State vs Mahesh on 17 September, 2008
She further termed it to be
incorrect that her father was against her affair with the accused. She
termed it to be incorrect that she had voluntarily accompanied the
accused to solemnize marriage with him to escape the notice of her
father or that she had voluntarily run away with the accused. It was
termed to be incorrect that the prosecutrix had married the accused
voluntarily at Patna. She further termed it to be incorrect that she had
State Vs Mahesh
6
solemnized marriage with the accused in a temple at Patna out of her
sweet will. She admitted that she had stated in her statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. that at Patna accused Mahesh solemnized marriage with her
disclosing her age to be 19 years. She voluntarily stated that she was
threatened by the parents of the accused and for that reason she had
given this version. She stated that one lady who is wife of Prabhu
Dayal was with her when accused had offered tea to her. She regained
consciousness in Karnal. She stated that she do not know what
happened to the wife of Prabhu Dayal when she had become
unconscious. That lady had not informed her parents about the
incident. She termed it to be incorrect that she was not served with
any intoxicating or stupefying substance in the tea. She stated that
now she is married. She stated that she was born at Bihar at her
native village. She stated that she was brought to Delhi by her parents
when she was just six months old. She stated that the accused never
allowed her to remain alone, so she could not make any complaint.
She termed it to be incorrect that she had not made any complaint
because she had accompanied the accused voluntarily. While from
Karnal, she was taken to Bihar, only the accused accompanied her at
that time.