Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1435 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Nitish @ Nitin

2015-07-31

P.K.LOHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-State has preferred this appeal seeking leave of the Court under Section 378(iii) & (i) Cr.P.C., to question the impugned judgment dated 28th of May, 2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC. 2. Facts, in brief, are that a missing report is submitted by one Suraj Chouhan on 1st of September, 2012 stating therein that his sister Miss P., a first year student of M.G. College, is missing. As per version of Suraj Chouhan, Miss P. went to College previous day i.e. on 31st August, 2012, but did not return back, therefore, he rang up her friend, Chandani, but she could not furnish any clue except the fact that she saw Miss P. talking to one boy. Thereafter, as per the version of Suraj Chouhan, efforts were made to search Miss P., but all in vain. Subsequently, a complaint is submitted by Miss P., before Judicial Magistrate No.1, North, Udaipur on 21st of September, 2012 wherein all the accused-respondents were named attributing allegation of abduction and criminal conspiracy against them. In the complaint, it is, inter alia, averred that respondent-accused, Nitish rang up her on 31st August, 2012 at about 12:15 PM and informed that her brother met with an accident and immediately on receiving the call, she came out from college and saw Nitish standing with a car. Nitish asked her to sit in the car and offered her a glass of water. On consuming water, she became unconscious. In an unconscious state, according to Miss P., she was brought to Jodhpur and taken to a room where she found the other accused persons also present. In the complaint, a specific allegation is made that all the accused persons threatened her of dire consequences and asked her to marry Nitish else her family members would be killed. From Jodhpur, she travelled to Mount Abu with accused persons and stayed in a room. It is also alleged that she was forced to sign certain papers for the purpose of entering into matrimony with Nitish and thereafter she along with the accused persons went to Gujarat and Delhi. At Delhi as per Miss P., she stayed with aunt of accused Nitin. It is also alleged that she was forced to sign certain papers for the purpose of entering into matrimony with Nitish and thereafter she along with the accused persons went to Gujarat and Delhi. At Delhi as per Miss P., she stayed with aunt of accused Nitin. From Delhi when they returned back to Udaipur, accused Nitin alighted from the vehicle before destination and Miss P. was taken to his house by accused Rahul. As per version of the complainant, she rang up her brother for taking her back to the parental house from Udaipur. To wriggle out from the delayed report, the complainant has alleged in the complaint that the delay is caused due to weakness, she is suffering. Facts about medical examination of Miss P was also mentioned. 3. After investigation, FIR No.197/2012 was registered for the offences under Section 363, 366 and 120-B IPC and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-respondents. 4. Prosecution, in order to establish guilt of the accused-respondents, examined four witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Chandani Bhatnagar, P.W.2 prosecutrix, P.W.3 Nirbhay Singh and P.W.4 Suraj. No medical evidence was tendered inasmuch as doctor was not examined. In all nine documents were produced and exhibited during trial. 5. After recording statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court examined threadbare the evidence and materials available on record. Considering the that she remained with the accused persons for about 20 days, the learned trial Court opined that it is unbelievable that she was abducted and was compelled to live with the accused respondents. Documents showing matrimony between Miss P. and Nitish were also taken note of by the learned trial Court to demolish the prosecution story that in fact it was a case of abduction. In totality, the learned trial Court found that there is no unimpeachable evidence to show that Miss P. had not gone with the accused-respondents out of her free will and volition. The theory of forcing her to enter into matrimony with Nitish is also completely repudiated by the learned trial Court on the strength of Marriage Registration Certificate. In totality, the learned trial Court found that there is no unimpeachable evidence to show that Miss P. had not gone with the accused-respondents out of her free will and volition. The theory of forcing her to enter into matrimony with Nitish is also completely repudiated by the learned trial Court on the strength of Marriage Registration Certificate. Learned trial Court, while considering the prosecution evidence critically, has also romped into the basic principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that accusation is required to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and, if there is any doubt or suspicion about the prosecution story, some benefit is required to be extended to the accused-persons. 6. Considering the circumstances, learned trial Court has also opined that it is also unbelievable that for 20 long days Miss P. had no occasion to have access with her family members or to make hue and cry about her alleged abduction and wrongful confinement by the accused respondents. The learned trial Court has also taken note of some serious discrepancies and pitfalls in the evidence tendered by the complainant Miss P., wherein she has given some evasive answers about the car in which she was taken from the place of incident and the identity of the rooms, where she stayed with the accused-respondents in Mount Abu and Gujarat. 7. In totality, while considering loopholes in the prosecution evidence, learned trial Court recorded a definite finding that prosecution has miserably failed to prove accusation beyond reasonable doubt and extended benefit to all the accused persons by acquitting them. 8. I have learned public prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court has made sincere endeavour to unearth truth about the prosecution story and there appears to be no infirmity in appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, has quite reasonably recorded a conclusion that the evidence tendered by prosecution is insufficient to bring home guilt against the accused-respondents. The learned trial Court, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, has quite reasonably recorded a conclusion that the evidence tendered by prosecution is insufficient to bring home guilt against the accused-respondents. Therefore, in these circumstances, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in extending benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents and it is not a fit case wherein discretion is to be exercised by this Court for granting leave to the appellant-State. Resultantly, leave craved for is declined and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.