Familial Relationship No Shield Against Criminal Culpability: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction In Kidnapping And Attempt To Rape Of Minor Cousin

“Prosecutrix’s Unshaken Testimony Sufficient To Prove Attempted Rape”: Allahabad High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and attempt to commit rape of a minor girl aged about 11-13 years. Justice Rajnish Kumar dismissed the appeal, holding that the evidence against the appellant was “clear, cogent, consistent and credible,” and reiterated the settled position that credible testimony of the prosecutrix, particularly in sexual offences, is sufficient to secure a conviction.

The Court categorically observed:

“In cases of sexual assault, particularly where the victim is a child and the accused is a family member, the Court must adopt a cautious but sensitive approach; the honour of the family cannot be a reason to shield the offender.” (Para 8)

The Allahabad High Court, in a meticulous examination of law and evidence, dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Vijay Prakash Shukla against his conviction for abducting and attempting to rape his minor cousin sister. The Court underscored the principle that even when the accused is a close relative, heinous offences involving sexual assault on minors warrant strict application of criminal law.

The appellant was convicted by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, in 1999 under Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following the FIR lodged by the father of the victim on 23.11.1986. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused, took away the minor girl on the pretext of a religious visit and thereafter subjected her to confinement and repeated sexual assault attempts. The victim was recovered after several days along with the appellant.

The trial court had awarded rigorous imprisonment of five years under Section 376/511 IPC, alongside concurrent sentences under Sections 363, 366, and 368 IPC, which was challenged before the High Court.

Kidnapping Clearly Established Beyond Doubt

Referring to the consistent testimonies of the complainant and the minor victim, the Court held:

“The act of taking away a minor without parental consent, under a false pretext, satisfies the ingredients of Section 363 IPC. The concurrent findings of kidnapping are fully justified.” (Para 14)

Intent To Subject Minor To Illicit Intercourse Proved Under Section 366 IPC

The Court observed that the facts, including the appellant taking the minor away and subsequently hiding her for several days, established the ulterior motive of sexual exploitation. Justice Rajnish Kumar stated:

“The object of the abduction was evidently to subject the minor girl to illicit intercourse. The offence under Section 366 IPC is fully attracted.” (Para 15)

Attempt To Rape Clearly Proven Despite No Complete Penetration

Citing authoritative judgments, including Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 3 SCC 602, the Court held:

“Attempt to rape does not require proof of full penetration; repeated forcible sexual assaults, physical advances, and threats sufficiently prove the crime of attempt to commit rape under Section 376/511 IPC.” (Para 21)

The Court particularly relied on the consistent, unwavering testimony of the victim, supported by medical examination that recorded a broken hymen, to conclude that the appellant’s guilt stood established.

Delay in Lodging FIR Not Fatal

Rejecting the defence argument regarding delay in filing the FIR, the Court cited Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 2010 Cri LJ 4283, to reiterate: “Delay in reporting is a normal occurrence in sexual offence cases, especially when family honour is involved. The explanation provided is reasonable and delay does not vitiate the prosecution case.” (Para 18)

Sole Testimony Of Victim Sufficient For Conviction

The Court emphasised: “Prosecutrix’s credible evidence, even standing alone, is sufficient for conviction in sexual offences. No corroboration is necessary where testimony inspires confidence.” (Para 24)

Defence Version Rejected As Baseless

The Court found no substance in the appellant’s defence of alleged false implication due to property disputes or employment-related enmity. Justice Rajnish Kumar remarked:

“The defence has failed to rebut the prosecution evidence or demonstrate any credible motive for false implication.” (Para 12)

Probation Rightly Denied For Heinous Offence

The Court refused to extend the benefit of probation to the appellant, stating: “Considering the heinousness of the offence, involving sexual assault on a minor cousin, the trial court was justified in denying the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.” (Para 27)

Cumulative Appreciation Of Evidence Justified Conviction

Affirming the trial court’s findings, the High Court concluded: “The trial court correctly applied the law and appreciated the evidence. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376/511 IPC warrants no interference.” (Para 30)