Child Born to Prosecutrix is entitled to Compensation for Maintenance even if Rape Charges are Revoked

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Name of the Case

Vikram Singh @ Vicky Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

Bench

Justice S.P Garg and Justice C.Hari Shankar

Delhi High Court delivers a very interesting judgment in which the high court quashed a trial court’s order declaring two men guilty of raping a minor girl but instructed both of them to pay compensation for maintenance of a child born to prosecutrix.

Facts of the case

Division Bench of the High Court was listening to an appeal filed by two prisoners who challenged a judgment passed by Additional Session’s Judge at the beginning of the year 2013 by the.  Additional Session’s Judge had convicted them for repeatedly raping a 13-year old girl for over a period of 4 to 5 months. Crime came to light only when it was discovered that the victim was pregnant.

The victim received proper medical attention after seven months of pregnancy. She gave birth to a boy in March 2012. The child is now in a private orphanage in Haryana.

The decision of the case

Division Bench after examining all the shreds of evidence and arguments advanced by both the sides observed that the victim had given conflicting and divergent versions at different stages of the investigation. She did not tell her parents or the police about her ordeal at any stage. She continued to have physical relation with appellant and visited their office whenever called without a hitch and it was further observed that no injuries were found on her body or private parts to indicate forced sexual intercourse. None of the evidence furnished could prove the fact that she was below 16 years of age at the time of the crime. All this led the court to come to the conclusion that she was a consenting party throughout the incident.

Court also rejected the application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) 2012, noting that alleged crime happened before the Act came in force. The court thereafter allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants saying

Since the victim was more than 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence and physical relations (if any) were with her consent, the appellants cannot be held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and the finding of the Trial Court on that score cannot be sustained and are set aside.

Moreover, Court also observed that DNA report confirmed that child belonged to the Tejinder Singh and ordered Vikram Singh and Tejinder Singh to pay 5 lakh and 8 lakh rupees respectively to the victim as compensation justifying the same on the following logic.

Since the victim who was below 18 years on the date of the incident was exploited and physical relations were established by the appellants who were major and knew the consequences of their acts whereby the poor girl became pregnant and delivered the child she is entitled to compensation for the maintenance of the child.

Learning of the case

From this case, we learn that child born to a prosecutrix even from rape is entitled to compensation for maintenance even if rape charges are dropped.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -