AJEET PANWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated, delay condonation application no. 1281 of 2009 is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is condoned.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that revisionist herein has lodged an First Information Report under section 366, 120B IPC against accused saying that accused has abducted his legally wedded wife - Smt. Poonam Panwar.

(3.) Learned Sessions Judge by placing reliance on the statements of Smt. Poonam Panwar, recorded under section 164 of the Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Uttarkashi, came to the conclusion that as per the statements of Smt. Poonam Panwar, she herself went with the accused - Vikas Semwal who was known to her since before. She has further made statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was being troubled and tortured by her husband and in-laws, hence, to get rid of the tension and bad behaviour of the husband and in-laws she went herself with Vikas Semwal.