The High Court, however, held that a complaint was recorded by woman’s parents on the very day that she went missing and it was on this complaint that the police went to Nainital and brought them back to Delhi, therefore there was no delay in reporting the matter to the police even if the FIR was registered later on.
“In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has clearly stated the manner in which the respondent No.2 lured her, that he will get her married to a good boy and then performed sexual relationship after intoxicating her by giving fanta and frooti. While granting bail to the respondent No.2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge totally ignored the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also history noted in the MLC on 23rd July, 2021 itself,” the High Court noted.
It further stated that Shiva made the woman believe that she had got married merely by putting vermillion on her head and the fact that the videos where he is threatening the woman’s brother clearly showed his malafide intent.
“The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to notice that the respondent No.2 was living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, thus was aware of the mental faculties of the victim and taking advantage thereof, as her marriage was broken and she was eager to get married, he lured her stating that he would get the evil spirit out of her soul, get her married to a boy and called her on 21st July, 2021. On the pretext of taking her to Vaishno Devi, the respondent No.2 took her to Nainital where he performed sexual relationship by giving intoxicants in the cold drinks. The learned Trial Court failed to notice that consciousness and orientation are different from being able to exercise sound mental judgment and to realise that the victim is being enticed to fall prey to the accused,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
