Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Delhi HC notes teenage psychology and adolescent love cannot be controlled by courts

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court grants bail to teenager accused of rape after finding that the case was a "teenage love story." The accused was charged with rape and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl.

According to the prosecution's case, the accused had taken the girl to Chennai from Delhi and she was found there. It was also found that she was seven weeks pregnant. However, the girl consistently stated that she had gone with the accused out of her own free will as she had developed a liking for him. She also stated that it was only at her insistence that the accused had taken her to Chennai, and that she had informed him that she was 18 years of age.

The court found that the entire case was a "teenage love story" where the main characters, the girl and the accused, were only in their teens and had developed liking for each other. They had wanted to get married, and for that purpose, the girl had suggested getting pregnant immediately so that in case they were blessed with a child, her parents would not object to their relationship.

The court also observed that though the consent of a minor may be of no value in the eyes of the law, in the peculiar circumstances and facts of the present case, it would not be prudent for a court to label the accused as an accused. The court found that there was no incriminating evidence against the accused on record, and that he was not a criminal but was merely in love and had taken the girl to a place 2,200 km away from Delhi to lead a peaceful life.

The court also noted that the girl was allegedly 16 years of age on the day of the incident, but was working somewhere, which indicates that both the girl and the accused did not have the advantage of pursuing higher studies and had started working at an early age due to their financial background and status. The court observed that the social factors and forces that operate in any given case of adolescent love reveal that they may want to marry and settle down with each other.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the adverse impact of confinement on the accused's psychological health and future, the court granted bail to the accused for a period of two months, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Link Court/Successor Court/Duty Magistrate. The accused was also directed to provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer, which shall be kept active and in working conditions at all times, and to surrender before the Trial Court concerned at the expiry of the two-month period. The court clarified that every case of such nature has to be adjudged on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.

Date of Decision: 08.05.2023

MAHESH KUMAR  vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 

Latest Legal News