SachIn Vs. State

Sachin vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 15, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907697

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/907697
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Decided On: Dec 15, 2010
Case Number: Crl.Appeal No. 806/2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[K. BHAKTHAVATSALA J.] RFA filed u/s 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated: 17.8,2010 passed in o.s.no. 8768/200$ on the file of take XXV addl. city civil & sessions judge, Bangalore. (CCH 23). Decreeing the suit for possession. MISC. CVL. is filed under order XII rule 5 R/W Section 151 of CPC praying to...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code,(IPC) - Sections 363, 376; Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 164

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sachin

Advocate Ms. Anu Narula, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Mr. Sunil Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code,(IPC) - Sections 363, 376; Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 164

Excerpt

[k. bhakthavatsala j.] rfa filed u/s 96 of cpc, against the judgment and decree dated: 17.8,2010 passed in o.s.no. 8768/200$ on the file of take xxv addl. city civil & sessions judge, bangalore. (cch 23). decreeing the suit for possession. misc. cvl. is filed under order xii rule 5 r/w section 151 of cpc praying to stay the operation of the orer passed by xxv addl. city civil judge at bangalore in o.s.no.8768/ 2006 on 17.5.2010, pending final disposal of the appeal.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 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......

Full 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 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.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties Sachin vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code,(IPC) - Sections 363, 376; Code Of Criminal...

Criminal