Munna vs State on 18 May, 2016

2. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction contends
that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. when the girl was in
the protective custody and on satisfaction by the learned Magistrate, there is
no allegation whatsoever of any kind either in regard to kidnapping or rape.
However, in the testimony recorded before the Court the prosecutrix has

Crl.A. 775/2015 Page 1 of 7
made material improvements. The prosecutrix has given an entirely new
version in the statement before the Court and thus the same cannot be relied
upon. There is no corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix for the
reason when the MLC of the prosecutrix was prepared she refused to
undergo gynecological examination. The motive for false implication is
apparent from the testimony of Bhagwan Das PW-2 the father of the
prosecutrix who stated that the appellant was a tenant in his house and the
cross-examination of the prosecutrix who admitted that Munna was a tenant
in their house and did not pay rent for seven to eight months. Though it is
the case of the prosecution itself that the appellant with the prosecutrix was
apprehended at Lakhimpur, no record whatsoever of the said apprehension
has been produced. Further this version fortifies that the so-called arrest of
the appellant at ISBT Anand Vihar was shown falsely. Even accepting that
the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, there is no material
on record whatsoever to show that appellant committed the offence of rape
or kidnapping.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply