Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal, 2025

• The prosecutrix (victim) was allegedly kidnapped on March 18, 1998, by the appellant, Dalip Kumar @ Dalli.
• FIR was filed on March 19, 1998, over 24 hours after the incident.
• The appellant was not named in the FIR initially but was later charged with Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366-A (inducing a minor girl for illicit intercourse), 366 (abduction), 376 (sexual assault), read with 149 (unlawful assembly) and 368 (wrongful concealment of kidnapped person) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• According to the prosecutrix’s testimony, marriage talks were ongoing between her and the appellant, but her father opposed the match due to caste differences.
• She went with the appellant voluntarily and did not raise any alarm during the alleged abduction.
• A witness, Sarita, the younger sister of the prosecutrix, who saw the prosecutrix going with the appellant, was not presented by the prosecution as a witness.
• Medical evidence indicated no signs of injury or sexual assault.
• The age of the prosecutrix was estimated to be between 16-18 years, which is critical in the context of Section 366-A (as it deals with inducing a minor girl for illicit intercourse).
• Trial Court's Decision: The accused was acquitted of more serious charges, including sexual assault (Section 376), but was convicted under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (inducing a minor).
• High Court's Decision: The conviction under Sections 363 and 366-A was upheld.
• Appeal: The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the conviction.

1. Whether bodily injuries are necessary to prove sexual assault under Section 376 of the IPC?
2. Whether the conviction under Section 366-A (inducing a minor girl) and Section 363 (kidnapping) was correctly sustained given the circumstances, including the prosecution's failure to present critical witnesses and the ambiguous age of the prosecutrix?

The Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the High Court, held that:

• The Supreme Court emphasized that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's Handbook on stereotypes and clarified that the common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries is inaccurate.
• Victims may respond to trauma in varied ways influenced by factors like fear, shock, social stigma, or helplessness.
• The Court noted that the prosecutrix testified that she was not forcibly abducted but went with the appellant voluntarily. This meant that the necessary ingredients for Section 366A (inducing a minor girl for illicit intercourse) were not satisfied.
• The prosecution had failed to present Sarita, the sister of the prosecutrix, who was a critical witness, as she was the one who saw the prosecutrix going with the appellant.
• The age of the prosecutrix could not be conclusively determined, as it was estimated to be between 16-18 years, and the possibility of the prosecutrix being over 18 could not be ruled out. This ambiguity weakened the case under Section 366-A and Section 363 (kidnapping) of the IPC, as Section 366-A applies to cases involving minors.
• Conclusion: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients for Section 366A and Section 363, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

The judgement clarified the applicability of following provisions:

• This judgment reinforces the idea that sexual assault does not require physical injuries and that the victim’s emotional or psychological trauma should be considered.
• It also underlines the importance of presenting all critical witnesses in a trial, and the legal challenge posed when there is ambiguity about the victim's age.
• The decision highlights the Court's responsibility to ensure that justice is served based on the totality of evidence rather than relying on myths and stereotypes. The case also protects the rights of the accused, ensuring that accusations are supported by reliable evidence.
• The ruling challenges social myths around sexual assault, such as the belief that victims must show physical injuries, thereby encouraging a more nuanced understanding of how trauma is experienced and reported. It also stresses the need for transparency and thoroughness in criminal investigations.