The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi State Legal Services Authority vs State & Ors. consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined that a casually written judgment and casually appreciated evidence is a causality to justice.
Facts
A FIR u/s 363 IPC was registered by one Mr. Habib Ahmed, wherein he had stated that his daughter Nazia (changed) had gone missing. During investigation, the victim was recovered and produced before the Police Station where her statement was recorded u/s 161 CrPC and her medical examination was also conducted. The statement of victim was also recorded u/s 164 CrPC on the next day. The appellants were charged for offences punishable u/s 366/368/34 IPC. Charge for offences punishable u/s 366/368/34 IPC was framed against all the three accused persons, besides a separate charge for an offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g)/109 IPC was framed against accused Nayab and Khushnuma (the appellants herein) and another charge for an offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) IPC was framed against accused Shafiq. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine for sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 368 IPC.
Contentions Made
Appellants: It was contended that there was no scientific proof or evidence to show that the victim/prosecutrix was less than eighteen years of age. It was further contended that the testimonies of the witnesses were contradictory in nature and sufficient to declare the impugned judgment and order a nullity.
Respondent: It was contended that the parents of prosecutrix stated that they were married 20 years back on the date when they were examined in court and not on the date of the incident in question. It was further contended that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants, and the impugned judgment and order on sentence do not suffer from any infirmity.
Observations by the Court
The Bench referred to Section 368 IPC which talks about wrongfully concealing or keeping a kidnapped or abducted person in confinement. It relied on Saroj Kumari v. State of U.P. wherein it was laid down that when the person in question has been kidnapped, the accused knew that the said person had been kidnapped and the accused having such knowledge, wrongfully conceals or confines the person concerned then the ingredients of Section 368 of the IPC are said to be satisfied.
It considered the testimony of parents of the prosecutrix and opined that the age of the victim was about 18 years on the date of the incident. It noted that the determination of age as per menarche cannot be a conclusive criterion as relied upon in the impugned order. The Division Bench of this Court in State of NCT Delhi v. Sumit Kumar had observed that the age of the menarche might vary.
Regarding whether there was “wrongful concealment” about kidnapping of the victim, and whether there existed any material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, it noted that there were glaring contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses, which if found to be material contradictions would amount to shaking the edifice of prosecution case. Moreover, the prosecutrix raised no alarm during the entire period though she travelled to different places, which were residential areas. In such circumstances, the trustworthiness and reliability of the statement of the prosecutrix was questionable. Considering the above observations, it found worthwhile to mention that this was “not a case of concealing the whereabouts, but of rather revealing the whereabouts” of the victim since the appellants had themselves revealed the whereabouts of the prosecutrix by going to the house of victim’s parents.
It opined that a casually written judgment and casually appreciated evidence is a causality to justice. It was missed out by the learned Trial Court, that while reaching the conclusion the testimony of the witnesses should be read in entirety. Further, it failed to note that the victim on the same day of being recovered gave statement stating nothing regarding concealment of information by the appellants herein.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the essential ingredients required to secure conviction under Section 368 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. So, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this appeal was allowed and impugned judgment and order were set aside.
Citation: CRL.A. 297/2009
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Decided on: 20th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
