Delhi High Court
Sachin vs State on 15 December, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: 15th December, 2010
+ Crl.Appeal No. 806/2010
% 15.12.2010
Sachin ... Appellant
Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate
Versus
State ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
The accused/appellant is in jail as he was convicted by the trial Court under
Sections 363 & 376 IPC on the allegations of raping prosecutrix Ishaana (name
changed). Sachin was Hindu and Ishaana was Muslim. Sachin was aged around 18
year and Ishaana was around 16 year of age. It is apparent from the statement of
Ishaana under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Sachin and Ishaana fell in love with each
other. Ishaana had a friend Sonia. Her (Sonia) services were used by Sachin and
Ishaana and both of them came close to each other. In her statement, she (Ishaana)
told MM that Sonia convinced her that Sachin was a good person and used to earn
around Rs.15,000/- per month. At convincing of Sonia she had started meeting
Sachin frequently and ultimately both of them ran away. They lived together in
Mathura for about 06 months. According to Sachin the mother of the girl assured
Ishaana that she would be married with Sachin in presence of society and brought
her back. After she was brought back, a case of rape was registered against Sachin
and he was convicted as Ishaana was considered to be a minor, below 16 years of
age, by the learned Sessions Judge. Ishaana in her testimony before the Court
categorically stated that she deposed in the Court against Sachin as she was afraid if
had she not deposed against Sachin before the MM and before the trial Court, she
feared that her mother would have died. This shows that she was pressurized to
depose against the accused as she was threatened that if she did not depose against
the accused her mother would consume something and commit suicide.
2. The assessment of age of Ishaana by the trial Court has not been done on
the basis of her birth certificate. In missing report mother of prosecutrix had given
her age as 17 years. The report of radiologist shows that she could be between 14.5
& 16.4 year. The prosecutrix gave her age to the doctor at the time of her
examination as 15 years. In her testimony mother gave age of Ishaana as 17 years.
Since there was no birth certificate of prosecutrix available, I consider that the benefit
of doubt regarding age of the prosecutrix should have been given to Sachin and the
age of prosecutrix should have been considered 16 year when she left the house of
her parents and went along with the accused.
3. I consider that it is not a case of rape by accused Sachin of Ishaana but it is a
case where two young persons aged around 18 year and 16 year had run away from
the house as they were in love with each other and belonged to different religion.
The prosecutrix left the guardianship of her parents and their house at her own free
will and lived with the accused for 06 months.
The appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges, he be
released from jail forthwith.
December 15, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
