Over 10 Yrs After Acquittal By Trial Court, Delhi HC Convicts Man For Raping 11-Yr-Old; Sentences To 10 Yrs Rigorous Imprisonment
Case: State v. Rahul
Coram: Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna
Case No.: CRL.A. 60/2014
Court Observation: “This is coupled with the fact that the victim belonged to a very poor family and her aunt met the two ends by working as a labourer. In these circumstances, PW8, aunt of the victim cannot be expected to know the importance of reporting such matters immediately,”
“Even otherwise, considering the thought process prevailing in the 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.”
“This finding is totally fallacious since the victim in answer to the Court question had clearly stated that her deposition was made against the accused because the said incident had taken place and she had not deposed against the accused because her Aunt and police had asked her to state so,”
“The finding that there is no satisfactory explanation for their non-production, is totally devoid of any merits, since the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that in the present case, the investigation started after 7 days of the incident when the matter was reported. It may not be lost sight of the fact that PW8 Aunt of the victim is a labourer and is not an educated woman,”
“Thus, in the year 2010 when the incident happened, the punishment for rape where a victim was under 12 years of age, was for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine,”
“The accused is already in custody and is directed to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. will be provided to the respondent.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Rigorous Imprisonment
