Delhi Resident Receives 20-Year Sentence for Kidnapping and Raping Minor
A special Pocso court in Ghaziabad delivered a significant verdict on January 9. The court sentenced a Delhi resident to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. This punishment came for kidnapping and raping a minor girl back in 2021.
Court Proceedings and Key Details
Special Pocso court judge Neeraj Gautam presided over the case. He found the man guilty under two specific sections. These were Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping. The other was Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The judge also imposed a substantial financial penalty. He ordered the man to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The court directed that this entire amount should go to the victim. The girl is now 21 years old. The money will support her rehabilitation process.
Background of the 2021 Incident
The case began in July 2021. The father of the sixteen-year-old girl filed a formal complaint. He approached the Loni police station in Ghaziabad. His allegation stated that the man had lured his daughter away from their home on June 28.
Police acted promptly on this information. They registered a case under IPC Section 363. Officers then launched a thorough investigation. Their efforts led them to a rented accommodation in Narela, Delhi. They found both the girl and the accused staying there together.
Legal Developments and Charges
Authorities recorded the minor girl's statement before a magistrate. Following this procedure, police added a serious charge. They included IPC Section 376, which deals with rape. Alternatively, they applied Section 4 of the Pocso Act. Police filed their official chargesheet on July 17, 2021.
The court formally framed charges on October 10. The prosecution presented four key witnesses during the trial. These included the complainant father, the teenager herself, her school principal, and the investigating officer.
The Victim's Testimony and Its Evolution
In her initial testimony, the girl confirmed her earlier statement to the magistrate. She described the accused as a daily wager. She had once referred to him as 'uncle'. The girl stated she went with him of her own free will.
She provided specific details about their time in Delhi. They solemnized their marriage at a temple. She admitted they established physical relations. She characterized these relations as consensual.
However, her testimony changed during cross-examination by the prosecution. She revealed a different aspect of the story. The girl said the man threatened her with dire consequences. These threats occurred when she resisted his demands.
Critical Evidence Regarding Age
The school principal played a crucial role in the trial. He produced official records showing the girl's date of birth. These documents indicated she was born on April 5, 2005.
The court treated this evidence as definitive proof. It established that the girl was indeed a minor in June 2021. This fact became central to the legal proceedings. The court determined her statement about consent could not be considered admissible under the law.
Legal Arguments from Both Sides
Special public prosecutor Utkarsha Vatsa presented strong arguments. He emphasized that a minor's consent holds no legal validity. However, he also described the girl as a 'sterling witness'. She consistently stood by her statement given under Section 164 of the CrPC. She never denied establishing sexual relations with the accused.
The defense team raised different points. They highlighted that the minor refused a medical examination. They argued this refusal created reasonable doubt. Without a medical report, they claimed the rape allegation remained unproven.
Court's Final Judgment and Reasoning
Judge Neeraj Gautam rejected the defense submissions completely. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proved its case. Evidence showed the sixteen-year-old girl was kidnapped from her legal guardian. The accused took her away against proper authority.
The court noted specific facts in its judgment. Police recovered both individuals from Delhi. The accusation of rape was proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
Judge Gautam cited two important Supreme Court judgments. These were Vijay Chini vs State of Madhya Pradesh from 2011. The other was Ganesan vs State of Tamil Nadu from 2020. These rulings supported his decision.
The judge emphasized a key legal principle. The statement of the prosecutrix, if found credible and reliable, requires no corroboration. A court may convict the accused solely based on this testimony.
Sentencing Details and Breakdown
The court delivered separate sentences for different charges. For kidnapping under Section 363 IPC, it sentenced the man to four years imprisonment. This came with an additional fine of Rs 5,000.
For the rape charge under Section 376 IPC, the court found him guilty. However, it applied sentencing under Section 4 of the Pocso Act. This resulted in twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. The court imposed the Rs 1 lakh fine under this section.
The total effective sentence became twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. The financial penalties amounted to Rs 1,05,000. The court ordered strict implementation of these punishments.
