A trial court had convicted one man, who was the girl’s relative, on charges of rape and kidnapping, and two others on charges of gang rape, kidnapping and common intention. The high court held that the girl’s testimony was “cogent and convincing” and that it found “no error in the impugned judgment convicting the appellants for offences as noted above”. The Delhi High Court on Thursday upheld the life sentence awarded by a trial court to three men convicted of raping a minor girl in 2011. A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal heard an appeal filed by three men challenging a December 15, 2018 judgment of a trial court sentencing them to life imprisonment. The trial court had convicted one man, who was the girl’s relative, on charges of rape and kidnapping and two others on charges of gang rape, kidnapping and common intention under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The high court held that the girl’s testimony was “cogent and convincing” and that it found “no error in the impugned judgment convicting the appellants for offences as noted above”. According to the prosecution, the minor girl, a resident of Faridabad, was raped by her brother’s father-in-law in his house in Delhi after he brought her there on a false pretext. The scared girl secretly left the house at night when a man driving a car offered to help her. Two other men were in the car. According to the prosecution, after she got in, the driver drove towards a jungle area in Dwarka and the two men allegedly raped her inside the car. The girl managed to escape after complaining of a stomach ache and saying that she had to urinate. People in a car passing by spotted her and called a PCR van, following which the police took her and the driver to the police station. Meanwhile, the two other men had escaped. During the course of the investigation, the Delhi police arrested the three men and a charge sheet was filed against them after examining 23 witnesses. The trial of the driver was kept in abeyance as he had absconded after he was released on interim bail. The girl’s relative had argued that she had said that he did not use force against her. He further contended that the victim had stated that she was 18 years old in her statement given under Section 64CrPC along with the medical report, hence it cannot be held that he raped her. He also argued that there were “material inconsistencies” in the victim’s statement and that he neither assaulted nor topped her from leaving the house and had been falsely implicated. He alleged that the victim’s date of birth is not based “on any record but an entry made on the basis of an affidavit” of her father and hence he should be acquitted. The relative further prayed that in the alternative he be released for the period already undergone in custody. One of the other accused argued that the victim in her deposition before the trial court had failed to identify her clothes and stated that she had not worn those clothes at the relevant time, hence the DNA samples lifted from the shirt cannot be used to convict him. “There is material improvement in the testimony of the victim from the statement initially recorded, for the reason that, in her statement on the basis of which FIR was registered, the victim stated that when the second boy attempted to commit rape, she made the excuse for urination and thus ran away. Hence, the offence of rape has not been committed by the second boy,” the man claimed. The high court considered the girl’s testimony where she said that the relative had brought her to his house after telling her parents that he wanted to give her a gift which his company was distributing as she was “like his daughter”. When the victim reached his house, she said he told her that the company had not given any gift and that he had brought her for his benefit. After examining the facts, the high court held that the girl’s testimony was “cogent and convincing”, duly corroborated by the fact that the driver was apprehended when she called for help and soon thereafter her medical examination was conducted. The high court took note of her recorded statement wherein she implicated her relative, the driver and two other accused whom she identified on being produced and the DNA report and held that it found “no error in the impugned judgment convicting the appellants for offences as noted above”.

The high court further noted the prosecution’s evidence where they examined the manager of the victim’s school and the letter of the principal which showed her date of birth as July 3, 1995. The court considered the admission form of the girl as well as the affidavit filed by her father which proved that she was a minor. The high court noted that the relative owned a “fiduciary relation with the victim” and asserting the said relationship “he tricked the parents of the victim” to send the victim with him so that “he could avail of a gift in name of his daughter from the company, which gift was never to be given”. The high court held that the relative planned the whole thing and brought the girl to his house and raped her. With respect to the other two men, the high court noted that after the driver assured the minor that they will safely drop her home, the minor girl was thereafter taken to a jungle area and was raped by the two men and that the girl escaped from them using “courage and presence of mind”. Dismissing the appeals of the men, the high court held, “Considering the manner in which the offences were committed by the appellants, this court finds no error in the impugned order on sentence, directing the appellants to undergo life imprisonment. As noted above, it will be for the appellants to seek remission from the state government in terms of Section 432 CrPC.”