1 IN THE COURT OF Ms. SUNITA GUPTA : DISTRICT JUDGECUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : INCHARGENE DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI : [CASE NUMBER] Unique Case ID No. 02402R0226682010 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Anil Kumar, R/o C23, West Jyoti Nagar, [ENTITY]rijan Basti, Near Mata Mandir, Shahdara, Delhi. FIR No. 129/10 PS Jyoti Nagar U/s 363/[SECTION] [ACT]. Date of Institution : 10.08.2010 Date of Reserving for Order : 24.08.2011 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2011 J U D G E M E N T :
Prosecution's case emanates from the fact that on 27.03.2010 [ENTITY] (name changed) had gone to market to call her mother as someone had come to their house. [ENTITY] met her at Sunni Bazar and threatened to kill her and her family members. At about 8.45pm, he took her to Galchakar Loni and from there he had taken her to railway station. Thereafter, [ENTITY] was taken to Shamli by a train. In Shamli, two police officials sent them back to Delhi. He again took her to old Delhi Railway Station and from there took her to [ENTITY]ridwar and [ENTITY] by a bus. Thereafter, accused [ENTITY] took her in a Beragi camp and 2 committed rape upon her on 29.03.2010. When [ENTITY] did not return her home, her father [ENTITY] lodged complaint with police, on which investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, accused [ENTITY] along with prosecutrix was apprehended from a tea shop situated in village Mustafabad, Padharth. Accused [ENTITY] was arrested in the case. Accused and prosecutrix were got medically examined. [ENTITY]ment of prosecutrix was also got recorded u/[SECTION] [ACT] investigation culminated into a charge sheet against the accused.
2. Charge for offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused, to which charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined ASI [ENTITY] (PW1), Dr. [ENTITY] (PW2), ASI [ENTITY] (PW3), Constable [ENTITY] (PW4), [ENTITY] (PW5), Sh. [ENTITY], Metropolitan Magistrate (PW6), Constable [ENTITY] (PW7), [ENTITY], SubRegistrar Birth and Death (PW8), [ENTITY] (PW9), Dr. [ENTITY] (PW10), Ms. [ENTITY], Sr. Scientific Assistant (PW11), [ENTITY] (PW12), ASI [ENTITY] (PW13) and ASI [ENTITY] (PW14) in the case.
4. PW1 ASI [ENTITY] joined investigation of the case on 29.03.2010. He along with [ENTITY] complainant had searched for [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], but they could not be found.
3 PW2 Dr. [ENTITY], Jr. Resident, prepared MLC of [ENTITY] and proved the same as Ex.PW2/A. PW3 ASI [ENTITY] recorded FIR and proved copy of the same as Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Constable [ENTITY] took accused [ENTITY] to GTB Hospital for medical examination.
PW5 [ENTITY] unfolded facts pertaining to arrest of accused [ENTITY] and recovery of [ENTITY] from his possession.
PW6 Sh. [ENTITY], Metropolitan Magistrate, recorded statement of prosecutrix u/[SECTION] [ACT] He issued certificate Ex.PW6/C regarding correctness of the proceedings.
PW7 Constable [ENTITY], gave confirmation to facts unfolded by [ENTITY].
PW8 [ENTITY], SubRegistrar Birth and Death, unfolded about birth of a female child on 19.10.92 at D/3, Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, and proved entry made in this regard as Ex.PW8/A. PW9 [ENTITY] is the father of prosecutrix.
PW10 [ENTITY], Sr. Resident, medically examined [ENTITY] and proved her MLC as Ex.PW10/A. PW11 Ms. [ENTITY], Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology), examined exhibits of the case biologically as well as serologically. She proved 4 reports given by her in this regard as Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B respectively.
PW12 [ENTITY] is the prosecutrix.
PW13 ASI [ENTITY] was handed over investigation of the case on 16.04.2010. He later on handed over the file to MHC(R) as he was transferred from PS Jyoti Nagar.
PW14 ASI [ENTITY] conducted investigation of the case. He deposed those very investigative steps, which were taken by him during the case of investigation.
5. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused, he was examined under [SECTION] [ACT] Except the fact that he was residing in the neighbourhood of prosecutrix [ENTITY], he had denied all the allegations levelled against him. His case has been of denial simpliciter. He claims himself to be innocent. He pleads that he has no concern with the case. [ENTITY] has not been arrested in the manner as alleged by prosecution. He was lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in the case.
6. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], ld. Public Prosecutor for the [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the accused and have perused the record.
7. It is submitted by ld. counsel for the accused that no authentic proof 5 regarding date of birth of prosecutrix has been placed on record. Father of prosecutrix gave birth certificate and there is manipulation in the birth certificate. When bail application was moved, in order to oppose the bail application, [ENTITY] gave birth certificate which was verified by the investigating officer of the case and it was admitted that there is addition of name and manipulation in the date of birth and therefore it is not proved that this document relates to the prosecutrix. Moreover, according to father of prosecutrix date of birth of his daughter was obtained by midwife from hospital, but she has not been examined by the prosecution. Bony age of the prosecutrix was not got done. As such it is not proved that prosecutrix was minor on the date of commission of offence.
It was further submitted that testimony of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, there was ample opportunity for her to run away or to raise alarm, but that was not done. Rather her entire conduct reveals that she was consenting party in eloping with accused and remained with him. Reliance was placed on [PRECEDENT], Kulwant Singh vs. [ENTITY]; 2011 (1) CCC (SC) 250, [ENTITY] and another vs. [ENTITY]; [PRECEDENT], [ENTITY] vs. Ram Kumar and another; [PRECEDENT], [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] of [ENTITY]ryana; and [PRECEDENT], [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] of Punjab. Relying upon these authorities, it was submitted that prosecution has 6 failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such accused is entitled to be acquitted.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the ld. Prosecutor that testimony of prosecutrix herself is sufficient to convict the accused and no corroboration is required to prove her testimony. In the instant case, her testimony finds corroboration from medical evidence as well as from statement made by her before the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore, it was submitted that accused is liable to be convicted for offences alleged against him.
9. I have given my considerable thoughts to respective submissions of the ld. counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
10. [SECTION] [ACT] enacts the provision that whoever takes or induces any minor under 16 years of age, if a male or under 18 years of age, if a female, or any person of unsound mind to go out of keeping of lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without consent of such guardian, is said to have kidnapped such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Therefore, to attract provisions of [SECTION] [ACT], following ingredients should be established:
1. There must be taking or inducement of a minor or a person of unsound mind.
2. The minor must be under 16 years of age, if a male or under 18 years 7 of age, if a female.
3. Taking or inducement must be out of keeping of lawful guardianship of minor or person of unsound mind.
4. Taking or inducement must be without consent of guardian of minor or person of unsound mind.
11. The word "entice" involves an idea of inducement by exciting hope or desire in the other. One does not entice another, unless the latter attempted to do a thing, which he or she would not otherwise do. The expression enticing involves that, while the person kidnapped might have left keeping of lawful guardian willingly, still the state of mind that brought about that willingness must have been induced or brought about in some way by the accused.
12. To constitute "taking" of a minor out of lawful guardianship of his/her parents would not suggest that it should be done by force. The work "take" means to cause to go, to escort, or to take into possession. For taking to be complete, it should be shown that the accused was instrumental in either counselling her to leave or helping her in leaving. The prosecution has to prove that accused had played some active part in taking the girl from keeping of her lawful guardian's house and taking shelter in his house. The word "take" implies want of wish and absence of desire of the person taken. In order to constitute taking, it is necessary to make out 8 that active part in going away was that of accused and not that of the girl. Factum, which would be and should be taken into consideration in deciding whether there has been taking in particular case, are conduct of the parties, particularly of the accused at the time and before their going away together, the maturity of the girl and her intellectual capacity to think for herself and to make up her mind and circumstances under which and the object for which she felt it necessary or worthwhile to leave her guardian's protection.
13. Therefore, it is to be seen whether in the instant case, accused had taken the prosecutrix out of keeping of lawful guardianship of her father, namely, Sh. [ENTITY].
14. The most material witness of the prosecution is prosecutrix herself, who has deposed that accused used to live in her neighbourhood. On 27.03.2010 somebody had come to her house. Her mother had gone to market, therefore she went to call her mother. Accused met her in Sanni Bazar and threatened to kill her and her family members. He forcibly took her in a TSR to railway station from where he took her to [ENTITY]ridwar in train. From [ENTITY]ridwar, he took her to some other place, which was a Muslim area. On 29.03.2010, he committed rape upon her without her consent and will. Two police officials came and apprehended them and brought them to police station. They informed her parents. Her father with police 9 officials of Delhi reached there and brought them to Delhi. She was taken to GTB Hospital, where she was medically examined. She was also produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, where her statement Ex.PW6/B was recorded. Since the witness was not revealing all the true facts, she was crossexamined by the ld. Prosecutor and in cross examination she denied that she was on talking terms with accused for one month prior to the date of incident and he told her to take her to [ENTITY] at [ENTITY]ridwar. She was confronted with portion A to A of her statement Ex.PW12/A, where it was so recorded. She admitted that on 27.03.2010, first of all accused took her to Gol Chakkar, Loni, at about 8.45pm and from there he had taken her to railway station, from where he had gone to Shamli by train and from Shamli two police officials sent them back to Delhi. She also admitted that then they reached Old Delhi Railway Station from where they had taken train for [ENTITY]ridwar on 28.03.2010 and they got down from train on a station before [ENTITY]ridwar and went to [ENTITY] by a bus and there they had stayed in Beragi camp and there accused had committed rape upon her against her will and they remained there on 29.03.2010 and 30.03.2010. She denied that when they were sitting in a dhaba, police officials came with her father on 31.03.2010 and took them in their custody. In crossexamination by counsel for the accused, she denied that prior to 27.03.2010 accused 10 [ENTITY] had given one mobile phone to her or that she was having mobile phone bearing No. 9595261995 or that she used to have continuous talks with [ENTITY] on the said mobile number. She also denied that on 27.03.2010 also she had talked with him on this mobile phone. She denied having stated to police that on 27.03.2010 she had gone to Shahdara, where accused [ENTITY] met her or thereafter he took her in a RTV bus to Loni Gol Chakkar or thereafter he took her to Behta Railway Station by TSR or that thereafter accused took her to Shamli Railway Station or two police officials sent them back to Delhi. She was confronted with material portion of statement Ex.PW12/DA, where these facts were recorded. She admitted that on 28.03.2010 from Delhi, they went to [ENTITY]ridwar in train and from there accused took her to [ENTITY]. She also admitted that she did not tell anybody when accused took her on 27.03.2010 from Delhi to Shamli Railway Station or that two police officials sent them back or anybody in the train when he took her to [ENTITY]ridwar. However, she went on stating that she was scared as she was threatened by the accused. She denied having visited temple of [ENTITY] at [ENTITY]ridwar. She denied the suggestion that she was having love affairs with accused for last four years or that due to this reason without informing her parents, she voluntarily went with him or that due to difference in their caste their marriage could not take place or due to this reason her parents got false 11 case registered against the accused. She denied having stated before the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate that she had gone to [ENTITY] at [ENTITY]ridwar. She was confronted with portion A to A of statement Ex.PW6/B, where it is so recorded. According to her, she had never seen Behta Railway station. However, she admitted that she stated before the Metropolitan Magistrate that on 27.03.2010 [ENTITY] had taken her to Shahdara from where he took her to Behta Railway station and thereafter they went to Shamli Railway Station. She went on stating that she had stated these facts at the instance of police officials and her statement before the Metropolitan Magistrate was at their instance.
15. When prosecutrix was produced before ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement u/[SECTION] [ACT], she gave a very short statement alleging inter alia that on 27.03.2010 [ENTITY] had taken her to Shahdara Railway Station, from where he took her to Behta Railway Station or that they got down at Shamli Railway Station, where two police officials met them, who sent them back. Then they came back to Delhi Railway Station from where she was taken to [ENTITY]ridwar. They went to Mansa Devi Temple from where they went to Beragi Camp. In Beragi Camp, somebody misbehaved with her. She was also subjected to rape. Thereafter they kept on roaming. They stayed at one dhaba for taking tea, where her father and police came.
16. As regards legal proposition enunciated by the ld. Public Prosecutor for the [ENTITY] that testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law. In AIR 1952 SC 54, Rameshwar vs. [ENTITY] of Rajasthan, Hon'ble Apex Court declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the aforesaid case, [ENTITY], J. speaking for the Court observed as follows: (AIR p.57, para 19) "19 The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the Judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand."
17. This proposition of law has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in numerous judgements subsequently viz. [ENTITY] of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996 (2) SCC 384) ; Omprakash Vs. [ENTITY] of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 787 ; [ENTITY] of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658 ; and [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY], (2011) 2 SCC 385. These 13 observations leave no manner of doubt that a conviction can be recorded on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of a victim provided it does not suffer from any basic infirmities or improbabilities which render it unworthy of credence.
18. Perusal of the record goes to show that testimony of prosecutrix does not satisfy the aforesaid facts, inasmuch as, the prosecutrix herself was not believed by the prosecution and as such she was crossexamined by the ld. Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, she admitted some of the facts and denied certain other facts. Although thee are catena of decisions to the effect that a witness who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, testimony of such witness is not to be discarded altogether. But that much part of testimony of such a witness on which reliance can be placed can be considered. At the same time, rule of prudence requires that testimony of such witness should find corroboration from independent sources. In the instant case, there is absolutely no corroboration to the testimony of prosecutrix. Rather entire conduct of the prosecutrix negatives her plea that she was threatened by the accused to be killed and that she was forcibly taken by him. It is not in dispute that accused was not known to the prosecutrix, inasmuch as, he used to live in her neighbourhood. According to prosecutrix, she was taken forcibly by the accused at Golchakkar on 27.03.2010 in a three wheeler scooter to 14 railway station, from where she was taken to railway station. Thereafter, they had gone to Shamli by train and from Shamli two police officials sent them back to Delhi. They came to Old Delhi Railway Station and got the train for [ENTITY]ridwar. On 28.03.2010, however, before reaching [ENTITY]ridwar, they got down and went to [ENTITY] by bus, where they stayed in Beragi Camp and remained there till 30.03.2010. She admitted that when accused took her on 27.03.2010, she did not tell anybody either at Shamli railway station or to the police officials who sent them back to Delhi or at railway station Delhi or in the train or even at [ENTITY]ridwar. The entire conduct of the prosecutrix from going with the accused from one place to another is totally inconsistent with her plea that she was threatened by the accused to accompany her from one place to another. There was more than ample opportunity for her to raise hue and cry or to make complaint against accused, if she was forcibly taken by the accused. Even at Shamli railway station, police officials met them and sent them back to Delhi, but at that time also she did not make any complaint to those police officials that she was kidnapped by the accused. Rather after being sent back to Delhi, she again went with the accused at Old Delhi Railway Station and then boarded train for [ENTITY]ridwar, got down before reaching [ENTITY]ridwar and then went to [ENTITY] in a bus and then reached Begari Camp. It was admitted by her that in March, 2010, there was [ENTITY] at 15 [ENTITY]ridwar. Although she denied the suggestion that there was huge rush of public over there, but one can take note of the fact that at [ENTITY], there would not have been dearth of public persons to whom prosecutrix could have made complaint. Although she denied that there was huge rush of public over there, but she admitted that at least 1020 persons were available in the camp where she and the accused stayed. No explanation is forthcoming as to why she did not make any complaint to those persons in the camp, if she was being forcibly taken by the accused. Rather her statement u/[SECTION] [ACT] goes to show that she went with the accused to [ENTITY] and although she alleges that she was subjected to rape in Begari Camp, here it is not stated by her as to who committed rape upon her. She is not attributing any allegations of rape upon her by the accused even in her statement recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Even after commission of rape, according to her they kept on roaming and they were present at dhaba for taking tea, when they were apprehended by police along with his father. Under these circumstances, the entire conduct of the prosecutrix goes to show that she was a consenting party in eloping with the accused and then staying with him from 27.03.2010 till her recovery on 31.03.2010.
19. In [ENTITY] (supra) also Hon'ble Apex Court took into consideration the facts and circumstances of that case and observed that there was no 16 evidence to prove that victim was forcibly taken and totality of circumstances could not rule out the possibility that the victim girl had run away from her parental house.
20. In [ENTITY] (supra) Hon'ble High Court observed the behaviour of the prosecutrix to be very strange. No explanation was given by her for not making hue and cry when alleged offence took place nor there was any explanation for failure on her part to lodge complaint with police immediately or within reasonable time of the incident.
21. In [ENTITY] (supra) accused and prosecutrix lived in the same locality and both were known to each other. She was picked up from a public place from where she was taken to an isolated place, where both of them stayed for four/five hours. Threatening by the appellant seemed to be highly improbable as the appellant was not carrying any weapon with him. Again in [ENTITY] (supra), the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant to the house where alleged occurrence took place, which was located in a thickly populated area. There was no evidence to the fact that prosecutrix raised alarm. No injuries were noted on the person of prosecutrix, as such it was held that prosecutrix was a consenting party. The authorities relied upon by the ld. counsel for the accused applies with full force to the facts of the case in hand, inasmuch as, the conduct of the prosecutrix in going with accused on 27.03.2010 and roaming with him till 17 31.03.2010 when she along with accused was apprehended by her father and police and also in not raising any alarm or making complaint to any public persons, including the police officials, is inconsistent with her plea that she was threatened by the accused and therefore she did not inform anybody.
22. In this scenario, the age of the prosecutrix becomes very relevant.
According to Sh. [ENTITY], father of the prosecutrix, the date of birth of his daughter is 19.10.94 and he produced birth certificate Ex.PW8/B to the investigating officer of the case. Prosecutrix has deposed that her date of birth is 19.01.94. When she was crossexamined by the ld. Public Prosecutor, at that time she deposed that in the birth certificate her date of birth is mentioned as 19.10.94 and could not rule out possibility that due to fading of memory, she is not giving her correct date of birth and stating the same as 19.01.1994. Prosecution has also examined PW8 [ENTITY] from office of Subregistrar, Birth and Death, and he has deposed that as per record one female had taken birth on 19.10.92 and the name of father and mother of female child was [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] respectively. The birth was registered at Sr. No. 2002 in the register on 18.10.92. The female child had taken birth at D3, Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. He proved entry Ex.PW8/A, on the basis of which certificate of birth Ex.PW8/A was issued. In crossexamination, he could not tell the name of 18 the female child, however an entry is mentioned at Sr. No. 2002. He could not tell as to who made entry. He also admitted that entry at point A and B of Ex.PW8/B was made after issuing the birth certificate.
23. In normal circumstances the birth certificate issued by competent authority is the best piece of evidence to furnish the date of birth of any person. According to Sh. [ENTITY], as per birth certificate Ex.PW8/B, the date of birth of his daughter is 19.10.94. In crossexamination the witness admitted that his daughter was born at his house in Delhi. He admitted that neither he nor his wife had gone to MCD officer for registration of birth of his daughter. The birth certificate Ex.PW8/B was brought by midwife [ENTITY]. He admitted that date of registration is mentioned as 28.10.92 in Ex.PW8/B. He could not say, if handwriting at point A and B and other handwriting mentioned in Ex.PW8/B are different. He denied the suggestion that he himself made entries at point A and B on Ex.PW8/B with intention to falsely implicate the accused. ASI [ENTITY], the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted in crossexamination that as per verification report of MCD, Shahdara, birth certificate Ex.PW8/B there is no mention of name at point 'A'. He admitted that certificate produced by the complainant is having word "[ENTITY] (name changed)" in front of column of name. He admitted that he collected verification report Ex.PW14/DA and as per this verification report, the column of name is 19 blank and in the column of date of birth same is mentioned as 19.10.92. Under these circumstances, from testimony of investigating officer of the case, it becomes amply clear that there is tampering in the birth certificate inasmuch as, as per birth certificate Ex.PW8/A produced by PW8 [ENTITY], name of child was not mentioned which find mention in Ex.PW8/B. Moreover, date of birth was 19.10.92 which has been changed to 19.10.94. As per certificate Ex.PW8/A, the date of birth is 19.10.92. It is not the case of the prosecution that this birth certificate does not pertain to prosecutrix. Therefore, if according to this date of birth certificate, if prosecutrix was born on 19.10.92, then on 27.03.2010 she was 17 years, 5 months and 8 days old. It was admitted by the investigating officer of the case that after receiving verification report Ex.PW14/DA, he neither got conducted ossification test of prosecutrix nor tried to verify the school record of the prosecutrix. Under these circumstances, it becomes clear as per this birth certificate that prosecutrix was 17 years, five months and 8 days old. That being so, she was on the verge of attaining majority.
24. Matter came up for consideration before hon'ble Supreme Court in Vardarajan Vs. [ENTITY] of Madras, AIR 1965 S.C. 942, while dealing with the case of a minor girl, who was on the verge of attending majority and who herself telephoned the accused to meet her and finding him waiting with his car, got into that car of her own, it was held that the accused was 20 not guilt of taking out the girl out of the lawful guardianship of her father as there was no suggestion that the act was done by force or anything like that on the part of the accused. This judgement was relied upon in Bhagwan Singh & Ors. V. [ENTITY] of Anr., 2006 (3) JCC 2050 and following portion from the judgement of [ENTITY] (supra ) was quoted :
"But when the girl (who though a minor had attained the age of discretion and is on the verge of attaining majority and is a senior college student) from the house of the relative of father where she is kept, herself telephones the accused to meet her at a certain place, and goes there to meet him and finding him waiting with his car gets into that car of her own accord, and the accused takes her to various places and ultimately to the SubRegistrar's office where they get an agreement to marry registered, and there is no suggestion that this was done by force or blandishment or anything like that on the part of the accused but it is clear from the evidence that the insistence of marriage came from her side, the accused by complying with her wishes can by no stretch of imagination be said to have 'taken' her out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship, that is, the father.
The fact of her accompanying the accused all along is quite consistent with her own desire to be the wife of the accused in which the 21 desire of accompanying him wherever he went is of course implicit. Under these circumstances, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of taking away the girl out of the keeping of her father. She has willingly accompanied him and the law does not cast upon him the duty of taking her back to her father's house or even of telling her not to accompany him."
These authorities were relied upon subsequently in [PRECEDENT].
25. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, even if prosecutrix had not completed 18 years, but she was on the verge of attaining majority, coupled with the fact that consent of the prosecutrix in going with the accused is writ large in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such prosecution has failed to prove that accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix from lawful guardianship of her father, namely, Sh. [ENTITY].
26. As regards offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] is concerned, in view of the discussions made above, keeping in view the fact that prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age and the evidence reveals that she was consenting party in eloping with accused and in order to have relations with him, therefore even offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] is not proved.
27. Result of the aforesaid discussions is that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. He is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. Consequently, accused is acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds are discharged. However, in compliance of provisions of [SECTION] [ACT], he is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/ with one surety of the like amount, which shall remain in force for a period of six months.
Announced in the Open Court ([ENTITY]) On this 2nd day of September, 2011. District JudgecumASJ, I/CNE, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.