Delhi High Court
State vs Ravi on 1 September, 2014
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 321/2014
STATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for
the State.
versus
RAVI ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 01.09.2014
Crl.M.A.No.7425/2014 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 77 days in filing
the leave petition is condoned.
CRL.L.P. 321/2014
1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated November
08, 2013 acquitting the respondent of the charge for offences punishable
under Sections 323/367/377/506 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Ravi kidnapped a minor boy aged
ten years with the intention to subject him to unnatural lust and finally
committed voluntary carnal intercourse with the victim child and threatened
to kill him. Ravi is also alleged to have caused simple hurt to the victim by
giving slap to him.
3. The victim child deposed that on the day of incident he went out of
his house at around 2.00 PM to go to the house of his maternal grandmother
(nani) who was residing in Nand Nagri. As he reached two streets away
from his house Ravi caught him from the backside collar. He knew Ravi as
he used to reside in his locality. Ravi then left the grip of his shirt and the
victim boy ran away. However Ravi again caught him. Ravi took him
inside a room in a school situated nearby and took off his pants. Ravi laid
the victim on the floor and did wrong act against him. Thereafter Ravi
threatened him not to disclose the facts otherwise he would injure him with a
blade on his face and also hit him with the belt on his back. He went to his
house and narrated the incident to his mother a day after incident.
4. In cross-examination he stated that he knew Rahul who also lived
near his gali whose nick name was 'Ravan'. Rahul @ Ravan was a friend of
Ravi and when the incident took place Rahul @ Ravan was also there. He
further stated that since cloth piece was tied around his eyes by Ravan he
could not say as who of the two i.e. Ravi or Ravan did the wrong act against
him. Even on cross-examination by the learned APP he reiterated that Ravi
and Ravan were both present at the time of incident and since his eyes were
closed by a cloth he was unable to see. He further stated that Ravi caught
hold of him and brought him to the school from the park. Further Ravan
was inside the room. Ravan took him inside the room however, Ravi
remained outside. In further cross-examination by the learned APP he
further clarified that Ravi did not do any act over him and only Ravan had
done wrongful act with him.
5. The learned Judge acquitted Ravi on the ground that in the cross-
examination the victim did not support the prosecution case and had instead
stated that wrong act was done by Ravan and not by Ravi. Further the FIR
was lodged after a week. Moreover, the MLC of the victim boy did not
support his version. The alleged incident took place on November 10, 2012
though the victim revealed these facts to his mother on the next day, FIR
was registered after a week.
6. Even as per the FSL report Ex.PX no blood or semen could be
detected in the perennial swabs collected for the victim. The MLC of the
victim Ex.PW-4/X also notes no external visible injury.
7. In view of the fact that the victim did not support the prosecution case
in his testimony before the Court and there was no other material to come to
the conclusion that Ravi committed carnal intercourse with the victim boy,
we find that the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a plausible view
which is neither illegal nor perverse. Consequently, we find no reason to
grant leave to appeal.
8. Petition is dismissed.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
'vn'
