SHRI NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As deposed to by Yogender Pal Singh PW-2 and his wife Chander Kanta PW-3 their daughter named Sarika was taught by the appellant Shri Nath who was her cousin, being the son of Prem Singh Chauhan, the elder brother of Yogender Pal Singh. Unknown to the parents, Shri Nath and Sarika developed relationship with each other and eloped in the year 1999. Needless to state, Sarika and Shri Nath were within spinda relationship, and even as per the social norms of the society to which Shri Nath and Sarika belonged, this relationship was not acceptable. Though not said through their mouth, it is apparent that Sarikas parents would have liked that the issue was resolved without the knowledge of the public. This is the reason why Sarikas elopement was not reported to the police. As deposed to by the parents of Sarika, Prem Singh Chauhan assured them that as and when he would get information about the where beings of his son and Sarika he would inform the parents of Sarika. As deposed to by Chander Kanta PW-3 after she eloped Sarika changed her name to Sonia.

(2.) Time elapsed and parents of Sonia @ Sarika got no news regarding the where about of their daughter, till as deposed to by Yogender Pal Singh, in February 2000, Prem Singh Chauhan informed him that he had seen Sarika in a vehicle which passes daily from Sector-13 Rohini and proceeds towards Sector-15 Rohini. At that, Prem Singh Chauhan lodged a complaint Ex.PW-2/A on 18.2.2000 at PS Prashant Vihar. In writing, Prem Singh Chauhan informed the police that his son Shri Nath had run away with Sarika on 19.10.1999 and that he had learnt that his son and Sarika were seen in a Tata sumo vehicle in Sector-13 Rohini. The complaint Ex.PW-2/A, as deposed to by Yogender Pal Singh, was countersigned by Yogender Pal Singh. HC Surender Kumar PW-9 posted at PS Prashant Vihar had corroborated the fact that the complaint Ex.PW-2/A was received at the police station. As deposed to by SI Dinesh Chand PW-18 he was entrusted with the investigation of the complaint but no headway could be made.

(3.) 24.4.2003 was the date when criminal justice machinery which has finally ended in the conviction of the appellant and his father being acquitted was set into motion.