STATE OF DELHI Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has challenged the acquittal of the two respondents Jagdish and Suraj by this appeal. The two respondents alongwith Surinder, who was declared a proclaimed offender, were charged for offences under Section 366-A read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Section 373 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Jagdish, however, was further charged for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned AddI. Sessions judge vide the impugned judgment dated the 7th June, 1978 on analysis of the prosecution evidence has concluded that the case against the respondents has not been proved at all.

(2.) Mr. B.T. Singh, learned counsel for the State has at the outset conceded that the prosecutions case against the two respondents under Section 373 read with Section 34, IPC has not been made out. He has further conceded that the charge against Jagdish under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. He, however, submits that the prosecution has conclusively proved the offence under Section 366 - A of the Indian Penal Code against the two respondents.

(3.) The prosecutrix namely Rajni has appeared as P.W. 3. Admittedly on the day of occurrence, i.e., on 19th August, 1972 she was less than 18 years of age. She was a student of 6th class studying in a Government Higher Secondary School at Kasauli. It is apparent that there was an allegation of theft against her and due to fear of being scolded by her father, she left Kasauli on 15th August. 1972 and came to Delhi. Her intention was to go to the house of her grand mother (mothers mother), who according to her information was residing in the locality of Tilak Nagar. She did not know the number of the house or any other details about the premises.