Chandigarh: Rape case falls apart after 25 years as victim fails to identify accused
The case, dating back to October 2000, involved the kidnapping and rape of an 11-year-old girl from Chandigarh’s Industrial Area; the crime was confirmed through medical examination, but the accused remained at large for 22 years
Twelve witnesses took the stand, medical records confirmed the rape — but 25 years later, justice slipped away when the complainant, then a minor and now 36 years old, could no longer recognise the accused, who landed behind the bars only 22 years after the alleged crime.
The case, dating back to October 2000, involved the kidnapping and rape of an 11-year-old girl from Chandigarh’s Industrial Area. The crime was confirmed through medical examination.
But the long arm of law could not catch the accused, Mukesh, for over two decades.
Arrested in 2022, Mukesh finally faced trial — but gaps in evidence, prosecution’s failure to establish her age at the time of crime and the victim turning hostile, after failure to identify him, ultimately led to his acquittal.
The special court of judge Yashika, dealing with POCSO and rape cases, set free the accused who was facing charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Girl was rescued from UP 20 days after disappearance
As per case files, on October 20, 2000, a labourer, who lived in temporary jhuggis in Industrial Area, Phase 1, complained to the police that his 11-year-old daughter was missing.
He complained that a boy named Mukesh, who worked with him, had also been missing. He suspected Mukesh of kidnapping his daughter.
Over 20 days later, the girl was rescued from Firozabad in Uttar Pradesh on November 11, 2000. Medical examination confirmed that she was raped.
However, Mukesh remained at large, following which he was declared a proclaimed offender on October 10, 2001, by the court of then chief judicial magistrate, Chandigarh.
The arrest in 2022
More than 22 years after the commission of offence, the accused was finally arrested on November 11, 2022, and produced in court. His medical examination was conducted and blood samples were taken. Police filed a chargesheet in the case in July 2023 and subsequently on August 5, 2023, a court framed charges against the accused, paving the way for a rape trial.
Medical team that confirmed rape untraceable
The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in court, including the girl, her father and police officers, including a retired inspector. But the doctors who conducted medical examination of the victim in 2000 had retired and could not be traced.
Police proved the medical evidence in form of documents in court with the help of current doctors who deposed that the documents were correct.
The girl, now a mother of three, told the court that she was working as a housemaid. She had gotten married around 19-20 years back and her eldest child was 18.
She told the court that at the time of incident, she was 11-12 years old, and now did not remember the name of the accused.
She narrated that a boy took her in a rickshaw on the pretext of taking her to a fair. But she couldn’t recall whether he took her to Uttar Pradesh in an auto or a bus. She stayed with the accused in Uttar Pradesh for one month until she was rescued by police.
What the court stated
“The star witness of the prosecution story has turned hostile. She has not identified the accused as the person who had enticed her and developed forcible sexual relations with her,” observed the court.
“The investigating officer has not uttered a single word that the victim was recovered from the possession of the accused. Here, the victim was recovered on November 11, 2000, whereas the accused was arrested on November 11, 2022. Hence, there is no evidence on file that victim was recovered from the possession of accused or he has enticed her away or developed any forcible sexual relations with her,” said the court.
The court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the victim as a minor at the time of commission of crime.
“She as well as her father have not deposed about the exact date of birth of the victim. Both of them have stated that at the time of crime, the victim was only 10-12 years old. Hence, there is no conclusive proof of the fact that the victim was minor at the time of commission of crime. The medical evidence in the shape of Ossification Test Report cannot be considered as the exact date of birth proof of the victim,” said the court.
The court also stated that CFSL examination of the accused also could not establish his involvement as spermatozoa was not detected.
