Smt. Majeedan v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Heard Sri Kashi Naresh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. None is present on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 5.

The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.09.2023 passed by in S.T. Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, District- Aligarh No.5000877/2014, arising out of Case Crime No.252/2013, under Sections 366, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Aligarh, whereby the opposite party no.2 to 6 had been acquitted for the offence under Sections 366, 504 & 506 I.P.C.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged an FIR alleging that her daughter, who was married to one Azad, son of Shri Nasir Mohammed, resident of Gali Bhauhran, Police Station Qila Jalesar, District Etah, had come to her house two days prior to the date of the alleged occurrence. It is alleged that the accused persons, who were neighbours, took her away on 18.09.2013 at about 3:00 PM on the pretext of getting medicine. Thereafter, she did not return. Upon enquiry, the accused persons kept assuring that she would return. When she did not return even after ten days, the FIR was lodged.

Subsequently, the prosecutrix returned and stated in her deposition as PW- 3 that she had been taken away by the accused persons, who made her consume some intoxicating substance, rendering her unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself in Delhi, sitting on a bus. She 2 C372 No. 556 of 2023 further stated that she contacted one accused, Qamar Zanha, through a mobile phone with the help of a girl named Bebi. She alleged that she was threatened by the accused persons that if she returned, her child could be killed. She was asked to marry Dilshad, and due to such alleged threats, she married him and is presently living with him and has two children.

The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the accused persons.

At the stage of admission, after perusal of the record, it is evident that the prosecutrix was a major and a married woman at the time of the alleged occurrence. There is no cogent evidence on record to establish that she was forcibly taken or wrongfully confined by the accused persons.

Even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, the evidence on record at best indicates that the neighbouring accused persons may have accompanied the prosecutrix up to the point of boarding the bus. Beyond that, there is no material to establish their involvement or complicity in any alleged offence. Admittedly, the accused persons were not present with the prosecutrix during the journey thereafter.

The prosecution failed to prove any nexus between the accused persons and the subsequent events, particularly the prosecutrix reaching Delhi or her alleged interaction with any third person. It is also noteworthy that upon regaining consciousness, the prosecutrix found herself alone in Delhi. Admittedly, she had access to a mobile phone and had the opportunity to inform the bus conductor, other passengers, or public authorities; however, no such efforts appear to have been made by the prosecutrix, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.

Notably, no call detail records were collected or produced to substantiate the allegation of telephonic threats. The prosecution has failed to establish from which mobile number the alleged threats were extended, wherefrom such calls were made, and in what manner the prosecutrix subsequently came into contact with Dilshad.

Furthermore, the marriage of the prosecutrix with Dilshad appears to have been solemnized in the absence of the accused persons, and there is no reliable evidence to connect them with any coercion or compulsion in this regard. 3 C372 No. 556 of 2023

The allegations of administering an intoxicant and criminal intimidation remain uncorroborated by any independent or reliable evidence.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference. It is a settled principle of law that an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, should not interfere unless the view taken by the trial court is manifestly erroneous or wholly unreasonable.