In a criminal appeal filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 374 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to assail a judgment dated 06-08-2016 and an order on sentence dated 09-08-2016, whereby he was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the appellant.
On 12-09-2013, the accused kidnapped a 16-year-old minor from her residence in Delhi and took her to a village in Bihar. It was alleged that between 12-09-2013 and 22-09-2013, the accused raped her. As per the chargesheet, the accused was alleged to have committed offences under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 376 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. By an order dated 25-04-2014, the trial court framed a charge under Sections 376, 363 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. The appellant submitted that he was deeply in love with the minor girl and that their father was annoyed with their relationship, which is why he lodged a false case against him after he married the minor girl on 23-05-2026.
On 06-08-2016, the trial court found the accused to be guilty of offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 5000. Aggrieved, the accused preferred the present appeal.
The minor girl’s statement revealed that her mother had found a mobile phone given to her by the appellant and that her father had thrown her out of the house, after which she went to the appellant and stayed with him even though he asked her to go back. After gaining knowledge about the FIR, the couple went to Bihar and stayed at the railway station. Thereafter, they surrendered before the DIG and were taken to the police station. The statement also mentioned that the appellant was not at fault and that the minor girl wished to marry him.
The Court noted that the minor girl’s date of birth was 19-03-1998 and that on the date of the incident, she was 15 years and 5 months old. It was also noted that in her statement under Section 164, the girl had mentioned that the appellant had physical relations with her when they were in Bihar. However, the Court noted that this version was given only in the witness box as an improvement on her earlier statement.
The Court stated that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and found that the trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of the minor girl’s unsatisfactory testimony. Thus, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the accused was acquitted under Section 253(1) of CrPC.
