Special Judge Gurbaksh Singh noted that the victim-girl had not named the accused persons in any of her statements and had also not made any statement about such an incident.
Judge Singh also highlighted that as per statement of victim, none of the accused persons had tried to kidnap her and it was the police officers who had coached her to give statements against the accused.
“PW2 (referring to victim-girl) does not make any statement about any incident being caused to her by the accused and the maximum she says about the accused is that she had asked the accused about the tailor and she had gone to that tailor’s shop with the accused and also says that the accused were not taking me anywhere. In the cross-examination conducted by the prosecution after declaring this witness hostile, the prosecution has not been able to reveal any fact that the statement given by PW2 (victim) in the main examination was given under the influence of the accused or that PW2 is giving a false statement. …Regarding the statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, PW2 (victim) says that before recording the statement, the police had explained to her what she had to say and regarding the site map, she says that this paper was not prepared in front of her,” the Court noted.
The Court also noted that one Anand, who is alleged to have rescued the girl, was not aware of the names of the accused persons as he had not seen their faces on date of incident.
The case arose after the father of the victim alleged that the two accused persons, Uvaid Khan and Jitendra Saini, were trying to induce and kidnap the minor girl on the pretext of marriage.
However, their plan did not succeed since Anand saw them and they had to flee leaving the girl behind.
It was also alleged that the victim had informed that Uvaid had changed his name to Ankit and he and Saini were trying to kidnap her in a tempo on pretext of marriage.
The two accused persons were booked under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366A (procuration of minor girl) of the Indian Penal Code and for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Source: Barandbench
