RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 03.08.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent No.2, namely Kailash Chand for offences under Sections 366 & 376 IPC.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that On 12th June, 2008, the complainant, Ram Prakash, filed a written report at Police Station, Sanganer against the accused-respondent and his family. IN the written report, he alleged that his niece, namely Deepti, daughter of present petitioner, has been abducted by the accused-respondent and his family members. The police registered a FIR, FIR No.462/2008 for offence under Section 366 IPC. During the course of investigation, the INvestigating Officer recovered the abducted girl and she was medically examined. Her statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she disclosed the entire facts of the alleged incident.

(3.) INSTEAD, she continued to live with him for four long months. Thus, the learned Judge is justified in concluding that considering the fact that the prosecutrix was major, considering the fact that she had accompanied the accused-respondent peacefully without raising any hue and cry, considering the fact that she had lived with him for four long months, thus, clearly it is a case of consent and of elopement, rather than being a case of abduction and rape. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge is neither perverse, nor illegal. Of course, it is true that the learned Judge has discussed the testimony of Kamal Kishor (PW.10), the Investigating Officer. However, his reasoning is not solely based on the testimony of the Kamal Kishor. INSTEAD, he has found sufficient gaps in the story of the prosecution to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.