Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. This case was committed to the Sessions Court on 22.11.2006. After State Vs Wasim hearing arguments the Predecessor of this Court framed a charge for the offences u/s 363/366/368/376 IPC against accused to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial vide court order dated 08.02.07.

6. To prove and substantiate its case the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses namely PW1 Preeti - prosecutrix, PW2 Mahesh - father of prosecutrix, PW3 Smt. Rani - mother of prosecutrix, PW4 Dr. Anil Yadav, CMO, GTB hosptital, PW5 Lady Ct. Poonam, again PW5 Dr. Sandhya, PW6 SI Ramanand Yadav, PW7 SI Kashmira Singh - I.O., PW8 SI R.K. Tyagi, PW9 HC Padam Singh - he had accompanied the I.O. , PW10 Ms. Poonam Choudhary, ld. ASJ and PW11 M.K. Majumdar, Sr. Scientific Assistant, CFSL Kolkatta.

28.In the present case it has come on record that prosecutrix Preeti was already married as per her version deposed in the court. In her medical examination her hymen was found torn but no injury was found vide her MLC Ex.PW5/A as per testimony of PW5 Dr. Sandhya Jain. The pregnancy test of prosecutrix was found negative. As per MLC Ex.PW5/A she was 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident. CFSL Result is also not in favour of prosecution vide report Ex.PW11/A. Contention of ld. counsel for accused is not tenable that a love letter vide Ex.PW1/DB, produced before the court, was written by prosecutrix to accused precisely for the reasons that prosecutrix has denied to have written this letter to accused. She clarified that this letter was got written by Tarana for boy Sameer. So long as the fact of kidnapping of prosecutrix is concerned, it is on record that in the statement of prosecutrix that accused took her under threat on 28.07.2006. This part of the testimony of the prosecutrix that accused took her under threat bears some shadow of doubt precisely for the reasons that neither the threat was coupled by any coercion or any material object in the hands of accused. Besides it has also come on record in the statement of prosecutrix that accused Wasim and she stayed in LNJP hospital during whole night, which is a public place and again it has come on record that thereafter, at about 4:00 a.m. on the same night early in the morning i.e. 29.07.2006 accused again took her to Pooja Colony to the house of his another friend where he kept her for two days. No where in her deposition has come on record that she had resisted the company of accused either at LNJP hospital or at the house of accused's friend which impacts the element of kidnapping State Vs Wasim at the instance of accused. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it can be easily inferred that prosecutrix and accused proceeded on their own, otherwise she might raise an alarm at LNJP hospital since she is of quite mature understanding and hospital is a public place. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences punishable under section 363/ 366/368 IPC. Therefore, in light of the above discussion I acquit the accused from the offences u/s 363/366/368 of IPC.

Accordingly, I convict accused Wasim for the offences punishable u/s 376 IPC; and I acquit accused Wasim for the offences u/s 363, 366 and 368 IPC for the reasons as discussed in the preceding paras.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20.04.2010 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI State Vs Wasim