What's in a name? Man with Lord Ram's names may not have his virtues: Delhi High Court

“What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

More than 400 years after William Shakespeare penned those famous lines in Romeo and Juliet, a Delhi High Court judge has devoted the opening two pages of a 15-page judgment to the same philosophical question before acquitting a man named Ram Chander in an 18-year-old kidnapping and rape case.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav drew on the writings of the 15th-century mystic poet-saint Kabirdas, the Ramayana, the Bhagavad Gita, and the naming traditions in Hinduism, Islam and other religions to conclude, much like Shakespeare, that a person's character is defined by their karma (deeds), not by their name.

"Had it been so that the names would have determined the personality, then every Ramchandra in India would have been upholder of values and would have been Maryadapurshottam. All this goes on to show that the names, however, fancy, ideal or meaningful they are, it is not the name but the person who matters," the Court observed.

Justice Yadav noted that it has long been a common practice in India to name children after revered religious figures, such as Ram or Mohammad, in the hope that they would emulate the virtues associated with those names. However, the Court said that "names do not shape the personality, person, conduct and behaviour."

Referring to the philosophy of Karmyog in the Bhagavad Gita, the judge said that deeds are of paramount importance, irrespective of a person's name.

"In these circumstances, philosophy of 'Karmyog' given by Lord Krishna in Gita seems more near, close and practical, which emphasize on the deeds (Karma) which are of utmost importance irrespective of the name or any other thing. So any Ram Chander in this world may not have all those virtues which Lord Rama of Satyug had and upheld,” the Court added. 

Ram Chander was arrested in 2006 when a girl's mother reported that her daughter, then around 13 years old according to the prosecution, had gone missing. The girl was traced five days later along with Ram Chander. Following her statement, medical examination and forensic reports, police added the charge of rape to the case. 

The trial court convicted him in August 2008 and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for rape and one year's simple imprisonment for kidnapping. 

Before the High Court, Ram Chander argued that the girl had voluntarily accompanied him and that she was a major at the time of the incident. During the appeal, the girl also appeared before the Court and stated that she did not want any action against the man, claiming that she had accompanied him voluntarily. 

After considering the case, the Court concluded that the prosecutrix travelled with the accused in public, visited the crowded Kalkaji Temple during Navratri, and never raised an alarm, casting doubt on the allegation of forcible kidnapping. 

It also found that the ossification test placed her age at about 18.4 years. On the rape charge, the Court found the forensic evidence inconclusive and acquitted the appellant by granting him the benefit of doubt.

Advocates Hans Raj Singh and Gaurav Nagar appeared for Ram Chander. 

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Nawal Kishore Jha represented the State. 

Advocates Astha and Megha Singh represented the prosecutrix.

[Read Judgement]