‘Adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error': Gujarat HC quashes 2010 rape FIR against minor; quotes from SC judgment
The order of Justice J C Doshi of the Gujarat HC on Wednesday considered the submission of the advocate of the petitioner that laid emphasis on Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which stated that 'nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.' The accused was aged under 11 years in 2010.
Stating that the Inspector of the Rajkot police station 'must not have the knowledge of Section 83 of the IPC', the HC said that the petition 'deserves consideration', especially since it is not the case of the prosecution that 'forensic test was carried out at the relevant time, that whether the petitioner was, though 11 years old at the time of alleged incident, mature enough to understand the consequences of the alleged act.'
The HC order, while citing relevant case laws of the Supreme Court, stated, 'According to this Court, the PI, Bhaktinagar Police Station, must not have knowledge of section 83 of the IPC or (that) filing of FIR is in defiance of section 83 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, present petition requires consideration.'
The court also directed the investigating officer concerned as well as the trial court to remove and delete the name of the petitioner from the police records, investigation papers as well as the Registry to protect his identity.
The advocate appearing for the minor had submitted to the court that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was ten-and-a-half years old and therefore, 'cannot be treated as accused' under Section 83 of the IPC on the ground of his 'lack of majority'.
The petitioner's advocate also submitted that 'no forensic intervention was carried out to establish that he was major (by age) to understand the offence…'
The counsel appearing for the complainant of the FIR had submitted that the allegations were 'of serious nature and whether the petitioner is mature or understanding (of) the seriousness of the offence can be tested during trial and the FIR cannot be quashed on the touchstone of reading section 83 of the IPC'.
The 2010 FIR was lodged against the minor under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 354 (criminal force against woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) .
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Surrogacy racket accused sent to 5-day police custody
The Hyderabad police on Friday took Dr Athaluri Namratha (65), the owner of Universal Srushti Fertility Centre at Secunderabad, and the prime accused in the fake surrogacy racket into five-day custody for further questioning, officials familiar with the development said. Surrogacy racket accused sent to 5-day police custody Namratha, who was arrested along with seven others, by Gopalapuram police on July 27, were remanded to judicial custody by a Nampally criminal court on the same day. On Thursday, the court granted custody of the accused to the police for questioning for five days, starting Friday. After conducting the mandatory medical examination at Gandhi Hospital, the police shifted Namratha to the office of the deputy commissioner of police (north zone) in the afternoon. 'I did not commit any crime. It was a fabricated case based on false allegations made by an army guy. I shall disclose all the details shortly,' Namratha told reporters at Gandhi Hospital. However, investigations by the police revealed that this was not the first time that Namratha indulged in the business of illegal child trafficking and fake surrogacy. 'She is a habitual offender with several cases pending against her in different police stations across Telangana and Andhra Pradesh,' said the remand report submitted by the Hyderabad police before the court. HT has seen the report. Namratha was booked for cheating the patients with fake IVF procedure cases in 2010 and 2013 in Visakhapatnam and Guntur respectively. Between 2020 and 2023, she was booked in nine other cases, including five in Gopalapuram police station in Secunderabad and four in Visakhapatnam. 'She was charged with kidnapping (IPC Section 363), trafficking of persons (Section 370), forgery for the purpose of cheating (Section 468) and pretending fake documents to be genuine (Section 471). In two cases registered in the Maharanipeta police station in Visakhapatnam, she was also charged under Section 81 and 87 of Juvenile Justice Act, which deals with the sale and purchase of children,' the report said. The remand report explained in detail the modus operandi adopted by Namratha in the latest instance of buying a new born male child from an Assam couple and selling them to a Rajasthani couple, claiming that he was born through surrogacy at Visakhapatnam. The couple, who have been in Hyderabad since 2024, had approached Namratha at her Universal Srushti Fertility Centre, seeking the birth of a baby through IVF method. After conducting tests on the mother, Namratha told her that the IVF method would not work out for her and she could obtain a child through surrogacy. The couple were told that the doctors will use their sperm and eggs for surrogacy. The baby would be handed over after DNA confirmation by arranging a woman from the clinic and charged over ₹30 lakh from their service. However, the doctor used different sperm and eggs for surrogacy. After a woman conceived, she was shifted to Visakhapatnam where the woman delivered a baby boy in June this year. Later, the baby was handed over to the couple who left for Rajasthan. When the couple asked the doctor to conduct the DNA tests for the child, Namratha resisted first and later took the samples from husband for a DNA test. When there was no response from the fertility centre for several days, the couple got the tests conducted at a DNA forensic lab in Vasant Kunj in Delhi, whose reports indicated that the baby was not biologically connected to the father. When the couple tried to contact Namratha with the genuine DNA reports, she blocked their mobile numbers and started avoiding them over the phone. On June 23, 2025, the couple visited the clinic at Secunderabad and met Namratha 'Namratha admitted her mistake in handing over the wrong surrogacy child to the parents on pretext of fabricated IVF and surrogacy process. She deliberately cheated the couple by collecting huge amounts from the couple,' the remand report said. The report also pointed out that an anaesthetist from Gandhi Hospital was found to be hand in glove with Namratha in conducting the fertility tests at her centre. 'The anaesthetist Nargula Sadanandam, who was aware of the illegal operations at Universal Srushti Fertility Centre and was knowingly administering anaesthesia to patients who were undergoing tests. He was also among the arrested,' the report said. Namratha also engaged agents in Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad and Vijayawada, who would lure financially vulnerable women to act as surrogate donors, offering them money and introducing them to her. One of the agents Dhanasri Santoshi, a housewife, was also arrested along with Namratha. The police said Mohammed Ali Adik and Nasreen Begum, the child's biological parents are currently imprisoned in Chanchalguda jail. Their biological child, who was offered to the Rajasthani couple, was shifted to Sisu Vihar, belonging to the Telangana state women and child welfare department. A case has been registered against Namratha, the biological parents and others under sections 61 (criminal conspiracy), 316 (criminal breach of trust), 335 (making a false document), 336 (forgery), and 340 (forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
MP Prajwal Revanna To Be Sentenced In Rape Case Today
The court on Friday pronounced Revanna guilty in the obscene video and rape case. Judge Santhosh Gajanana Bhat delivered the verdict. The court is scheduled to announce the quantum of punishment on Saturday, after allowing the convict, Prajwal Revanna, and his counsel to make their final submissions on the conviction. Prajwal Revanna was produced before the court, and as soon as the verdict was pronounced, he was seen with tears in his eyes, wiping them while seated inside the courtroom. After stepping out of the court hall, he sat down in a chair in visible despair and broke down, unable to process the shock. The court deferred the judgment on July 30, citing the need for certain clarifications. After seeking inputs from both sides and issuing directions, the matter was adjourned until this day. He was arrested last year and has been in jail for 14 months. The case in question pertains to a rape complaint and other charges filed by a domestic worker from K.R. Nagar against Prajwal Revanna. The court has reviewed 26 pieces of evidence in connection with the case. Prajwal Revanna faces three other similar cases. Videos allegedly showing Prajwal Revanna sexually assaulting women and recording the acts surfaced during the 2024 Lok Sabha election period. Following this, Prajwal fled the country. A victim from Holenarasipura initially filed a police complaint against him. Upon his return to Bengaluru on May 31, 2024, he was arrested by the Bengaluru Police. His return came after public appeals from former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda and Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy. Prajwal was lodged in Bengaluru Central Jail, and his multiple bail pleas were outrightly rejected by all courts. One of the videos that caused widespread outrage during the election period shows the alleged sexual assault on an elderly domestic worker at a farmhouse in Holenarasipura. In the video, the woman is seen pleading with Prajwal to spare her, stating that she had served food to his father and other family elders. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) had filed cases under IPC Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman), 506 (criminal intimidation), 354A(1) (unwelcome physical contact and advances, sexual demands), 354B (use of criminal force with intent to disrobe), 354C (voyeurism -- capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act without her consent), along with relevant sections of the Information Technology Act. Police had collected strong evidence in this particular case. They recorded the statement of the victim, collected the samples of semen of Prajwal Revanna from the clothes of the victim, and also obtained the video of the sexual assault.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
HC quashes civil court's gag order against media in Dharmasthala burial case
The Karnataka high court on Friday quashed a sweeping gag order issued by a Bengaluru civil court that barred media outlets, YouTube channels, and people from publishing reports or commentary related to the ongoing investigation into alleged mass burials of victims of suspected sexual assault and murder over a period of two decades in Dharmasthala. The court directed the trial court to reconsider the matter afresh. HC quashes civil court's gag order against media in Dharmasthala burial case According to Bar and Bench, justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a petition filed by YouTube channel Kudla Rampage challenging the ex parte interim injunction issued on July 8, 2025. The civil court order had restrained the publication of any 'defamatory content' against the family running the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple. 'The impugned ex parte injunction order passed by the trial court is quashed. The case is being sent back to the competent court for fresh consideration of the interlocutory application. The trial court should take note of the points made in this order,' the high court said. It further added, 'The competent court should decide the case expeditiously. This court has not expressed any opinion on the civil suit, criminal proceedings, charges, counter-charges. All arguments between the parties are kept open except for one point considered in the order.' The original injunction was obtained by Harshendra Kumar D, brother of Veerendra Heggade, who sought the removal and de-indexing of over 8,000 digital links -- including news reports, social media posts, and videos -- alleging they contained defamatory content against him, his family, the Dharmasthala temple, and related institutions. Welcoming the high court ruling, A Velan, counsel for Kudla Rampage, said in a press statement, 'Karnataka High Court did not just pass a judgment; it restored a fundamental pillar of our democracy. The attempt to draw a curtain of silence over a matter of profound public agony and national importance has failed.' 'In a landmark verdict that will resonate far beyond the confines of this case, the High Court has quashed the sweeping and unprecedented gag order that sought to muzzle the media and stifle public scrutiny of the Dharmasthala mass burials case,' Velan said. He also criticised the trial court's order: 'The trial court's ex-parte injunction was a textbook example of an unconstitutional 'prior restraint' on speech. It was overbroad, passed without jurisdiction, and cast a chilling effect not only on the 338 named respondents but on any media house or individual who dared to report on the case. It sought to criminalize journalism.' Meanwhile, in Dharmasthala, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) wound up its search operations for the day after failing to locate any human remains at two more spots -- Spot 7 and Spot 8 -- identified by the complainant. 'Both sites were excavated thoroughly based on the complainant's directions. However, nothing was recovered from either location today. The investigation at the site has been closed for the day,' an SIT officer said, on condition of anonymity. Earlier, partial skeletal remains were recovered from Spot 6, including about 15 bones, some of which were broken. A skull was not found, officials confirmed. These remains have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for further analysis, said officials. 'The FSL team is examining the bones already recovered, but the process is likely to take time. Only after detailed analysis can any clarity emerge about the age, sex, and cause of death,' another officer added, also requesting anonymity. The anonymous complainant, a former sanitation worker, has alleged that multiple bodies -- including those of women and minors -- were buried across temple-affiliated lands in Dharmasthala between 1995 and 2014. Thirteen such locations were identified as part of the SIT probe, based on his testimony. 'We're following standard procedures and coordinating closely with forensic teams. Not every site may yield physical evidence, but we are documenting everything for completeness,' a senior official said. Home minister G Parameshwara on Friday reviewed the investigation and said the state is monitoring social media posts about the case. 'We will keep a watch on posts that may wrongly impact society,' he told reporters after a meeting with senior officials, including chief secretary Shalini Rajneesh.
