Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Accused was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and his personal search memo Ex.PW6/C was also prepared. Accused was sent to JC when he was produced in the court. Prosecutrix was sent to Nirmal Chhaya for one day. On 18.06.08 prosecutrix was again produced in the court and her U/s 363/ 366 IPC statement u/s 164 Cr. PC was got recorded vide photocopy of the same mark Z1.

4. I.O. collected photocopy of her date of birth certificate issued by MCD and same was verified by him from MCD Office and it was found correct vide Certificate Ex.PW6/D. As per the certificate date of birth of prosecutrix was 29.11.91 and she was found minor at the time of incident which had occurred on 14.06.08. The sealed pulandas of accused were not sent to FSL Office since prosecutrix did not get her internal medically examined. Accordingly, this case was registered against the accused and he was booked for the offence u/s 363/366 IPC.

19.Arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP for the state submitted that the prosecutrix at the time of kidnapping was 16 years old as revealed by her father complainant. He again argued and submitted that the prosecutrix herself has deposed in her statement that she was taken away by accused under threat. In this regard, the statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded by the then Ld. MM vide dated 18.06.08 Ex.PW1/A. On these grounds, he U/s 363/ 366 IPC has prayed the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts against accused for the offence u/s 363/366 IPC.

" When the evidence of first informant is found to be full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements, he cannot be held to be a truthful witness" .

The observations made in the aforesaid case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are exfacie indicative of the fact that when contradictions are major these affect the root of the case and leave an impression of untruthfulness of the witnesses. In the case in hand after going through the whole case file and testimonies of material witnesses I found some major contradictions which go to the root of this case such as prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. no where has inculcated the accused for the offence u/s 366 IPC. Further, prosecutrix i.e. PW1 has been got declared hostile by ld. APP and no allegation regarding compelling her for marry by accused has come on record. Moreover, prosecutrix has failed to depose that as to where she firstly went Panipat or Bombay with accused. Besides, in the testimony of other witnesses there are also so many contradictions since PW3 Mangal Pandey deposed that he had not given any date of birth certificate issued from the MCD to the U/s 363/ 366 IPC police. Then, question arises as to how police obtained birth certificate of prosecutrix. On the next breath he deposed that he had only handed over copy of Janampatri to the police. PW3 Mangal Pandey also denied the suggestion that his daughter had taken away Rs.15,000/- from his house at the time of leaving the house while PW 4 Suchitra - mother of prosecutrix stated in the cross-examination that her daughter had taken Rs.15,000/- when she had left the house.

Further, prosecutrix appears to be of mature understanding as she was above the age of 16 years old at the time of incident.

Accordingly, I acquit accused Irfan for the offences u/s 363/ 366 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. File be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21.07.2010 ( RAJ KAPOOR) ASJ/NE-1/ KKD/DELHI U/s 363/ 366 IPC