LAWS(DLH)-1988-9-23

STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. TEJ RAM

Decided On September 21, 1988
STATE Appellant
V/S
TEJ RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tej Ram aged about 18 years was tried for having committed three offences; (1) for kidnapping Km. Vidyawati (under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code) on April 8, 1987 at 11.00 a.m.;(2) for wrongfully confining her in his house No. E-214, J.J. Colony, Inder Puri.New Delhi from 11.00 a.m. to the evening of April 8, 1976. This charge was under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code; and (3) for having committed rape (under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code) on that minor girl aged 12 years on April 8, 1976 at about 11.00 a.m.

(2.) Vide the impugned judgment dated August 9, 1977 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi acquitted Tej Ram of all the charges. It was held that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its allegation on any one of the counts. Instead the prosecution had established that the First Information Report about the missing of the prosecutrix was got recorded by her father Public Witness . 2, Shri Surjan Lal at 3.30 p.m. on April 10, 1976 i.e. about after 52 hours of the alleged incident. It was found that although the close relatives of the prosecutrix have admitted in their testimony that the prosecutrix was recovered at about 8.00 pm. on April 8, 1976 from the house of the accused, yet the First Information Report was lodged after more than two days. The learned trial court held and rightly so that there was absolutely no justification for this inordinate delay.

(3.) The acquittal is also based on the evidence of Public Witness . 6 Dr. S. Chaudhary, who had examined the prosecutrix on April 10, 1976 at about 2.20 p.m. The doctor opined that the girl had been raped about 4 hours prior to the examination. This testimony, therefore, pin-pointed the time of the rape to about 10.30 a.m. on April 10, 1976. The minor had been recovered two days earlier. The learned Judge after noticing infirmity in the prosecution case remarked that "this knocks the bottom of the prose- cution case because no question has been put to this doctor to suggest that her opinion was wrong."