The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted all accused in the criminal appeals linked to Sessions Case No. 622 of 2005 (State vs. Preetam and Others), under Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376(g) of the IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 549 of 2004. The appeals, CRLA(A) Nos. 5017/2009, 5646/2009, 5005/2009, and Jail Appeal No. 5445/2009, challenged the conviction and sentencing by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor.
The trial court had sentenced Preetam and Kasim to life imprisonment under Section 376(g) IPC and imposed other penalties for abduction, wrongful confinement, and other charges. The case stemmed from an incident where a 16-year-old victim was allegedly abducted, subjected to sexual assault, and forced into criminal activities. The High Court, however, overturned the trial court’s decision, citing numerous legal and factual inconsistencies.
Legal Issues
1. Victim’s Age: A pivotal issue was whether the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents. While the informant claimed she was 16, no municipal or school records substantiated this. Medical evidence suggested she was over 18 years old, with the possibility of being above 20 years.
2. Credibility of Testimony: The victim’s statements about her abduction and sexual assault were weighed against medical evidence and her behavior during the alleged captivity. The court noted contradictions, such as the absence of injuries despite claims of violence and her failure to raise alarms while traveling publicly.
3. Delay in FIR Filing: The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged over a month after the alleged abduction, which the defense argued was a calculated move to divert attention from the victim’s alleged involvement in a separate kidnapping case in Delhi.
4. Medical Evidence: The absence of physical injuries or signs of intoxication contradicted the victim’s claims of sustained physical assault and forced intoxication.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, scrutinized the evidence and the victim’s testimony in light of established legal principles. The court observed:
– “While the testimony of a prosecutrix is given significant weight, it cannot be accepted blindly without corroboration when discrepancies exist in the evidence.”
– Highlighting the possibility of false allegations, the court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Raju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) and Manoharlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014), emphasizing the need for independent corroboration in such cases.
– The court noted: “False implications cannot be ruled out, particularly when the prosecutrix had a distinct motive to distance herself from the offense of kidnapping lodged against her in Delhi.”
The High Court acquitted Preetam, Kasim, Lala @ Shakir, Ayyub, Smt. Shahjahan, Javed, and Smt. Gulshan, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The court ordered their immediate release unless required in other cases, subject to compliance with Section 437-A of the CrPC.
Counsel and Representation
– Appellants were represented by D.K. Dewan, Afzal Ahmad, Irshad Ahmad, Mukhtar Alam, and S.K. Mishra.
– The State was represented by Government Advocates, including Surendra Prasad Mishra.
