Delhi High Court says 14-year-old gave consent, convict’s rape term reduced

A trial court had convicted Babul under sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage) and 376 (rape) of the IPC.

After hearing the arguments, the High Court judge said that as per the girl’s statement before a magistrate, she was in love with Babul but her aunt did not allow her to meet him.

After taking Rs 10 from her aunt, she had accompanied him to Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh so they could marry. “They had even gone to court but she being under 18 years of age, their court marriage could not be solemnised. She specifically stated that physical relations were made by the appellant/accused with her consent,” noted the judge.

“If the minor leaves her parental home without any promise, efforts or enticement, it cannot be said that an offence of kidnapping is proved,” the judge said. The judge noted that as per the girl’s statement, she was in love with Babul, who was unable to meet a demand of Rs 2 lakh as a condition to perform nikaah. She also said that her father wanted to perform her nikaah for monetary consideration against her will, underlined the judge.

“Therefore it cannot be said that the appellant (Babul) kidnapped the prosecutrix (the girl)… so as to force her or seduce to illicit intercourse… Even her medico-legal report proved that she was a consenting party to sexual intercourse,” the judge said.

The judge however, said that as the girl was 14 years old, charge of rape was proved. “She was less than 16 years of age at the time. Hence, her consent was immaterial,” the judge said.

“Counsel for the appellant has submitted that keeping in view that it was a case where the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the appellant to be his wife, but there is no proof available… that nikaah was performed, it can be considered as a special reason to award a sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed under Section 376 IPC,” the judge said.