IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Raju Musalman - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2988 OF 2011.
Decided On : 15-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal reference and initial facts. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. overview of appeal context and legal representation. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding appellant's imprisonment and appeal. (Para 3 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. details of investigation and recovery of the victim. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 5. findings and observations regarding minor's status. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. court's reasoning on consent and evidence. (Para 14 , 20) |
| 7. final conclusion and order of dismissal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against judgment and order dated 29.04.2011 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur in S.T. No.146 of 2008 State v. Raju Musalman, arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2008 under Sections 363 , 366, 376 of IPC, section 3(1)12 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur. By the impugned judgment and order learned Special Judge convicted the appellant/accused for charge under Section 363 , 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(12) of SC/ ST (PA) Act and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment along with file of Rs. 500 for charge under Section 363 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for charge under Section 366 IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for charge under Section 376 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for charge section 3(1)(12) of SC/ST Act the sentence and fine is coupled with default stipulation.
2. Heard Sri Indrajeet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Yogendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that accused has already been released from jail custody after serving out the sentence awarded in the impugned judgment.
4. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that FIR in the present case was lodged at the instance of Ram Narain on 27.02.2008 at 18:45 hours on the basis of written report produced by him before Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur dated 18.02.2008 stating that he belonged to Schedule Caste (Dharikar), his sister aged about 13 years was studying in Class VIIth . She went to school on 29.11.2007 and got missing from the school. He made search of her and on 01.12.2007, he came to know in the village Dighuli, Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur that Raju Musalmaan son of Bhagnu Musalmaan (muslim by caste) has enticed away his minor sister and took her to his home and stayed with her overnight there, and thereafter he escaped from his place along with victim girl. The whole family of Raju Musalmaan was hand in grove with Raju in kidnapping of his minor sister. Father of informant filed written information in this regard on 01.12.2007 and 15.12.2007 at Police Station Lalganj as well as Reporting Chowki (OP) Baraundha, but the report was not lodged; his daughter took away Rs. 10,000 cash and ornaments of her mother along with her. The accused Raju Musalmaan has confined her minor daughter in his home. The FIR was lodged under Section 363 , 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(12) of SC/ST (PA) Act, at Police Station concerned.
5. Sri R.V.Rai, Circle Officer PW7 who has conducted the investigation of the case. According to the statement of the witnesses the victim was recovered after after lodging of FIR. The Investigating Officer collected school leaving certificate of the victim of Class Vth in which her aged is mentioned as 10.03.1995. She left school on 30.06.2005 after clearance of Class Vth examination and same date of birth was mentioned in the scholar register also. Thus, according to her date of birth mentioned in academic record she was found to be aged about 12 years 8 months and 9 days on the date of incident. The victim escaped from the house of the accused after 2 to 2 ½ months of kidnapping. The Investigating Officer recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in
The court reaffirmed that sexual consent from minors is invalid, establishing the accused's culpability for kidnapping and sexual assault under relevant laws, particularly highlighting the victim's s....
Consent of a minor is invalid in sexual offences, establishing that enticement and sexual acts against minors constitute serious crimes, particularly under IPC and scheduled caste legislation.
Rape – Consent of minor has no legal sanctity.
The prosecution must establish the victim's age and the accused's intent beyond reasonable doubt in cases of sexual offences, and mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient for ....
Charges under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act require proof of inducement or coercion, which was not established as the victim left voluntarily.
The judgment reinforces the legal principle that the exploitation of a position of trust, particularly by a teacher towards a minor, constitutes a serious offense under both the IPC and the POCSO Act....
Victim of rape being minor, her consent has no significance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the evidence supported the conviction for kidnapping, it was insufficient to establish the allegations of rape and sexual assault due to....
An offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by d....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.