STATE Vs. PANKAJ ALIAS SONU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 169 days in filing the leave petition. For the reasons stated in the application delay is condoned. CRL.LP No.257/2010 1.The petitioner/state has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 30th October, 2009 in F.I.R.No.1004/2006, under Sections 366, 328 & 376 of Indian Penal Code acquitting the respondent of the said charges.

(2.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that the respondent had allegedly kidnapped the prosecutrix Ms.Chandni (changed name) at about 12:00 noon on 26th June, 2006 from her house at Street No.5, Station Block, Prem Nagar-1, Sultanpuri, Delhi. It is alleged that she was given sweets (barfi) laced with some chemical which made her giddy and this was allegedly done with the intention to seduce her and have illicit intercourse and rape her in a park of Mangol Puri.

(3.) The matter was allegedly reported to the police by the mother of Ms.Chandni, namely, Smt.Shyamo Devi, PW-2 on 28th June, 2006, two days after her daughter was allegedly kidnapped, and on her complaint an FIR Ex.PW-7/A was registered where after the respondent was arrested. After the arrest of the respondent on fulfilling the formalities, the charges under Sections 366, 328 and 376 of Indian Penal Code were framed on 9th February, 2007 to which the respondent pleaded not guilty. In the trial court, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the mother, Smt. Shyamo Devi, of Ms.Chandni as PW-2. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code where he claimed himself to be innocent and contended that he has been falsely implicated. He deposed that he was having an affair with Ms.Chandni, and consequently, her father objected to it, and thereafter, he was falsely implicated in the present case. The trial court while acquitting the respondent noted that the prosecutrix was minor at the relevant time. Grave and serious contradictions in the depositions of prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother (PW- 2) and Investigating Officer ASI Krishan Kumar (PW-7) were noticed and considered. According to the trial court, the contradictions in the statements were very material which went to the root of the matter and in the circumstances it has been held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the respondent.