Victim Seems To Have Willingly Continued To Live In House Of Accused For 27 Days: Delhi HC Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Raping Minor
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man who was accused of raping a minor girl and forcibly keeping her at his home. It said that the victim seems to have willingly continued to live in the house of accused for 27 days.
The Court was dealing with a petition seeking leave to appeal filed by the State under Section 378 of CrPC against the judgment passed by the Trial Court whereby it acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “The prosecutrix in her cross-examination has also admitted that the house had two main doors and the windows and ventilators equivalent to her height, yet she did not trigger any voice nor stated to have made efforts to escape from there, instead she seems to have willingly continued to live in the house of accused for 27 days. … Even though the DNA examination report (Ex. PW3/A) has been proved by Ms. Shashi Bal, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, which established that the respondent-accused had established relations with proseuctrix, however, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that prosuectrix was forced by respondent No.1-accused to make relations with him.”
The Bench said that the victim in her cross-examination had admitted to have followed whatever the accused asked her to do and that her behaviour speaks a volume about her conduct.
Additional Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastava appeared on behalf of the petitioner i.e., State.
Brief Facts -
In 2014, brother of the victim girl registered a complaint regarding missing of his sister aged 12 years, and on his complaint, FIR was registered. The victim girl was then brought to the Police Station where she reported that some wrong act had been committed upon her. The victim girl was taken for medical examination where she narrated that she was sexually assaulted by the accused repeatedly. She stated that she was scolded by her brother and sister-in-law after which she left the house and reached railway line where accused met her and took her to the nearby park and established physical relations with her.
Thereafter, the accused brought the victim to his house where his parents and two brothers were also living and she stayed there for a month. The victim alleged that the accused established physical relations with her everyday and threatened to kill her in case she tried to escape. However, she was brought to the police station wherein she stated that a day previous thereto, she had gathered courage to escape and met some police persons on the way, who brought her to the police station. On the complaint of the victim, the accused was arrested and medically examined. The charges for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 363/366/368/506 IPC and 6 POCSO Act and in the alternative Section 376(2)(n) IPC, were framed against the accused.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “… the victim has deposed that accused-Sunil had made relations thrice with her in the DC Park and also stated that there were public persons in the park, but she neither raised any alarm nor any public person noticed it, which is highly unbelievable.”
The Court noted that there is no doubt to the legal position that testimony of prosecutrix alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt of an accused for committing offence under Section 376 of the IPC, however, before arriving at a just decision, the Court has also to consider the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to bring on record the exact age of the prosecutrix or that the respondent No.1-accused had forcibly made relations with her. … It is important to note that in the FIR in question, the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 12 years; as per certificate issued by the school her date of birth is 03.07.2002, however, no witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the same. Admittedly, the age mentioned by the prosecution is based upon no document. Further, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she was 17 years old and before the trial court during her examination she stated that she was 19 years of age”, further noted the Court.
The Court added that false accusation against the respondents cannot be ruled out and that the Trial Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Cause Title- State v. Sunil & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6515-DB)
