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

2023 Supreme(All) 2449

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : B.R.J. Pandey, Arun K. Singh-I, Indrajeet Kumar Shukla, Noor Mohammad, Raja Ram Kushwaha, Santosh Kumar Giri.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate.

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 scheduled caste status.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 376 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(12) - Conviction for kidnapping and sexual offenses against a minor - Accused convicted for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old minor, sentencing involved multiple terms of imprisonment and fines - The victim's age confirmed through school records and medical examination, emphasizing the lack of consent under law. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 20)

(B) Consent in Sexual Offenses - The court affirmed that consent by minors is not valid, reiterating the severity of accountability for such crimes, especially toward victims from scheduled castes. (Paras 13, 20)

Facts of the case:
The accused enticed the minor victim under the pretext of marriage, keeping her for over 2 months, resulting in pregnancy. The FIR was filed approximately 3 months post-event due to pressure from the victim's family.

Findings of Court:
The trial court confirmed the victim's minor status, ruling that the accused had committed sexual offenses against her with awareness of her caste background.

Issues: The validity of the victim's consent and whether the accused's actions fell under established legal definitions of kidnapping and sexual assault given her age.

Ratio Decidendi: The reaffirmation that sexual acts with minors are non-consensual, given the victim's established age and the circumstances surrounding the case, leading to appropriate conviction under relevant statutes.

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld.

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

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