Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Accused was arrested in this case on 23.04.10 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for offence u/s 363/366/376 IPC.

Case was committed to the court of Sessions on 12.07.10, which was received on 26.07.10, charge u/s. 263/366/376 IPC was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty.

To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW12 in all. Statement of accused was recorded in which, he has denied the case of the prosecution and has pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

Findings qua offence u/s. 366 IPC.

PW 1 prosecutix has deposed that she went to Calcutta on 29/12/08 and she married with accused in a mandir and they started residing as husband and wife. She resided with accused Deepak for about one year and they also made physical relations.

In the cross-examination, PW 1 has admitted that she has not raised any noise in the way or disclosed to any passenger that she was being taken away by the accused against her will. She has also deposed that in Calcutta there were many houses, where she stayed with the accused and she did not raise any objection of her marriage with the accused and she did not tell to any neighbour that she was brought and enticed by the accused. She has further deposed that she stayed there as wife of the accused for about one year. She used to do household work and prepare food. Accused used to work as taxi driver and used to go to his work in the morning at about 8.00 am and used to return in the night at about 10.30 pm. During this period accused did not lock her under the keys and she was free to go anywhere. She used to visit the places with the accused during her stay and accused also maintained her in every respect as his wife.

Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that from this portion of the deposition of the prosecutrix, offence u/s. 366 IPC is not proved. Ld. Defence Counsel has also contended that prosecutrix was not locked under keys or was not compelled to marry with the accused. She was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with the accused.

Ld. Defence Counsel has also contended that from this deposition of the PW1, it is clear that she married with the accused at her own will and made physical relations as husband and wife with her consent. She stayed there for one year and she was not kept under the locks and keys so it can not be said that prosecutrix has been compelled or forced or seduced in any manner to make sexual relations with the accused.

Ld. APP has contended that prosecutrix has stated in the cross- examination that she had not taken any divorce with the accused and has voluntarily stated that it was not a marriage at all so it can not be said that prosecutrix married with the accused. The contention of the Ld. APP is not forceful as even then PW 1 prosecutrix was residing with accused in live in relationship.

Considering the cross-examination of the PW1 prosecutrix and contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel, I am of the opinion that PW1 prosecutrix resided with the accused Deepak at her own free will and remained with him as his wife and she was neither forced or seduced or compelled for committing intercourse with the accused. So prosecution has not been able to prove the offence u/s. 366 IPC against the accused for which accused is acquited u/s. 366 IPC.