Delhi High Court
Anish Khan vs State Nct Of Delhi on 31 January, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: 31st January, 2011
+CRL. A. 473 of 2003
%
31.01.2011
ANISH KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through : In person
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI . ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORAL
1. By this Appeal the Appellant has assailed his conviction under Section
363/366/376 IPC and the sentence awarded to him.
2. The prosecutrix in this case, as per the statement of her mother, was 16 and
a half year old as on the date of alleged commission of offence. No ossification test
of the prosecutrix was done to determine her bony age. The prosecutrix had
disappeared from her home with Rs. 30,000/- in cash entrusted to her by her family.
It is her own case that she had accompanied accused from her home on a scooter
and had gone along with the accused by bus to Aligarh, then to Agra and then by
train to Bombay. After she was recovered she was produced before the doctor for
MLC and to the Doctor she clearly stated that she was taken to Bombay with her
consent by accused Anish. It is come in evidence that she had sex with accused
Crl. A. 473 of 2003 Page 1 of 2
between 3rd May, 2002 and 12th May, 2002 when she stayed with him at Bombay.
During her statement in the Court she had taken a stand that she was made to sit on
two wheeler scooter by the accused and was forced to give money carried with her to
the accused as the accused had threatened her. She also took a stand that she was
intoxicated by the accused during the journey so she could not resist the accused.
Her entire story of intoxication is totally unbelievable. Nobody can travel in
intoxicated state to different cities in India and land in Bombay. Her own statement is
that accused was well known to her being a tailor and was visiting the house of the
prosecutrix and had also attended sagai ceremony that took place on that day.
During her examination before the court she admitted of going on scooter and stated
that she had accompanied the accused in Bus to Aligarh and from there in a train to
Bombay. The age of the accused at the time of incident was around 24 years. He
was not married.
3. From the testimony of prosecutrix it is apparent that she was a consenting
party in this elopement and sexual intercourse. Considering that it was a case of two
young lovers who had run away from the home and the prosecutrix had even taken
with her a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from her home, I do not find it a case where trial court
should have convicted the accused under Section 363/366/376 IPC. The appeal is
allowed. The accused is acquitted of the offences.
JANUARY 31, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm Crl. A. 473 of 2003 Page 2 of 2