Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions and variations in the statements of Virendra (PW-1), victim No.1 (PW-2) and victim No.1 (PW-3). Virendra Rai (PW-1) has not stated anything as to using bedsheet by the present appellant to cover and abduct both the victims. No such bedsheet has been seized by the police. Moreover, while Virendra Rai (PW-1) has stated that the present appellant was showing toffee has lured both the victims while victim No.1 (PW-2) has stated that the present appellant had thrown toffees before them, but no such toffee has also been seized by the prosecution. She has also admitted in question No.6 that as told by the uncle having bicycle, she has stated that by using bedsheet the present appellant tried to caught them. Victim No.2 (PW-3) has not stated the incident in detail. Even in her cross-examination, she could not answer the question posed to her by the defence. The entire statements of PW-2 and PW-3 and PW-4 reveal that at the instance of Virendra Rai (PW-1) the entire incident has been concocted against the present appellant. In light of the above submissions, it is contended that no case is made out against the present appellant. Accordingly, it is prayed that he be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The eye-witness to the incident namely Virendra Rai (PW-1) has deposed that on the date of the incident, while he was proceeding towards the market, he observed that one person was attempting to lure two minor girls by showing them toffees. He further stated that one Ritesh was also accompanying him at that time and together they apprehended the said person and handed him over to the police. However, Virendra Rai (PW-1) was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he denied having seen the accused/appellant covering both the victims with a bedsheet and further denied having made such a statement before the police authorities. It is pertinent to mention that Ritesh, who was admittedly present on the spot and is an independent witness has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. This witness Virendra Rai (PW-1) has stated that he has not lodged any report in the police station. He admits that he has not seen the present appellant giving toffees to both the victims/girls. There is also variations vis-a-vis the police statement of this witness that he was going towards market on a bicycle.

3), one person covered both of them with a bedsheet and attempted to take them away. She further stated that a passerby uncle intervened, stopped the said person, slapped him, and rescued them. It is also stated by this witness that the said person had thrown toffees in front of them. During her cross-examination, victim No.1 (PW-2) admitted that their teacher had instructed them not to accept any eatables from unknown persons or strangers, and therefore, she did not pick up or consume the toffees thrown before them. She further stated that the bedsheet used was of green colour. Significantly, she also admitted in her cross-examination that the statement regarding the accused covering them with a bedsheet is false, and that she had deposed it because the "uncle on the bicycle" had told her to do so.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that the story of covering both the victims by bedsheet stands falsified in the light of statements of Virendra Rai (PW-1). It is further observed that no such bedsheet was seized by the prosecution, nor has any explanation been furnished for its non-seizure. In view thereof, the allegation pertaining to the covering of both the victims with a bedsheet appears to be baseless, unsubstantiated, and devoid of any cogent or reliable material on record. As regards the allegation of the accused throwing toffees before the victims, it is to be noted that although the accused, in his memorandum admitted to having thrown toffees in front of two minor girls, but no such toffees were seized by the police from the spot. Victim No.1 (PW-2) has stated that the accused had thrown toffees in front of them, whereas Victim No.2 (PW-3) deposed that the accused was offering toffees to them. A similar version has been given by Virendra Rai (PW-1). Hence, there exists material contradiction regarding whether the accused/appellant threw the toffees before the victims or attempted to offer them. Even assuming the admitted version that the accused/appellant had thrown the toffees, the same does not, by itself, establish any intention or overt act on his part to abduct the victims. In the absence of any credible evidence demonstrating the requisite intent to commit abduction and considering further that the allegation of covering both the victims with a bedsheet has not been proved, the prosecution NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52718 7 CRA-5001-2019 version appears to be doubtful and not supported by any cogent material.