Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report under section 173 Cr.P.C is as under :­ That on 22/08/2009, prosecutrix (name withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) alongwith her parents came to the police station and made the statement to W/ASI Rajbala to the effect that, she lives at gali no. 26B, Swantantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi with her parents and does the household works. On 05/08/09, at about 4.00 pm, she was going to the 2 of 61 PS - Narela market from her house to buy some articles and when she was passing in front of House No. 952, Gali No. 21A, Swantantra Nagar of Subhash then Subhash called her near to him and took her in his house and made her to drink a glass of juice and kept on talking to her. After some time, one boy namely Dheeraj came there to whom she knew already, Subhash and Dheeraj made some talks to each other and Dheeraj after inducing her on the asking of the Subhash took her to New Delhi Railway station by bus and from there took to Patna by train. At the Patna Railway Station, one friend of Dheeraj met whose name was known to be as Vikas. Dheeraj told Vikas that he has married this girl and Vikas also told this fact to his family members that Dheeraj is his friend and he Dheeraj had married with this girl and they are in search of a house and till that time they do not get the house, they will stay in their house and there she and Dheeraj till 19/08/09 stayed in that house and Dheeraj kept on committing wrong deeds (galat kaam) without her consent and in between one day Vikas also committed wrong deed (galat kaam) with her. In the night of 21/08/2009, Dheeraj and Vikas brought her at the house of Subhash and there Subhash Dheeraj and Vikas threatened her, if she will disclosed about the incident to her family 3 of 61 PS - Narela members then they will kill her. They also pressurized her saying that if Police or her family members inquires from her then she is to say that she had gone with her consent and despite her denial (mana karne par) Subhash gave her beatings with a cable wire. After some time, her parents reached at the house of Subhash and they brought her to their house as from somewhere they (her parents) had got the information. On 22/08/09, her family members had brought her to the Police Station and she wanted to get conducted her medical examination. Legal action be taken against them. The statement has been heard and is correct. The missing report regarding the prosecutrix has been recorded vide DD No. 36A dated 06/08/2009. Medical examination of the prosecutrix on 22/08/2009 was got conducted vide MLC No. 928/09. From the statement of prosecutrix and on inspection of the MLC on finding that offences u/s 363/366/376/323/328/109/506/34 IPC, case was got registered. On the identification of the prosecutrix, accused Dheeraj and Subhash were arrested. Medical examination of accused Vikas and Dheeraj was got conducted and the sealed exhibits were handed over by Doctor, after their medical examination, were taken into police possession. The sealed exhibits were sent to FSL.

3. Upon committal of the case to the Court of session and after hearing on charge, prima facie a case u/s 363 IPC against accused Subhash, u/s 366/506/34 IPC against accused Vikas, Dheeraj and Subhash, u/s 376 IPC against accused Vikas and u/s 376 IPC against accused Dheeraj was made out. The charge was framed accordingly, which was read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. It is to be mentioned that vide order dated 15/01/2014, 5 of 61 PS - Narela accused Dheeraj and vide order dated 29/03/2014, accused Vikas were declared juveniles and their cases were separated and were sent to the Learned Juvenile Justice Board.

11. I have heard Sh. Nimmi Sisodia, Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Om Dutt Sharma, Learned Counsel for the accused Subhash and have also carefully perused the entire record.

12. The charge against accused Subhash u/s 363 IPC, against accused Vikas, Dheeraj and Subhash u/s 366/506/34 IPC, against accused Vikas u/s 376 IPC and against accused Dheeraj u/s 376 IPC is that on 05/08/2009, within the jurisdiction of PS - Narela, accused Subhash Kidnapped prosecutrix (name withheld being case u/s 376 IPC), D/o Sh. Joginder aged about 16 years out of keeping of lawful guardianship of her parents and that on the aforesaid date accused Dheeraj and Subhash after kidnapping the prosecutrix (name withheld) and took her to Patna to the house of Vikas knowing that she would be 28 of 61 PS - Narela forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and that after kidnapping the prosecutrix, as aforesaid accused Dheeraj committed rape upon the prosecutrix upto 19/08/2009 and that accused Vikas also committed rape upon the prosecutrix during this period and that on 21/08/2009, accused Subhash, Dheeraj and Vikas, in furtherance of their common intention committed the offence of criminal intimidation by extending the threats to kill the prosecutrix in case she disclose about the commission of rape to anyone.

I accordingly acquit Subhash for the offences punishable u/s 363 IPC, u/s 366/34 IPC and u/s 506/34 IPC.

22. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that as far as the involvement of accused Subhash in the commission of offences punishable u/s 363 IPC, u/s 366/34 IPC and u/s 506/34 IPC is concerned, the same is not sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt home to the accused Subhash beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts and there is a room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused Subhash. I, therefore, acquit accused Subhash 60 of 61 PS - Narela for the offences punishable u/s 363 IPC, u/s 366/34 IPC and u/s 506/34 IPC after giving him the benefit of doubt. Accused Subhash is on bail. However, u/s 437A Cr.P.C. the bail bond of accused Subhash shall remain in force for six months and he to appear before the Hon'ble Higher Court as and when such Court issues Notice in respect of any Petition filed against this judgment.