LAWS(DLH)-2001-8-12

ALLAHANOOR KALLU Vs. N C T OF DELHI

Decided On August 27, 2001
ALLAHANOOR KALLU Appellant
V/S
N.C.T.OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 25.9.2000, passed by the Court of Smt.Sunita Gupta, ASJ, Delhi, framing of charge under Section 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner in case FIR No.82/98, P.S.Hari Nagar.

(2.) Prosecution's allegations are that on 12.2.1998, Smt.Laxmi Devi lodged a report at Police Station Hari Nagar, alleging that her daughter Kusum was married to Rajesh S/o Shiv Nadan, on 9.10.1997. After the marriage her father-in-law, started harassing her daughter for dowry (gold kangan) and she was sent back. On 16.1.1998, she was taken back but her in-laws continued to harass her. After 2 8/01/1998, she went to the matrimonial home of her daughter. Her daughter was not found there. Her son-in-law, Rajesh informed her that his father Shiv Nandan had gone with Kusum on the previous night without informing him. Complainant searched for her daughter but she could not be found. Ultimately on 1 2/02/1998, she reported the matter to'the police and initially a case under Sections 498-A/346 Indian Penal Code was registered.

(3.) On 2/02/1999 Kusum was re-covered by the police. In her statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code., she stated that she was married to Rajesh and was being harassed. Petitioner used to live near their house. He took her from there, assuring her that he would drop her at her mother's house. However, petitioner left her on the road. Then she was taken by Rajinder, who kept her as his wife and committed rape upon her against her wishes several times. She in her statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code stated that the petitioner did not do anything wrong with her. Petitioner was arrested on 1 4/09/1999. Supplementary statement of Kusum was recorded on 15/09/1999 wherein she alleged that she could not give complete statement earlier because she was confused. She stated that her father-in-law had sold her to Kallu (petitioner), who used to reside near her Jhuggi at Shubash Nagar. Petitioner took her in a three wheeler scooter, who along with his two other companions, whom she did not know raped her near the bushes. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused persons including the petitioner.