Delhi High Court
State vs Rahul & Ors on 31 July, 2014
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 383/2014
STATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the
State with SI Chetan Nandia,
PS Sagar Pur.
versus
RAHUL & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 31.07.2014
Crl.M.A.Nos.9148/2014 (delay in filing) and 9149/2014 (delay in refiling)
1. For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in filing and
refiling is condoned.
2. Applications are disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 383/2014
1. The State impugns the judgment dated May 31, 2013 whereby the
Respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Sections
366A/368A/372/376/34 IPC. The learned Trial Court had granted the
benefit of doubt to the Respondents in view of the inconsistent testimonies
of the witnesses contradicting each other and the prosecution having not
proved that the Prosecutrix was a minor.
2. The facts in brief are that the Prosecutrix went missing on February
02, 2012. Her father PW-11 Nand Kishore lodged a complaint at the Police
Station Ex.PW-11/A. He suspected that Rahul had taken away his daughter
as Rahul was also missing from the date his daughter was missing i.e.
February 02, 2012. He further deposed before the Court that on May 03,
2012 he received a call from his daughter who asked him to reach Sonepat
Bus Stand. When he went there he found that his daughter was standing at
the bus stand. Thus she was recovered. Rahul was arrested.
3. The Prosecutrix who appeared as PW-4 deposed that on February 02,
2012 while going to school she met Rahul who asked her to accompany him
to his village. She accompanied Rahul to Hardoi by train from where Rahul
took her to his village, from where he took her to the house of his maternal
aunt. In the night she slept with the aunt of Rahul however, thereafter Rahul
started sleeping with her and committed rape for 1½ months. Thereafter
Rahul took her to Sonepat where she was kept for 1½ months and from there
she ran away from the custody of the accused. While she was at Sonepat,
accused Ram Kumar told her that he would sell her for `30,000/- which fact
was also accepted by Rahul. In the cross-examination this witness admitted
that she knew Rahul for the last two years. She also admitted that while
going with Rahul neither she informed her parents nor her elder sister, who
was studying in the same school. According to her she acted under the
influence of Rahul. She did not raise any alarm either at the Delhi Railway
Station or anywhere thereafter. There was a phone in the house of the aunt
of Rahul and despite having the mobile number of her father, she made no
call to him. She also admitted that the house of the maternal aunt of Rahul
did not consist of any room but was a temporary tarpaulin covered area of
25 sq.yards where the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and their four children
were also residing.
4. The learned Trial Court found contradictions in the version of the
father of the Prosecutrix, the police officers and the Prosecutrix as to from
where the Prosecutrix was recovered. The evidence on record also reveals
that nothing has been placed to prove the age of the Prosecutrix except the
ossification test. As per the report of the ossification test PW-18/A the
Prosecutrix was opined to be between 17-19 years. Thus the benefit if at all
has to be given to the accused persons and the Prosecutrix being more than
18 years old, the learned Trial Court held that the charge under Sections 363
IPC and 366A IPC must fall. The learned Trial Court taking into account
the fact that the house of the maternal aunt where the Prosecutrix stayed was
a temporary tarpaulin covered room where besides these two six other
family members were staying came to the conclusion that it was not possible
for the accused to have committed rape of the Prosecutrix contrary to her
wishes. The learned Trial Court held that the close scrutiny of the testimony
of the Prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and on the basis of attending
circumstances it could be well deciphered that the Prosecutrix voluntarily
accompanied Rahul to his native village in Hardoi and stayed there at the
house of his Aunt for 1½ months of her own free will. The allegations that
she was told that she was sold was also an improvement to her statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
5. The recovery of the Prosecutrix from the bus stand was also doubtful
as the Prosecutrix stated that her father and police officers reached the house
of sister-in-law Manju whereas her father stated that the Prosecutrix met at
Sonepat Bus Stand however, the police officials stated that Manju did not
meet them on that date.
6. Thus while granting benefit of doubt to the respondents learned Trial
Court acquitted them of the charges framed and in view of the discussion
aforesaid we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
7. Leave petition is dismissed.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 31, 2014
'vn'
