Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Deep Chand @ Deepu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. A. 1271 of 2018
Decided On : 17-02-2026
Key Points: - A1 acquitted of all charges; conviction for kidnapping not sustainable; doubts about non-consensual rape finding. (!) - Trial court failed to show taking/enticement elements for kidnapping per Section 363 IPC; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts. (!) (!) (!) - Age of PW4 contested; school records show birth 2000 but corrections to 1999; age evidence is not satisfactory to establish minority. (!) (!) (!) - PW4’s statements suggest a consensual relationship; DNA and medical evidence considered but insufficient to prove non-consensual act beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) - Benefit of doubt applied; Section 428 Cr.P.C. applied; appeal allowed; acquittal of A1. (!) (!) - Non-compliance with Section 232 Cr.P.C. at trial deemed not prejudice without showing substantial prejudice. (!) - Prosecution’s documentary and oral evidence analyzed; contradictions raised in testimony about PW4’s attire and location at time of discovery. (!) (!) - Case references: sections of IPC and PoCSO; standards for kidnapping and consent discussed. (!) (!) - Final order: A1 acquitted; bail and CPO considerations; case closed. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges brought against a1. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of investigation and charges framed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 13) |
| 3. procedural fairness and questioning of accused. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arguments on inconsistencies in testimony. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. witness accounts corroborating family and victim's timeline. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. legal standards for kidnapping and consent. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. assessment of evidence regarding age and consent. (Para 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 8. final ruling and acquittal of appellant. (Para 25 , 26) |
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 FIS of PW1, given on 10.05.2013, Crime No. 95 of 2013, Nabi Karim Police Station, that is, Ext. PW3/A FIR was registered by PW15, Woman Sub- Inspector (WSI). PW15 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 of the PoCSO against A1 and commission of offences punishable under Sections 368, 120- B, 34 and Section 17 of the PoCSO Act against A2, A3 and A4.
4. When the accused persons were produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated 04.09.2013, framed a Charge under Sections 363 , 376, 368 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of the PoCSO Act against A1 and a Charge under Section 368 read with Section 34 against A2, A3 and A4. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 16 were examined and Exts. PW1A, PW3/A-C, PW4/A-B, PW4/D1-D2, PW5/A-I, PW6/-B, PW7/A, PW7/DA, PW8/A-E, PW/8-DA, PW9/, PW9/DA, PW10/A-C, PW11/A-C, PW12/A-D, PW13/A-B, PW14/A, PW15/A-L and PW16/A.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. They denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence, stating that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. After questioning the accused persons under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (seeMoidu K. versus State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89; 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, A1has no case that non-compliance of Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.
8. The accu
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
