Possibility of the Victim Being a ‘Partner-in-Crime’: Allahabad High Court Clears 7 Defendants in 2004 Rape and Kidnapping Case.
The Allahabad High Court has cleared seven individuals accused in the 2004 Rape and Kidnapping Case involving a minor. The court noted that the victim might have been involved in the crime herself. This decision came while reviewing an appeal against the conviction and sentencing of the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chowdhary stated that the victim may have had a reason to falsely accuse the defendants, as doing so could serve as a defense for her own kidnapping case in Delhi. They pointed out that throughout the investigation and trial, the victim consistently mentioned being forced by the accused to participate in the kidnapping. Her statements suggested that she was focused on creating a defense for her own case in Delhi when she spoke to the police and in court. The court concluded that the possibility of the victim being involved in the crime cannot be dismissed, and the arguments from the accused in this matter are valid.
The Appellants had Advocate D.K. Dewan representing them, while the Respondent was represented by Govt. Advocate Surendra Prasad Mishra. The Prosecution claimed that the informant, the victim’s father, reported in July 2004 that his 16-year-old daughter had been lured away by the main accused, leading to an investigation. The victim was found in August 2004, and during her statements, she described being abducted and sexually assaulted by the accused. She also mentioned an attempt by the accused to involve her in the kidnapping of a minor, which she refused. The accused were eventually convicted, prompting the current appeal.
The appellants argue that the prosecution’s case is unlikely and that the victim willingly associated with the accused. They pointed out that the informant did not explain the delay of over a month in filing the FIR. The Appellants’ counsel strongly contended that the FIR was filed to shift blame, as the victim was implicated in a kidnapping case herself. They also claimed that medical evidence indicated the victim was of legal age and showed no signs of injury. The victim’s failure to report the alleged rape, despite traveling to various places, was cited to question the credibility of her claims.
A.G.A. argued that the FIR filed against the victim in Delhi is a separate matter and does not affect the criminal case against the accused in this situation. They also pointed out that the victim has consistently named the accused, and there is no reason to doubt her statements. Additionally, it was claimed that the trial court properly assessed the evidence, and there is no reason for this Court to intervene. The Court first needed to determine whether the victim was a minor or an adult at the time of the incident, as this is important because a minor’s consent is not valid.
The Court observed that there is no municipal certificate or school record to confirm the victim’s minority, while a medical report indicates she is over 18 years old. “This evidence clearly undermines the prosecution’s claim regarding the victim’s age at the time of the incident. We cannot support the trial court’s conclusion that the victim was a minor when the only evidence regarding her age is the doctor’s report, which clearly states she is an adult. Analyzing the evidence concerning age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we conclude that the victim must be considered an adult at the time of the incident,” the Court stated.
The court acknowledged that delays in reporting sexual offenses are often understandable, as families may try to protect their reputation and the victim. However, in this case, the delay has a different meaning. The court suggested that the victim might have made false accusations against the accused. The victim admitted in her court statement that she was involved in a kidnapping case in Delhi. She stated that an FIR was filed against her in July 2004. On the same day she was found in Nehtaur, the kidnapped child from Delhi was also recovered, with the help of one of the accused, Kasim, from Bijnor. The coincidence of both recoveries happening on the same day in different locations raises suspicion, especially since the victim is also accused by the child’s mother.
The Court highlighted additional evidence that casts doubt on her account. The victim claimed she was physically attacked, including an incident with a knife and another where her hand was squeezed with pliers, indicating she experienced force. However, this claim is not backed by the medical evidence available. The victim is an adult, over 18 years old, and she stayed with the accused for nearly two months without reporting any issues, which is an important factor to consider. She tried to justify this by saying she was often intoxicated by the accused, but the prosecution did not provide any supporting evidence beyond her own statements. Medical records do not indicate that she was intoxicated for extended periods. We find her explanation unconvincing, as she claims to have been intoxicated every time, preventing her from voicing any complaints. The victim acknowledged using public transport over long distances, where many people were present. If a young woman appeared intoxicated in such a setting, it is likely that others would notice, making it unlikely that this would go unnoticed. The Court suggested that her explanation might simply be an excuse for not speaking up.
The Court believed that the Victim might have acted with the intention to falsely accuse the accused individuals. “In this case, we do not consider the Victim to be a reliable witness, as her statement lacks credibility and is not backed by any medical evidence. Additionally, there seems to be a clear motive for her to falsely accuse the accused, as doing so could provide her with a defense against the kidnapping charge filed against her in Delhi,” the court stated.
Cause Title: Shahjahan And Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2024:AHC:181692-DB)
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocate D.K. Dewan, Advocate Afzal Ahmad, Advocate Irshad Ahmad, Advocate S.K. Mishra, Advocate Mukhtar Alam, Advocate
Respondent- A.G.A.
