From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: Noting that evidence is cruicial to do justice, Delhi High Court has said that a casually written judgment and casually appreciated evidence is a casualty to justice while setting aside a 2009 judgment on alleged kidnapping of a girl by two persons in 2007.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma quashed the sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment for hiding the girl, allegedly kidnapped by another person.
In appeal before the High Court, duo Nayab and Khushnuma contended that there was no scientific proof or evidence to show the victim was less than 18 years to be a minor and the testimonies of he witnesses were contradictory, sufficient to declare the conviction and sentence as invalid.
The High Court held that age of the victim was not proved to be less than 18 years on the day of incident and “there wewre serious and material contradictions between the testimonies of the victim and those of her parents, with regard to the concealment of her whereabouts, which cannot be overlooked.”
It also said that the determination of age on the basis of menarche cannot be a conclusive criterion as done by the trial court.
“There is nothing to show that the prosecutrix was 13 years of age at the time of the incident, except the statement of prosecutrix to the effect that she attached menarche 3 months prior to the incident. The said fact has been completely ignored in the impugned judgment. In case the prosecution could not prove that she was less than 18 years of age, the essential ingredients for the commission of the offence of kidnapping itself would not be made out,” the High Court noted.
It said the appellants themselves had revealed the whereabouts of the girl by going to her parent’s house, adding that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses created doubts in the prosecution’s case.
Furthermore, the court also noted that the victim had raised no alarm during the entire period of almost 14 days although she travelled to different residential areas. As such, the trustworthiness and reliability of her statement is questionable. Moreover, she neither identified the place where she was confined.
Also, it said the investigating officer also did not file any record in this regard in the charge sheet on where the victim was allegedly kept by the appellants. “Considering the above observations, it is worthwhile to mention that this is not a case of concealing tthe whereabouts, but of rather revealing the whereabouts of the victim,” the High Court added.
