Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
Deep Chand @ Deepu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) read with 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by accused no. 1 (A1) in Sessions Case No. 133/2013 on the file of Special Judge (PoCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge-01 (Central), Delhi, assailing the judgment dated 25.09.2018 and order on sentence dated 01.10.2018 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO).
2. The prosecution case is that on 10.05.2013, at about 7:00 AM at Chinnot Basti, Nabi Karim, Delhi, accused no.1 (A1) kidnapped PW4, a minor, from the lawful guardianship of her father and took her to House No. MSC-20, Mohalla Yogmaya, Delhi, where on the night of the same day, he committed rape and penetrative sexual assault upon her. It is further alleged that accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 (A2, A3 and A4), in furtherance of their common intention and pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, wrongfully confined PW4 and facilitated the commission of the offence.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW1/ A
The conviction for kidnapping was not sustainable due to lack of evidence for 'taking' or 'enticement', and doubts regarding the allegations of rape based on evidence suggesting a consensual relation....
The prosecution evidence must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the unreliability of the victim's testimony requires corroboration from independent evidence in cases of sexual offences.
Validity of consent in criminal offences hinges on truthfulness; consent obtained through deception nullifies its validity, allowing for conviction under IPC for false marriage and sexual offences.
The conviction under IPC and POCSO was quashed due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in the victim's testimony, highlighting the need for corroboration in sexual assault cases.
Consent of a minor is immaterial in cases of rape; a child's marital status does not absolve the accused of legal liability for sexual offenses.
Conviction based solely on inconsistent and uncorroborated testimonies of minors is unsustainable, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of Law – Kidnapping and abduction – Conviction - victim, who is found to be an unreliable witness - appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt
A victim's credible testimony is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, affirming the standard that corroboration is not mandatory when the victim's account is trustworthy.
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
