STATE Vs. RAHEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT leave to appeal petition has been filed by the petitioner/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -I (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the respondent herein has been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 366/328/376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AS per the case of the prosecution before the learned trial Court, the daughter of PW -3 went missing on 22.10.2012. On the next date, PW -3, father of the girl, went to the Police Station and made a complaint that his daughter, who is 15 years of age, has been missing since 10.00 a.m. of 22.10.2012. He also informed the Police that the respondent, who lived in the adjoining room, has also been missing since then. PW -3 also pointed to finger of suspicion upon the respondent. On the basis of the complaint so made by PW -3, Rukka was prepared and an FIR was registered. Thereafter a hue and cry notice was published. On 5.11.2012, a message was received from Police Station Bainiop, District Samastipur, Bihar, with regard to the recovery of the missing daughter of PW -3. The concerned Investigating Officer along with PW -3 reached Police Station Bainiop, District Samastipur, Bihar, on 6.11.2012 where the respondent was present. Statement of the prosecutrix (missing daughter of PW -3) was recorded. Respondent was also produced before the Court of local Chief Judicial Magistrate and a 48 hours transit remand of the respondent was taken. Both, prosecutrix and accused, were brought to Delhi. The prosecutrix was thereafter taken to the LBS Hospital for her medical examination. The respondent was also taken to the LBS Hospital and thereafter prosecutrix was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded and exhibits were sent to the FSL.

(3.) MR . Sharma, learned APP for the State, submits that School Leaving Certificate of the prosecutrix would show that she was 14 years of age at the time when she was illegally removed from the guardianship of her parents by the respondent. Learned APP has further submitted that as per Mohammedan Law the age of puberty has been fixed at 15 years and since the prosecutrix was less than 15 years of age, her consent, if any, would be meaningless. It has also been stated that medical evidence has supported the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix, besides being illegally detained, was raped.