The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant verdict in Dalip Kumar @ Dalli vs. State of Uttaranchal (Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2013), acquitting Dalip Kumar of charges under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (procuration of a minor girl) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While reaffirming that the absence of bodily injuries is not conclusive in determining sexual assault, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences in this case.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR filed by Jawahari Lal (PW-1) in 1998, alleging that Dalip Kumar abducted his minor daughter, the prosecutrix (PW-2). According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on March 18, 1998, around 3:00 PM, but the FIR was lodged over 24 hours later, on March 19, 1998, at 7:00 PM. The prosecutrix was eventually recovered from Dalip Kumar’s house, leading to charges under Sections 363, 366-A, and other sections of the IPC.
The trial court in Pauri Garhwal convicted Dalip Kumar under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, while acquitting him of more serious charges such as rape (Section 376 IPC). The conviction was upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The case raised several critical legal questions:
1. Proof of Abduction under Section 363 IPC:
Whether the prosecution established that the prosecutrix was a minor and was taken away without lawful consent.
2. Intent to Procure a Minor under Section 366-A IPC:
Whether there was evidence of intent to induce the prosecutrix into illicit intercourse, as required under this section.
3. Delay in Filing the FIR:
Whether the delay in filing the FIR, which could affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case, was sufficiently explained.
4. Medical Evidence and Bodily Injuries:
Whether the absence of physical injuries on the prosecutrix negated the charges of sexual assault or abduction.
5. Age of the Prosecutrix:
Whether the age of the prosecutrix was conclusively proven to establish that she was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti closely examined the evidence and made the following observations:
1. Absence of Bodily Injuries Not Decisive:
Referring to its Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023), the Court observed:
“It is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries. Victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma, or feelings of helplessness.”
While this principle applies generally, the Court noted that the medical evidence in this case—provided by the examining doctor (PW-3)—revealed no signs of injury or sexual assault on the prosecutrix. Her age, estimated between 16 and 18 years, further complicated the case.
2. Testimony of the Prosecutrix:
The prosecutrix admitted during cross-examination that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant and made no claims of coercion. Her testimony did not support the prosecution’s narrative of abduction or procurement for illicit purposes.
3. Delay in Filing FIR:
The FIR was filed more than 28 hours after the alleged incident without any satisfactory explanation. The delay undermined the credibility of the allegations, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case.
4. Failure to Present Key Witnesses:
Sarita, the prosecutrix’s sister, reportedly witnessed the prosecutrix accompanying Dalip Kumar. However, the prosecution failed to present her as a witness, depriving the case of critical corroborative evidence.
5. Failure to Prove Age:
The age of the prosecutrix was pivotal to determining whether she was a minor. The doctor’s testimony placed her age between 16 and 18 years, and the absence of additional evidence meant the prosecution could not conclusively prove she was below 18.
Judgment
Setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court concluded:
“To sustain the conviction of the appellant on the basis of evidence adduced would not at all be justified. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of both Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC.”
The bench quashed the High Court’s judgment, acquitting Dalip Kumar and discharging his bail bond.
