Delhi High Court Acquits Man In 2006 Rape Case; Says Godly Name Like 'Ram' Or 'Mohammad' Doesn't Make One Virtuous
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted for kidnapping and raping a young girl aged 13 years in 2006, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that material inconsistencies in the evidence, coupled with inconclusive forensic proof, entitled the him to benefit of doubt. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 686]Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav allowed the appeal...
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted for kidnapping and raping a young girl aged 13 years in 2006, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that material inconsistencies in the evidence, coupled with inconclusive forensic proof, entitled the him to benefit of doubt. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 686]
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav allowed the appeal filed by one Ram Chander against his conviction in 2008 for the offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court had sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for rape and one year simple imprisonment for kidnapping.
At the outset, the Court observed that a person's name does not determine his character, citing writings of William Shakespeare, Saint Kabir and the philosophy of Karmyog in the Bhagavad Gita.
“It had been a common practice in the north heartland of India and to some extent even now to name children as "RAM" or invariably the first part of the name would contain Ram, as in Islam it is invariably found that "Mohammad" comes before any other part of the name of a score of Muslim persons. The idea and expectation in naming kids with such names is to expect them to be like their names. It can be seen that in every religion there is a tendency of naming the children by deriving from the God, Godly or Saintly figures from their respective religious and mythology texts and no religion is an expectation to this. But names do not shape the personality, person, conduct and behaviour etc,” the Court said.
It added that “any Ram Chander in this world” may not have all those virtues which Lord Rama of Satyug had and upheld and thus, the appellant was no exception to what goes on in “Kalyug” irrespective of name.
"In these circumstances, philosophy of "Karmyog" given by Lord Krishna in GITA seems more near, close and practical, which emphasize on the deeds (Karma) which are of utmost importance irrespective of the name or any other thing," the Court added.
It was the prosecution's case that the prosecutrix went missing in April 2006 and was later recovered with the appellant. Charges against him were framed for kidnapping and rape.
The appellant argued that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied him and that she was a major at the time of the incident.
It was also pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal, the prosecutrix appeared before the Court and stated that she did not want any action against him as she had accompanied him of her own accord.
On kidnapping, the Court noted that the prosecutrix admitted in her cross-examination that she travelled with the appellant in public transport, visited the crowded Kalkaji Temple during Navratri and did not raise any alarm or seek help from anyone despite ample opportunities.
It also observed that such circumstances weakened the prosecution's allegation that she had been forcibly taken away.
On the issue of age, the Court relied on the ossification test and noted that there was a margin of error of two years to hold that the prosecutrix's age could be taken as 18.4 years. This took case outside the ambit of kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
On the charge of rape, Justice Yadav observed that although the medical and circumstantial evidence indicated that sexual intercourse had taken place, the forensic evidence suffered from significant deficiencies.
Observing that the prosecutrix's conduct before, during and after the alleged incident appeared inconsistent with the prosecution's version, and noting her subsequent statement that she had accompanied the appellant voluntarily, the Court held that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence.
“Thus, taking into account the entire gamut of facts and circumstances it appears unsafe to act upon the testimony of such a witness, which has not been conclusively supported by scientific and forensic evidence leaving scope for error,” the Court said.
It added: “Additionally, on the scale of probabilities and improbabilities, also prosecutrix‟s version is highly improbable and do not appeal to reason and logic in a given set of facts and circumstances. As such, the Appellant is given the benefit of doubt. As a result, the appeal is allowed.”
Title: RAM CHANDER @ CHHOTU v. STATE
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 686