Crl. Appeal No. 806/2010 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: 15th December, 2010 + Crl.Appeal No. 806/2010 % 15.12.2010 Sachin ... Appellant Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate Versus State ... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT The accused/appellant is in jail as he was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 363 & 376 IPC on the allegations of raping prosecutrix Ishaana (name changed). Sachin was Hindu and Ishaana was Muslim. Sachin was aged around 18 year and Ishaana was around 16 year of age. It is apparent from the statement of Ishaana under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Sachin and Ishaana fell in love with each other. Ishaana had a friend Sonia. Her (Sonia) services were used by Sachin and Ishaana and both of them came close to each other. In her statement, she (Ishaana) told MM that Sonia convinced her that Sachin was a good person and used to earn around Rs.15,000/- per month. At convincing of Sonia she had started meeting Sachin frequently and ultimately both of them ran away. They lived together in Mathura for about 06 months. According to Sachin the mother of the girl assured Ishaana that she would be married with Sachin in presence of society and brought her back. After she was brought back, a case of rape was registered against Sachin and he was convicted as Ishaana was considered to be a minor, below 16 years of age, by the learned Sessions Judge. Ishaana in her testimony before the Court Crl. Appeal No. 806/2010 Page 2 of 2 categorically stated that she deposed in the Court against Sachin as she was afraid if had she not deposed against Sachin before the MM and before the trial Court, she feared that her mother would have died. This shows that she was pressurized to depose against the accused as she was threatened that if she did not depose against the accused her mother would consume something and commit suicide. 2. The assessment of age of Ishaana by the trial Court has not been done on the basis of her birth certificate. In missing report mother of prosecutrix had given her age as 17 years. The report of radiologist shows that she could be between 14.5 & 16.4 year. The prosecutrix gave her age to the doctor at the time of her examination as 15 years. In her testimony mother gave age of Ishaana as 17 years. Since there was no birth certificate of prosecutrix available, I consider that the benefit of doubt regarding age of the prosecutrix should have been given to Sachin and the age of prosecutrix should have been considered 16 year when she left the house of her parents and went along with the accused. 3. I consider that it is not a case of rape by accused Sachin of Ishaana but it is a case where two young persons aged around 18 year and 16 year had run away from the house as they were in love with each other and belonged to different religion. The prosecutrix left the guardianship of her parents and their house at her own free will and lived with the accused for 06 months. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges, he be released from jail forthwith. December 15, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn