IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY], METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05, WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR No. : 132/2014 P.S. : Anand Parbat [CASE NUMBER] State v. [ENTITY], S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o T-34, Bheel Basti, Road No. 20, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi. Date of institution of case : 25.04.2017 Date of reserving the judgment : (not reserved) Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.10.2019 JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 99/2017 2. Date of Commission of Offence: 27.03.2014 3. Date of institution of the case: 25.04.2017 4. Name of the complainant: Sh. [ENTITY] 5. Name of the accused: [ENTITY] 6. Offence complained or proved: 363 [ACT] 7. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty" FIR No. 132/14 State v. [ENTITY] 1 of 7 [ENTITY] 8. Final Order: Acquitted 9. Date of Final Order: 25.10.2019 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is the prosecution of accused [ENTITY] for the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as [ACT]) on a charge sheet filed by the Police Station Anand Parbat subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 132/2014.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 27.03.2014 at about 7:00 P.M., accused had kidnapped Ms. [ENTITY] aged about 16 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent. Accused was arrested. Charge-sheet in the Court was filed after completion of investigation.
3. The copies of charge sheet and relevant documents were supplied to accused in compliance of [SECTION] of [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as [ACT]).
4. Charge for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against accused on 25.07.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed up for recording of prosecution evidence.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined the following FIR No. 132/14 State v. [ENTITY] 2 of 7 [ENTITY] witnesses :-
* PW-1 Ms. [ENTITY] is the victim in the present case and she has stated that on 27.03.2014 she made a plan to go to [ENTITY] alongwith accused [ENTITY] who was residing in her neighbourhood. She further deposed that she had told about her plan to her mother and her mother gave permission to go with [ENTITY] as he was their neighbour. She further deposed that they were apprehended by police officials at [ENTITY] Railway Station and brought her and accused to Delhi. She further deposed that accused had not induced her or asked her to come with him. She further deposed that there is no fault of accused as she had gone with accused with the permission of her mother. During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, witness denied the suggestion that accused has induced her to go with him or that she was not ready to go with the accused.
* PW-2 Sh. [ENTITY] is the informant in the present case who has deposed that his daughter namely [ENTITY] did not return to house till late evening and thereafter, he went to [ENTITY] to lodge a complaint and he was under impression that accused [ENTITY] had taken her daughter alongwith him. When he returned back to his house after making complaint, his wife told him that [ENTITY] had gone with accused [ENTITY] at [ENTITY] with her permission.
* PW-3 Sh. [ENTITY] and PW5 Smt. [ENTITY] are the FIR No. 132/14 State v. [ENTITY] 3 of 7 [ENTITY]
witnesses who did not support the prosecution version and duly cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
* PW-4 Sh. [ENTITY] is the formal witness who brought the school admission records qua accused [ENTITY].
6. The victim PW1 Ms. [ENTITY] did not support the case of the prosecution as she stated that she herself went alongwith accused and accused did not induce or force her to go with him. PW2 is only the informant. The PW1 who is the main witness on whose shoulder the prosecution story relies, however, she did not support the prosecution case and stated that she was not abducted by the accused. No other eye witness of the alleged abduction is cited in the list of witnesses. No fruitful purpose shall be served by examining the remaining witnesses. The prosecution evidence is hereby closed. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under [SECTION] [ACT] is therefore dispensed with.
7. This Court has carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by Learned APP for the State as well as by Learned Defence Counsel.
8. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the ingredients of the offences charged :-
FIR No. 132/14 State v. [ENTITY] 4 of 7 [ENTITY]
[SECTION] [ACT]. Punishment for kidnapping.
Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
9. Coming to the facts of the present case. The main witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 Ms. [ENTITY] did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that she herself went alongwith accused and accused did not induce or force her to go with him. PW Ms. [ENTITY] is the only person who could have established the ingredients of [SECTION] [ACT], however, she has stated that she was not asked by the accused to leave her house which shows that she was not induced by the accused in any manner.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "[PRECEDENT] has ruled that "there is a distinction between "taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. Where a minor leaves her guardian's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she is doing and voluntarily joins the accused person, in such a case there is no "taking" by the accused. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind, as per example, some kind of inducement held out by accused or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the guardian's house. If the minor leaves her guardian's protection without the accused having played any active FIR No. 132/14 State v. [ENTITY] 5 of 7 [ENTITY] part and later joins the accused and the accused helps her in her design not to return to her guardian's house, then, though the part played by accused can be regarded as facilitating the fulfillment of the intention of the minor, that part played by accused falls short of an inducement and would not amount to "taking".
11. This Court is of view that the facts of the above-mentioned judgment are almost similar to the facts of the present case. In the present case, girl Ms. [ENTITY] had not left her house at the instance or even at the suggestion of accused. On the contrary, she had herself went alongwith accused and accused did not induce or force her to go with him. The most essential ingredient i.e. "enticing or taking away" for establishing the offence of [SECTION] [ACT] is not proved.
12. All the remaining witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the list of witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses. They are not ocular witnesses and could not prove the culpability of accused. None of the remaining witness is an eye witness to the incident and no other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts.
13. In case titled as [PRECEDENT] Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of FIR No. 132/14 State v. [ENTITY] 6 of 7 [ENTITY] formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
14. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited Judgments, this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The Court needs to protect the right of accused to have speedy justice and acquit the accused forthwith as there is nothing incriminating against accused. Accordingly, accused namely [ENTITY] is acquitted for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT].
15. Bail Bonds u/[SECTION] of [ACT] are to be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months.
[ENTITY] Date: 2019.10.25 15:24:39 +0530 Announced in open Court ([ENTITY]) on 25th day of October, 2019 Metropolitan Magistrate West-05, Delhi FIR No. 132/14 State v. [ENTITY] 7 of 7 [ENTITY]