IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY], METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05, WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR No. : 364/2015 P.S. : Anand Parbat [CASE NUMBER] State v. [ENTITY], S/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o Village Lasnapur, PS Assegaon, District Amrawati, Maharashtra. Date of institution of case : 02.09.2015 Date of reserving the judgment : (not reserved) Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.08.2019 JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 9215/2018 2. Date of Commission of Offence: 24.05.2015 3. Date of institution of the case: 02.09.2015 4. Name of the complainant: Smt. [ENTITY] 5. Name of the accused: [ENTITY] 6. Offence complained or proved: 363 [ACT] 7. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty" 8. Final Order: Acquitted 9. Date of Final Order: 27.08.2019 FIR No. 364/15 State v. [ENTITY] 1 of 7 PS Anand Parbat 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. 364/2015.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 24.05.2015 at unknown time, accused had kidnapped Ms. [ENTITY] aged about 17 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 26.05.2018 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 witnesses :-
FIR No. 364/15 State v. [ENTITY] 2 of 7 PS Anand Parbat * PW-1 Smt. [ENTITY] is the informant in the present case who has deposed that in the month of May 2015, her daughter had left the house in the morning and went somewhere without telling them and they made search of their daughter but could not find her. Thereafter, they went to police station and lodged a complaint which is Ex.PW1/A. She further deposed that one day police official called and told her that her daughter has been recovered and thereafter at the instance of police officials she went to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital and she met her daughter in the hospital who told her that she had gone to [ENTITY] alone. She further deposed that her daughter refused for internal examination.
* PW-2 Ms. [ENTITY] is the victim in the present case and she has stated that on 25.07.2015, she had left her house and went to [ENTITY] and called accused and asked him to come at [ENTITY]. She further deposed that accused came at [ENTITY] and took her to her relative's house and accused dropped her at her relative's house and told her not to do this again. She further deposed that thereafter she called her mother and asked accused to come at the village of relatives situated at Maharashtra. She further deposed that her mother came there and took her to her house and thereafter, her mother arranged her marriage with accused. She further deposed that police officials never recorded her statement. She further deposed that she had told to accused that her age is above 18 years and accused had never induced her or asked her to come at [ENTITY]. She further deposed that her statement had also recorded before Ld. Magistrate on 17.06.2015 which is Ex.PW2/A. FIR No. 364/15 State v. [ENTITY] 3 of 7 PS Anand Parbat
6. The victim PW2 Ms. [ENTITY] did not support the case of the prosecution as she stated that she had left the house at her own free will and accused did not come to her house and did not ask her to come with him and she had told the accused that she is above 18 years of age and also told her not to do this again. PW1 is only the informant and she never named the accused as the person who kidnapped her daughter and she has stated that her daughter was missing. She had never seen the accused kidnapping her daughter. The PW2 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 :-
[SECTION] [ACT]. Punishment for kidnapping.
Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, FIR No. 364/15 State v. [ENTITY] 4 of 7 PS Anand Parbat 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. PW2 Ms. [ENTITY] did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that she went to [ENTITY] out of her own free will and accused never asked her to leave her house. The witness also stated that she had told the accused that she is more than 18 years of age. PW Ms. [ENTITY] did not support the prosecution version in her deposition made before the Court. The witness 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 and further she alone went to [ENTITY] which also shows that she was not taken away by the accused from the lawful guardianship of her parents. Further, victim PW2 has stated that to the accused that she is a major and accused was not aware about the fact that PW2 was a minor.
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 FIR No. 364/15 State v. [ENTITY] 5 of 7 PS Anand Parbat 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 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 decided to go alone to [ENTITY]. 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 Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 FIR No. 364/15 State v. [ENTITY] 6 of 7 PS Anand Parbat JCC 507 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 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. Accused is directed to furnish Personal Bonds under [SECTION] of [ACT] in the sum of Rs.10,000/- which would remain valid for a period of six months.
[ENTITY] KUMAR Date: 2019.08.27 15:47:02 +0530 Announced in open Court ([ENTITY]) on 27th day of August, 2019 Metropolitan Magistrate West-05, Delhi FIR No. 364/15 State v. [ENTITY] 7 of 7 PS Anand Parbat