 days. It is stated that Jija of the accused is not residing at R.K. Puram and he is residing at Katwaria Sarai as is revealed from the arrest memo of the accused and as such, the statement of the prosecutrix that she met Jija of the accused at R.K. Puram where the rape was committed is falsified. It is stated that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the accused and as such the same is not admissible. It is stated that the FSL result is negative. The person who had asked the prosecutrix and the accused at R.K. Puram to go upstairs is not made a witness. It is stated that the doctor suggested in the MLC of the prosecutrix that the bony age Xray of the prosecutrix should be conducted which is not being done. Ld. Counsel for the accused has referred to the case of Narbada Devi Vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal Crl. Appeal No. 315/1998 decided on 03.11.2003 and Satpal Singh Vs State of Haryana Crl.A.No. 763/2008 decided on 28.07.2010 & Allamelu Vs State 2011 SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 7 of 19 STPL (Web) of SC, Rahim Beg and Anthr. Vs State of UP (1972)3 SCC 759, Devusamal Vs State Crl.A.No. 412/2000 decided by Honble High Court of Delhi, Birad Mal Singhvi Vs Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1996, Vishnu Vs State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283, Rajoo & Others Vs State of MP 2009(1) RCT (Crl) 310, Temeezuddin @ Tammu Vs State of ( NCT ) of Delhi 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 345.
19. I have heard Ld. Defence counsel for accused as well as Ld. APP for state and have carefully perused the record.
Conclusion:
20. Before appreciating the facts of this case,it is necessary to know the ingredients of the offence by resorting to the provisions of sec.375 read with sec. 376 IPC. Section 375 Rape provides: " A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: First Against her will.
Secondly Without her consent.
Thirdly With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 8 of 19 by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly With or without her consent, when she under sixteen years of age.
Explanation Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Exception Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.
21. "Rape" is the act of physically forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse: an act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a woman against her will. "Statutory rape" is a sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different States from ten to eighteen years.
The offence of rape in its simplest term is 'the ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by force, fear or fraud', or as 'the carnal knowledge of a woman by force against her will? 'Rape' or 'Raptus' is when a man hath carnal knowledge of a woman by force and against her will (Co. lett. 123b); or as expressed more fully, 'rape' is the carnal knowledge of any woman, above the age of particular years, against her will; or of a woman child, under that age, with or against her will. Section 375 IPC defines rape. This Section requires the essentials:
1. Sexual intercourse by a man with woman.
2. The sexual intercourse must be under circumstances falling under any of the six clauses in Section 375 IPC.
SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 9 of 19
22. In MANU/SC/7825/2008 Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P., the Apex Court had observed that : "a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The court, therefore, shoulders a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. "
23. The two issues to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution are the age of the prosecutrix and whether she was a consenting party to the incident or not.
24. Age of the prosecutrix: To prove the age of the prosecutrix the prosecution has examined PW5 B.S. Rana, Accounts officer from South Delhi Public School, Defence colony who had produced certified copies of the admission form, birth certificate of the prosecutrix issued from Registrar , Birth and Death, Municipal Corporation Bareily which was tendered by the father of the prosecutrix at the time of taking admission. The entries in the admissions register of the school bearing the signatures and seal of the principal of the school. He has also produced a certificate issued by the principal of the school to the effect that prosecutrix is a student of class X in their school. As per the SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 10 of 19 school records and the birth certificate, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 30.05.1995. The offence was committed on 04.08.2010.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the school records are not duly proved by the prosecution under section 35 of Indian Evidence Act as the documents are required to be proved by the person who prepared it and the authenticity of the entry would depend as to on whose instructions such entry stood recorded and what was the source of information.
The legal point is now well settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Shah Nawaz Vs State of UP & Anothers (2011) 13 SCC 751, wherein the Apex court has held, though in the context of age determination of juvenile in conflict with law under J.J.Act but the principle holds good in case of age determination of prosecutrix, that entry of date of birth in school register or school leaving certificate or certificate of date of birth from the school first attended or birth certificate of MCD are valid for determining the age.
Similarly, in the case of Murugan @ Setu Vs State of Tamilnadu 2011 Crl. Law Journal 2948, the apex court has held that the documents made anti litem motam can be relied upon safely , when such documents are admissible under section 35 of Indian Evidence Act. In the said case of Murugan @ Setu ( Supra), the apex court had quoted with approval the observations of Apex court in case of Madan Mohan Singh and others Vs Rajnikant and anothers , AIR 2010 SC 2933, wherein it was held that while considering such an issue and the documents admissible under section 35 of Indian Evidence Act, the court has a SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 11 of 19 right to examine the probative value of the contents of the document. Authenticity of the entries may also depend upon whose information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information, meaning thereby, that such documents may also require corroboration in some cases.
25. In the case of Murugan(supra) also, the court relied upon the entries in school register and the birth certificate issued by MCD. The court has observed that : " In the instant case, in the birth certificate issued by the Municipality, the birth was shown to be as on 30.03.1984; registration was made on 05.04.1984;
registration number has also been shown; and names of the parents and their address have correctly been mentioned. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the said certificate. More so, the school certificate has been issued by the Head Master on the basis of the entry made in the school register which corroborates the contents of the certificate of birth issued by the Municipality. Both these entries in the school register as well, as in the Municipality came much before the criminal prosecution started and those entires stand fully supported and corroborated by the evidence of Parimala (PW15), the mother of the prosecutrix. She had been cross examined at length but nothing could be elicited to doubt her testimony. The defence put a suggestion to her that she was talking about the age of her younger daughter and not of Shankari (PW4), which she flatly denied. Her deposition remained unshaken and is fully reliable."
26. In the case of Vishnu Vs State of Maharashtra wherein it is held that : SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 12 of 19 "for determining the age of the child , the best evidence is of his /her parents, if it is supported by unimpeccable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the unimpeccable evidence of reliable person and contemporaneous documents like date of birth register of MCD, govt.
hospital/nursing home certificate etc. , the entry in the school register is to be discarded."
However, in our case as per the statement of PW5 the birth certificate issued by Registrar, Birth and Death, Municipal Corporation, Bareily was tendered by the father of the prosecutrix at the time of her admission in the school and on the basis of the said certificate given by her father the date of the prosecutrix is recorded in the school records as 30.05.1995. Hence, the school records are based on the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Bareily. The father of the prosecutrix in his deposition had given the same date of birth of his daughter and had even denied the suggestions given to him that her daughter is more than 18 years of age. There is no ground to dispute or doubt the date of birth as recorded in school records and duly corroborated by the birth certificate issued by Municipality because at that time it was not comprehended that the parents of a child would falsely get the age of the child recorded in the school records knowing that at one future moment they may require this in some criminal case.
The law point deduced from all the authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the accused lay down that the date of birth depicted in school records if based on unimpeccable evidence and the entries made on the basis of information given by the parents of the child and duly recorded by an official of SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 13 of 19 the school in the discharge of his official duties, the same is reliable .
Hence, in view of above discussion from the statement of PW5 duly corroborated by the school record prepared by the principal of the school and duly identified and produced in the court, the birth certificate issued by Municipal Corporation of Bareily coupled with the statement of father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix herself, it is proved that on the date of offence 04.08.2010 prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age and was a minor.
27. Consent of the prosecutrix: As per the statement of prosecutrix the accused used to harass her and on 04.08.2010 at about 8/8.30 pm when she was going to the market for taking the test copy, the accused met her on the way and asked her to accompany him which was refused by the prosecutrix and then he further told to meet his parents who wants to speak regarding their marriage which was again refused by the prosecutrix. On this, the accused further told her that he will not harass her anymore but once she should meet his parents and then he took prosecutrix to R.K. Puram where he committed rape upon her and thereafter, make her remained seated there on the terrace through out the night. In the morning, he offered a glass of water after consuming which she became unconscious after which she was taken to the village of the accused where also the accused committed sexual intercourse with her twice against her wish. Similar statement was made by the prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C made before the magistrate. Nothing adverse came out in the cross examination of the prosecutrix to prove that she was a consenting party to the physical relations. The submissions of Ld. defence counsel that she has admitted in her cross that accused had gifted her a mobile does not go to prove SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 14 of 19 that she had given her consent for rape. Similarly, non raising of noise in the bus on way back to Delhi also do not go to conclusively prove consent on the part of prosecutrix. Even otherwise, as the prosecutrix was minor, her consent is immaterial.
28. Medical Evidence: The prosecution has examined PW4 Dr. Manu who had proved the MLC of the prosecutrix in which her hymen was found torned. Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed much reliance on the FSL result however, the said FSL result was never put by him in the cross examination of any witness of the prosecution and as such he cannot now rely upon the FSL result. Further, the non appearance of any injury marks on the person of the prosecutrix is not suggestive of consentual sex, as is held in catena of judgments by Apex court.
29. Identity of the accused: The accused has been duly identified by the prosecutrix in her statement before the court. There is nothing on record to show animosity for false implication of the accused by the prosecutrix. Even in the statement of the prosecutrix made under section 164 of Cr.P.C she had named this accused. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused has been connected with this case only on the basis of one mobile phone which was planted upon the accused.
The prosecution story is that when the prosecutrix was in the possession of the accused, on the insistence/cries of the prosecutrix, he made a phone call from his mobile phone number 9810526033 to the father of the prosecutrix and had agreed to leave the prosecutrix at her house on 07.08.2010. The prosecutrix was left at the house on 07.08.2010 and after leaving her in front SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 15 of 19 of her house the accused ran away. Again father of the prosecutrix, at the instance of the police called the accused on his mobile and asked him to come to his house. The police laid a trap and when the accused came, he was caught hold by the police and when he was made to sit in one of the room of the complainant, the prosecutrix had identified him. Hence, the prosecutrix had identified the accused at the time of his arrest as well as in the court and she has also named him in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that in the history given before the doctor, the prosecutrix had named a boy Irfan as the person who had sexual intercourse with her and as such, the identity of the accused becomes doubtful. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state had refuted this submission referring to the case diary of the IO stating that the accused had misrepresented his name to the prosecutrix as Irfan and even to the police when he was called on his mobile in his village on 07.08.2010.
Heard. The CD refered to by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor is not subjected to the test of cross examination and cannot be relied upon however, mere quoting of a name is immaterial when the prosecutrix time and again had identified the accused at the time of arrest, in the court and has also named him in the statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The testimony of the prosecutrix is not shaken in the cross examination. The accused has never taken any objections nor questioned the prosecutrix about the name as disclosed by her in the MLC to the doctor. For the first time, this objection is taken by the accused and as such the same has no weightage in view of the identification of the accused by the prosecutrix. As observed earlier there is nothing to prove that SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 16 of 19 due to some enmity the prosecutrix had named the accused nor the accused had put such a defence. Hence, from the statement of the prosecutrix and the recovery of the said mobile number 9810526033 which was recovered in the personal search of the accused and which mobile was used by the accused for calling the father of the prosecutrix clearly prove the identity of the accused in the offence beyond the reasonable doubt.
30. It is settled law that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the same is found reliable. Reference can be laid from the observations of Apex Court in the case titled as Radhu Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2007, Crl. Law Journal 4704 wherein Hon'ble Supreme court has held that: " It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary. Even if there is consent, the act will still be a 'rape', if the girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim. Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim especially on the forearms, writs, face, breast, thighs and back are indicative SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 17 of 19 of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault. The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case."
31. The testimony of the prosecutrix is not based on the same footing as an accomplice and the same stands on a higher footing. The statement of the prosecutrix is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, statement of the father of the prosecutrix and other evidence on record which inspire confidence and it is proved that it was the accused who has taken the prosecutrix out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent and the accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix who is a minor without her consent.
32. Offence of kidnapping and abduction under section 363/366 IPC: Section 363 of IPC defines that : whoever kidnaps any person from 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.
The essential ingredients of section 366 of IPC are :
(a) A person kidnaps or abducts any woman.
(b) The act is done
(i) with intent that she may be compelled to marry any person against her will, or SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 18 of 19
(ii) knowing it to be likely that she will be so compelled, or
(iii) in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or
(iv) knowing it to be likely that she will be so forced or seduced. The statement of prosecutrix duly proves that she was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent and she was kidnapped for the purpose that she may be compelled for marriage or illicit intercourse.
33. Defence of the accused: The accused in his defence has admitted that he used to talk to the prosecutrix on her mobile phone number 9555342055. This statement proves that he was already acquainted with the prosecutrix prior to the incident. He has stated that he was falsely implicated by the prosecutrix but nowhere he has alleged the reason of his false implication by the prosecutrix in his defence.
34. Conclusion: In view of the above said discussion, prosecution has been fully able to prove its case under Section 363/366/376 of IPC against the accused and is therefore, held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 363/366/376 of IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.03.2013.
( RENU BHATNAGAR )
DESIGNATED JUDGE
TADA/POTA/MCOCA
ASJ SE 01/NEW DELHI
SC No. 160/10 State Vs Tilak Chand Page No. 19 of 19