State (NCT of Delhi) v. Parvez

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 329/2017

3. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeks to assail the order of acquittal dated 04.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.44689/15 for offences KUMAR KAURAV punishable under Sections 376(2)(g)/366/363/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The facts of the case indicate that, the complainant, Smt. Islaman, mother of the victim, reported that her minor daughter had gone missing from their house on 19.08.2011. Initially, an FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered. On 04.09.2011, the complainant produced the victim, who was then subjected to a medical examination. Based on her statement, Sections 376/506/34 IPC were added.

5. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Parvez, along with two other unidentified persons, had kidnapped and repeatedly raped the minor victim over a period of 15 days. The bone-age test later opined that the victim was between 14 to 16 years of age at the time of the incident. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, and the accused was charged under Sections 363, 366/34, 376(2)(g), and 506/34 of the IPC.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove its case. The trial Court, however, on a critical and detailed examination of the evidence produced during the course of the trial, did not find the commission of the offence proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It was noted that there was an unexplained inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR. The victim's testimony was found to contain material improvements from her previous statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The recovery of the victim from Baraut was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the place of the alleged crime remained unknown.

7. Furthermore, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report found no semen on any of the exhibits or samples collected from the victim, and her medical examination revealed only an old tear of the hymen, with no fresh injuries. Consequently, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused.

8. The Court has perused the findings rendered by the trial Court and wholly concurs with the same.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1], has laid down the principles governing appellate interference in appeals against acquittal. It held that while the appellate Court has wide powers of re-appreciating the evidence, it may only overrule or disturb the trial Court's acquittal if it has ‘very substantial and compelling reasons’ for doing so. The relevant principles are as under: