State vs Sonu
2016 Latest Caselaw 383 Del

$-8
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   DECIDED ON : 18th JANUARY, 2016

+                    CRL.REV.P. 154/2015

      STATE                                            ..... Petitioner

                          Through :    Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.


                          versus

      SONU                                             ..... Respondent

                          Through :    None.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the State to

challenge the legality of an order dated 28.11.2014 of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.178/2014 arising out of FIR

No.309/2014 PS Kirti Nagar whereby the respondent was discharged. The

revision petition is contested by the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. Charge-sheet under Section 363 IPC was filed against

the respondent on the allegations that on 10.05.2014 he took the

prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around 14 years out of the lawful

guardianship of her parents. It is emphasized by the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor that the prosecutrix was aged around 14 years on the day of

incident and her consent to accompany the accused without informing her

parents was of no relevance.

3. The prosecutrix had recorded her statement under Section

164 Cr.P.C. on 20.05.2014. In the statement, the prosecutrix 'X'

completely exonerated the accused and did not attribute or assign any

overt act enticing or taking her out of the lawful guardianship of her

parents. She merely stated that due to certain disputes with her mother,

she had decided to leave the home. On the way, she had met the accused,

her friend to whom she was known. She insisted him time and again to

take her but he declined to do so. When he was put under pressure, he

agreed. She did not state if any sexual assault was committed during her

stay with the respondent.

4. Since there is no worthwhile evidence on record and the

prosecutrix under 164 Cr.P.C. statement did not implicate the respondent,

order dated 28.11.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharging the

accused under Section 363 Cr.P.C. cannot be faulted.

5. I find no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed.

6. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith with the

copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JANUARY 18, 2016 / tr