Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Atar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2016
Decided On : 04-04-2016
For the Appellant :Rakesh Matoria, Advocate.
For the Respondents: O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.
The court's decision highlights the importance of cogent and reliable evidence in proving criminal offenses, and the admissibility and reliability of the victim's statement in cases of alleged abduction.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ACQUITTAL - SECTIONS 363 AND 366A IPC - EVIDENCE - MINORITY OF VICTIM - STATEMENT OF VICTIM - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S DECISION
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint alleging that his 16-year-old daughter was kidnapped by the accused-respondent. The police investigated and filed a charge sheet against the accused-respondent for offenses under sections 363 and 366A IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused-respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that none of the prosecution witnesses saw the accused-respondent committing the offense. The victim, who was examined as a witness, denied the allegation of abduction and stated that she went to her aunt's house voluntarily due to ill-treatment by her father and stepmother. She also stated that she lived with the accused-respondent and gave birth to a male child.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the offense of abduction under section 363 IPC? 2. Whether the victim's statement denying the abduction is admissible and reliable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the accused-respondent abducted the victim. 2. The court held that the victim's statement denying the abduction is admissible and reliable, as she was a competent witness and there was no evidence to suggest that her statement was influenced or coerced.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal of the accused-respondent.
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed by Special Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.20/2014, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent Shyam Sunder from the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.10.2013, the appellant filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh against Sunder, Gurjant, Balbeer, Laxmi and Ramesh while alleging that on 23.09.2013 he was sleeping along with his family members and when he awoke, he found that his 16 years' old daughter was not in the house. He further alleged that his brother-in-law Santram told him that two days ago, Ramesh Bawri had threatened him that he would kidnap the daughter of the appellant and forcibly marry her with Sunder. The appellant also alleged that when he made search of his house, he found that Rs. 15000/- is missing, which was kept in trunk. It was also alleged that daughter of the appellant was wearing some gold and silver ornaments. The appellant had belief that the above named person had kidnapped his daughter. The complaint filed by the appellant was sent to the Police Station, Sadar Suratgarh under section 156(3) CrPC for investigation and an FIR No.276/2013 was lodged at Police Station, Sadar, Suratgarh for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366 IPC. The police had also filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent Shyam Sunder and the trial court framed charges against him for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined as many as six witnesses and also exhibited 12 documents. Statements of accused-respondent Shyam Sunder were recorded under section 313 CrPC, wherein he has specifically stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case.
3. The trial court, after hearing the parties concerned, has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC vide impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC as from the school record pertaining to the daughter of the appellant produced before the trial court, she was minor at the time of incident and even if she has stated in her statement that accused-respondent Shyam Sunder had not abducted her, then also her testimony before the trial court is of no significance as she, at the time of incident, was minor. It is submitted that the other prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that daughter of the appellant was abducted by the accused-respondent and on the basis of the said evidence, the prosecution has clearly proved the case against the accused-respondent, however, the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offences while ignoring the said peace of evidence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.
6. The trial court has discussed the evidence produced by the prosecution in detail and given a finding that none of the witnesses has stated that he saw the accused-respondent committing the offence. The appellant, who was produced as PW.2, has stated that his brother-in-law Santram had told him that Ramesh Bawri had threatened him that he would abduct his daughter for the purpose of marry her with accused-respondent-Shyam Sunder, however, he has not stated that he saw the accused-respondent abducting his daughter. Other prosecution witnesses have also not specifically stated that they saw the accused - respondent abducting the daughter of the appellant but simply stated that they have been informed by somebody else that daughter of the appellant has been abducted by the accused-respondent.
7.
