Delhi High Court: The present appeal was filed by the appellant to challenge his conviction and sentence under Section 363 read with Sections 366 and 367 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Vimal Kumar Yadav*, J., stated that the appellant and the prosecutrix are living their married life with their respective spouses. Therefore, sending the appellant to jail, who has otherwise, clean antecedents, would be nothing short of a travesty of justice. Thus, the Court accepted the appellant’s submissions and treated the period of custody already undergone by the appellant as sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice, and accordingly directed the appellant to be released.
Background
The prosecutrix, aged 14 years at the time of the incident, went missing from her home. No FIR was registered even after 2 days of the incident. Subsequently, FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC, after which the prosecutrix returned home. During the 2 days of intervening period, an 18-year-old appellant and prosecutrix travelled from Connaught place, Delhi to Manali, Himachal Pradesh and then returned to Delhi together.
The appellant’s case was that the prosecutrix had accompanied him voluntarily and that their relationship was consensual. Whereas initial stand of the prosecutrix, before the medical authorities and her statement recorded by the police was in consonance with the appellant’s version. However, later, the prosecutrix took a contrary stand against the appellant and that manifested in her statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Thus, he appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 363 read with Sections 366 and 376 IPC. By an order, the trial court awarded appellant a sentence of less than the minimum sentence prescribed by law, finding “special and adequate reasons”. The present appeal was filed to challenge both the conviction and the sentence, but the appellant confined the challenge strictly to the aspect of the sentence.
According to appellant, prosecutrix accompanied him voluntarily and whatever transpired between them was all voluntary. Some unanswered and open-ended situations are indicative of the fact that the appellant alone was not to be blamed. The only factor which weighted against the appellant was the age of prosecutrix (i.e. minor), which turned appellant responsible. The appellant relied upon several mitigating circumstances, including:
“There was deep intimacy between the appellant and prosecutrix.
Both appellant and prosecutrix are settled in life as they are both married to different persons.
Appellant and prosecutrix has got each other names tattooed on their bodies.
Young age of both appellant (18 yrs.) and prosecutrix (14 yrs.), on the date of incident. Prosecutrix has stated that she does not want to contest the case which is indicative that she has no grievance against the appellant.
Appellant has already undergone nearly 2 years 4 months of imprisonment. (1 year, 11 months under custody and 5 months- remission)”
Decision and Analysis
The Court observed that the incident pertained to the year 2009. There was an intimacy between the appellant and the prosecutrix which could not be recognized due to the prosecutrix being the minor, and now both the parties are settled in their respective lives. The Court further noted that there is no element of force or coercion used in the alleged act of taking away the prosecutrix, no weapon or other mala fide was found and that even the appellant too, was of a younger age at the time of incident. The Court also noted that the prosecutrix had expressed her desire to not contest the case.
Thus, keeping this in mind, the Court stated that more than 17 years has passed since the incident and the there was no misuse of power, wealth, status or age by the appellant. Since the appellant had already been considered for a lighter sentence by the Trial Court, it is evident that the Trial Court was alive to the situation and the circumstances of the case, and the appellant does not deserve any more indulgence on this count.
Considering the matter in its entirely, the Court stated that the futility of sending appellant to the jail is writ large. The appellant and the prosecutrix are living their married life with their respective spouses, and they must also have become parents. Therefore, sending the appellant, who has otherwise, clean antecedents, would be nothing short of a travesty of justice. The Court stated that the appellant is heading towards the evening of his life, and the long drawn criminal proceedings must have made him wise, and tired him out too.
Thus, considering the otherwise clean antecedents of the appellant, the Court accepted the appellant’s submissions and treated the period of custody already undergone by appellant as sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to be released on the basis of the custody already undergone, while the fine imposed remained unaltered.
[Vakul Kapoor v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7015, 7-9-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant — Saahila Lamba, Advocate
For the State/Respondent — Raj Kumar, APP for the State; Astha, Advocate; Megha Singh, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
