MONU Vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned two appeals arising out of same impugned judgment. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being taken from CRA-S-719-2019.

(2.) The brief facts, as emerged, from the report under Sec. 173 (Cr.P.C.) are that on 15/10/2014, SI Sarabjit Kaur along with other police officials was present in Police Post, Maloya. At that time the complainant along with her minor daughter came there and got the statement recorded to the effect that she was married and used to clean utensils in the marriage functions. She was having 06 children out of whom 02 were boys and 04 were girls. Her minor daughter (name of the prosecutrix/victim has been withheld in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 33 of the POCSO Act, Sec. 228-A of the IPC and in view of the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs Puttaraja, 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 113 and has been referred as the 'victim'), aged 14 ½ years and was studying in the 7th standard. On the day next to Karvachauth, i.e. 11/10/2014 at about 08.00 PM, the victim left the home without disclosing anything to her family members and they had been searching for her. Even they had lodged DDR No.7 dtd. 12/10/2014 (Ex.DW2/A) in Police Post, Maloya regarding the said fact. The complainant stated that she had come to know that her daughter, i.e. the victim, had gone with a boy, namely Monu (appellant herein), who was a resident of Shamli and on 14/10/2014, they had gone to Shamli with the police and brought her daughter back from there. Her daughter got her statement recorded that she had gone with accused Monu (appellant) out of her own free will. When the victim went home with her parents, she disclosed that Monu (appellant), who was the nephew of their neighbour Meena, used to come to the house of Meena for the last 7-8 months where the victim also used to sit in the house of Meena and Monu used to have fun with her. One day, the victim was alone in her Jhuggi (hut), where Monu (appellant) came and closed her mouth and forcibly committed rape upon her. Monu told the victim that he would perform marriage with her and in case she disclosed the same to anyone, he would kill her parents, due to which, she was extremely frightened and did not disclose the occurrence to anyone. The victim disclosed to her mother that on the day of Karvachauth, Monu met her in the morning and asked her to come to him at 08.00 PM in the evening with her clothes and they would perform marriage after running away and in case she did not come at 08.00 PM, he would kill her family. After threatening her, he took her to Shamli with an intention to marry her and committed rape against her wishes. With these broad allegations, the FIR in the instant case was registered on 15/10/2014, on the basis of statement of the mother of the victim, i.e. PW-2. After completing necessary investigation, the challan was presented against the appellant (Monu) in the court of competent jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant has been falsely involved in the instant case, rather he and his family are the victims. He has further submitted that the victim/prosecutrix had left her home on 12/10/2014 out of her own sweet will and nobody was responsible for the same. He further submitted that her mother had lodged DDR Ex.DW2/A dtd. 12/10/2014, in which it has been stated that her daughter had got flour from the shop and after keeping the goods, she left the house and went away on her own. She had no suspicion on anyone and she had been searching for her daughter, but she did not return. He has next submitted that there is a custom in the Jhuggis, the girls are married at an early age and even the mother of the victim was married twice and as such no offence was made out against the appellant/accused. Still further, it has been further submitted that the record relating to the date of birth of the victim was self contradictory and she was major at the time of alleged occurrence and she had left on her own.