RAM BAHADUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kumari Laxmi is aged about 11 or 12 years. On 28-4-1985 at about 12 Noon, while she was waiting at the bus stop of Janki Devi College for going to her house at Sardar Patel Marg, Dhaula Kuan Delhi the accused Ram Bahadur, as per the prosecution evidence, approached her and told her that the maternal uncle of Laxmi is unwell. Laxmi agreed to accompny him to inquire about the health of her uncle. The accused then took her in a three wheeler Scooter to the Railway Station and made her sit in a train scheduled for going to Moradabad. On that very evening they reached Moradabad. On enquiry as to where is her maternal uncle, the accused is alleged to have threatened her to keep quite. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the morning of 30th April, 1985 Laxmi was taken to a bathroom at the Railway Station. The accused also followed her. In the bathroom, the accused asked Laxmi to undress herself. She felt nervous and raised alarm. She came running out of the bathroom. After covering some distance she met Vijay Raj, Mumtaz, Narain Singh and Jagdish, who were working as labourers at the Railway Station. These persons apprehended and secured the accused who was chasing Laxmi. Both of them were produced before the Moharrar at Police Station Moradabad. Statement of Mumtaz was recorded and case registered. As the acccused and Laxmi had come from Delhi and the offence of kidnapping had taken place there, the case was transferred to Delhi, for further investigation. On 3.5.1985, Laxmi was brought to Chankaya Puri Police Station where her statement Ex. PW-3/A was recorded. The case was then referred to Police station RajinderNagar. There also her statement Ex. PW-2/DA was recorded.

(2.) Laxmi was then produced before the Duty Magistrate and her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded. Laxmi did not complain of the accused having committed the sexual intercourse. She was not sent for medical examination. The accused was brought to Delhi in the month of July and was produced for identification parade on 10.7.1985. He refused to join the same. On the basis of the facts disclosed in the report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., a prima facie case under Sections 363, 366, 354, and 506 I.P.C. was found to have been made out. The charges were accordingly framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses out of which the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother are important. The evidence of the remaining witnesses is of formal nature.