Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
State – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep @ Sonu & Ors. – Respondents
Crl.L.P. 366 of 2022
Decided On : 25-07-2023
Condonation of delay - Criminal Law - Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C. - Sections 363/366/328/376D/506 IPC & Section 4 POCSO Act - The court discussed the condonation of delay in re-filing the present petition and the grant of Leave to Appeal against the Judgement dated 12.02.2020. The legal provisions under Sections 363/366/328/376D/506 IPC & Section 4 POCSO Act were referenced and analyzed by the court in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, where the accused were acquitted by the trial court. The prosecution filed a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused, and the testimony of the prosecutrix was inconsistent and unreliable. The court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the evidence of kidnapping and rape, and the grounds for interference with the acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of consistent and reliable testimony, the lack of corroborative evidence, and the need for compelling circumstances to warrant interference with an acquittal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 14517/2020 (Condonation of delay)
1. Vide the present application, the applicant/petitioner seeks condonation of delay in re-filing the present petition.
2. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the application is allowed. The delay in re-filing the present petition is condoned.
3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 14515/2022 (Condonation of delay)
4. The present application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner to seek condonation of 1 day's delay in filing the present petition.
5. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the present petition is condoned.
6. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 366/2022
7. Present leave petition under Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for grant of Leave to Appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated 12.02.2020 vide which the four respondents i.e. respondent No.1 Sandeep @ Sonu, respondent No.2 John @ Vasu, respondent No.3 Manish @ Golu and respondent No.4 Sonu, have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 363/366/328/376D/506 IPC & Section 4 POCSO Act.
8. The case of the prosecution was that on 07.03.2014, Smt. `U', mother of victim namely `K', made a complaint that her daughter `K' aged about 16 years has been missing since the evening of 06.03.2014. She suspected one Adil @ Kabir to have kidnapped her daughter. On her complaint, an FIR No. 221/2014 under Section 363 IPC was registered and the investigations were carried by SI Kaptan Singh. The victim `K' was recovered from Sant Nagar, Burari on 09.03.2014 after which she was given counseling by an NGO. Her medical examination was conducted at BSA Hospital and it was found that her hymen was not intact. Further investigation was conducted and the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC on 12.03.2014 wherein she revealed in detail the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of her rape.
9. She stated that on 06.03.2014 at about 5:00 PM, she received a call from her friend, Manisha. She went to meet her at the Petrol Pump, Sector-18, Rohini and then accompanied her in her Alto car in which Sandeep @Sonu was also present. On the way, in the area of Pitampura, two more friends joined them with green coloured wine bottles. After consuming the Fruit Beer offered to her, she felt drowsy and she told Manisha that she wanted to go home as it was already late, but Manisha requested her to eat food and she along with all the four accused persons went to the restaurant where they had dinner.
10. Thereafter, she got a phone call from her friend Sagar (PW2) who told her to come near her house. It was further stated that though Manisha and the other respondents took her near her house where they met Sagar, Manisha who refused to let her go to her own home with Sagar. Instead, Manisha took the victim to the Gandhi Vihar flat under the false assurance of taking the victim to her own (Manisha's) house. All the other accused apart from Manisha left, and only the prosecutrix and Manisha stayed at the flat.
11. The next morning, Sandeep @Sonu came to the flat and upon being informed that her parents were searching for her, the prosecutrix became frightened. Sandeep @Sonu took her to some advocate in the High Court where she herself got a Notice in writing prepared that her parents wanted to forcibly marry her and that no action should be taken if any complaint of kidnapping is lodged by her parents.
12. Subsequently, she and Sandeep @Sonu returned to the same flat at Gandhi Vihar where he called his friend respondent No.2 John @ Vasu to come over. In the evening, they all ate food and had drinks but she only consumed a cold drink after which she went to sleep. Upon enquiry by the prosecutrix, John @Vasu informed her that Manisha and Sandeep @ Sonu had left the flat and then John @Vasu had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. The next morning on
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistent and reliable testimony, corroborative evidence, and compelling circumstances to overturn an acquittal in cases invol....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent testimony in criminal cases, and the court's reliance on the same to determine the guilt or innocence ....
The credibility of prosecutrix's testimony is sufficient for conviction without requiring independent corroboration when circumstances support her claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt and the impact of delay in filing the FIR on the case.
In cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused, and the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons t....
Though the evidence of the prosecutrix is liable to be believed, but there is no universal principle that the prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of improbabilities in her testimony.
Rape – Conviction cannot be recorded on solitary statement of prosecutrix which does not inspire confidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
