After Girl Told Doctors She Was Hurt While Playing, Gujarat HC Upholds Acquittal In Rape Case

The State appealed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the acquittal of the respondent of offences including kidnapping and rape under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the victim was found injured near a bus stand on 19 December 1996.

The complaint was lodged after the victim later identified the respondent; in the initial treatment, however, she reportedly said she had been injured while playing.

The Sessions Court acquitted the respondent, and the State challenged that decision.

The appeal was considered under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while the alleged offences included those under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has power to review and reappreciate the evidence, but the acquitted accused benefits from a reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169, on the principles governing appellate review of acquittals.

The Court found that the delayed complaint was not satisfactorily explained and that the victim’s initial account to medical personnel—that she had fallen while playing—did not disclose the alleged offence.

It also found the identification parade unreliable because the required procedure and precautions had not been followed.

The scientific evidence did not establish a connection between the respondent and the crime, as blood samples of the victim and respondent had not been collected.

In light of these deficiencies, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved the respondent’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s assessment was not perverse or otherwise fit for appellate interference.

The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were ordered returned to the trial court.