Delhi High Court acquits man in 2006 rape case, says names do not define character

In an unusual preface to a judgment acquitting a man in a 2006 rape and kidnapping case, the Delhi High Court has observed that a person’s name does not determine his character or conduct, remarking that not every person named ‘Ram Chander’ embodies the virtues of Lord Ram.

Drawing from William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, the teachings of poet and saint Kabirdas, and the philosophy of ‘Karmyog’ in the Bhagavad Gita, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed that people should be judged by their deeds rather than their names. The judge noted that while it is common in North India to name children after Lord Ram, and for “Mohammad” to precede the names of many Muslims, “names do not shape the personality, person, conduct and behaviour.”

The observations came while allowing an appeal filed by Mr Ram Chander against his conviction for kidnapping and rape, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr Chander was convicted by a trial court in 2008 and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

According to the prosecution, the girl went missing from her house in April 2006 and was traced five days later in the company of Mr Chander in Madangir here.

The Court, in its July 22 judgment, found that the girl had travelled with Mr Chander in public transport and visited the crowded Kalkaji Temple during Navratri but had neither raised an alarm nor sought help despite having several opportunities. The court held that these circumstances weakened the prosecution’s case that she had been forcibly taken away.

The court also accepted Mr Chander’s contention that the girl could be treated as having attained the age of majority by extending the accepted two-year margin of error in the ossification test in favour of the accused.

On the rape charge, the court noted that although medical and forensic evidence indicated sexual activity, the forensic evidence was not conclusive.

Holding that it would be “unsafe” to rely on the testimony of the prosecutrix without conclusive scientific evidence, and finding that her conduct and the surrounding circumstances gave rise to reasonable doubt, the court extended the benefit of doubt to Mr Chander and acquitted him.