Facts
The prosecution alleged that the appellant and a co-accused abducted P.W.2, who is deaf and mute, and attempted to rape her; P.W.1, her father, was said to have intervened.
Source reference: p.1, para. 2The appellant was prosecuted under Sections 376 read with Sections 511 and 109, and Section 506(ii), IPC. The Sessions Court convicted him, and he appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1; p.2, paras. 3–4On appeal, the High Court considered, among other evidence, P.W.1’s and P.W.2’s testimony, the evidence concerning the alleged arrest and seizure, and an Accident Register recording a bite mark on the appellant’s palm.
Source reference: pp.2–5, paras. 6–11Issues
Whether the prosecution evidence established the appellant’s presence and involvement in the alleged attempted rape beyond reasonable doubt
Source reference: p.4, para. 10; p.5, paras. 11–12Whether the conviction could be sustained on the alleged arrest and seizure evidence and the Accident Register entry recording a bite mark
Source reference: p.4, para. 10; p.5, paras. 10–12Law Applied
The appellant faced charges under Sections 376 read with Sections 511 and 109, and Section 506(ii), IPC.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1; p.2, para. 3The Court applied the criminal-law requirement that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence does not reliably connect the accused to the offence, conviction cannot stand. No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.
Source reference: p.2, para. 4; p.5, para. 12Reasoning
P.W.1, the complainant and alleged eyewitness, turned hostile, and the Court found his evidence of no assistance to the prosecution.
Source reference: p.4, para. 9P.W.2 identified only the first accused and stated that only one accused was involved; her evidence did not implicate the appellant.
Source reference: p.4, para. 10The evidence of P.W.7 contradicted the prosecution account of the arrest and seizure, while P.W.14 did not support that account.
Source reference: p.4, para. 10The Accident Register’s record of a bite mark on the appellant’s palm, considered against the other evidence, was insufficient by itself to establish his involvement.
Source reference: p.5, para. 11The Court therefore found no evidence capable of proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Source reference: p.5, para. 12Holding
The Court held that the appellant’s conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence, set it aside, acquitted him of all offences, and allowed the appeal.
It also directed the High Court Legal Services Authority to pay the legal-aid counsel ₹15,000 for his assistance.
Source reference: p.6, para. 13Acts & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Indian Penal Code, 18605
Original Court PDF
S.SURESHvsSTATE REPRESENTED BY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
