State vs 1. Kapil Dev Sharma S/O Munni Lal on 21 January, 2011
The market at Mathura was crowded but
prosecutrix did not ask anybody there that accused was enticing her. In her
statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she deposed that both the accused and
prosecutrix stayed at Nasik in a hotel and in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
she did not disclose that accused had made physical relation against her
will. She further deposed that in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she had
deposed that accused has threatened her to kill if she would tell anybody
regarding this fact but same has also not been mentioned in statement u/s
164 Cr.P.C. She further deposed that during her stay in Sonia Vihar other
persons i.e. owner of that house were present but she did not tell to the
owner of the house at Sonia Vihar or any neighbour that accused had
enticed her and committed 'galat kaam' with her. On the question whether
she stayed along with accused Kapil in Sonia Vihar as husband and wife,
State Vs. Kapil Dev Sharma
SC No.65/2006 4/27
she remained mum and did not reply to this question and on question
whether the prosecutrix at any time tried to ring her parents and or try to
run away from Sonia Vihar during her stay, on this question also this
witness remains mum and did not reply.