SUDHIR PASWAN Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT), DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 02.07.2014 in Sessions Case No. 22/2012 emanating from FIR No. 346/2011 PS Burari by which the appellant Sudhir Paswan was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 363/366/376 IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him By an order dated 02.07.2014, the appellant was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 366 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 05.11.2011 at about 03.00 P.M., the appellant kidnapped prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) from the lawful guardianship of her parents with an intention to forcibly marry her. He took 'X' to various places and committed sexual assault upon her. Missing person report was lodged vide Daily Diary (DD) No.19A (Ex.PW-18/A) at 13.45 hours on 12.11.2011 at PS Burari. Efforts were made to find out 'X'. Finally, she was recovered in the company of the appellant at Mujjafarpur on 17.11.2011. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she was medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded that 'X' had accompanied him with free consent and they were in love. No evidence in defence was adduced. The trial resulted in his conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Findings of the Trial Court reveal that 'X' was a consenting party throughout. However, her consent was inconsequential she being below sixteen years of age. On perusal of the evidence of the relevant witnesses including that of 'X', it stands established that 'X' and the appellant were acquainted with each other prior to the incident. Admitted position is that the appellant used to have frequent visits to X's house along with her cousin. The appellant lived in the vicinity of the prosecutrix and used to call her parents as 'Mausi' / 'Mausa'. 'X' accompanied the appellant on 05.11.2011 in a car and was taken to various places. As per her testimony, she was first taken to the appellant's sister's house. After that, they both went to a temple and the appellant married her in the presence of a Pandit. The accused took her to village Karjolia in a vehicle at the residence of his uncle. Thereafter, she was taken to a village at the residence of her Mausi's daughter. 'X' stayed with the appellant for about 4 / 5 days in all. At no stage, she raised any hue and cry regarding her forcible abduction or kidnapping. Physical relations were established during this period. At the time of medical examination, 'X' was found pregnant and the pregnancy was terminated subsequently. No injury on her body was noticed in the MLC. The accused was not armed with any weapon to cause apprehension in her mind or to scare her. From all these circumstances, it can safely been inferred that 'X' was a consenting party throughout and the findings of the Trial Court on that score cannot be faulted.