STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SANJAY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17.04.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bundi, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused -Respondents for offences under Section 366, 376, 343 and 120B IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2005, one Ramesh submitted a written report at Police Station Talera, District Bundi, wherein he alleged that on 19.04.2005, around 7 -8 pm, when he was sitting with his family, his daughter, Gayatri, went to answer the call of nature. But she did not return back home. Therefore, along with this wife, he went to search for her. But they could not find her. On the next day, in the morning, they came to know from the villagers that the accused -Petitioner No. 1, Sanjay, with the help of other accused -Respondents abducted his daughter. On the basis of the said report, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No. 166/2005, for offences under Sections 363, 366/34 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a charge -sheet against the accused -Respondents before the learned Magistrate. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. In defence, the accused -Respondents examined five witnesses. After going through the evidence, vide judgment dated 17.04.2006, the learned Judge acquitted all the accused -Respondents. Hence, this leave to appeal by the State.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Eliyas Ali, the learned Counsel for the accused -Respondents, has strenuously contended that neither of the two parents of the prosecutrix have revealed the age of the prosecutrix in a definite manner. According to the medical evidence, the prosecutrix was between the ages of sixteen to seventeen years. Therefore, she was competent enough to give consent for sexual intercourse. Secondly, the prosecutrix is not a witness of sterling worth. According to her testimony, she was taken in a jeep by Sanjay. Yet she did not try to raise hue and cry during the abduction. Moreover, although allegedly she was confined in a room for twelve days, again she did not try to raise hue and cry and did not attempt to be rescued. Moreover, although she claimed that she was never taken out of the room, yet an affidavit was submitted by her on 27.04.2005, which is signed six days after the alleged abduction. The affidavit contained photographs of hers with Sanjay. The affidavit has been proved by Surya Kumar Jain (D.W. 1). Lastly, the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused -Respondents.