Delhi HC Acquits Rape Convict on Benefit of Doubt After Prosecutrix's Age and Conduct Raise Credibility Questions

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal against conviction under Section 376 and Section 363 IPC, finding the prosecutrix's age above 18 and her conduct inconsistent with forcible abduction or rape.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav of the High Court of Delhi, sitting singly, on 22 July 2026 allowed the criminal appeal of Ram Chander @ Chhotu, setting aside his conviction and sentence under Section 376(1) IPC (seven years rigorous imprisonment) and Section 363 IPC (one year simple imprisonment) imposed by the Trial Court through its judgment dated 29 August 2008. The acquittal rests on three converging grounds: the prosecutrix's age, read with the accepted margin of error in ossification testing, placed her above the threshold for kidnapping under Section 361 IPC; her conduct throughout the incident was inconsistent with being an unwilling party; and the FSL report on which the prosecution's rape charge substantially depended was found to be unreliable due to unauthenticated cuttings in the document. The appellant was granted the benefit of doubt.

The Incident and the Trial Court's Findings

A girl described as approximately 13 years of age was reported missing from her home on 4 April 2006. Her elder sister went to the local police post that day, but no FIR was registered — only a Daily Diary entry was made. Two days later, on 6 April 2006, the girl's mother lodged a formal complaint. FIR No. 264/2006 was registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area under Section 363 IPC.

The breakthrough came on 9 April 2006 when the girl's brother and uncle informed the Investigating Officer, ASI Shri Ram, that the prosecutrix and the appellant were believed to be staying in the Madangir area of South Delhi. A raiding team was assembled. The team spotted both the prosecutrix and the appellant coming from the direction of Khanpur towards the Madangir bus stand and apprehended them on the identification made by the girl's brother and uncle.

Following arrest, a medico-legal examination was conducted at AIIMS. The prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded (Exhibit PW-12/A). On the basis of that statement, the MLC findings, and the FSL results, Section 376 IPC was added to the chargesheet. The Trial Court, after examining fifteen prosecution witnesses and considering the appellant's explanation under Section 313 CrPC, convicted and sentenced him by judgment dated 29 August 2008.

Arguments Before the High Court

Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Hans Raj Singh and Mr. Gaurav Nagar, confined their challenge to two principal arguments. First, they contended that the prosecutrix was a major on the date of the incident, as the ossification test result (Exhibit PW-7/A) placed her age between 14 and 16.4 years. Applying the medically recognised margin of error of two years on either side — a position confirmed by PW-7, Dr. Anindita Sinha, who accepted that “there is a error of two years either side while determining age” — the appellant's counsel submitted her age could be read as 18.4 years. That figure, they argued, takes the case entirely outside Section 361 IPC, which requires the female to be under 18 years for kidnapping from lawful guardianship to be established.

Second, the appellant's counsel pointed to the prosecutrix's conduct: she had travelled in public transport with the appellant, visited the crowded Kalkaji Temple during the Navratri festival when police presence was visible, and at no point raised an alarm or sought help. They also drew attention to the fact that the prosecutrix had appeared before the appellate court on at least two occasions and stated she did not want any action against the appellant, asserting she had accompanied him of her own accord.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, supported by counsel for the prosecutrix, Ms. Astha (appointed by DHCLSC) along with Ms. Megha Singh, pressed for upholding the conviction. They relied on the MLC (Exhibit PW-8/A) showing absent hymen, the vaginal smear slides sent for forensic examination, and the FSL result (Exhibit PX) showing presence of semen on the seized undergarment. They argued the medical and forensic evidence, read with the prosecutrix's deposition, conclusively corroborated the charge of rape.

How the Court Analysed the Kidnapping Charge

Justice Yadav reproduced Section 361 IPC in the judgment to make the age threshold explicit: for a female, the provision applies only where she is under 18 years of age. The ossification test placed the prosecutrix at 14 to 16.4 years. With the two-year margin of error applied in favour of the accused — a principle confirmed by the medical witness herself — the court found her age could be taken as 18.4 years at the time of the incident. That single finding removed the case from the ambit of Section 361 and therefore Section 363 IPC.

Beyond age, the court examined whether the conduct of the appellant amounted to “taking away” or “enticing” the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had herself admitted in cross-examination that she did not raise any alarm at the Kalkaji Temple despite the large Navratri crowd, that she moved with the appellant in public transport in full public view, and that she did not complain to any person about a forcible kidnapping. The court found that in the absence of any continuing force, coercion, or threat, and given the multiple opportunities the prosecutrix had to raise alarm, the ingredients of Section 363 IPC were not made out.

The court also noted an inconsistency in the prosecution's own case regarding the recovery location. The Doctor's endorsement on the MLC stated that the prosecutrix's clothes were handed to a woman in whose house she was discovered. The police witnesses, however, deposed that she was recovered at the Madangir bus stand while coming along with the appellant from the direction of Khanpur. Both versions could not simultaneously be true, and no explanation was offered for the discrepancy.

How the Court Analysed the Rape Charge

On the charge under Section 376 IPC, the court acknowledged that the circumstantial evidence — the prosecutrix's deposition, the MLC, and the FSL result — pointed towards the appellant's involvement. The prosecutrix had stated she was raped twice on 7 April 2006 during the period she was with the appellant. The court accepted that the presence of semen on the seized undergarment, combined with the fact that the prosecutrix was in the appellant's care, custody, and control from 4 April 2006 until apprehension on 9 April 2006, made it difficult to attribute the semen to anyone else.

However, Justice Yadav found the FSL report (Exhibit PX) to be unreliable because it contained cuttings that had not been authenticated by any responsible person. The court held that unauthenticated alterations in a forensic document vitiate its evidentiary value. Additionally, the vaginal smear slides sent for analysis showed no traces of human semen, leaving the conviction to rest on the semen found on a seized undergarment, the exact ownership of which was not conclusively established on record.

The court also returned to the prosecutrix's conduct in the context of the rape allegation. Even after she claims to have been raped, she continued to move with the appellant from one location to another without attempting to escape, raise an alarm, or seek help. She was eventually spotted walking normally with the appellant in broad daylight. The court found that the absence of any protest, resistance, or attempt to escape — in the complete absence of any threat, weapon, or potent coercion on the appellant's part — made her version highly improbable. It was, in the court's assessment, unsafe to act on testimony that was not conclusively supported by scientific evidence and that was riddled with improbabilities on a scale of reason and logic.

The court also took into account that before the appellate court, the prosecutrix had appeared more than once — identified by the Investigating Officer — and had repeatedly stated that she had accompanied the appellant voluntarily and that he was without fault. While the court acknowledged that such oral submissions at the appellate stage are not conclusive by themselves, it treated them as one further factor, alongside the shaky evidence, pointing against the reliability of the original version.

Outcome

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav allowed Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 2008. The conviction and sentence of Ram Chander @ Chhotu under both Section 376(1) IPC and Section 363 IPC were set aside. The appellant was granted benefit of doubt. His bail bonds were discharged. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court and to the Prison Authorities for information and necessary compliance. The judgment was reserved on 8 July 2026 and pronounced on 22 July 2026.