STATE Vs. MEHKOOLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Ld.Addl. Sessions Judge dated 08.04.2011 in SC No.175/2008 by which the Respondents were acquitted of the charge for having committed offences under Sections 363/366/34 IPC read with Section 376(g) IPC.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that on 05.01.2006, the complainant Ashok Kumar, father of the prosecutrix informed the police that his daughter (prosecutrix) had gone missing. It is further alleged that information was received by the concerned police station the very next day that the girl had been traced in Mainpuri in U.P. The prosecution case is that the complainant visited the police station on 09.01.2006 stating that he had received a telephone call disclosing the girl s whereabouts somewhere in Mainpuri in U.P. The police proceeded there along with the prosecutrix s father; she was rescued. Upon her return to Delhi, her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10.01.2006. In this statement, she alleged that she had been abducted and had given certain details. However, she did not name any accused. She also claimed that she had been forced to have sexual intercourse several times during the time she was detained. The police apparently recorded a second, supplementary statement of the prosecutrix on 11.01.2006. In this, for the first time she named the Respondents/accused. The prosecutrix s statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was not recorded immediately but was recorded only on 17.02.2006. On the basis of these materials and girl s MLC collected during the investigation as well as the statement of other witnesses, the Respondents were charged for committing the offences. They denied their guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the Magistrate who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the doctor who examined the prosecutrix. The complainant Ashok Kumar deposed in the proceedings, as did the prosecutrix. After considering all the materials, the Trial Court concluded that there were several inconsistencies in the prosecution story which rendered it unsafe for it to conclude that the Respondents were guilty as charged. Accordingly, they were acquitted.

(3.) Ld.Addl.PP urged that merely because the prosecutrix omitted to mention names of the perpetrators of the crime, the Trial Court should not have given them the benefit of doubt. It was submitted that even in the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix described the Respondents/ accused and even stated their vocation. Having regard to these, as well as the testimonies of other witnesses, the acquittal was not justified.