Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the acquittal of a man accused of forcibly keeping a minor girl in his house and repeatedly raping her.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that while the testimony of a victim alone is sufficient to establish guilt, overall circumstances have to be considered to arrive at a "just decision".

The bench dismissed an appeal by the State against the trial court order and said that the prosecution not only failed to bring on record the exact age of the prosecutrix but also could not prove that the accused had forcibly made physical relations with her.

Noting that the victim had visited the native village of the accused claiming to be his wife and “did not raise alarm” on earlier occasions, the court remarked that "the behaviour of prosecutrix speaks a volume about her conduct" and a case of "false accusation" cannot be ruled out.

The court noted that the victim had deposed that the accused-Sunil had made relations thrice with her in the DC Park and also stated that there were public persons in the park, but she neither raised any alarm nor any public person noticed it, which was highly unbelievable. “Also, the prosecutrix in her cross-examination has very categorically admitted to have followed whatever accused-Sunil asked her to do”, it noted.

It was also noted that the prosecutrix in her cross-examination has also admitted that the house had two main doors and the windows and ventilators equivalent to her height, yet she did not trigger any voice nor stated to have made efforts to escape from there, instead she seemed to have willingly continued to live in the house of accused for 27 days.

“Even though the DNA examination report has been proved by the Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, which established that the respondent-accused had established relations with proseuctrix, however, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that prosuectrix was forced by respondent No.1-accused(Sunil) to make relations with him”, the court opined.

The accused faced trial for the offences Sections 363, 376, 366, 368, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 21 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The state was challenging a judgment of trial court whereby respondents-accused had been acquitted by “giving benefit of doubt”.

The bench stated that the prosecution did not place on record any document to establish the correct age of the prosecutrix who first claimed that she was 17 years old and then said during her examination before the trial court that she was 19 while her complainant brother claimed she was 12 years old.

"There is no doubt to the legal position that testimony of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt of an accused for committing offence under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC, however, before arriving at a just decision, the Court also has to consider the overall facts and circumstances of the case," it said.

"This court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Finding no error in the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2019, the present petition seeking leave to appeal is dismissed," the court ordered.

Case Title: State v. Sunil & Ors.