STATE Vs. RAJU ALIAS NAGARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned SPP on merits as he has seriously assailed the correctness of the acquittal order in this case. His submission is that both the offences of kidnapping and rape stand established in so far as the evidence of the minor girl which is corroborated by the medical evidence brings home the charges against the accused. It has further been submitted that the few infirmities on the basis of which the accused has been acquitted cannot outweigh the other material on record and that interference is very necessary.

(2.) THE cases involving minors throw up delicate issues and a Court is required to take a very cautious as also a very realistic view bearing in mind the sociological consequences of the orders that a Court may pass. In a case where a minor is induced to leave the lawful guardianship, technically the offence of kidnapping would stand established and similarly, even if a minor girl voluntarily accompanies the accused and submits to sexual intercourse, again technically the offence of rape is committed. The Courts are, however, required to draw a distinction between instances where sexual attacks are made on minor girls, where force is used and where the act is atrocious, and instances of the present type where the entire episode is a lovers escapade though it may technically constitute an offence. We do not condone the act one bit because we do believe that the safety and welfare of minor girls is the predominant consideration but we also take note of the fact of the consequences to the parties and their families of any harsh orders such as a conviction etc. , from a Court would have. Consequently, we have taken special note of the fact that these incidents create a stigma which has very serious repercussions not only to the parties but to those close to them. When the incident took place in the year 1993, the victim girl was 15 years' old. Six years have now elapsed and there is every possibility that she is either married or gainfully employed. Similarly, Nagaraja is a married man and it has come on record that since his family came to know of what he had done, that they brought the girl back to her village. A reopening of the case at this late point of time would virtually reopen all the old wounds and would have very serious repercussions on both the parties particularly, on the girl.

(3.) WE have as of necessity taken into account this aspect of the case which is of paramount importance but we have not lost sight of the legal angle. We find that the accused was taken into custody and that he remained in custody right up to the date of Judgment which is dated 6-1-99 which would indicate that he has virtually been in custody for a period of about six years. Even if the accused were to be technically convicted, we take note of the fact that on the facts of this case where there is no evidence of force that is attributed, that no Court would impose a sentence of more than this period and this is one of the very important considerations on which we are of the considered view that technically admitting the appeal and reopening the case will not serve any useful purpose. We feel that the ends of justice have been sufficiently met by virtue of the period of custody, that the accused-1 has undergone and this is an additional ground on which we decline interference.