The Delhi High Court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted of rape and kidnapping in a case originating from an incident in June 2009, noting that the accused had already undergone nearly two years and four months in custody and that sending him back to jail after 17 years would be a travesty of justice.
The case, titled Vakul Kapoor Vs State, arose after a 14-year-old girl went missing from her home and travelled with the accused, then around 18 years old, first to Connaught Place and subsequently to Manali. They returned to Delhi two days later. The accused was convicted in 2011 for offences under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping woman to compel her marriage) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
In the appeal before the High Court, the accused confined his challenge to the sentence and did not question the conviction itself. The court observed that during the medical examination conducted immediately after the girl’s return, her statement was broadly consistent with the accused’s version of events. Her statement recorded by the police in the presence of her mother also did not implicate him. However, she later made allegations against him in her statement recorded before a magistrate and during the trial.
The court noted that the girl could not satisfactorily explain why she had the accused’s name tattooed on her chest. Similarly, the accused had tattooed her name on his hand. The court also took into account that the girl had not raised any alarm during their journey to Manali.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, delivering the judgment, stated that the circumstances indicated the existence of an amorous relationship between the two, although the girl’s age meant that such a relationship could not be legally recognised. The court observed that deep down, the girl must also be seeking answers and explanation for the tattoos and the travel to Manali.
The judge emphasized that the girl’s age was the decisive factor that operated against the accused and led to his criminal liability under the law. The accused relied on recent Supreme Court observations advocating for a Romeo-Juliet clause to protect genuine adolescent relationships with a small age gap from the strict application of child-protection laws.
Additional factors considered by the court included that both the accused and the prosecutrix are now married to other persons, the accused has no criminal antecedents, and the legal proceedings have persisted for approximately 17 years.
The court concluded that sending the accused back to jail at this stage, after he had already undergone nearly two years and four months in custody, would amount to a travesty of justice. Accordingly, it reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, while leaving the fine imposed on him unchanged.
The accused was represented by advocate Saahila Lamba. The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar. Advocates Astha and Megha Singh appeared for the prosecutrix.