Allahabad High Court acquits seven convicts in ‘minor’ 2004 kidnap and rape case

A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary refused to grant a victim real witness status because she felt neither her statement was credible nor supported by medical evidence.

The case in brief

According to the prosecution’s case, the informant (victim’s father) submitted a written report on July 23, 2004, stating that the suspect, Kasim, had seduced his 16-year-old minor daughter (victim) on June 17, 2004.

The investigation continued and the victim was eventually found on August 8, 2004. She stated that the suspects (Preetam, Kasim and Lala @ Shakir) first kidnapped her after which she was taken to different places, including to the homes of sisters. of Kasim (Shahjahan and Gulshan) and was sexually abused.

She also stated about the attempt by the two suspects (Preetam and Kasim) to kidnap a minor child in Delhi, and that she (the victim) was forced by these two suspects to participate in it and that in fact she was not there had participated. in this part of the crime.

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

A subsequent complaint was filed against Ajijur Rehman, Smt. Shahjahan, Javed and Smt. Gulshan. Charges were filed against the accused applicants under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 IPC.

Ultimately, all suspects were convicted by the court according to the following details:

Ayyub and Lala @ Shakir: Sections 363, 366 (10 years RI)

Preetam: Sections 363, 366 376(g) IPC (lifetime)

Smt. Shahjahan, Smt. Gulshan and Javed: 368 IPC (10 years RI)

Kasim: Sections 363, 366 376(g) IPC (Learn Mine)

Challenging their conviction, the suspects moved the HC alleging that the victim, a major, had joined the party of the suspects, Preetam and Kasim, on his own.

It was also submitted that the FIR, filed after a delay of more than a month, was targeted as the victim herself was involved in a case of kidnapping a minor child.

Thus, it was submitted that she had filed the FIR only to get out of the criminal case and to make an excuse for her in the criminal proceedings initiated against her.

Finally, it was also alleged that her conduct consisted of not reporting the incident of rape to anyone. However, she traveled to several places on public transportation, exposing the accuser’s falsity.

On the other hand, the AGA contended on behalf of the State that the FIR lodged against the victim in Delhi (for kidnapping a minor boy) was a separate and distinct offense which has no relevance to the criminal prosecution filed against the accused-appellants in the present case.

It was also argued that the victim had consistently implicated the suspects, and that there was no reason to disbelieve her version.

Supreme Court Comments

After hearing the submissions of the lawyers of both parties, the Court found that, according to the doctor’s radiological report, the victim was over 18 years old at the time of the incident.

The Court found that this doctor’s evidence clearly destroyed the prosecution case against a minority of the victims at the date of the incident.

Furthermore, regarding the kidnapping case of a minor boy, the Court noted that on the same day the victim was recovered, the kidnapped child was also found in the same district, and this coincidence raised suspicions, especially since the victim was involved as the perpetrator. accused of kidnapping by the child’s mother.

The court also took this into account, although the victim had claimed that she had been physically abused by the suspect and that violence had been used against her. However, the medical evidence on record did not support her version.

Against this background, the Court refused to grant the victim the status of a real witness, finding her statement neither credible nor supported by medical evidence from the files.

The Court also observed that a clear purpose was achieved to falsely implicate the suspects as the involvement of the suspects would constitute a defense to the victim in the crime of kidnapping filed against her in Delhi.

“We also note that at every stage of the proceedings, that is, during the investigation as well as during the trial, the victim has highlighted the circumstances in which she was forced by the accused appellants to participate in the crime of kidnapping. Her statement clearly gives the impression that creating her defense for the Delhi kidnap case was always a problem for her when she gave her statement in this case either before the Investigating Officer or while giving a statement before the court.”, the Court noted.

In that view of the case, the Court found well-founded the appellants’ argument that the accusation against the defendants that they had seduced the victim or subjected her to sexual abuse was in fact the following: a cover-up and was intended to create vindication for the victim in the criminal proceedings initiated against her in the Delhi courts.

“We cannot rule out the possibility that the victim himself is a partner in crime”, the Court further notes.

This quashed the suspect’s conviction and allowed their appeal.

Performances

Advocates Mukhtar Alam, Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, keeping the order of Lawyer Irshad Ahamad; Lawyer Saquib Mukhtar, keeping the order of Lawyer Awes Iqbal, argued for the appellants

Amicus curiae Durgesh Kumar Singh appeared for appellant-Kasim and

AGA Archana Singh Appeared for state

Case title – Shahjahan and others versus State of UP and related appeals

Case quote:

Click here to read/download the order