|
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man who had been convicted of rape and house trespass.
The High Court set aside the trial court's order and acquitted Dildar of offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 457 (lurking house trespass) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case pertains to an FIR registered at Nand Nagri Police Station in 2012. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav acquitted Dildar while allowing his appeal against the trial court's judgment. The High Court ruled that the prosecutrix was above the age of consent at the time of the incident and that the physical relationship was consensual. Justice Yadav observed, "Trepidated by the presence of a stranger, that too in the wee hours of the night, was sufficient to raise alarm. However, it turned out that the stranger was a stranger to the lady of the house, but not to her daughter (the prosecutrix) in the instant case." The Court noted that on the intervening night of September 1 and 2, 2012, the mother confronted the stranger after finding him inside the house. "The stranger fled from the scene but, strangely, her daughter also followed him," Justice Yadav observed in the July 24 judgment. The appellant and the prosecutrix subsequently stayed at different places, including a rain basera (night shelter), a jungle and possibly the house of the appellant's brother, before they were eventually apprehended by the police. The trial court had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years' simple imprisonment for rape and four years' simple imprisonment for house trespass. However, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Concluding that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and legally competent to give consent, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant of all charges. Advocates Rajat Mishra and Himanshu Yadav appeared for the appellant. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age on the date of the incident and was therefore legally competent, under the pre-amended provisions of Section 375 of the IPC, to consent to a sexual relationship, which would not amount to rape. To substantiate this contention, the defence relied on the prosecutrix's medical and educational records, which showed her date of birth as August 27, 1996. Since the incident took place on September 2, 2012, the defence submitted that she was 16 years and six days old at the time of the incident. (ANI)
|
