SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The State Of Delhi vs Kuldeep @ Rahul @ Tinku And Ors on 7 May, 2019

$~5
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

JudgmentPronouncedon:07thMay,2019

+CRL.L.P.294/2018

THESTATEOFDELHI…..Petitioner

Through:Mr.RajatKatyal,APPforStatewith
SIVinayKumar,PSNebSarai

versus

[email protected]@TINKUORS…..Respondents

Through:Mr.P.K.Dhaka,AdvforR-1to6

CORAM:
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEMANMOHAN
HON’BLEMS.JUSTICESANGITADHINGRASEHGAL
MANMOHAN,J(ORAL)

1.ThepresentleavepetitionhasbeenfiledunderSection378(3)ofthe
CriminalProcedureCode,1973(hereinafterreferredtoas’SectionCr.P.C’)
challengingthejudgmentdated23rdFebruary,2018passedbythe
learnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,SpecialCourts(POCSO),South
District,SaketCourts,NewDelhi,acquittingtherespondents-accused
inFIRNo.252/2009registeredwithPoliceStationNebSaraiunder
Sections363/Section366/Section368/Section376/Section506/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode,1860
(hereinafterreferredtoas’SectionIPC’).

2.Thetrialcourthasheldthateventhoughtheprosecutrixwasjustafew
monthsshortofbecominganadult,shewassensibleandawareofthe

CRL.L.P.294/2018Page1of5
intentionoftheaccusedandhadaccompaniedtheaccusedoutofher
ownfreewillandconsentaswellasstayedwiththeaccusedforone
andahalfmonthsvoluntarily.Insupportofitsconclusion,thetrial
courthasreliedupontheSupremeCourtjudgementinSectionShyamAnr.
vs.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1995SC2169,whereinithasbeen
heldasunder:-

“InherstatementinCourt,theprosecutrixhasputblame
ontheappellants.Shehasdeposedthatshewas
threatenedrightfromthebeginningwhenbeing
kidnappedandshewaskeptunderthreattillthepolice
ultimatelyrecoveredher.Normally,herstatementinthat
regardwouldbedifficulttodislodge,buthavingregard
toherconduct,asalsothemanneroftheso-called
“taking”,itdoesnotseemthattheprosecutrixwas
truthfulinthatregard.Inthefirstplace,itistoomuchof
acoincidencethattheprosecutrixonhervisittoa
commontap,cateringtomany,wouldbefoundalone,or
thatherwhereaboutswouldbeundercheckbyboththe
appellants/accusedandthattheywouldemergeatthe
sceneabruptlytocommittheoffenceofkidnappingby”
“taking”heroutofthelawfulguardianshipofher
mother.Secondly,itisdifficulttobelievethattothe
strataofsocietytowhichthepartiesbelong,theywould
havegoneunnoticedwhileproceedingtothehouseof
thatother.Theprosecutrixcannotbesaidtohavebeen
tiedtothebicycleasifaloadwhilesittingonthecarrier
thereof.Shecouldhaveeasilyjumpedoff.Shewasafully
grownupgirlmaybeonewhohadyetnottouched18
yearsofage,but,stillshewasintheageofdiscretion,
sensibleandawareoftheintentionoftheaccused
Shyam,Thathewastakingherawayforapurpose.It
wasnotunknowntoherwithwhomshewasgoingin

CRL.L.P.294/2018Page2of5
viewofhisearlierproposal.Itwasexpectedofherthen
tojumpdownfromthebicycle,orputupastruggleand,
inanycase,raiseanalarmtoprotectherself.Nosuch
stepsweretakenbyher.Itseemsshewasawillingparty
togowithShyamtheappellantonherownandinthat
sensetherewasno”taking”outoftheguardianshipof
hermother.TheculpabilityofneitherShyam,A-1nor
thatofSuresh,A-2,inthesecircumstances,appearstous
established.Thechargeagainsttheappellants/accused
underSection366,SectionI.P.C.wouldthusfail.Accordingly,
theappellantsdeserveacquittal.Theappealis,therefore,
allowedacquittingtheappellants.”

3.LearnedcounselappearingonbehalfoftheStatesubmitsthatasthe
prosecutrixwasaminoronthedateoftheincident,theissueofher
consentwouldbeirrelevantandimmaterial.Hesubmitsthatthe
offenceofkidnappingasprovidedunderSectionIndianPenalCodeis
completewhenaminoristakenawayfromthecustodyoflawful
guardianwithouttheconsentofsuchguardian.

4.LearnedcounselfortheState/petitionerfurthersubmitsthatthe
judgmentoftheApexCourtinShyamAnr.(supra)waswrongly
appliedbythetrialcourttothepresentcase,inasmuchasinthe
presentcasetheaccused-respondenthadalsobeenchargedunder
Section376IPC.Heemphasisedthatthebenefitofageofdiscretion
hadbeengiveninShyamAnr.(supra),toanaccusedwhowas
chargedunderSection366IPCandnotunderSection376IPC.

5.Percontra,learnedcounselappearingonbehalfoftherespondents
submitsthatalearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourtinSectionRameshwarGiri
vs.State,(2014)211DLT508hasheldthattheobservationofthe

CRL.L.P.294/2018Page3of5
ApexCourtinShyamAnr.(supra)areapplicabletoacase,even
wheretheaccused-respondenthasbeenchargedunderSection376
IPC.

6.Aperusalofthepaperbookrevealsthatthetrialcourtafteran
exhaustiveanalysisoftheevidenceonrecordhascorrectlyconcluded
thattheprosecutrixhadvoluntarilygonewiththeaccused-respondent
No.1andshehadneverraisedanalarmortriedtorunawayfromthe
placewhereshehadbeenallegedlykeptbyrespondentNo.1.

7.ThetrialcourthasheavilyrelieduponthetestimonyofPW-8,Aas
Mohammad,whowasthedriverofthevehicleinwhichtheaccused-
respondentNo.1hadallegedlytakenawaytheprosecutrixfromDelhi
toGhaziabadon17thOctober,2009.Notonlythedriverofthevehicle
hadidentifiedtheprosecutrixinCourtbuthehadalsostatedthathe
hadnotnoticedanyquarrelbetweentheaccusedandtheprosecutrix
duringthejourney.Consequently,thetaxidriversubstantiatedthe
contentionofthedefencethatitwasacaseofconsentandthe
prosecutrixhadonherownvolitionaccompaniedtherespondent-
accused.

8.Further,theboneagetestreportprovedbyPW-7Dr.VenuMadhav
R.K.,Sr.Resident,DepartmentofRadiology,AIIMS,NewDelhi,
showedthatonthedateoftheincidenttheboneageofprosecutrix
wasbetween14.5yearsto16.5years.Themarginoferrorinage
ascertainedbytheradiologicalexaminationistwoyearsoneitherside.
(See:SectionShwetaGulatiAnr.vs.TheStateGovt.ofNCTOfDelhi
2018SCCOnlineDel10448,SectionMaruRamv.UnionofIndia:1981(1)
SCC107,SectionSmt.TrivenibenOrsvsStateofGujaratOrs:1989(1)

CRL.L.P.294/2018Page4of5
SCC678,[email protected]:2008
(15)SCC223,[email protected]
Anr:2009(6)SCC681).

9.SincethisCourtcanaddtwoyearstotheageoftheprosecutrix,itisof
theopinionthatitwouldnotbepropertoassumeandpresumethatthe
prosecutrixwasaminoronthedateoftheincident.Consequently,
whiledeterminingtheageofthevictim,thebenefitofdoubtintheage
estimatedbytheboneossificationtestwouldhavetogotothe
accused.

10.KeepinginviewtheaforesaidOssificationreportaswellasthefact
thattheprosecutrixhadvoluntarilyaccompaniedtheaccused,this
Courtisoftheviewthatitisnotafitcaseforgrantofleavetoappeal.
However,theissueoflawraisedbythepetitioner-Stateisleftopen.
Accordingly,thepresentleavepetitionisdismissed.

MANMOHAN,J

SANGITADHINGRASEHGAL,J
MAY07,2019
SU/

CRL.L.P.294/2018Page5of5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation