The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the charges of kidnapping and rape against the accused, as evidenced by contradictions in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 328, 506 - Appeal for leave to appeal against acquittal - Court found insufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that victim was kidnapped or raped - Evidence was contradictory, with lack of medical corroboration and inconsistencies in the victim's statements - The prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against accused beyond reasonable doubt - Appeals against acquittal dismissed. (Paras 2, 15)

Facts of the case:
The State filed a petition seeking leave to appeal after the lower court acquitted the accused charged with kidnapping and raping a minor victim, Ms. `N`, citing lack of evidence and inconsistencies in her testimonies. The court noted the victim's contradictions, including her voluntary engagement with the accused and refusal of a medical examination. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 14)

Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the trial court’s findings that the evidence was inconsistent, lacking in scientific corroboration, and did not establish the occurrence of the alleged crimes beyond reasonable doubt. All accused granted the benefit of doubt. (Paras 14, 15)

Issues: The primary issues were whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was kidnapped and raped by the accused. The court explored the credibility of the victim's multiple statements and the evidence presented. (Paras 1, 15)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's case was weakened by contradictions in the victim's statements, absence of scientific evidence, and inconsistencies regarding her consent and actions surrounding the alleged offences. The threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met. (Paras 14, 15)

Result: Criminal leave petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. accusations of kidnapping minor ms. n. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. critique of victim's testimony and inconsistencies. (Para 6)
3. state's arguments on trial court's errors. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court's agreement on trial court's findings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. dismissal of petition due to lack of merit. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J.(Open Court)

BY VIDEO CONFERENCING

The present matter has been taken up for hearing by way of Video Conferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.

CRL.M.A. 4844/2021 (Condonation of Delay)

The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been instituted on behalf of the appellant/State, seeking condonation of 60 days' delay in filing the accompanying criminal leave petition.

In view of the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 60 days in filing the accompanying criminal leave petition is condoned.

The criminal leave petition is taken on Board.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

CRL.L.P. 44/2021

1. The present application under section 378(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') has been instituted on behalf of the State/Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, seeking leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi acquitting the accused/respondents by granting them the benefit of doubt.

2. The case of the prosecution against the accused/respondents was, that on 17.10.2011 at about 12:45 p.m., the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped the minor victim, namely Ms. `N', with the intent to force and seduce her into illicit sexual intercourse.

3. It was further the case of the prosecution, that in pursuance of this common intention, the accused/respondents had administered to the minor victim Ms. `N' some intoxicating substance, whilst simultaneously intimidating her criminally.

4. In addition, the accused/respondent, namely Ravi Anand, was charged with having committed rape upon the minor victim Ms. `N' on 17.10.2011 at C-7/18 Sultan Puri, Delhi.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondents on 23.02.2012; and subsequent thereto, they were charged by the learned trial court for the commission of offences under sections 363/366-A/328/506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. In addition, as aforesaid, charge for the commission of the offence punishable under section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 was also framed against the respondent/accused Ravi Anand.

6. The learned trial court, by way of the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2019, arrived at the following findings:

"33. PW 7 Ms Kamlesh, PGT from the school of the victim produced the Admission Register (Ex.PW 7/A), copy of the date of birth certificate (Ex.PW 7/B), Application Form for admission (PW 7/C) and the School Leaving Certificate dated 21.07,2012 (Ex.PW 7/D) of the student/Victim to show that the date of birth of the victim was 03.02.1995. This witness was not cross-examined. There is no challenge so far as the date of birth of the victim is concerned. The incident in question took place on 17.10.2011. The victim was, therefore, 16 years and 8 months old at the time of the incident.

" Section 376 IPC as defined in Section 375 IPC

"34. The incident in question took place on 17.10.2011 when she was more than 16 years old. The internal medical examination of the victim was got conducted on 24.10.2011. Hymen of the victim was found absent.

"35. In the year 2011, Section 375 IPC stood as under:

"375. Rape-A man A said to commit " rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:

First.-Against her will.

Secondly-Without her consent.

Third