Delhi HC reduces statutory rape convict’s sentence in light of minor victim’s testimony

The Delhi High Court on Monday reduced the sentence of a man convicted for kidnapping and rape of a minor in light of the testimony of the victim, who claimed that she had physical relations with him of her own volition..The convict had appealed against the trial court order which sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC..Appearing for the appellant, Advocate SK Sethi submitted before the Court that,.“The prosecutrix left the house of her aunt on her own as her father wanted to sell her to some other person but she was in love with the appellant. Fearing that she might be sold to a stranger, she left her house of her own to perform Nikaah with the appellant and had consented to have physical relations with him.”.He also referred to the statement made by the prosecutrix wherein she had specifically stated the reason for leaving her house and that the physical relations with the appellant were made with free consent..It was further argued that the appellant as well as the prosecutrix both belong to the Muslim community, where the age of Nikaah is the age of attaining puberty..On behalf of the state, Additional Public Prosecutor Kusum Dhalla submitted that since the prosecutrix was a minor at that time, the consent, if any, given by her was immaterial..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Pratibha Rani observed,.“She (prosecutrix) specifically stated that physical relations were made with her consent…The only issue that is relevant for deciding in this appeal is the effect of consent by a girl under 16 years of age..It is necessary to mention that no Nikaahnama is on record on the basis of which the appellant could have taken the plea that the age of puberty is relevant for performing Nikaah and she having attained the age of puberty her consent has to be given weightage..At best the appellant can claim that the prosecutrix was not 11 years old but 14 years old at the time of occurrence which is below the consenting age.” .With regard to the offence of kidnapping a minor (section 363), the Court stated that the prosecution was required to prove that the appellant had taken or enticed the prosecutrix out of the lawful guardianship of her parents. If the minor leaves her parental home without any promise, efforts or enticement, it cannot be said that an offence of kidnapping is proved..Further, in order to prove a charge under Section 366, the prosecution was required to prove that the kidnapping of the prosecutrix was with intent that she may be compelled to marry any person against her will..However, the three reasons given by the prosecutrix to leave her home without inducement and accompanying the accused are as under:.“She being in love with the accused..The accused being not able to meet the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs as a condition to perform Nikaah.Her father’s intention to perform her Nikaah against her will with some other person for monetary consideration.”.Therefore, the Court observed,.“It cannot be said that the appellant kidnapped/taken the prosecutrix with him out of the lawful guardianship of her parents/aunt so as to force her or seduce to illicit intercourse..It is a case where no offence under Section 363/ 366 IPC can be said to have beenproved against the appellant. Hence, he is acquitted of the above charges.”.With regard to the offence of rape, the Court stated that the age of the prosecutrix being 14 years at the time of occurrence, charge for the offence under Section 376 IPC stands proved against the appellant. She was less than 16 years of age at the time, rendering her consent immaterial..In light of the victim’s testimony, the Court also directed that the substantive sentence of 7 years awarded to the appellant for committing the offence under Section 376 IPC be reduced to 5 years..Read the judgment:.Image taken from here.