Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Friday convicted a man for raping an 11-year-old minor girl after 10 years of his acquittal by the trial court.

A bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna awarded 10 years of rigorous imprisonment to the convict.

The judgment has been passed in a plea filed by the state government challenging the trial court's order acquitting a person accused of raping an 11-year-old minor girl. The trial court had granted the accused benefit of doubt stating that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

In 2010, while returning from school, an 11-year-old minor girl had gone to use a public toilet which is when a man forcefully took her to the men's side of the toilet and raped her. The convict put his hand on the mouth of the victim and did not allow her to scream. Thereafter, the convict ran away and FIR was filed after 7 days after the incident.

The Sessions Court had acquitted the convict on the following grounds:

1. that there were glaring discrepancies in the testimony of the minor girl and that her deposition did not find corroboration from the deposition of witnesses;

2. that the clothes worn by the victim at the time of alleged rape had not been produced in evidence and there was no satisfactory explanation for their non-production;

3. that there was no medical evidence on record that may support the version of the victim that she was raped by the accused; and

4. that there was no explanation for 7 days' delay in reporting the matter and not getting the victim medically examined. 

However, the High Court rejected all the grounds taken by the Sessions court leading to the acquittal of the convict. Court opined,

"The finding by the Trial Court on the aspect that the minor girl's deposition doesn't match find corroboration from the deposition of witness, thereby doubting the prosecution case on this basis, is totally flawed".

The High Court said, "Supreme Court has held in categorical terms that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case."

The High Court noted that the deposition of the victim in the present case was reliable and trustworthy, and there was no reason to discredit or reject the same merely based on a minor contradiction between the deposition of the victim, and witnesses.

Additionally, it was held that the finding by the Trial Court that the doctor who had examined the victim, had not found any injury mark on her body, again did not, in any manner, disparage the prosecution case.

Also, on the aspect of 7 days of delay in reporting the matter, the High Court said that the Trial Court ignored the fact that the victim had lost her mother at a very young age and her father was also missing; the girl was living with her Aunt who was looking after 10 children, 6 of her own and 4 of her brother's, which included the victim.

"Even otherwise, considering the thought process prevailing in society in general, there is reluctance to report such incidents of rape. Thus, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be considered as a factor to doubt the prosecution case in any manner," the High Court added.

The High Court relying on the above-made observations set aside the Trial Court's order and said, "We hold the judgment of the Sessions Court wholly unsustainable in law."

Case Title: State Vs. Rahul