STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NITISH @ NITIN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-State has preferred this appeal seeking leave of the Court under Sec. 378(iii) & (i) Crimial P.C., to question the impugned judgment dated 28th of May, 2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that a missing report is submitted by one Suraj Chouhan on 1st of Sept., 2012 stating therein that his sister Miss P., a first year student of M.G. College, is missing. As per version of Suraj Chouhan, Miss P. went to College previous day i.e. on 31st Aug., 2012, but did not return back, therefore, he rang up her friend, Chandani, but she could not furnish any clue except the fact that she saw Miss P. talking to one boy. Thereafter, as per the version of Suraj Chouhan, efforts were made to search Miss P., but all in vain. Subsequently, a complaint is submitted by Miss P., before Judicial Magistrate No.1, North, Udaipur on 21st of September, 2012 wherein all the accused-respondents were named attributing allegation of abduction and criminal conspiracy against them. In the complaint, it is, inter alia, averred that respondent-accused, Nitish rang up her on 31st Aug., 2012 at about 12:15 PM and informed that her brother met with an accident and immediately on receiving the call, she came out from college and saw Nitish standing with a car. Nitish asked her to sit in the car and offered her a glass of water. On consuming water, she became unconscious. In an unconscious state, according to Miss P., she was brought to Jodhpur and taken to a room where she found the other accused persons also present. In the complaint, a specific allegation is made that all the accused persons threatened her of dire consequences and asked her to marry Nitish else her family members would be killed. From Jodhpur, she travelled to Mount Abu with accused persons and stayed in a room. It is also alleged that she was forced to sign certain papers for the purpose of entering into matrimony with Nitish and thereafter she along with the accused persons went to Gujarat and Delhi. At Delhi as per Miss P., she stayed with aunt of accused Nitin. From Delhi when they returned back to Udaipur, accused Nitin alighted from the vehicle before destination and Miss P. was taken to his house by accused Rahul. As per version of the complainant, she rang up her brother for taking her back to the parental house from Udaipur. To wriggle out from the delayed report, the complainant has alleged in the complaint that the delay is caused due to weakness, she is suffering. Facts about medical examination of Miss P was also mentioned.

(3.) After investigation, FIR No.197/2012 was registered for the offences under Sec. 363, 366 and 120-B Penal Code and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-respondents.