SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Ismile - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT Delhi - Respondent
Crl.A. 295 of 2007
Decided On : 24-11-2022




Consent is immaterial in cases of minors under 16 years; sexual intercourse with a minor constitutes rape irrespective of their consent under Section 375 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376 - Appeal against conviction - The appellant challenged the trial court's conviction and sentencing for kidnapping and rape of a minor. The trial court relied on school certificates to determine age, emphasizing minor's consent is immaterial. (Paras 20, 22, 23)

(B) Minor Consent - The court reaffirmed that consent of minors is not legally valid under Section 375 IPC if below eighteen years. (Paras 15-16)

(C) Sentencing Principles - The court endorsed that punishment must reflect the gravity of the crime and societal need for deterrence. (Paras 20.4)

Facts of the case:
The victim, aged 15 years, was kidnapped and raped multiple times by the appellant and another individual during the period from September to December 2003. The abduction was reported on 12 September 2003 after which investigations led to the victim's recovery and the arrest of the accused. (Paras 2-3)

Findings of Court:
The present court upheld the trial court's findings on the basis of credible testimony from the victim and relevant school documents, reiterating that minor's consent does not mitigate guilt. (Paras 20-21)

Issues: The court addressed the legal standing of minor consent and the adequacy of evidence against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the school certificate was a valid document for age determination and consent from a minor is legally void. The trial court's conviction was justified based on the evidence, solidifying the stance on treating minors as incapable of giving valid consent. (Paras 18-19)

Result: The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the sentence to seven years for the conviction under Section 376 IPC, while maintaining other sentences. The appellant was to surrender to serve the sentence. (Paras 23-24)

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 2)
2. appellant's arguments on consent and evidence contradictions (Para 4 , 5)
3. trial court's reliance on victim's age and evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. supreme court precedent on evidence and age (Para 10)
5. consent immaterial for victims under 16 years (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. credibility of victim's testimony (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. judgment on sentencing and considerations for punishment (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
8. conclusion of the appeal (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for setting aside judgment dated 19.01.2006 (herein referred to as the "impugned judgment") and order on sentence dated 19.01.2006 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the "trial court") passed in Sessions Case bearing no 53/2004 arising out of FIR bearing no 375/2003 registered under sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") at P.S Preet Vihar.

2. Briefly stated relevant facts as emerging from the record are that Mahender Kumar was residing at house bearing no 11-B, Parwana Road, Old Brij Puri, Delhi alongwith his family including daughter S who was born on 23.02.1988 and was a student of 10th Class in the year 2003. Ismile was working in a toy factory situated in front of the house of Mahender Kumar and used to tease S. Son 11.09.2003 at about 3:00 PM had gone to Sachdeva Book Shop situated at Chander Nagar and on the way Ismile asked S to talk with him and thereafter S accompanied him to some distance. Saidul who was friend of Ismile also came there after 10 minutes and both of them called an auto-rickshaw. They forcibly pushed S into auto-rickshaw and taken her to a house situated at Tugalpur near Noida which belonged to Mausi/Khala (maternal aunt) of Saidul. S was kept in the said house and on 12.09.2003 maternal aunt of the Saidul arranged another rented house in the same village where S was kept. Ismile committed sexual intercourse with several times during the period with effect from 11.09.2003 to 09.12.2003 forcibly.

2.1. Mahender Kumar searched S on 11.09.2003 but S could not be traced. Mahender Kumar (hereinafter called as "the complainant") lodged a complaint regarding missing of Son 12.09.2003 to SI Kishan Kumar wherein the complainant suspected Ismile for missing of S. SI Kishan Kumar prepared rukka on the basis of complaint made by the complainant and FIR bearing no. 0375/2003 was got registered under section 363 IPC at P.S. Preet Vihar. The investigation in pursuance of FIR bearing no 0375/2003 was assigned to SI Kishan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the "Investigating Officer"). The complainant on 09.12.2003 received a call from STD booth situated in Noida regarding presence of S. Thereafter the complainant alongwith the Investigating Officer and other police officials went to Noida and searched STD booth which was found to be belonged to Lokesh. The complainant and the Investigating Officer met Lokesh who informed them about presence of S, Ismile and Saidul in a room and from where S was recovered. Ismile and Saidul were also found there and were arrested. The Investigating Officer during course of investigation collected school certificate in respect of S, S and Ismile were medically examined, exhibits were collected, statement of S was also recorded under section 164 of the Code. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet for offences punishable under sections 363/366/377/34 IPC before the concerned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

2.2. The case was ordered to be committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2004 charged the Ismile and Saidul for the offences punishable under sections 366/34 IPC and 365/34 IPC. Ismile was also charged for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC. Is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top