Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

33. The prosecutrix P appeared to depose before the Court as PW­13 and her statement was recorded on 30.01.2014, wherein she deposed as under :­ " ...... In the month of January, last to last year i.e. in the year 2012, I had gone to stay with my maternal grandmother (nani).

On the day of incident at about 6:00 / 7:00 PM, accused Rahul, whom I knew from before, enticed me to go with him to his house at Jalebi Chowk. There was nobody present at his house. Accused Rahul made me sleep with him 3 - 4 times.

34. During cross­examination by learned defence counsel, the PW­13 showed her lack of knowledge, if she had told the learned MM that accused had enticed her to go with him. She also showed her lack of knowledge about her exact date of birth and deposed that she was born on 21st November, but she could not tell the year of her birth. She further termed it correct that there were other houses near the house of accused Rahul and that during her stay with accused, he (accused) had not used force upon her by tying her hands, mouth, etc and that during the period of two days when she was with accused Rahul, he (accused Rahul) had gone out of the house to bring food, etc. She further deposed that during the period of said two days, she did not raise alarm or tell anyone that accused had brought her there by enticing her and that she did not make any effort to run away from the house of the accused.

persons and had jumped from the vehicle and received injuries on your chest?

Ans. I stated so as I was nervous.

Court Ques. You had stated in your examination in chief that you had been enticed away by accused Rahul whereas you told the doctor in your MLC Ex.PW­5/A that you were taken away by one woman forcibly and were raped by 7 / 8 persons and you have also stated in the Court that you had said so at the time of your examination by the doctor, which of the two versions of the incident given by you is correct ?

37. Learned Additional PP has contended that the prosecutrix was aged about 16/17 years at the time of commission of offence and hence her consent is immaterial.

38. The submissions made by ld. Addl PP cannot be sustained, since it has already been held in foregoing paragraphs that prosecution has failed to prove that prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident. It appears that prosecutrix who was a major, when she left her grandmother's house on 29.01.2012, had herself taken decision to go with the accused without any kind of apparent inducement, influence or pressure from him. In these facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly in view of the contradictions in the testimony of prosecutrix and her other statements, the element of 'taking away' or 'enticement' is found to be lacking and it appears that prosecutrix was willing and consenting party and that everything has happened with her sweet will. I am supported in my view by judgment in case titled as Bunty vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi in Crl. Appeal no. 846/2009 decided on 16.03.2011 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein it was held that :­ "8. In this case, the prosecutrix had accompanied the Appellant voluntarily without any use of force exercised by him. It is not a case wherein he had taken the prosecutrix after enticing her. Prosecutrix had travelled with the accused to different places outside Delhi without raising any alarm or complaining to fellow passengers that she had been taken away by force. If a minor accompanies accused voluntarily without any offer or allurement then offence under Section 363 is not made out. ...."