The acquittal was upheld due to insufficient evidence establishing the prosecutrix's minor status and valid consent being given, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh J.,

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’) challenging the acquittal of the Respondent- Sonu @ Parminder i.e., the Accused vide order and judgment dated 9^th January, 2013 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

3. This appeal arises out ofFIR No.255/2010 dated 9^th December, 2010 registered at Police Station-Nihal Vihar under Sections 363 /376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘ IPC ’), which was registered and dealt with as Sessions Case No.1/2013. The Respondent- Mr. Sonu @ Parminder i.e., the Accused, was charge-sheeted by Police Station- Nihal Vihar under /376 of the .

4. The allegation in the present case was that around 05:00 A.M. on 5^th December, 2010, near RZF-80, Nihal Vihar, Delhi, the Accused had kidnapped the Prosecutrix from the guardianship of her parents and had committed rape upon her. The incidents are stated to have occurred at two places i.e., Jammu and Amritsar between January to March, 2011. The charge against the Accused was in respect of offences under Sections 363 /376 of the IPC .

5. The statement of the Prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC on 18th April, 2011. In the said statement, the prosecutrix stated as under:

6. Before the Trial Court the prosecution led the evidence of 15 witnesses, who are as under:

i. PW1- HC Subhash Chand ii. PW2- HC Ram Avtar iii. PW3- L/Ct. Puja iv. PW4- Ms. Ganga v. PW5- Mr. Vilayati Singh vi. PW6- Ct. Gautam vii. PW7- Ms. Sharda Miglani viii. PW8- Mr. Rajiv Ranjan ix. PW9- Mr. Amarnath Singh x. PW10- M.M. Ms. Shivali Sharma xi. PW11- Mrs. Babia xii. PW12- Dr. Parvinder Kaur xiii. PW13- Dr. Rajesh Dalai xiv. PW14- SI Mahender Singh xv. PW15- W/ASI Krishna

7. The statement of the Accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC on 3rd January, 2013.

8. The Trial Court after considering the matter had acquitted the Accused primarily on two grounds:

i. The age of the Prosecutrix is not below 18 years and that prosecution has failed to prove that she is a minor.

ii. There is a delay in the registration of the FIR.

9. On the aspect of age, the discussion in the impugned judgment reads as under:

“35. An important issue in dispute is the age of the prosecutrix. The prosecution has claimed her age to be about 15 years (as per the DD number 19A dated 09.12.2010 wherein her father made the complaint to the police) while the accused has claimed that she was above 18 years and was a major on the date of the alleged offence and they were together with the free consent of the prosecutrix.

36. PW4 has stated in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she is 15 ½ years old on the date of statement i.e. 18.04.2011 which makes her about 15 years old at the time of alleged incident. In her evidence before the Court, she has deposed that she is aged about 17 years on the date of evidence i.e. 17.05.2012 which makes her about 15½ years old at the time of alleged incident.

37. PW5, the father of the prosecutix, has deposed that she was aged about 15 years at the time of incident. Even in the FIR, he has mentioned her age as about 15 years.

38. PW11, the mother of the prosecutrix, has deposed that she was aged about 15 years at the time of incident. Even in the FIR, he has mentioned her age as about 15 years.

39. PW7, the Principal of the school, has deposed that as per the school records (school admission register- Ex.PW7/A), the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 16.03.