The Delhi High Court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted of kidnapping and raping a 14-year-old girl, holding that the circumstances of the 2009 case and the nearly 17-year delay made further incarceration inappropriate.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed that the material on record suggested the girl and the accused had been involved in an “amorous relationship”, although her age meant that the relationship could not receive legal recognition.
The Court noted that the girl had the man’s name tattooed on her chest, while he had tattooed her name on his hand. It also took note of the fact that she had travelled with him from Delhi to Manali and returned two days later without raising an alarm.
The bench said these circumstances raised questions about the nature of their relationship at the time of the incident.
The case dates back to June 2009, when the girl, then about 14, went missing from her home. She travelled with the accused, who was around 18, first to Connaught Place and subsequently to Manali before returning to Delhi.
The man was convicted in 2011 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping, kidnapping with intent to compel marriage and rape.
Before the High Court, he did not challenge the conviction and limited his appeal to the sentence.
The Court considered the different versions given by the girl during the proceedings. It noted that her account during the medical examination after she returned was broadly consistent with the accused’s version. Her police statement, recorded in the presence of her mother, also did not contain allegations against him. A different account later emerged in her statement before the magistrate and during the trial.
The Court also highlighted that the girl was unable to satisfactorily explain the tattoo bearing the accused’s name, while observing that her conduct during the journey was another circumstance considered while assessing the sentence.
Justice Yadav said the girl’s age was ultimately what brought the relationship within the scope of criminal liability.
The convict also referred to recent Supreme Court observations on the possible need for a “Romeo-Juliet clause” to distinguish genuine adolescent relationships involving young people with a small age difference from cases warranting the full force of child-protection laws.
Another significant consideration was the passage of time. The Court noted that the convict had already spent nearly two years and four months in custody, had no previous criminal record and that the criminal proceedings had remained pending for around 17 years. Both the convict and the girl have since married other people.
Against that backdrop, the Court held that sending the man back to prison after such a long period would amount to a travesty of justice.
The substantive sentence was consequently reduced to the period already served. The fine imposed on the convict, however, was left untouched.
