VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant- Vinod Kuamr impugns judgment dated 13.11.2000 and order on sentence dated 14.11.2000 in Sessions Case No.33/2000 arising out of FIR No.55/1999 PS M.S.Park by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for seven years with total fine Rs. 3,000/-.

(2.) Allegations against the accused were that on 04.03.1999 at about 12.15 P.M. he kidnapped prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), age 16 years when she was alone at her House No.4/8, Gali No.4, Jagjeevan Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. He committed rape upon her till she remained in his custody at Delhi and Meerut. During the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She was medically examined. Birth certificate showing her date of birth as 15.03.1983 was collected. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Dr.Sunil Kumar Dhawan), DW-2 (Sudhir Kumar) and DW-3 (Kamla) stepped in his defence. On appreciating the evidence and taking into consideration contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.

(3.) On scrutinising the Trial Court record and the evidence produced before it, it reveals that the prosecutrix was known to the accused for about one year prior to the incident and they were acquainted with each other. The accused used to visit her home. On the day of incident, the prosecutrix was alone accompanied the accused. From the circumstances brought on record, it appears that the accused and the prosecutrix were in deep love and she accompanied him with her free consent without informing her parents. The prosecutrix remained in the company of the accused for four days and at no stage, she raised hue and cry. She did not resist sex with her. She was not alone in the place where she remained with the accused. She did not complain kidnapping and sexual assault. When her father lodged complaint with the police the accused's father brought both of them to Delhi and produced before the police. In her medical examination, no injuries were found on her body to show if physical relationship was established without her consent. The accused produced number of documents on record to show that the prosecutrix had voluntarily performed marriage with him. DW-2 (Sudhir Kumar) proved petition No.22/1999 filed by the prosecutrix against the accused under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 28.02.1999, wherein she admitted her marriage with the accused. In her cross-examination, she admitted that petition (Ex.PW-2/DA) contains her signatures at point A. She signed the said documents twenty days prior to the incident. She had travelled with the accused to Meerut but at no stage, raised any alarm complaining her forcible abduction. Apparently, the prosecutrix was a consenting party throughout.