Allahabad High Court Acquits 7 Convicts in ‘Minor’ Kidnap and Rape Case of 2004

a bench Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary It refused to grant the status of a valuable witness to a victim, finding that neither her testimony was credible nor the same was supported by recorded medical evidence.

Case in brief

According to the prosecution, the Informant (the victim’s father) submitted a written report on July 23, 2004, stating that the defendant Kasım seduced his 16-year-old minor daughter (the Victim) on June 17, 2004.

The investigation continued and ultimately the victim was rescued on August 8, 2004. He stated that first the accused (Preetam, Kasim and Lala @ Shakir) kidnapped him and then he was taken to different places including his sisters’ houses. She was subjected to sexual assault by Kasım (Şahcahan and Gülşen).

He further stated that two accused (Preetam and Kasim) attempted to kidnap a minor child in Delhi and he (the victim) was forced to participate in it by these two accused and in fact he did not participate in it. in this part of the crime.

The first charge sheet was filed on September 30, 2004 under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376(g) of the IPC against the accused Kasim, Preetam, Lala @ Shakir.

Later, a charge sheet was filed against Ajijur Rehman, Smt. Shahjahan, Javed and Smt. Gulshan. Charges were framed against the accused applicants under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 of the IPC.

Ultimately, all defendants were convicted by the first instance court according to the following details:

Eyyub and Lala @ Şakir: Chapters 363, 366 (10-year RI)

Preetam: Section 363, 366 376(g) IPC (Life Period)

Smt. Shah Jahan, Smt. Gulshan and Javed: 368 IPC (10 Year RI)

November: Article 363, 366 376(g) IPC (Lifetime)

Challenging their conviction, the accused moved the HC on the allegation that the victim, a major, joined the accused Preetam and Kasim alone.

It was also alleged that the FIR filed with a delay of more than a month was intentional as the victim was involved in the kidnapping of a minor child.

Therefore, it was alleged that he had lodged the FIR only to escape from the said criminal case and to make excuses for himself in the criminal investigation against him.

Finally, his attitude towards not reporting the rape to anyone was also put forward. However, by traveling to many places by public transport, he exposed the fraud of the prosecutor’s office.

On the other hand, AGA, on behalf of the state, submitted that the FIR lodged against the victim in Delhi (for kidnapping a minor) was a separate and distinct offense and had nothing to do with the criminal prosecution against the accused persons. current case.

It was also alleged that the victim constantly implicated the defendants in the crime and that there was no reason not to believe her version.

Observations of the Supreme Court

Listening to the statements of the lawyers of both parties, the Court noted that, according to the doctor’s radiological report, the victim was over 18 years old at the time of the incident.

The court said this doctor’s evidence clearly refutes the case regarding the minority of victims at the time of the incident.

In addition, regarding the abduction case of an underage boy, the court noted that on the day the victim was rescued, the kidnapped child was also in the same area, and this coincidence arouses suspicion, especially considering that the victim was involved in a crime. It was claimed that the child was kidnapped by his mother.

Although the victim claimed that he was physically attacked and used force by the defendant, the Court also took this into consideration. But the medical evidence on record did not support his version.

In this context, the Court refused to grant the victim the status of valuable witness because it did not find the victim’s statement reliable and was not supported by recorded medical evidence.

The Court further observed that a separate purpose was achieved in falsely accusing the accused as the involvement of the accused in the crime would constitute a defense for the victim in the case of kidnapping filed against him in Delhi.

“We also find that the victim highlighted the circumstances in which she was forced by the accused appellants to participate in the crime of kidnapping at all stages of the proceedings, namely the investigation and trial. His statement clearly conveys the impression that building his defense for the kidnap case in Delhi always weighs heavily while giving evidence to the Investigating Officer or deposing in Court in that case.” remarked the Court.

On the matter, the Court found that the allegation made on behalf of the appellants against the defendants that they had seduced or sexually assaulted the victim was meritorious; This was a cover-up and was intended to create a justification for the victim in criminal proceedings initiated against her in the courts in Delhi..

“We cannot rule out the possibility that the victim himself was an accomplice to the crime.”, the Court further observed.

Thus, the defendant’s conviction was overturned and his appeals were allowed.

Views

Advocate Mukhtar Alam, Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, keeping the summary Lawyer Irshad Ahamad; Lawyer Saquib Mukhtar, keeping the summary Lawyer Awes Iqbal, argued on behalf of the applicants

Amicus curiae Durgesh Kumar Singh He appeared on behalf of the appellant Kasım and

AGA Archana Singh Appeared on behalf of the state

Case title – Shahjahan and Others v. State of UP and related objections

Case quote:

Click to Read/Download the Order