Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution story is neither reliable nor probable. The prosecution witnesses altogether changed the prosecution story as set up in the FIR. The prosecutrix stated before the learned Magistrate in statement under section 164 CrPC all together changed version of the incident. The witnesses of prosecution further changed the prosecution version and not only contradicted the version of FIR but also narrated the same story as stated by prosecutrix in statement under section 164 Cr.P.C before Magistrate. In the Court they gave a clean chit to Alok Shukla and stated that he was not accompanying the appellant at the time of committing the offences. The person who was accompanying with appellant was an unknown person. The medical report is also not supporting the prosecution story. The age of prosecutrix was found by the experts more than 18 years at the time of incident. The FIR is delayed and no acceptable reason has been given by the prosecution for its delay. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions relied upon following judgements.

51. In such circumstances, this Court is bound to hold that the trial court without examining the factual and legal issues has unnecessarily rushed to the conclusion that the girl was a minor at the time of the alleged abduction. There is no satisfactory evidence to indicate that she was a minor.

Whether the prosecutrix was forcibly taken away by the appellant ?

52. The first version of prosecutrix is available in the form of FIR, which according to PW1 has been narrated to her by prosecutrix soon after the incident. It is only on 14.08.2012 i.e. after 8 days of the incident, the prosecutrix changed the version before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. PW 1 categorically stated that whatever told by her daughter has been written in the first information report. The stand taken in the FIR is totally in conflict with the stand taken by prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.