The case involved Akshay Gupta &Ors. (appellants/flat owners) against ICICI Bank Limited & Ors. (respondents/bank and builder), stemming from consumer complaints rejected by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The core issue revolved around loan recall notices from the bank, alleging unfair trade practices and violations of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines, and various defaults by all parties involved in a flat purchase arrangement. Ultimately, the Court facilitated an amicable settlement between the flat owners, the builder, and the bank, outlining specific payment arrangements for outstanding principal and interest, including waivers and discounts from the bank and contributions from the builder. The judgment confirms the successful compliance with the settlement terms and provides final directions for closing the loan accounts, handing over property possession, and withdrawing related legal proceedings, bringing the long-standing litigation to an end.
Penal Code, 1860, Section 366, 376(2)(g) – Rape – Conviction upheld – Delay in lodging FIR – Testimony of prosecutrix – Age determination – Dental examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and the dental surgeon (PW-8) had opined the age of the prosecutrix to be less than seventeen years – There was further evidence produced to prove that the prosecutrix was minor at the relevant point of time, such as photocopies of school register, transfer certificate, which were further corroborated by the statement of the Principal of school – In all such documents, the date of the prosecutrix was shown as 10.08.1988 and the date of the incident was 06.07.2005, therefore the prosecutrix was aged less than seventeen years of age at the starting date of the continuing offence – To further strengthen the finding of the prosecutrix’s age, it must be noted that the guardian of the prosecutrix, (PW-13), had also stated the age of the prosecutrix to be less than 18 years of age in the missing person’s report as well as in her deposition before the Trial Court – Once the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident is established to be that of minority, the question of consent per se becomes irrelevant and the act shall qualify as statutory rape nevertheless – Reliance of the appellants on the medical report which suggested that the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse shall not further their contention of the sexual act to be consensual in nature – Moreover, the lack of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix shall also not be an important factor in the facts of the case since the offence continued for a period of two months and the medical investigation was conducted much after the first incidence of rape was committed – The issue of delay shall also be inconsequential to the case since firstly, the normal rule of delay does not apply to rape cases and further, the prosecutrix was held captive by the appellants for a period of two months and had no means to register the FIR earlier – Statement of the prosecutrix made in the chief-examination regarding sexual assaults committed by the accused persons remained totally unimpeached even after being subjected to a lengthy cross-examination – It is to be noted that none of the so-called discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix with reference to her case diary statement shook the veracity of the prosecution case – Appeals liable to be dismissed and the impugned order is upheld – The accused-appellants, who are currently enlarged on bail, directed to serve the remaining period of sentence, as awarded by the High Court.
(Para 19 to 25)
Raju @ Nirpendra Singh V. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 392: (DoJ 27-02-2025)
