Firoz vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 25 May, 2016

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-
sheet was that on 16.09.2010 at around 7.30 p.m. the appellant in
furtherance of common intention with one Munni (since acquitted)

Crl.A.1626/2013 Page 1 of 8
kidnapped the prosecutrix ‘X’ (changed name), aged around 12 years, from
the lawful guardianship of her parents from House No.E-291, JJ Colony,
Bawana. The prosecutrix was, thereafter, taken to Aligarh where the
appellant established physical relations with her during the period from
16.09.2010 to 18.09.2010.
3. On 16.09.2010 at about 07.30 the prosecutrix went missing
from her house. Efforts were made by her family members to find her out
but she could not be traced. Subsequently, they came to know that ‘X’ after
being kidnapped by the appellant in connivance with Munni has been taken
to Aligarh. ‘X’ was brought from there. Matter was reported to the police.
The Investigating Officer after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-4/A)
lodged First Information Report on 19.09.2010. ‘X’ was medically
examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The accused was
arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were
recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant and Munni for commission of various offences. In
order to establish its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. In
313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the
crime and pleaded false implication. DW-1 (HC Anil Kumar) and DW-2
(Mohd.Yusuf) were examined in defence. Upon appreciation of the
evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial
Court, by the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty of offences
under Sections 363/376 IPC. It is relevant to note that co-accused Munni
was acquitted of the charges and the State did not challenge her acquittal.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply