GIRLS LODGE FALSE CASES TO ESCAPE PARENTS’ SCOLDING
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 34/13.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0366402011.
State Vs. Sushil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
R/o H. No.122, Sector-5,
R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.4.2011.
FIR No.208 dated 19.8.2009.
U/s. 375/376/420/406/493/120B/506 IPC.
P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 28.9.2013.
Date of pronouncement : 07.10.2013.
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused has been chargesheeted by
the prosecution for having committed the offence punishable u/s.
376/493/506 IPC.
2. It is revealed from the prosecution case that the FIR in
this case has been registered pursuant to order dated 18.8.2009
of the Ld. Magistrate passed in the complaint filed by the
prosecutrix namely 'V' (real name withheld in order to conceal her
identity) u/s.200 of Cr.PC. The accused Sushil Kumar is the
younger brother-in-law (Devar) of the elder sister of the
prosecutrix namely Hemlata. The gist of the complaint filed by the
SC No.34/13. Page 1 of 19prosecutrix is mentioned hereunder :
“The sister of the prosecutrix gave birth to a daughter
and her mother-in-law requested the parents of the
prosecutrix to take post delivery care of Hemlata as
she herself had to attend another daughter-in-law who
was admitted in the hospital. Accordingly, the parents
of the prosecutrix sent her to the house of the accused
to take care of her sister Hemlata. The prosecutrix
stayed in the house of the accused from 30.12.2008 to
14.1.2009 and used to do all the domestic work. The
accused and his family members initially showed love
and affection towards the prosecutrix and won her
trust and confidence. The accused developed intimacy
with the prosecutrix and came very close to her.
Taking advantage of the innocence and simplicity of
the traditional girl i.e. the prosecutrix, the accused
started teasing her and on one day even went to the
extent of outraging her modesty. The prosecutrix was
totally shattered and disturbed due to the said act of
the accused. She objected to the said conduct of the
accused and the accused at first offered his apology
and promised not to reveal said incident to anybody
but later on threatened her with dire consequences if
she disclosed the same to anybody. The prosecutrix
was not in a position to narrate the incident to
anybody and taking advantage of her such precarious
position, accused again outraged her modesty. The
accused, in collusion with his brother, Pramod
SC No.34/13. Page 2 of 19managed to take photographs of the prosecutrix in
objectionable position with the sole motive to
blackmail her and pressurise her not to take any legal
action against him. The accused and his brother
clicked few photographs of the prosecutrix in
compromising position with the accused. When the
prosecutrix protested to their said actions, accused
and his mother assured her that she will be got
married to the accused. On pretext of solemnizing the
marriage with the accused, they persuaded her to
come out of her parental house on 17.1.2009
alongwith her date of birth certificate and four
passport size photographs so that the formalities for
the marriage could be completed. The accused made
a telephonic call to the prosecutrix on 21.1.2009
asking her to be ready on the next day i.e. 22.1.2009
at 11.30 a.m. to accompany him for solemnizing the
court marriage. With the hope that her marriage is
going to be solemnized with the accused, the
prosecutrix reached the given place where the
accused was already present alongwith his friend
named Pappu. From there, she was mischievously
taken to Hari Nagar Bus Depot and ultimately, to ISBT
in an auto rickshaw. Sh. Pramod, the brother of the
accused, was already present on ISBT and helped the
accused and the prosecutrix to board a bus for Jammu.
When the prosecutrix objected as to why she is being
taken to Jammu, Pramod told her that it was not
possible to solemnize the court marriage at Delhi and
SC No.34/13. Page 3 of 19therefore, he has made all the arrangements at
Jammu and he would also be reaching Jammu the next
day. On reaching Jammu in the morning of 23.1.2009,
the accused took her to a hotel where a room had
already been booked. There the accused put vermilion
on the forehead of the prosecutrix and declared that
they are now husband and wife. The accused took
several photographs of the prosecutrix there in
various postures and objectionable position with some
ulterior intention. The accused also treated the
prosecutrix very badly at Jammu, tortured her and
threatened her not to disclose to her family members
about the court marriage. When the prosecutrix asked
the accused why the court marriage is not being
performed, he told her that the agent is in the process
of completing the formalities. The accused
continuously raped the prosecutrix at Jammu on giving
her assurance that they are now husband and wife
and there is nothing wrong in such act. The accused
brought the prosecutrix back to Delhi on 29.1.2009
and told his mother that she is now his wife and will
live with him. The mother of the accused objected and
called her son Pramod who told the prosecutrix that
she is a girl of bad character as she has stayed outside
her parental house for 8 – 10 days. The accused
objected to the utterances of his brother Pramod but
was beaten by Pramod as well as his mother. The
prosecutrix was thrown out of the house stating that
they have no relation with her. The prosecutrix was in
SC No.34/13. Page 4 of 19a state of shock and grief on account of aforesaid
conduct of the brother and mother of the accused.
Thereafter, Pramod, who himself is a driver, with the
help of his mother pushed the prosecutrix into his car
and dropped her at some lonely place in Delhi Cantt.
area and informed her maternal uncle Sh. Krishan
Dass telephonically that he can pick up the prosecutrix
from that place. Pramod also threatened that in case,
she disclosed anything to her parents or initiated any
legal action against them, he will kill her younger
brother Prithvi Raj. On reaching her parental home,
the prosecutrix was in a state of utter shock and grief.
However, on the persuasion and support of his family
members, she disclosed everything to her parents,
who took her to the police station Delhi Cantt. On
30.1.2009. Police initially was not inclined to register
the complaint but on the insistence of the prosecutrix
and her family members, registered the complaint as
per their suitability but did not take any action.”
3. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
entrusted to SI Saroj Bala. She made efforts to search the accused
but did not succeed. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over
to SI Sunita Sharma. She came to know that the prosecutrix has
been got medically examined by SI Aditi Lilly in DDU Hospital vide
MLC no.2183/09 on 05.2.2009 during the course of inquiry on the
complaint. Accordingly, SI Sunita Sharma seized the exhibits given
to SI Aditi Lilly by the doctor after medical examination of the
prosecutrix. She also seized the documents relating to the age of
SC No.34/13. Page 5 of 19the prosecutrix from Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, Delhi Cantt.
where she had studied, which reveals her date of birth to be
10.9.1985. SI Sunita Sharma then produced the prosecutrix before
the concerned Ld. Magistrate, who recorded her statement u/s.164
Cr.PC. Accused Sushil Kumar came to be arrested. However, she
did not find any prosecutable evidence against accused Pramod
and accused Dulari Devi. She recorded the statements of the
relevant witnesses and prepared a draft Charge Sheet. Thereafter,
she was transferred from the police station and further
investigation was entrusted to SI Satto Yadav. She got the accused
medically examined in DDU Hospital and seized his blood sample
given to her by the doctor. She sent the exhibits to FSL for forensic
examination.
4. After completion of the investigation, the Charge
Sheet was filed against accused Sushil Kumar before the
concerned Magistrate.
5. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions,
charges u/s 376 IPC and u/s 493 IPC were framed against the
accused on 07.04.2012. The accused pleaded not guilty to the
charges and accordingly trial was held. The prosecution has
examined 16 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused.
Ld. APP also tendered in evidence the FSL results which are Ex.PA
and Ex.PB. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on
06.08.2013 wherein he denied all the incriminating facts and
circumstances put to him and claimed false implication. The
accused has also examined a Pediatrician from Safdarjung Hospital
as DW-1 in his defence.
SC No.34/13. Page 6 of 196. Be it noted here that the father of the prosecutrix had
made a call at telephone No.100 on 30.1.2009 at 9.52 pm saying
that his daughter had been taken away by her brother-in-law
(devar) and later on dropped her behind APS Colony Pump House
near Jharoda village after committing wrong act with her. This
information was recorded as DD No. 15A in the Police Station and
was marked to SI SD Mishra for action. Accordingly SI SD Mishra
alongwith SI Netarpal reached the spot as mentioned in the DD
and found the prosecutrix alongwith her parents present there.
The prosecutrix submitted a written complaint to him wherein she
has mentioned that she is in love with Sushil Kumar, the brotherin-law of her elder sister Hemlata for the last six months but her
parents are not in favour of her marriage with him and, therefore,
they both had gone to Vaishno Devi about one week ago where
they lived like husband and wife. She had further written that
either her marriage be solemnised with Sushil Kumar or action
may be taken against his parents. Upon further inquiries made by
SI S.D. Misha, and thereafter by one lady SI, conclusion was
arrived that no cognizable offence has been made out in this case.
It also needs mention that during the course of aforesaid inquiries
being made, the prosecutrix had sent a written typed complaint
dated 6.3.2009 to the DCP S/W, New Delhi alleging that she had
been raped by the accused on the promise of marriage. Since the
police had concluded that no FIR needs to be registered in the
case, the prosecutrix then approached the court of ld. Magistrate
with a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. dated 24.03.2009 which was
accompanied by an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. upon which, the
FIR was then registered pursuant to the order of the ld. Magistrate,
as noted at the outset.
SC No.34/13. Page 7 of 197. I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for accused and have
perused the entire material on record.
8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1. She
deposed that on 30.12.2008, she had gone to the matrimonial
house of her sister i.e. flat No.122, Sector-5, R.K. Puram, New
Delhi. On 9.1.2009, she was still in the matrimonial house of her
sister. On that date, the accused committed rape upon her in a
room of the aforesaid flat in the afternoon. About a couple of days
earlier also, he had grabbed her hand with bad intention and at
that time she had resisted his moves. On 14.1.2009, her brother
brought her back to her home. On 17.1.2009, accused had come
to her house and took the copies of her school certificate and
photographs for the purposes of completion of formalities for
marriage with her. He had assured her that he would marry her.
On 22.1.2009, accused came to her house again. At that time she
and her younger sister only were present in the house. The
accused was accompanied by one of his friends. He called her
outside the house and took her on his motorcycle. He took her to
some place in Uttam Nagar and thereafter to ISBT from where they
boarded a bus to Jammu. They reached Jammu on 23.1.2009 and
stayed there in a hotel. In the hotel also he had sexual intercourse
with her assuring her that he would marry her. He stated that he
has given the documents to a lawyer for the completion of
formalities for court marriage. On 24.1.2009, they went to Mata
Vaishno Devi Shrine. They returned therefrom on 25.1.2009 and
stayed at Jammu in a different hotel till 28.1.2009. During this
period also, accused had sexual intercourse with her on several
SC No.34/13. Page 8 of 19occasions. They left Jammu on 28.1.2009 and reached Delhi in the
morning of 29.1.2009. The accused took her to his house. She
was kept in a room and the accused went somewhere else. The
brother of the accused namely Pramod abused her and threatened
her that he would get her raped by 8 to 10 persons. Thereafter
the parents and brother of the accused accompanied by the
mediator of her sister’s marriage as well as the friend of the
accused, left her at the house of a colleague of her mother.
Thereafter her parents and her brother came and took her
alongwith them. Next day i.e. on 30.1.2009, they reported the
matter to the Police. The accused made a call to the police official
who was handling the complaint and told him that he would marry
her. For that reason, no action was taken by the Police on that
day. Since the Police did not take any action against the accused,
she filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate and it was
pursuant to the order of the Magistrate that FIR was registered in
PS Delhi Cantt. on 5.2.2009, she was got medically examined by
the Police in DDU Hospital.
9. She has also proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
recorded on 24.10.2009 as Ex. PW1/A. In answer to a leading
question put to her by the ld. APP with the permission of the Court,
she admitted that she was present alone in the house of her sister
on 09.01.2009 as all the family members except the accused had
gone to hospital and the accused forcibly laid her on a sofa set and
raped her. She also admitted that accused had threatened her that
in case she disclosed the incident to anybody, the marital life of
her sister would be ruined. She also admitted that on reaching
Jammu on 23.1.2009, the accused applied vermilion on her
SC No.34/13. Page 9 of 19forehead and made her to believe that she is his wife and
thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her representing
that they are husband and wife. She further admitted that she had
conceived a child and she got the pregnancy aborted on 28.2.2009
in a private clinic at Basant Gaon.
10. In the cross examination, the prosecutrix (PW-1)
deposed that she is 8
th
pass and can read Hindi language but
cannot read English language. She was shown a complaint dated
30.1.2009 addressed to SHO PS Delhi Cantt., her statement
recorded by the SHO, PS Delhi Cantt. and her complaint dated
6.3.2009 addressed to DCP S/W. She admitted her signatures on
all these three documents and the same are Ex. PW1/DA, Ex.
PW1/DB and Ex. PW1/DC respectively. She further deposed that
she was aware about the engagement of the accused which had
taken place in the year 2008 but she did not remember the exact
date. She had attended the engagement ceremony but she did not
know the girl to whom the accused was got engaged. She
admitted that the photograph Ex. PW1/DD was taken at the time
of engagement ceremony of the accused and she is seen in the
same. She admitted that the entire complaint Ex. PW1/DA is in her
handwriting and in the statement Ex. PW1/DB, she has mentioned
that she is in love with the accused. She, however, added that IO
had made her to give such statement. She admitted that contents
of the complaint Ex. PW1/DC were drafted by her counsel on her
instructions and she had apprised her counsel that her statement
was taken by the Police under pressure. She denied the suggestion
that she had requested the accused to marry her but he refused
and added that infact accused had made a proposal for marriage
SC No.34/13. Page 10 of 19which she refused. She admitted that her parents had made a call
at telephone No. 100 alleging that accused had done some wrong
act with her in APS Colony behind Jhadera Village. She was present
alongwith her parents at APS Colony Pump House when the police
reached there and thereafter they were taken to Police Station.
She admitted that her parents and her relatives had gone to the
house of the accused on 29.09.2009 to discuss the issue of her
marriage with accused. She denied having told the police that she
was in love with the accused and intended to marry him. She
further deposed that she was not under any pressure at the time
of giving the photograph and school leaving certificate to the
accused and the same were given by her out of her own free will.
She was alone when she handed over the photograph and
certificate to the accused. She had not apprised her parents and
brothers regarding this fact. She further stated that at the time of
incident at her sister's house, no one was present there except
herself and the accused as all other family members had gone to
Safdarjung Hospital for the treatment of her sister's daughter .
11. Smt. Hemlata, the sister of the Prosecutrix has been
examined as PW-5. She deposed that she was pregnant in the
month of December, 2009 and there was nobody to look after her
in her matrimonial home as her sister-in-law (Jethani) was also
pregnant. Therefore, her mother-in-law asked her to call one of her
sisters from her parental house for house hold work. Accordingly
her sister i.e. the prosecutrix 'V' came to her matrimonial house to
look after her. She delivered a child on 28.12.2009 and on the
occasion of Makar Sankrati on 13.1.2010, her brother came to her
matrimonial house and took the prosecutrix alongwith him. A few
SC No.34/13. Page 11 of 19days latter, she came to know that accused Sushil has taken away
her sister 'V'. Thereafter she talked to 'V' who told her that
accused has taken her to Vaishno Devi Mandir and there he
committed sexual intercourse with her. She also deposed that they
returned after about one week and thereafter her parents and
some relatives had come to her matrimonial house informing what
the accused had done with 'V'. However, accused refused to
solemnize marriage with 'V' and accordingly her parents filed a
complaint against the accused. A leading question was put to her
by the ld. APP with the permission of the Court and she denied
that she has stated in her statement to the Police that accused
used to tease the prosecutrix and had a bad eye upon her. In the
cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, she stated that
her sister 'V' had not made any complaint to her regarding the
behaviour of the accused.
12. The mother of the prosecutrix, Mrs. Seeta has been
examined as PW-2. She deposed that in the month of January,
2009, on the request of mother-in-law of her elder daughter
Hemlata, she sent her younger daughter 'V' i.e. the prosecutrix to
their house to look after Hemlata in post delivery phase. She
further deposed that on 14.1.2009, her son Prithvi Raj brought
back the prosecutrix. Thereafter one day, the accused had come
to their house when she as well as her husband was not present
and took away the prosecutrix. After one week the prosecutrix was
left at the house of one of her colleagues by parents and brother
of the accused and therefrom they brought home the prosecutrix.
She also deposed that on the day when accused took prosecutrix
from her house, the parents of the accused came to their house
SC No.34/13. Page 12 of 19during the day and told them that the prosecutrix has been taken
away by their son Sushil. She also deposed that the prosecutrix
had told them that the accused had committed sexual intercourse
with her on the representation that he is her husband and
thereafter they reported the matter to the police.
13. PW-3 is Sh. Chander Prakash, the father of the
prosecutrix. He deposed that on the request of the mother-in-law
of her daughter Hemlata, they had sent their another daughter
prosecutrix 'V' to the matrimonial house of Hemlata to look after
her in the post delivery phase. He deposed that on 14.1.2009, his
son Prithivi Raj brought back the prosecutrix. Thereafter one day
accused had come to their house, when he as well as his wife were
not present, took away the prosecutrix. On the same day, the
brother of the accused namely Modi told him on telephone that
accused Sushil has taken away the prosecutrix. Next day he
alongwith two respectable persons went to the house of the
accused to initiate the talks of marriage of accused Sushil with
prosecutrix but parents of accused Sushil refused the offer of
marriage. After one week prosecutrix was dropped at the house of
one of the colleagues of his wife namely Kishan Dass and
thereafter they brought her home. Prosecutrix told her mother that
accused Sushil had committed sexual intercourse with her against
her will and his wife apprised him about the same. On 30.1.2009,
he made a call at telephone No. 100. PCR officials came to their
house and took him to PS Sadar Bazar where the police officials
advised him to settle the matter with the family of the accused.
Thereafter he alongwith Kishan Dass and one of his colleagues
went to the house of accused with the proposal of marriage
SC No.34/13. Page 13 of 19between accused and the prosecutrix but the parents of the
accused again struck down the proposal. Then he again
approached the Police but no action was taken on his complaint
and thereafter his daughter filed a complaint before the concerned
Magistrate.
14. As per the aforenoted testimony of the prosecutrix,
she was raped by the accused for the first time on 09.01.2009 in
his house when only the prosecutrix and the accused were present
there as all the family members had gone to Safdarjung Hospital
for treatment of the infant daughter of her sister Hemlata. She has
not mentioned about this incident either in her complaint dated
6.3.2009 Ex. PW1/DC or in her statement Ex. PW1/DB or in her
complaint filed before the ld. Magistrate, on the basis of which FIR
has been registered in this case. In the complaint before the ld.
Magistrate, she has simply mentioned that on one day, the
accused went to the extent of out ragging her modesty. No date
has been mentioned therein when the accused indulged in this
act. Even, this sentence cannot be taken to mean that accused
committed rape upon her. Outraging modesty of a woman is a
distinct offence than the offence of rape and the ingredients
constituting the two offences are also absolutely distinct. What
intrigues this court is that in the complaint dated 6.3.2009
addressed to DCP S/W Ex. PW1/DC, the prosecutrix has neither
mentioned about any incident of rape dated 9.1.2009 or any
incident of outraging her modesty on the same date. Further in her
statement, recorded by the Police Official, pursuant to inquiry in
DD No.15A, she has mentioned that the accused committed sexual
intercourse with her in his house on 09.01.2009 at about midnight.
SC No.34/13. Page 14 of 19This statement is in total contrast to what she has deposed before
the Court as PW-1 wherein she has stated that she was raped by
the accused on that date during day time. Further more, it is the
contention of PW-1 that her sister Hem Lata and her mother-in-law
had gone to the Hospital on that date for the treatment of
Hemlata's daughter and she alone was present in the house
alongwith the accused. This assertion of the prosecutrix is falsified
by the testimony of DW-1, a Specialist Pediatrician of Safdarjung
Hospital who has produced the record regarding the details of
children vaccinated on 09.01.2009 in their hospital Ex. DW1/A
which does not show that any child aged just nine days was
brought to the hospital on that date for vaccination. Ironically, she
did not mention about this incident of rape either to her sister
Hemlata or her parents as none of them has deposed about the
same in their testimony before this court. The prosecutrix has
come up with this incident of rape for the first time in her
deposition before this court without furnishing any explanation for
her stoic silence over the same till then.
15. The prosecutrix (PW1) has also deposed that the
accused has teased her earlier also (before 09.1.2009) but she had
resisted him. What intrigues this court is why didn't she offer
resistance on 09.1.2009 also and why she did not complain about
the acts of the accused to her sister Hemlata, who was present in
the same house. Pertinent to mention here that Hemlata (PW5)
has specifically deposed that prosecutrix had not made any
complaint to her against the accused.
16. From the conduct of the prosecutrix, it is difficult to
SC No.34/13. Page 15 of 19believe that she was raped by the accused in his house on
09.1.2009. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this regard is
absolutely untrustworthy and does not inspire any confidence. And
at this point of time, there was no promise or assurance of
marriage from the side of the accused.
17. According to the prosecutrix, the accused held out an
assurance of marriage to her for the first time on 17.1.2009 when
he visited her house and took her photographs as well as school
certificates. This was probably the first meeting between the two
after she was allegedly raped by him on 09.1.2009. What lead her
to believe the words of her rapist that he would marry her, is not
discernible. This time, the usual conduct of the prosecutrix would
have been to atleast inform her parents about the visit of accused
and his assurance of marriage. She did not think it proper to
consult her parents and readily handed over her photograph &
school certificate to the accused. Such conduct of the prosecutrix
also raises serious doubts about the alleged incident of rape and
makes it apparent that she had already decided to marry the
accused, probably out of love for him, although she has denied
having been in love with him.
18. Things did not stop here. The prosecutrix voluntarily
and without any force, threat or promise from the side of accused,
accompanies him on 22.1.2009 and they reach Jammu where they
stayed in various hotels till 28.1.2009 and returned to Delhi on
29.1.2009. the prosecutrix has deposed that she accompanied the
accused with the hope that he is going to solemnize marriage with
her and he told her the arrangements for court marriage have
SC No.34/13. Page 16 of 19been made at Jammu. In Jammu, he put vermilion on her forehead
in the hotel room and declared that they are now married
whereafter they had sexual intercourse many a times. What
wonders the court is what made the prosecutrix accompany the
accused for a run away court marriage. This kind of marriage is
usually resorted to when the boy & girl are in love with each other
and their respective parents are against their alliance. The
conduct of the prosecutrix in accompanying the accused to Jammu
for court marriage demonstrates that she wanted to marry the
accused but her parents were against this marriage. Her longing to
marry the accused appears to be only out of deep love and not on
account of assurance of marriage by the accused.
19. The prosecutrix states that she consented to sexual
intercourse with the accused when he applied vermilion over her
forehead in the hotel room and declared that they are now a
married couple. The prosecutrix was a matured lady aged 24 years
at that time. (Her school record Ex.PW6/A shows her date of birth
as 10.9.1985). She is expected to know that merely putting
vermilion on the head of the girl by the boy does not mean that
they have got married. Moreover, she had been taken to Jammu
for court marriage and therefore, she should not have consented
to sexual intercourse before solemnization of a valid court
marriage.
20. Of late this court has experienced a trend where the
girl says that the boy took her to a room, applied vermilion on her
forehead, put garland around her neck and declared that they are
now husband and wife. Then they indulge in sexual intercourse
SC No.34/13. Page 17 of 19with each other, with the consent of the girl and later on the girl
alleges rape on the false assurance of marriage. This is a very
disturbing trend. The girls in such cases are mostly in the age
group of 19 – 24 years, thus mature enough to understand the
consequences of their acts and not so numb to get carried away
with any representations of the boy. They voluntarily elope with
their lovers to explore the greener pasteurs of bodily pleasure and
on return to their homes, they conveniently fabricate the story of
kidnap and rape in order to escape scolds and harsh treatment
from the parents. It is these false cases which tend to trivialize the
offences of rape and undermine its gravity. A girl of this age
group, even if belonging to a rural area, cannot be believed to be
not knowing how the marriage is performed or what are the
essential ceremonies of a marriage. I am unable to countenance
the argument that a mature girl would believe and consider herself
a wife of the person who has merely applied vermilion on her
forehead and no other rite or ceremony has been performed. The
girls are morally and socially bound not to indulge in sexual
intercourse before a proper marriage and if they do so, it would be
to their peril and they cannot be heard to cry later on that it was
rape.
21. Coming to the case at hand, it is manifest that the
prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused for a trip to
Jammu and the intercourse between the two was with her free and
well informed consent.
22. It appears that parents of the prosecutrix were aware
about the love affair between her and the accused. Both PW2 and
SC No.34/13. Page 18 of 19PW3 (parents of prosecutrix) have deposed that they came to
know on the same day i.e. 22.1.2009 that accused has taken away
their daughter. Still they did not report the matter to police and
waited for the return of the two to Delhi on 29.1.2009. Thereafter,
they approached the parents of the accused with a proposal of
marriage of prosecutrix with accused which was turned down by
them. They have nowhere explained why did not they lodge a
complaint with the police till 30.1.2009.
23. The aforesaid discussion reveals that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. The
accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 07.10.2013. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.34/13. Page 19 of 19
Source -
http://164.100.52.44/judis_cat/chrseq_dc.aspx
