Delhi High Court Reduces Sentence in Rape and Kidnapping Case
In a notable legal development, the Delhi High Court has reduced the prison sentence of a man previously convicted of raping and kidnapping a 14-year-old girl. The decision was influenced by the fact that the girl had the accused’s name tattooed on her chest and had voluntarily accompanied him to Manali. The case, Vakul Kapoor Vs State, was presided over by Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav.
The Court observed that the circumstances suggested a romantic relationship between the two, although the girl’s age legally precludes any such recognition. Thus, the Court deemed the nearly two years and four months already served by the convict as adequate punishment.
Case Background and Court’s Observations
The incident dates back to June 2009, when the girl, about 14 years old, was reported missing. She traveled with the convict, then 18, to Connaught Place and subsequently to Manali. They returned to Delhi after two days. In 2011, the man was convicted under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abducting to compel marriage), and 376 (rape).
In his appeal, the convict did not dispute the conviction but sought a reduction in his sentence. The High Court noted the girl’s initial medical examination and police statement, made in her mother’s presence, which supported the convict’s account. However, she later made allegations against him during her magistrate-recorded statement and trial.
Key Factors Influencing the Sentence Reduction
Justice Yadav highlighted that the girl failed to convincingly explain why she had the man’s name tattooed on her chest, while the convict had her name tattooed on his hand. The absence of any alarm raised by the girl during their journey was also noted. Justice Yadav remarked that the girl’s age was a crucial factor leading to the convict’s criminal liability.
More Read
The Court considered the Supreme Court’s recent suggestions for a “Romeo-Juliet clause,” aimed at protecting genuine adolescent relationships with minor age differences from stringent child-protection laws. Additionally, the Court acknowledged that both the convict and the girl have since married other people, and that the proceedings have been ongoing for 17 years. Returning him to prison now would be, as the Court stated, a “travesty of justice.”
The sentence was thus reduced to the period already served, while the financial penalty remained unchanged. Defense counsel Saahila Lamba represented the convict, Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar represented the state, and advocates Astha and Megha Singh represented the prosecutrix.
