Delhi High Court
State vs Rahul Kumar on 2 May, 2017
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment dated: 2nd May, 2017
+ Crl. L.P. 257/2017
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP
versus
RAHUL KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.7181/2017 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A.7180/2017(delay)
3. This is an application seeking condonation of 150 days delay in filing
the present leave to appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the application and since we have considered
the leave to appeal on merits, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is
condoned.
5. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P.257/2017
6. Present leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated
27.08.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court by which the respondent
was acquitted.
7. An FIR No.579/2015 was registered on the basis of a complaint made
by the father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) alleging that on 05.05.2015 at
about 9:00 A.M., his daughter went missing from the house of his
brother-in-law. He alleged that she had been enticed by some
unknown persons. On 07.05.2015, the prosecutrix (PW-1) and the
respondent were produced before the Police by the brother of the
respondent. The respondent was arrested.
8. In this case, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has not supported the case of the
prosecution. She has testified that she knew the respondent as he was
residing in her locality. She deposed that she got engaged with the
respondent on 26.01.2015. She further deposed that on 05.05.2015,
she had left her house alone to meet the respondent after informing her
parents and securing their permission. Thereafter, they had gone to
Lal Quila and since it had become late, they spent a night with the
family of friend of the respondent; where she slept with the wife of the
friend. The prosecutrix (PW-1) also made a categorical assertion that
during her stay with the respondent, nothing had happened with her as
she had slept with the wife of the friend of the respondent. We may
also note that since the prosecutrix did not support the case of the
prosecution, she was cross-examined by the Additional Public
Prosecutor and during cross-examination, she deposed that the
respondent did not establish physical relationship with her.
9. Even in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), the prosecutrix did not level any
allegations against the respondent. She categorically stated that the
respondent did not commit any wrong act with her.
10. Since it was evident from the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) that
neither 'taking away' or 'enticement' was established nor the factum
of physical relation between the prosecutrix and the respondent were
established, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused, which
has led to the present petition seeking leave to appeal.
11. Mr. Katyal, learned APP for the State, submits that medical evidence
establishes that the prosecutrix had physical relation with the
respondent and since she was a minor, the Trial Court has erred in
acquitting the respondent.
12. After examining the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and
taking into consideration the testimony of the prosecutrix before the
Trial Court and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which are
consistent that (1) the respondent was not involved in removing her
from the custody of the parents; (2) she had left her house after taking
permission from her parents; and (3) her testimony that the respondent
did not commit any wrong with her, we find there is no infirmity in
the order passed by the learned Trial Court which requires interference
in these proceedings by this Court.
13. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the Appellate Court may only
interfere in an appeal against acquittal when there are substantial and
compelling reasons to do so [See Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor,
AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1963 SC 200 (paragraph 16 and 17); Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 108: (1987) 2 SCC 529 (paragraph 6); State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 (paragraph 7); and
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 (paragraph
42)].
14. The leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
MAY 02, 2017
// /pst /
