High Court Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari pronounced verdict
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court, while delivering its verdict after almost 35 years in a kidnapping and gang rape case of the year 1989, has quashed the sentence of the culprits. The court has acquitted the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt, considering the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the age of the victim as insufficient and unsatisfactory. This verdict was given by Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari. In this case, a case was registered under sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping and forcing for marriage/immoral act) of the Indian Penal Code. In his verdict on 19 November 1991, the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Banda sentenced Ram Charan and Raja Ram to 3 years rigorous imprisonment under section 366 IPC.
Separate fines were also imposed. All sentences were to run concurrently. During the appeal, the accused, Ram Din, died, and his appeal was dismissed, and the case was decided solely for Ram Charan, Raja Ram, and Ram Kumar.
The defense’s main argument was that the victim was an adult at the time of the incident, and therefore, sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out. This was supported by the statement of the victim’s brother, Mahesh, in which he stated his age to be approximately 25 years, stating that he had two older sisters and two brothers, and that the victim was the youngest child. Citing two important Supreme Court decisions, Jai Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Munna alias Shambhu Nath, the defense argued that a discrepancy of up to two years is possible in bone tests for determining age, and that in the absence of clear evidence, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.
The defense also argued that the Sessions Court failed to properly question the accused about the circumstances of the indictment during the interrogation of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, which was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The AGA, representing the state government, argued that the victim’s brother’s age (25 years) and the doctor’s testimony, which stated the victim’s age to be between 16 and 18 years, clearly established that the victim was a minor. Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari observed that both Dr. Suruchi Saxena, who examined the victim, and Dr. M.C. Mittal, who performed the X-ray, did not clearly state her age in their reports. The victim herself stated her age as 17 years (on the date of examination, August 2, 1991) in her testimony and also stated that she had been married four years earlier. Granting the benefit of the doubt, the High Court set aside the Banda Sessions Court’s order of November 19, 1991, and allowed the criminal appeal.
